whitedragem
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Posts
- 676
- Likes
- 662
Welcome..
I hope this thread doesn’t get out of control or fall prey to arguing and ego boasting, vs, -well- actually acknowledging the topic (and its inherent validity) towards audio excellence (potentially a hobby for many who frequent these pages!).
Sadly the topic doesn’t belong in the ‘getting started’ section, and, when looking at the subsections we have for our forums, it really only has one likely deserved location.
Sure it COULD go in the ‘source’ forum, but, as it is ‘part of the chain’/a part of the ‘whole’ that is audio recreation using technology (that isn’t playing an actual instrument)… it does need to be spoken about.
Ideally in a place where it is fit to be discussed…
So, erm, Why ‘not want to discuss’ in the Sound Science forum?
Because I couldn’t care less to argue with people who are deaf to learning and assume they have it all figured out… (not the majority of the sound science forum READERS, but certainly at much risk to be a target to a few gatekeepers who will use strange *practiced* arguments to spiel their beliefs and denounce anything that doesn’t fit with their world view,.)
The reason I will not engage with some people on this topic is simple - and mostly stems from the fact that I have been doing this stuff for many (many) decades now (feeling old!?).
In the early nineties I cannot see anyone reframing my belief that optical would HAVE TO be better than electrical for digital transmission… (no Radio Frequencies to effect the transfer etc), nor that a digital cable might make a difference to any other digital cable (assuming both built ‘right’/match the equipment chain etc)..
Whilst that latter notion (cable quality for digital being ‘a thing’) is madness to a very vocal populace here in sound science (I will leave that discussion purely for other threads and more peaceful prose placements), the notion that Fibre Optic is better than COAX was one that was ‘shattered’ for me, in the nineties, and really had me taking a step back in terms of being an armchair engineer.
Logic and rationale is not the ruler of our minds’ interpretation of music..
So, again, preempting a lot of BS creeping into this thread - again- please reflect on why your post *might be* valid; is it for exploration of a topic (that you are unwilling to budge a view point on), or is it to tell people off and that your ‘limited experience’ has no evidence of ‘such notions’ etc etc etc
I’m not employed by anyone here.. I don’t care to do double blind testing (or even go to length to confirm the steps I have used over decades to be ‘scientific’ (methodical) in my testing process).
I’m not even going to go so far as to say I have just had a setup with a fast A/B switch that could keep the ‘samples’ close enough in time that a ‘short audio memory’ might have a snowflakes chance in hell of surviving…
So, Oh My Lord-=anecdotal=- ‘evidence’ to start a thread on a topic placed in ‘sound science’. (Hmmmmmmm!)
@moderators - I agree that the topic could be posted elsewhere, but would argue that its’ home is truly here (probably).
I know the thread is most likely to get derailed, and the actual topic will be lost to anger as zealots argue black and blue over shades of grey that might not even be relevant to a)their setup, or b)their interests.. (like everything in audio, if you haven’t noticed it, then it doesn’t matter (to YOU)!).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So- moving on-
What is digital transport quality and why *might* it matter?
Okay - let me start with a story (haven’t I done that already- what was all that prose above for?);
I bought a ‘cheap’ 4K UHD player.
It is the market top recommendation by most of the pro hifi websites, and in terms of ‘spec sheet’, it should ‘do the trick’…
Hang on - I need to go back a beat, and explain my experience with transports; I’ve owned many many disc spinners, including many flagship units that weight ‘a lot’. This is dating back to early CD players and laserdisc, and DVD, and HDDVD, and ,.. erm - well: you get the point; I’ve used ‘a lot of tech’.
Generally these players have fed into flagship receivers and flagship monitors and TVs. All professionally calibrated. and I have spent large amounts of time with static builds, rotating one part in a system and sticking with it long enough to learn traits/characteristics that change…
Flagships movie transports (from laserdisc/DVD and ‘beyond’) deliver ‘better reds’ was easily apparent. As was clearer audio- better placed, better layered, more nuanced and,.. well, just ‘more’.
So my ‘budget’ UHD player, (about three up the lineup, ie not ‘rock bottom’), is utter crap as a disc spinner by comparison to just about any transport I have EVER used.
It isn’t the small badly laid out remote (although that is something to factor), it isn’t the lack of a front panel display (spidey sense telling me this thing should be selling in supermarkets), it isn’t the louder mechanical sound of the disc spinning…
Quite simply it is the horrid DIGITAL output.
Background- I started doing pro audio work in the nineties; and setting up home cinema equipment is something I have done ‘a lot of’. (especially once digital TV and settop boxes came to market- when every man and their dog got into the hobby)..
So, given the science ‘masters’ here will ask me questions regarding my setup (to try to denounce my authority and find a semblance of dialogue they can gain control of this topics’ validity), yes- digital was setup identically in the test rig between a few players (same data stream, generally given from multi HDMI output devices, set for audio ONLY on the second HDMI output (this can avoid some high jitter issues, and issues with switching framerates and ‘handling’ by downstream decoders)).
So, whilst I have seen many many examples of a more expensive TV passing out a much better toslink output (better soundfield/cleaner dialogue etc), and knew that since being a parent (and spending vastly less on ‘toys) I have not bought ‘the best’ transports; I did expect my ‘well reviewed’ brand spanking new UHD player to give a better performance than it did.
