[Awk.Pine]

I'm rather convinced (owning an M-Audio FW/AP) that every input is upsampled to an internal clock, put on an internal bus, and then downsampled depending on what output is requested.

Try listening to the headphone amp on the M-Audio; my guess is that it'll have essentially the same signature as the M-Audio -> Beresford, even if using the Toshiba's coax output. If you have an analog headphone amp, compare the analog outs of the Toshiba and M-Audio (and Toshiba -> coax -> M-Audio).

I'll stake the M-Audio-imposes-its-own-signature horse. It was designed to combine analog input (ADC), three independent analog outputs (DACs), and digital input and output in a small, cheap box. But, to give it the benefit of the doubt: all of your pre-Beresford volume levels (computer, media program, M-Audio control panel, etc) are at 100%, right?

 

[parrot5]

Yes, all at 100%. I don't mess with the sliders at all. I use ASIO for computer playback.

I've got just ONE more thing to try - playback from computer through USB->MicroDAC, skipping the M-Audio. I'll report back.

Virtually all soundcards provide mixing capabilities now. If these mastering/mixing soundcards are the culprit, what are some better soundcards for playback quality??

 

[uofmtiger]

You could also try burning the Flac file to a CD-R and play it back on your Toshiba player. Just because you burned it from the same CD does not mean that they will sound exactly the same. Computer programs usually spend more time resolving errors, reading "pits", etc...

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, anything that sells has been proven to work by this very fact alone? Brilliant pebbles, anyone? Healing crystals? Audioengr's products may work just great, but proof of this lies elsewhere than in their popularity per se. Regards, L.

Can't you read even what you quote? I ask what sense "proof" makes in regard to people who believe something sounds better and you complain that's not proof as if you know what that would mean other than their say so or act so in this instance. If you mean it doesn't prove that all or even most other people would come to the same opinion if they tried it, of course it doesn't. But then where did that straw man come into it when audioengr says pretty plainly he doesn't care about that sort of proof or the writer's opinion (especially when that writer hasn't tried it) but only the satisfaction of his customers, whom he later says are discerning and do care about what things cost?

If you want to make an argument, try claiming that despite his believing his lowering of jitter made his products sound better it was really due to some other alteration of the signal he has inadvertently though systematically and repeatably brought about. But he has already addressed that in the mean time in regard to seeking correlation between measured jitter reduction and reported sound improvement. The one thing it is meaningless to challenge is that it sounds better to those who say it sounds better. It would be really interesting and valuable if he could not correlate these since it would point to some other thing he has changed that makes such an improvement, and he then might be able to identify what that is. That's how you do science, not by using a mis-appliled and overly rigid and deified notion of proof to debunk what can be done in favor of some puristic notion of what should but never will be done.

 

[uofmtiger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can't you read even what you quote? I ask what sense "proof" makes in regard to people who believe something sounds better and you complain that's not proof as if you know what that would mean other than their say so or act so in this instance. If you mean it doesn't prove that all or even most other people would come to the same opinion if they tried it, of course it doesn't. But then where did that straw man come into it when audioengr says pretty plainly he doesn't care about that sort of proof or the writer's opinion (especially when that writer hasn't tried it) but only the satisfaction of his customers, whom he later says are discerning and do care about what things cost? If you want to make an argument, try claiming that despite his believing his lowering of jitter made his products sound better it was really due to some other alteration of the signal he has inadvertently though systematically and repeatably brought about. But he has already addressed that in the mean time in regard to seeking correlation between measured jitter reduction and reported sound improvement. The one thing it is meaningless to challenge is that it sounds better to those who say it sounds better. It would be really interesting and valuable if he could not correlate these since it would point to some other thing he has changed that makes such an improvement, and he then might be able to identify what that is. That's how you do science, not by using a mis-appliled and overly rigid and deified notion of proof to debunk what can be done in favor of some puristic notion of what should but never will be done.

Bose has tons of customers that like the sound of their Acoustimass speakers. This does not prove that Bose has introduced a product that actually improves on what other speakers are doing and it does not prove that it sounds better than other speakers.

I asked above if they did ABX testing with testers (I meant humans) and I do not believe that he understood my question. I am interested in whether a "scientific" comparison of people actually listening to the same transport via the jitter control unit has been done comparing it to not running it through the jitter control unit. I am not asking for numbers showing the unit to have x amount of jitter, just a controlled ABX test with people giving their opinion on the sound of one vs the other.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif The one thing it is meaningless to challenge is that it sounds better to those who say it sounds better.

That is not what I am challenging. However, it is a perfectly valid question, whether these real perceptions of improvement are resulting from real acoustical differences or just from listeners' imagination, for instance.


Regards,

L.

 

[parrot5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrot5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've got just ONE more thing to try - playback from computer through USB->MicroDAC, skipping the M-Audio. I'll report back.

REPORT:

Set A: Toshiba Coax OUT -> MicroDAC Coax IN
Set B: EAC-ripped FLAC playback through ASIO4all-ed USB -> MicroDAC USB IN

The MicroDAC has an input selector, so, much like the Beresford, I can just flip a switch to A/B the two.

Results, in order of darkest to brightest:
Toshiba - USB - M-Audio

Just as a reminder, the Toshiba sounds muddy in comparison, like you're seeing something through wax paper. The M-Audio sounds brighter, with noticeably less bass, and almost sibilant highs.

Results, to my ears:
It's interesting that, in terms of sound signature, the USB sits in between the two. But what's shocking is, USB sounds the best to my ears! Let me explain:

In the past, I have looked down on this kind of config - USB directly to DAC, as I read some stuff in Head-Fi about how USB is most prone to jitters. But now that I've hear it in person, it almost feels like I've upgraded my DAC!

What's more, I read stuff about how some people feel the K701 spreads the image too wide, so instruments lack focus, like you can't pinpoint their position anymore. Before I heard the USB -> MicroDAC, I found it to be quite true, in comparison to my ultimate analytical setup (Ety ER4S). But now with the USB->MicroDAC setup, instruments are more pinpoint-able, image is more three-dimensional, and more subtle details can be heard. This is unbelievable to me, and I feel stupid for looking down on the USB->DAC route before.


Conclusion(?)

(Note that I'm not bashing Coax here, it just happens that I only have Coax outputs available right now. If anything, I'm more like bashing the different implementations of coax outputs)

As Awk.Pine suggested above, I have come to think the M-Audio, being a mastering/mixing soundcard, messes with the signals (maybe some upsampling and downsampling going on), changing the sound signature in the process. (And maybe go as far as saying it degrades the quality in the process.)

My search continues for a transport, and maybe upgrade to the 2007 MicroDAC in the near future.