[Shark_Jump]

On the spec for the DAC 1 pre its states the 'maximum amplitude of AC line related hum and noise is <-126db'. Thats a good enough justification that cables will make damn all difference for me.

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/system...-PRE-final.pdf

 

[anetode]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif [W]hy isn't Bob Stuart also an authority on hirez and his opinion on 16/44.1 not being sufficient given some credit?

"The CD specification was laid down by Philips and Sony, and like I said, it wasn't quite good enough. If we'd had the chance, it would have been a lot better at 48kHz than 44.1kHz. If it could have been 20 bits at a 55kHz sampling rate, it would actually have been good enough for ever, in my opinion." - Stuart, interview with Stereophile

Stuart's insistence of a practical approach to get to >100db dynamic range and a Nyquist rate covering the audible spectrum has some valid points. However, even he admits that 24/96, while nice, isn't necessary. I think he exaggerates the difference between 44.1 & 55khz, but it's possible to create a recording that shows an audible difference if played at really loud volumes. It's important to note that these types of recordings are in the minority, as the majority of commercial releases have a true dynamic range well below 90db at the mastering stage.

 

[Bmac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Elias is commenting on his own gear. He makes no judgments on other gear. I know from experience that AC cords make a difference. It's really clear on SACD and CD players. It is also true on my Oppo 980H.

Yes he is commenting on his own gear, but he also makes a summary statement that basically says anything with a well-designed will power supply should be unaffected by power tweaks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EliasGwinn /img/forum/go_quote.gif If, as you mentioned, many people told you that power affects their dac or pre, then they need to question the manufacturers of those devices. We believe that a well-built device will be immune to such variations, as much as possible.

The reason I brought this up was in response to your post here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my experience a good power conditioner also helps sound quality. Why would that be the case if equipment had really high build quality? I might also add that I notice a substantial difference with power cord upgrades on digital gear and I'm usually playing with the good stuff...Sony, Wadia, Oppo, and Benchmark.

According to a well-respected engineer, this is not the case with equipment of high build quality. I think the burden of proof lies on you to disprove Benchmark's findings rather than expecting people to take your word for it when it appears that either you are listening to gear that is not as well built as you think or you are suffering from the placebo affect.

 

[Bmac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, I would like to know why people believe Elias is not hearing things. Did Elias Gwinn do a DBT test? What was his methodology? Was it sighted? What were the results??

The reasons I believe he is not hearing things are as I stated; they test their equipment using very precise measurement equipment along with double blind testing. Trying to find links...

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/be...ml#post4658109

Here is a quote, not specific to power cables, but an example of the testing they do. I presume that if Elias is making the statements that I quoted earlier with regards to power supplies, conditioning and cables he does so with the same level of knowledge he does here. Having read through the massive DAC-1 thread, I don'to doubt what he says has been verified.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmac /img/forum/go_quote.gif According to a well-respected engineer, this is not the case with equipment of high build quality. I think the burden of proof lies on you to disprove Benchmark's findings rather than expecting people to take your word for it when it appears that either you are listening to gear that is not as well built as you think or you are suffering from the placebo affect.

I'm a respected recording engineer with over twenty years of audiophile recording experience. Why is my opinion less valid than Elias?

Bmac, you have a double standard here. As Nick agrees, Elias should be held to the same standards of DBT folks here are holding me to.

Benchmark makes great gear but perhaps Elias gets on the board one day and says the following..."The Benchmark DAC1 sounds as good as a $10,000 Wadia CD player."

How would he know the sound is better? What about his bias as an employee of Benchmark?

This is of course an illustration and I'm not sure Elias would make such claims.

 

[TwoTrack]

You also speak to Benchmark's use of DBTs. Many audiophile companies from Audio Research to Mark Levinson/Revel/Harman. Many cable companies use DBT.

There are other ways to hear sound differences. We can record a small ensemble simultaneously with both battery and AC power that has been conditioned. The battery power makes a difference albeit a small one.

Same with hirez. Sometimes we use our 722 with 24/176 and a second one set at 16/44.1. The hirez is noticeably better. Everything else in the chain is different. We will even have one engineer switch between the two. It's very easy to identify. if more people heard this difference, more people would understand the benefit of higher sampling.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm a respected recording engineer with over twenty years of audiophile recording experience. Why is my opinion less valid than Elias? Bmac, you have a double standard here. As Nick agrees, Elias should be held to the same standards of DBT folks here are holding me to. Benchmark makes great gear but perhaps Elias gets on the board one day and says the following..."The Benchmark DAC1 sounds as good as a $10,000 Wadia CD player." How would he know the sound is better? What about his bias as an employee of Benchmark? This is of course an illustration and I'm not sure Elias would make such claims.

I applaud your persistence on this issue Two Track, and this is because of your clear passion for this stuff. You're describing here the natural tendency to believe what one wants to believe by using evidence that goes along with one's personal opinion on the matter. Evidence that is just as weak as that which we are so critical of when it goes against our opinion.