Now, I have had that player for a couple of years (+) now…
I know it well- have used it hooked up to six or more TOTL or ‘very high price point’ receivers/processors, and know that compared to any other disc player, its output is ‘very average’.
Fortunately my best (local) audio mate bought the model up from this one.. (it is a ‘little better’, but doesn’t hold a candle to a dedicated CD transport (entry level) when listening to music)..(true of most movie players).
So why this long *obnoxious* post, as if I have discovered some truth and everybody is blind to it!?
(thats not actually true as I believe many people have their hifi rigs sorted and don’t need post unhappy posts on the internet- many head-fi readers are ‘long time listeners/first time posters’.. )
Alright -so a couple of weekends back I was spinning Ghostbusters Afterlife, a disc that I have in multiple formats, and when doing testing, I have come to realise that Blurays via the old Oppo flog UHD discs via an ‘affordable’ UHD spinner..
This is a test I have been doing for decades (my old HDDVD player put out unbeatable sound, but its’ lack of upscaled picture had me sometimes using more modern bluray players)(the decade before that it was my first gen DVD player still playing better than ‘newer formats’ (and output reds that could match the flagship last generation laserdisc players too!)); I am not unfamiliar with experiencing variances in ‘digital transport quality’… so- Ghostbusters Afterlife?
I’ve seen the movie a few times, and so was watching ‘very casually’ (partner was out of room and I was ‘killing time’ prior to ‘movie time’); figured I’d set up a test, and ask the family which is better…
I truly wish I had NOT DONE THIS (I am not buying any more UHDs until I pickup a flagship UHD player!!)
What was obvious between the two playbacks (not blind A/B tested/nor ‘fast switched’, nor done whilst Venus was in retrograde, or whatever nonsense that some ‘scientist’ demand I do for my ‘subjective’ experience to be ‘validated’), was very very simple- I played the opening scene twice. Once using the Atmos soundtrack and HDR encoded UHD disc (best source media), and then using the Bluray version (non HDR, DTS master audio) (-actually at this point of the testing I WAS switching rapidly between players, until I deemed that the TV upscaling the ‘not HDR’ bluray to a mapped High Dynamic Range was equal enough in the picture testing to not care about this aspect-)- the audio variations at this point could be ascribed to different sound tracks (Atmos vs Master Audio), so, opting for less frequent switching, I could now keep it ‘apples to apples’ comparison.
Via the ‘budget’ transport (UHD player) the frequency sweep as Spengler stands on the porch, bait in hand, was unengaging. It generated no emotion. (anyone who has listened to frequency sweeps on their hifi rig probably know this is NOT normal)
Via a mid tier Blurray player the same frequency sweep (part of the Ghostbusters Afterlife soundtrack at this moment in the movie), had everyone on the edge of their seats.
That night we watched Ghostbusters Afterlife from the Blu-ray disc (for the first time)…
Now this result was standard affair for anyone who has played with a ‘range of pricepoints’ in digital transports.. (please lets not try to investigate ‘my investigation’, it isn’t absolute and ‘lets just trust’ that I know the differences between the layers of my media as much as I know my menus on my receiver etc…).. a big assumption maybe, but of small merit to the topic at hand.. it is ‘just an example’, and has been used to introduce some concepts (such as ‘pricepoint’ varying hardware quality, and ‘hardware quality’ potentially effecting audio output quality).
The reasons WHY better transports give clearer dialogue and more open sound fields, better locational accuracy, deeper bass, better musical notation (timbre/tone?).. is probably to do with error rates and ‘auto correction’ and the differences between equipment built with wide tolerances (compatible with everything (master of none)), and equipment built to work with other equipment of the same tier (and therefore potentially ‘tighter’ jitter tolerances etc)..
I absolutely confirm that if you weren’t looking for these things, probably wouldn’t notice them (if you are casual to audio), and for most people (long time head-fiers included) the differences can be subtle (and no doubt ‘system dependant’)..
It is fair to say that my processor and power amp config, and soundroom setup (placement/calibration/tuning etc) are going to be different to other peoples setups.
I know my setup is reference sound and picture- in fact the reason we were spinning Afterlife that night was I had just recalibrated the colours on all the panels in the house, and was keen to see something with some ‘colour’..
the differences were so substantial though, between players, that it opened up my mind on this topic.
That was, as I mentioned, a couple of weeks ago.
Since then I had the fortune of finding and old $1000 Yamaha Bluray player for $25 (with remote!), and even though it was not ‘quite good enough’ to install in either the theatre room or the 2 channel audio rig, it was a ‘great find’ for the bedroom setup.
And the smegging player output much clearer dialogue and vastly better audio soundtracks than the tech toys (Playstation), and matched a near TOTL (ancient) Pioneer Bluray player (second gen maybe?)- the Yamaha was faster, and could do much, much more (still output 1080 via component, and I believe it converts the high quality DTSmaster/TrueHD feeds into 2 channel PCM properly (not just lift the DTS/DD layer and convert that as many ‘budget’ players do). Not that this mattered for testing- I could simply put on Red Dwarf DVDs and they sounded clearer and cleaner than ever.
So why no ‘fast A/B’ switching, or ‘proper scientific testing’?
Firstly - I have done these sorts of test many times. I do them when they might help isolate an aspect of ‘what is happening’ (eg viewer bias, OR ‘two bits of kit being “very similar” that the differences are super subtle- eg comparing two DACs of near equal pricepoint or testing digital cables etc)
This test, like a few in hifi, didn’t NEED that.
When you listen to a song and for the first time ever actually hear a line or lyric previously obscured or muffled, the brain has an ‘ah ha’ moment.
Granted you can only get this reveal ONCE (as once you HAVE HEARD the lyric, you know what it is…) but fortunately I have many thousands of CDs many hundreds of which I am ‘very familiar with’.
I know when any given playback is ‘the best’ I have heard, mostly due to discovering things I hadn’t experienced previously.
Now; zealots arguing for the ‘rules of their religion’ (that science dictates my mind is a whole pile of ‘subjectivity’ and ‘attention and focus’ altering and BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH- save your arguments on this front- I have been doing this since the eighties, and have invested A LOT OF TIME (and coin) into learning this ‘hobby’.
I was playing with DACs and DAC sound as far back as the ‘late eighties’, and have been experiencing better than average ‘transport’ quality since then.
By the late nineties I had learned a lot of stuff that many here may wish to argue about… (fine for you- enjoy that pointless tirade that brings joy to no one)
Having owned some Top of the Line transports, and having seen their digital output quality improve the quality via my DAC (and playing with Superclock mods, and disconnecting internal analogue boards/having re-done capacitors towards ‘more accurate’.. the notion (to me) that digital is ‘ones and zeros’ and therefor transports perfectly, whilst might be logical to you (or some who are very vocal in Sound Science)- this same notion that digital as ‘zeros and ones’ passes perfectly via hops in chain and tech.. is certainly against the common knowledge of decades of audio science and research and refinement in technology.
The nature of reality and human consciousness is we certainly DO notice the things we are looking for (either sounds in a soundtrack OR research on a complex topic); whilst many here have many findings that suit their belief system, just as many have subjective and objective experiences different to this.
As a community we are certainly better for having access to a wide range of thought and theory- and so I will share some findings witnessed when I set up a blind A/B test looking at ‘digital transport quality’ prior to my child being born (back when I invested heavily in time and money into this hobby)..
The ‘panel’ was a composer/conductor friend and an opera singer. They both loved a range of music that overlapped and could argue for hours over which recording of a given piece of music was best.. but one thing for sure was they had ‘golden ears’ and could pick apart the equipment ‘very quickly’ (faster than I could, certainly)
I worked at a store, at the time, that had a wide range of ‘disc spinners’, and so I borrowed for the weekend three transports (wide pricepoint ranges up to FLAGSHIP/TOTL), combined with my personal favorites, we sat (they sat, I did all the ‘behind the scenes’ work to keep it ‘blind a/b’)
Things that became apparent, instantly, was the ‘tiers’ of quality output..
They would decribe the recordings as ‘what row’ we were sitting in. They were spot on. I could double back (secretly) to a piece of kit. BAM -same rows- ; they were flawless, and had it been just one person, no where near as impressive…
The upshot of days of testing was- a $600 CD player was ~ equal to a $3000 DVD player (as a digital transport of CD sound).
The fact that they then settled on a CD player made by Philips from the eighties (generally not acknowledged as a ‘good time’ for digital), was telling- they ignored all physical appearances and were not swayed by price points etc (the Philips player was not super cheap, even second hand after the turn of the century)- sure it was an exceptional unit, and they are very well regarded.. but their story (testing transports) is here mentioned purely anecdotally to attempt to “remove blinkers” and open up the POTENTIAL for better audio in YOUR setuip.
____________________________
I learned awhile back now, that flagship parts just do magical stuff. I’d generally take an older ‘well built’ unit over a Flavour of the Moment Fad piece.
I have seen some mad moments where people are selling their older ‘nice’ part due to some new part bettering it at a spec sheet level (but delivering a small portion of the total package/sound).
Enjoying what we already have is actually the point of this post.
As I have mentioned multiple times now- that Ghostbusters Afterlife (brief) test was weeks ago.
Since then I have done MUCH TESTING (some ‘quite serious’), checking different inputs on DACs (not all playback at equal quality) and a few rotations of the front end ‘digital’ transport.
The joy of my child netting an Astell&Kern SA700 as a birthday present, added another ‘nice transport’ to the test.. and having never owned a GREAT USB transport (and I have $600 PC mainboards (not gaming, rather ‘science’, ie super basic but wickedly accurate) feeding from $600 power supplies (fibre optic from an Asus Essense STX flogs USB output).. and I have used MAC Mini/Apple TV/a range of laptops (and knowing which USB port to use and how to configure windows (PC tech since the eighties))- getting ‘good’ USB audio (to me an oxymoronic proposition) is difficult, and that A&K SA700 is such a good transport, that I have gone so far as to write some words here..
Purely to get some thinking about what they might be able to do simply by shuffling around some kit (or possibly bringing some out of retirement from the shed)..
A better transfer of zeros and ones nets vocal clarity (super easy to spot), better nuances (leading edges/emotional delivery by master musicians), and deeper bass notes/ better texture etc.
This is obvious, and unless someone wants to convince me that copying digital files leads to some form of decay in the original recording (argument nullified by half my testing simply moving a micro SD card, ie ‘no copying’)..
Now whether you get this in your system will depend on a ‘wide range of factors’; the biggest I believe is simply ‘what tier of equipment do you (mostly) use’?