All I needed from you Two Track is to re-introduce doubt on this issue. You pretty much have done so, and thanks.

I thought I needed my head examined after hearing what I heard with a cable change the other day. The 'proof' in either direction seems to lie on poor strength of evidence. It's one thing to have your opinion and operate with it within the context of your personal business, but it's another thing entirely, and with this comes a lot more responsibility, to actively spread it around, or even profit from it in so doing. You clearly set yourself up for harsh criticism and that's all that you've done with Winer. No problem from where I'm sitting.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's important to note that these types of recordings are in the minority, as the majority of commercial releases have a true dynamic range well below 90db at the mastering stage.

Indeed, even my fave Mahler 1st (Solti, CSO) which goes from whisper quiet to superloud barely gets to 65db dynamic range and from what I gather some modern popular music has dynamic ranges that may be as low as 10db !

If you could routinely produce music with 120db dynamic range you would need a really quiet room to hear the quiet parts without incurring ear damage on the loud parts.

Orchestral music can peak at above 110db and the safe limit for human hearing is about 120db, but pragmatically getting that 120db peak above noise pushes you into listening at 150db or more. So unless you want to listen to concerto for harrier jump jet and triangle the big numbers are not really necessary most of the time

 

[dex85]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, I would like to know why people believe Elias is not hearing things. Did Elias Gwinn do a DBT test? What was his methodology? Was it sighted? What were the results?

sorry but you're asking if someone with opposite view on things did DBT while you have never conducted any DBT and yet state your listening impressions as facts beyond any doubt.

not that it's wrong to ask but you should ask yourself the same question. why should we believe you're hearing things?

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif I applaud your persistence on this issue Two Track, and this is because of your clear passion for this stuff. You're describing here the natural tendency to believe what one wants to believe by using evidence that goes along with one's personal opinion on the matter. Evidence that is just as weak as that which we are so critical of when it goes against our opinion. All I needed from you Two Track is to re-introduce doubt on this issue. You pretty much have done so, and thanks. I thought I needed my head examined after hearing what I heard with a cable change the other day. The 'proof' in either direction seems to lie on poor strength of evidence. It's one thing to have your opinion and operate with it within the context of your personal business, but it's another thing entirely, and with this comes a lot more responsibility, to actively spread it around, or even profit from it in so doing. You clearly set yourself up for harsh criticism and that's all that you've done with Winer. No problem from where I'm sitting.

aimlink,

I understand your view. The issue here with many on the board is this...they assume that the sonic differences I hear in cables across different systems pro and consumer across a variety of sessions and instrumental compositions is 100% imagined by me all the time. As a 20+ year veteran of experimentation I am well aware of the psychological biases that can occur with new gear and audio phenomena in general. However, there is value in subjective listening as, in my opinion, current science cannot measure all the complexities of a sound wave. I think combining the science with the subjective is the best plan. By all means advance the science as far as possible as quickly as possible. But also value people's subjective opinions, especially if they have shown to have critical listening skills.

To those who don't believe in cables, I would ask them to simply try a good cable and switch back and forth and listen for differences. Small ensemble acoustic groups can be the easiest to experiment with in my experience. Ideally a better than average recording as well.

 

[bdr529]

I don't understand how these complexities are unmeasurable to science, yet cable manufacturers know how to control them.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif The issue here with many on the board is this...they assume that the sonic differences I hear in cables across different systems pro and consumer across a variety of sessions and instrumental compositions is 100% imagined by me all the time.

As usual, you're absolutely incorrect and yet again misrepresent the views of others.

What they assume is that neither you, nor anyone else to date has shown conclusively that they make an actual audible difference. And all your foot stomping and claims of experience change none of that.

So either cough up something suitable for the Sound Science forum or take it elsewhere.

se

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif As usual, you're absolutely incorrect and yet again misrepresent the views of others. What they assume is that neither you, nor anyone else to date has shown conclusively that they make an actual audible difference. And all your foot stomping and claims of experience change none of that. So either cough up something suitable for the Sound Science forum or take it elsewhere. se

You're an odd duck Steve. It seems odd to me that you expect me to explain what I'm hearing in purely scientific terms. You sell $650 cables but won't explain your scientific methods for why you think your cables sound better. What blind testing methods do you use?

Why do you believe your cables sound better than zip cord or the like?

I'd really like to understand what science you are using to build better cables.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems odd to me that you expect me to explain what I'm hearing in purely scientific terms.

You don't have to "explain" anything. You just have to demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference. And vanity, ego and hand-waving don't accomplish that.

se

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif To those who don't believe in cables, I would ask them to simply try a good cable and switch back and forth and listen for differences. Small ensemble acoustic groups can be the easiest to experiment with in my experience. Ideally a better than average recording as well.

Wouldn't it be easier to use a really bad cable. One that really compromises sonic performances. Instead of trying to prove the difference in cable performance though experiencing better sound the same could be done by demonstrating an impairment to performance. I'm sure more people would be willing to get involved because the cost of poor performing cables is probably cheap.

Can anyone point me towards a bad sounding cable?