Again, having researched this heavily over the last few weeks, some interesting finds in interviews with designers regarding parts I have been using confirms some interesting points.,.,.
one of which was the Sabre DAC chip, by design, (early version maybe), was very sensitive to ‘interference’ (an interview by Moon Audio regarding a Conductor Virtuoso V2+, I believe…) and the steps the engineers took to tune the circuit for ‘audio’ (music/ not test tones)..
They were using the 8channel 9018 DAC chip (sounded better than the Wolfson 8741/whatever ‘best’ DACs where available in the world at the time), but they opted to use it not in the ‘market preferred’ all channels active/dual differential mode, as they felt it sounded much better (more musical) when leaving it as a pure two channel DAC chip (even though they could have netted better spec sheet performance if they followed the market trend).
Hmm ‘tuning for audio’ -clearly outside the scope of ‘reasonable’ (polite/timely) discussion in Sound Science.
I have zero interest in policing this thread, or possibly even following it..
I’d love if people could read this thread and decide if it is relevant to them (gleaming interest in message), or not (angst/disagree with points raised).
If you disagree with much of what has been said (if you find your hands clenched or teeth grinding when reading up till here especially), then walk on PLEASE.
Go create a new thread in sound science about how hard it is to convince people of YOUR PRESENT BELIEFS.
For anyone who recognises that science is constantly evolving BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM EXPERIMENTATION/ ‘results’..
I have had some results., Subjective or not, I have also spoken with a range of people who have had ‘results’ and between us, somewhere maybe something in our logic or listening is sound.
Maybe it isn’t and maybe I have just come here to annoy some people -although anyone who knows my typical posts would probably gather that I try to post to grow awareness and share passion for this hobby that generally raises happiness.
Whilst I would love to be a ‘keeping with the joneses’ audiophile, I have zero interest in an expensive sideways investment (not necessarily better sound with a huge pile of cash outlayed).
if you really insist on arguing with me- best place to start is with:
What could Whitedragem possibly know- they’ve retired a Topping D90 to use a decade old Burson DAC that doesn’t benchmark anywhere near as well…(or some such)
Sure use the science (of numbers) which is absolute.
Those spec sheet numbers are read once and forget affairs (listening matters MOST),.. but the numbers that actually matter most are the REAL zeros and ones intended to be processed by a given DAC.. (and not the half arsed and guessed at versions of those zeros and ones that all budget kit, trying to be compatible with super low quality sources etc will guess at.. a bit like a Six bit and dithering TV panel not really being equal to an 8bit panel- guessing ones ways towards ‘what we think is there’ is not the same as getting hard and fast ACTUAL usable zeros and ones. Less guessing and ‘error correction’ (some isn’t so bad) generally gets us closer to what is recorded onto the disc(/in our digital source files)
Preempting the ‘my kits not good enough to tell debate’ - I don’t care- your kit is no doubt the best you have found. (you wouldn’t consciously downgrade), I am happy if you are happy.
I am happier if you share your happy self on these forums.
This post isn’t to enflame ANYONE- again- just to bring to the forefront of some discussion what changing a digital transport can ACTUALLY do for your setup.. -and I do not mean in terms of adding features- just in terms of delivering more accurate feed of zeros and ones.. (something that is actually not the design intent for most modern audio kit built at budget consumer price points).
My thoughts on this topic first came to awareness when I picked up a $1000 digital media player box made by Netgear.. (a flagship part)…
The same movie files from it just better- clearer audio, wider soundfield (etc etc), and I couldn’t figure out why.. (it was such an overt night/day difference)
Then I tested TVs TOSLINK outputs, and found the flagship TVs seemed to deliver a much better Dolby Digital feed (no, not DD+)
For years this topic has been brewing in my head, and then my kids’ SA700 (a nice USB digital output) fed into three familiar DACs and the resultant audio, allowed me to tier rank a few DACs via input selection (eg USB on a Grace m903 equals nice!!).
DACs I thought should be retired, when given a ‘better transport’ are “whole new beasts”.
A budget Questyle DAP (eg QP1/QPR1) makes for such a great fibre optic source, that I am happy to retire the CD player.. (not really, but ‘yay’ for finding something better/equal) sure the QP1/QP1R is a horrible DAP to use by todays standards (slow/clunky, and devoid of features), but oh such good DIGITAL output. (It is a noticable step up from a FiiO M11+)
Given how cheap second hand kit can be, trying out this notion for yourself, quite likely you can get your money back reselling whichever test piece you stumble across.
I wrote this (post) hoping that a few people might find out some astonishing truths (not engineering logic, but ‘real world’ application) that consumer kit is often junk, often built for spec sheet warfare and being feature rich and market compatible.. If we pair up some kit that is actually built with tight tolerances in mind, paired with kit that expects similar; the rabbit hole and wonderland await. (?fantasy? OK, I will accept that response- no need to give it- please just let other fools and heretics have their high fantasy-with a smile perhaps)
Any positive points exploring this topic are welcomed (and wanted)..
Sure this stacks the fallacy with a pyre of potential (unchecked) falsehoods, but it isn’t hurting anyone.. (and I did politely ask that cables, as valid as they may(or may not) be be left aside from the discussion).
And no- this isn’t about price point snobbishness-
high quality kit is always available on the second hand market- to some pundits these older parts might prove a ‘better fit’ in their system.
Money where my mouth is- very happy using a Burson Conductor V2+ (as a DAC) when paired with suitable high quality components.. (vs better measuring and well reviewing ‘more modern’ DACs, it is a different beast depending on the quality of the source I feed it- not true of all DACs)
I hope this thread doesn’t get out of control or fall prey to arguing and ego boasting, vs, -well- actually acknowledging the topic (and its inherent validity) towards audio excellence (potentially a hobby for many who frequent these pages!).
Sadly the topic doesn’t belong in the ‘getting started’ section, and, when looking at the subsections we have for our forums, it really only has one likely deserved location.
Sure it COULD go in the ‘source’ forum, but, as it is ‘part of the chain’/a part of the ‘whole’ that is audio recreation using technology (that isn’t playing an actual instrument)… it does need to be spoken about.
Ideally in a place where it is fit to be discussed…
So, erm, Why ‘not want to discuss’ in the Sound Science forum?
Because I couldn’t care less to argue with people who are deaf to learning and assume they have it all figured out… (not the majority of the sound science forum READERS, but certainly at much risk to be a target to a few gatekeepers who will use strange *practiced* arguments to spiel their beliefs and denounce anything that doesn’t fit with their world view,.)
The reason I will not engage with some people on this topic is simple - and mostly stems from the fact that I have been doing this stuff for many (many) decades now (feeling old!?).
In the early nineties I cannot see anyone reframing my belief that optical would HAVE TO be better than electrical for digital transmission… (no Radio Frequencies to effect the transfer etc), nor that a digital cable might make a difference to any other digital cable (assuming both built ‘right’/match the equipment chain etc)..
Whilst that latter notion (cable quality for digital being ‘a thing’) is madness to a very vocal populace here in sound science (I will leave that discussion purely for other threads and more peaceful prose placements), the notion that Fibre Optic is better than COAX was one that was ‘shattered’ for me, in the nineties, and really had me taking a step back in terms of being an armchair engineer.
Logic and rationale is not the ruler of our minds’ interpretation of music..
So, again, preempting a lot of BS creeping into this thread - again- please reflect on why your post *might be* valid; is it for exploration of a topic (that you are unwilling to budge a view point on), or is it to tell people off and that your ‘limited experience’ has no evidence of ‘such notions’ etc etc etc
I’m not employed by anyone here.. I don’t care to do double blind testing (or even go to length to confirm the steps I have used over decades to be ‘scientific’ (methodical) in my testing process).
I’m not even going to go so far as to say I have just had a setup with a fast A/B switch that could keep the ‘samples’ close enough in time that a ‘short audio memory’ might have a snowflakes chance in hell of surviving…
So, Oh My Lord-=anecdotal=- ‘evidence’ to start a thread on a topic placed in ‘sound science’. (Hmmmmmmm!)
@moderators - I agree that the topic could be posted elsewhere, but would argue that its’ home is truly here (probably).
I know the thread is most likely to get derailed, and the actual topic will be lost to anger as zealots argue black and blue over shades of grey that might not even be relevant to a)their setup, or b)their interests.. (like everything in audio, if you haven’t noticed it, then it doesn’t matter (to YOU)!).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So- moving on-
What is digital transport quality and why *might* it matter?
Okay - let me start with a story (haven’t I done that already- what was all that prose above for?);
I bought a ‘cheap’ 4K UHD player.
It is the market top recommendation by most of the pro hifi websites, and in terms of ‘spec sheet’, it should ‘do the trick’…
Hang on - I need to go back a beat, and explain my experience with transports; I’ve owned many many disc spinners, including many flagship units that weight ‘a lot’. This is dating back to early CD players and laserdisc, and DVD, and HDDVD, and ,.. erm - well: you get the point; I’ve used ‘a lot of tech’.
Generally these players have fed into flagship receivers and flagship monitors and TVs. All professionally calibrated. and I have spent large amounts of time with static builds, rotating one part in a system and sticking with it long enough to learn traits/characteristics that change…
Flagships movie transports (from laserdisc/DVD and ‘beyond’) deliver ‘better reds’ was easily apparent. As was clearer audio- better placed, better layered, more nuanced and,.. well, just ‘more’.
So my ‘budget’ UHD player, (about three up the lineup, ie not ‘rock bottom’), is utter crap as a disc spinner by comparison to just about any transport I have EVER used.
It isn’t the small badly laid out remote (although that is something to factor), it isn’t the lack of a front panel display (spidey sense telling me this thing should be selling in supermarkets), it isn’t the louder mechanical sound of the disc spinning…
Quite simply it is the horrid DIGITAL output.
Background- I started doing pro audio work in the nineties; and setting up home cinema equipment is something I have done ‘a lot of’. (especially once digital TV and settop boxes came to market- when every man and their dog got into the hobby)..
So, given the science ‘masters’ here will ask me questions regarding my setup (to try to denounce my authority and find a semblance of dialogue they can gain control of this topics’ validity), yes- digital was setup identically in the test rig between a few players (same data stream, generally given from multi HDMI output devices, set for audio ONLY on the second HDMI output (this can avoid some high jitter issues, and issues with switching framerates and ‘handling’ by downstream decoders)).
So, whilst I have seen many many examples of a more expensive TV passing out a much better toslink output (better soundfield/cleaner dialogue etc), and knew that since being a parent (and spending vastly less on ‘toys) I have not bought ‘the best’ transports; I did expect my ‘well reviewed’ brand spanking new UHD player to give a better performance than it did.
Now, I have had that player for a couple of years (+) now…
I know it well- have used it hooked up to six or more TOTL or ‘very high price point’ receivers/processors, and know that compared to any other disc player, its output is ‘very average’.
Fortunately my best (local) audio mate bought the model up from this one.. (it is a ‘little better’, but doesn’t hold a candle to a dedicated CD transport (entry level) when listening to music)..(true of most movie players).
So why this long *obnoxious* post, as if I have discovered some truth and everybody is blind to it!?
(thats not actually true as I believe many people have their hifi rigs sorted and don’t need post unhappy posts on the internet- many head-fi readers are ‘long time listeners/first time posters’.. )
Alright -so a couple of weekends back I was spinning Ghostbusters Afterlife, a disc that I have in multiple formats, and when doing testing, I have come to realise that Blurays via the old Oppo flog UHD discs via an ‘affordable’ UHD spinner..
This is a test I have been doing for decades (my old HDDVD player put out unbeatable sound, but its’ lack of upscaled picture had me sometimes using more modern bluray players)(the decade before that it was my first gen DVD player still playing better than ‘newer formats’ (and output reds that could match the flagship last generation laserdisc players too!)); I am not unfamiliar with experiencing variances in ‘digital transport quality’… so- Ghostbusters Afterlife?
I’ve seen the movie a few times, and so was watching ‘very casually’ (partner was out of room and I was ‘killing time’ prior to ‘movie time’); figured I’d set up a test, and ask the family which is better…
I truly wish I had NOT DONE THIS (I am not buying any more UHDs until I pickup a flagship UHD player!!)
What was obvious between the two playbacks (not blind A/B tested/nor ‘fast switched’, nor done whilst Venus was in retrograde, or whatever nonsense that some ‘scientist’ demand I do for my ‘subjective’ experience to be ‘validated’), was very very simple- I played the opening scene twice. Once using the Atmos soundtrack and HDR encoded UHD disc (best source media), and then using the Bluray version (non HDR, DTS master audio) (-actually at this point of the testing I WAS switching rapidly between players, until I deemed that the TV upscaling the ‘not HDR’ bluray to a mapped High Dynamic Range was equal enough in the picture testing to not care about this aspect-)- the audio variations at this point could be ascribed to different sound tracks (Atmos vs Master Audio), so, opting for less frequent switching, I could now keep it ‘apples to apples’ comparison.
Via the ‘budget’ transport (UHD player) the frequency sweep as Spengler stands on the porch, bait in hand, was unengaging. It generated no emotion. (anyone who has listened to frequency sweeps on their hifi rig probably know this is NOT normal)
Via a mid tier Blurray player the same frequency sweep (part of the Ghostbusters Afterlife soundtrack at this moment in the movie), had everyone on the edge of their seats.
That night we watched Ghostbusters Afterlife from the Blu-ray disc (for the first time)…
Now this result was standard affair for anyone who has played with a ‘range of pricepoints’ in digital transports.. (please lets not try to investigate ‘my investigation’, it isn’t absolute and ‘lets just trust’ that I know the differences between the layers of my media as much as I know my menus on my receiver etc…).. a big assumption maybe, but of small merit to the topic at hand.. it is ‘just an example’, and has been used to introduce some concepts (such as ‘pricepoint’ varying hardware quality, and ‘hardware quality’ potentially effecting audio output quality).
The reasons WHY better transports give clearer dialogue and more open sound fields, better locational accuracy, deeper bass, better musical notation (timbre/tone?).. is probably to do with error rates and ‘auto correction’ and the differences between equipment built with wide tolerances (compatible with everything (master of none)), and equipment built to work with other equipment of the same tier (and therefore potentially ‘tighter’ jitter tolerances etc)..
I absolutely confirm that if you weren’t looking for these things, probably wouldn’t notice them (if you are casual to audio), and for most people (long time head-fiers included) the differences can be subtle (and no doubt ‘system dependant’)..
It is fair to say that my processor and power amp config, and soundroom setup (placement/calibration/tuning etc) are going to be different to other peoples setups.
I know my setup is reference sound and picture- in fact the reason we were spinning Afterlife that night was I had just recalibrated the colours on all the panels in the house, and was keen to see something with some ‘colour’..
the differences were so substantial though, between players, that it opened up my mind on this topic.
That was, as I mentioned, a couple of weeks ago.
Since then I had the fortune of finding and old $1000 Yamaha Bluray player for $25 (with remote!), and even though it was not ‘quite good enough’ to install in either the theatre room or the 2 channel audio rig, it was a ‘great find’ for the bedroom setup.
And the smegging player output much clearer dialogue and vastly better audio soundtracks than the tech toys (Playstation), and matched a near TOTL (ancient) Pioneer Bluray player (second gen maybe?)- the Yamaha was faster, and could do much, much more (still output 1080 via component, and I believe it converts the high quality DTSmaster/TrueHD feeds into 2 channel PCM properly (not just lift the DTS/DD layer and convert that as many ‘budget’ players do). Not that this mattered for testing- I could simply put on Red Dwarf DVDs and they sounded clearer and cleaner than ever.
So why no ‘fast A/B’ switching, or ‘proper scientific testing’?
Firstly - I have done these sorts of test many times. I do them when they might help isolate an aspect of ‘what is happening’ (eg viewer bias, OR ‘two bits of kit being “very similar” that the differences are super subtle- eg comparing two DACs of near equal pricepoint or testing digital cables etc)
This test, like a few in hifi, didn’t NEED that.
When you listen to a song and for the first time ever actually hear a line or lyric previously obscured or muffled, the brain has an ‘ah ha’ moment.
Granted you can only get this reveal ONCE (as once you HAVE HEARD the lyric, you know what it is…) but fortunately I have many thousands of CDs many hundreds of which I am ‘very familiar with’.
I know when any given playback is ‘the best’ I have heard, mostly due to discovering things I hadn’t experienced previously.
Now; zealots arguing for the ‘rules of their religion’ (that science dictates my mind is a whole pile of ‘subjectivity’ and ‘attention and focus’ altering and BLAH, BLAH BLAH BLAH- save your arguments on this front- I have been doing this since the eighties, and have invested A LOT OF TIME (and coin) into learning this ‘hobby’.
I was playing with DACs and DAC sound as far back as the ‘late eighties’, and have been experiencing better than average ‘transport’ quality since then.
By the late nineties I had learned a lot of stuff that many here may wish to argue about… (fine for you- enjoy that pointless tirade that brings joy to no one)
Having owned some Top of the Line transports, and having seen their digital output quality improve the quality via my DAC (and playing with Superclock mods, and disconnecting internal analogue boards/having re-done capacitors towards ‘more accurate’.. the notion (to me) that digital is ‘ones and zeros’ and therefor transports perfectly, whilst might be logical to you (or some who are very vocal in Sound Science)- this same notion that digital as ‘zeros and ones’ passes perfectly via hops in chain and tech.. is certainly against the common knowledge of decades of audio science and research and refinement in technology.
The nature of reality and human consciousness is we certainly DO notice the things we are looking for (either sounds in a soundtrack OR research on a complex topic); whilst many here have many findings that suit their belief system, just as many have subjective and objective experiences different to this.
As a community we are certainly better for having access to a wide range of thought and theory- and so I will share some findings witnessed when I set up a blind A/B test looking at ‘digital transport quality’ prior to my child being born (back when I invested heavily in time and money into this hobby)..
The ‘panel’ was a composer/conductor friend and an opera singer. They both loved a range of music that overlapped and could argue for hours over which recording of a given piece of music was best.. but one thing for sure was they had ‘golden ears’ and could pick apart the equipment ‘very quickly’ (faster than I could, certainly)
I worked at a store, at the time, that had a wide range of ‘disc spinners’, and so I borrowed for the weekend three transports (wide pricepoint ranges up to FLAGSHIP/TOTL), combined with my personal favorites, we sat (they sat, I did all the ‘behind the scenes’ work to keep it ‘blind a/b’)
Things that became apparent, instantly, was the ‘tiers’ of quality output..
They would decribe the recordings as ‘what row’ we were sitting in. They were spot on. I could double back (secretly) to a piece of kit. BAM -same rows- ; they were flawless, and had it been just one person, no where near as impressive…
The upshot of days of testing was- a $600 CD player was ~ equal to a $3000 DVD player (as a digital transport of CD sound).
The fact that they then settled on a CD player made by Philips from the eighties (generally not acknowledged as a ‘good time’ for digital), was telling- they ignored all physical appearances and were not swayed by price points etc (the Philips player was not super cheap, even second hand after the turn of the century)- sure it was an exceptional unit, and they are very well regarded.. but their story (testing transports) is here mentioned purely anecdotally to attempt to “remove blinkers” and open up the POTENTIAL for better audio in YOUR setuip.
____________________________
I learned awhile back now, that flagship parts just do magical stuff. I’d generally take an older ‘well built’ unit over a Flavour of the Moment Fad piece.
I have seen some mad moments where people are selling their older ‘nice’ part due to some new part bettering it at a spec sheet level (but delivering a small portion of the total package/sound).
Enjoying what we already have is actually the point of this post.
As I have mentioned multiple times now- that Ghostbusters Afterlife (brief) test was weeks ago.
Since then I have done MUCH TESTING (some ‘quite serious’), checking different inputs on DACs (not all playback at equal quality) and a few rotations of the front end ‘digital’ transport.
The joy of my child netting an Astell&Kern SA700 as a birthday present, added another ‘nice transport’ to the test.. and having never owned a GREAT USB transport (and I have $600 PC mainboards (not gaming, rather ‘science’, ie super basic but wickedly accurate) feeding from $600 power supplies (fibre optic from an Asus Essense STX flogs USB output).. and I have used MAC Mini/Apple TV/a range of laptops (and knowing which USB port to use and how to configure windows (PC tech since the eighties))- getting ‘good’ USB audio (to me an oxymoronic proposition) is difficult, and that A&K SA700 is such a good transport, that I have gone so far as to write some words here..
Purely to get some thinking about what they might be able to do simply by shuffling around some kit (or possibly bringing some out of retirement from the shed)..
A better transfer of zeros and ones nets vocal clarity (super easy to spot), better nuances (leading edges/emotional delivery by master musicians), and deeper bass notes/ better texture etc.
This is obvious, and unless someone wants to convince me that copying digital files leads to some form of decay in the original recording (argument nullified by half my testing simply moving a micro SD card, ie ‘no copying’)..
Now whether you get this in your system will depend on a ‘wide range of factors’; the biggest I believe is simply ‘what tier of equipment do you (mostly) use’?
Again, having researched this heavily over the last few weeks, some interesting finds in interviews with designers regarding parts I have been using confirms some interesting points.,.,.
one of which was the Sabre DAC chip, by design, (early version maybe), was very sensitive to ‘interference’ (an interview by Moon Audio regarding a Conductor Virtuoso V2+, I believe…) and the steps the engineers took to tune the circuit for ‘audio’ (music/ not test tones)..
They were using the 8channel 9018 DAC chip (sounded better than the Wolfson 8741/whatever ‘best’ DACs where available in the world at the time), but they opted to use it not in the ‘market preferred’ all channels active/dual differential mode, as they felt it sounded much better (more musical) when leaving it as a pure two channel DAC chip (even though they could have netted better spec sheet performance if they followed the market trend).
Hmm ‘tuning for audio’ -clearly outside the scope of ‘reasonable’ (polite/timely) discussion in Sound Science.
I have zero interest in policing this thread, or possibly even following it..
I’d love if people could read this thread and decide if it is relevant to them (gleaming interest in message), or not (angst/disagree with points raised).
If you disagree with much of what has been said (if you find your hands clenched or teeth grinding when reading up till here especially), then walk on PLEASE.
Go create a new thread in sound science about how hard it is to convince people of YOUR PRESENT BELIEFS.
For anyone who recognises that science is constantly evolving BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM EXPERIMENTATION/ ‘results’..
I have had some results., Subjective or not, I have also spoken with a range of people who have had ‘results’ and between us, somewhere maybe something in our logic or listening is sound.
Maybe it isn’t and maybe I have just come here to annoy some people -although anyone who knows my typical posts would probably gather that I try to post to grow awareness and share passion for this hobby that generally raises happiness.
Whilst I would love to be a ‘keeping with the joneses’ audiophile, I have zero interest in an expensive sideways investment (not necessarily better sound with a huge pile of cash outlayed).
if you really insist on arguing with me- best place to start is with:
What could Whitedragem possibly know- they’ve retired a Topping D90 to use a decade old Burson DAC that doesn’t benchmark anywhere near as well…(or some such)
Sure use the science (of numbers) which is absolute.
Those spec sheet numbers are read once and forget affairs (listening matters MOST),.. but the numbers that actually matter most are the REAL zeros and ones intended to be processed by a given DAC.. (and not the half arsed and guessed at versions of those zeros and ones that all budget kit, trying to be compatible with super low quality sources etc will guess at.. a bit like a Six bit and dithering TV panel not really being equal to an 8bit panel- guessing ones ways towards ‘what we think is there’ is not the same as getting hard and fast ACTUAL usable zeros and ones. Less guessing and ‘error correction’ (some isn’t so bad) generally gets us closer to what is recorded onto the disc(/in our digital source files)
Preempting the ‘my kits not good enough to tell debate’ - I don’t care- your kit is no doubt the best you have found. (you wouldn’t consciously downgrade), I am happy if you are happy.
I am happier if you share your happy self on these forums.
This post isn’t to enflame ANYONE- again- just to bring to the forefront of some discussion what changing a digital transport can ACTUALLY do for your setup.. -and I do not mean in terms of adding features- just in terms of delivering more accurate feed of zeros and ones.. (something that is actually not the design intent for most modern audio kit built at budget consumer price points).
My thoughts on this topic first came to awareness when I picked up a $1000 digital media player box made by Netgear.. (a flagship part)…
The same movie files from it just better- clearer audio, wider soundfield (etc etc), and I couldn’t figure out why.. (it was such an overt night/day difference)
Then I tested TVs TOSLINK outputs, and found the flagship TVs seemed to deliver a much better Dolby Digital feed (no, not DD+)
For years this topic has been brewing in my head, and then my kids’ SA700 (a nice USB digital output) fed into three familiar DACs and the resultant audio, allowed me to tier rank a few DACs via input selection (eg USB on a Grace m903 equals nice!!).
DACs I thought should be retired, when given a ‘better transport’ are “whole new beasts”.
A budget Questyle DAP (eg QP1/QPR1) makes for such a great fibre optic source, that I am happy to retire the CD player.. (not really, but ‘yay’ for finding something better/equal) sure the QP1/QP1R is a horrible DAP to use by todays standards (slow/clunky, and devoid of features), but oh such good DIGITAL output. (It is a noticable step up from a FiiO M11+)
Given how cheap second hand kit can be, trying out this notion for yourself, quite likely you can get your money back reselling whichever test piece you stumble across.
I wrote this (post) hoping that a few people might find out some astonishing truths (not engineering logic, but ‘real world’ application) that consumer kit is often junk, often built for spec sheet warfare and being feature rich and market compatible.. If we pair up some kit that is actually built with tight tolerances in mind, paired with kit that expects similar; the rabbit hole and wonderland await. (?fantasy? OK, I will accept that response- no need to give it- please just let other fools and heretics have their high fantasy-with a smile perhaps)
Any positive points exploring this topic are welcomed (and wanted)..
Sure this stacks the fallacy with a pyre of potential (unchecked) falsehoods, but it isn’t hurting anyone.. (and I did politely ask that cables, as valid as they may(or may not) be be left aside from the discussion).
And no- this isn’t about price point snobbishness-
high quality kit is always available on the second hand market- to some pundits these older parts might prove a ‘better fit’ in their system.
Money where my mouth is- very happy using a Burson Conductor V2+ (as a DAC) when paired with suitable high quality components.. (vs better measuring and well reviewing ‘more modern’ DACs, it is a different beast depending on the quality of the source I feed it- not true of all DACs)
