[Aspirant Audiophile]

...just finished reading this thread...my head hurts, but at least I now know that I am never ever EVER going to watch the new Ghostbusters movie.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

...just finished reading this thread...my head hurts, but at least I now know that I am never ever EVER going to watch the new Ghostbusters movie.

It's even harder to read (stomach) when the OP is "Ignored"!

 

[whitedragem]

^^^^^Thanks.

I often feel that too.
basic human relations tells me that some readers must feel that way even if they disagree with my logic or principles.

seriously, that simple sentiment just healed some aspect of my spirit. (smiles with you,.. its all good, forums are for social shizz and giggs if we let them be )

I don't want to get caught up on 'me', but I do sometimes wonder the parallels in history of when someone has attempted to 'be the noise' in an attempt to grow awareness, and the difficulty of holding 'an unpopular opinion'.

Ghostbusters Afterlife was a great/enjoyable movie (as someone who bought the Vinyl after watching the first Ghostbusters in a Manly (NSW/Australia) cinema, all thise decades ago...)
Don't forget the movie "Evolution" too (its sort of Ghostbusters redone).. certainly watchable if one is into those things.
There- some off topic noise by the OP.
thread fully grounded.
runway ran out- plane 'never took off' (too much baggage!)

If only the error correction caught all the spurious artifacts. another 'for the masses' thread it would seem!

 

[Aspirant Audiophile]

...sorry, I should have been more clear that I was making fun of the absurdity of a long-winded "debate" about digital audio using bombastic rhetoric and poor grammar

 

[gregorio]

This thread isnt for you mon amigo.

If it’s posted in a public forum where anyone is allowed to respond, then “yes it is” if I decide to respond.

the facts are out there...

Then it shouldn’t be difficult to provide some then, should it?

you want to debunk what you feel 'isnt a thing', this is not the place.

No, I want to debunk nonsense that is not supported with facts/science.

this doesnt need to get personal, we do not need to attack people who think differently to us.. (if they are simply looking to find associated 'science' to a theory...)

Exactly, IF they are looking to find associated science to a theory. But IF they don’t have a theory (just nonsense marketing BS) for which there can be no “associated science” (beyond stating that it’s just nonsense) and then they just keep repeating that nonsense without any factual basis then “yes”, we absolutely do need to refute them!

Beliefs other than yours might exist, but you will never allow OTHERS to discuss …

This is NOT the forum to discuss beliefs, it’s the forum for the discussion of science, how did you not know that?

well done you have (once again) successfully derailed discussions that didnt hold your line of thought.

Good! If discussions hold some “line of thought” contrary to the facts/science then in this subforum they should be derailed!

you are against exploration, and therefore anti science.

That’s false, I am not against exploration, I do that frequently myself, and am certainly not “therefore anti-science”. Posting unsupported nonsense and BS contrary to the science is anti-science though! Again, how could you not know that?

go away. this thread isnt for you. go write in 'transport quality DOESNT matter

You don’t get to dictate in a public forum who responds to your nonsense.

having listened to the evolution of 'cheap' digital (ie consumer sound cards in the late eighties/early nineties/mid nineties and so on) the subtle differences in FM synthesis chipsets was the traits we were often looking for...

Not sure what you’re talking about here. There were some cheap consumer cards in the late ‘80’s and later but the differences in their FM synthesis algorithms was not at all subtle but it was a secondary task.

most of this stuff is experientially audible, but it takes many years to refine testing methods that work reliably and 'knowing what traits to look for'.

The FM synthesis stuff of consumer sound cards was measurable and easily audible. The testing methods often do take many years of refinement and in the case of FM synthesis, that was completed by around the late 1960’s.

it is essential for digital to work, that the science behind it is secondary/foundation to many other discussions

You have that backwards, digital only works because of the science. Digital dies not exist in the natural world, it does not grow on trees, it was developed from the science.

Transports are 'not all equal' in sending digital
this is a thread to post on THAT topic.

Sure, different transports are “not all equal”, they commonly have different functionality but if you’re claiming the basic digital data they’re outputting is somehow different enough to have audible consequences then you’re going to need to back that up with reliable evidence/facts.

it is important to offer something for everyone.

Of course it’s not, in this subforum it’s important to offer the science/facts. If someone wants their flat earth belief validating, this is not the forum for them!

Having owned world class transports and done superclock mods (and having the matching kit to hear the results) …

But you don’t have the matching kit to hear the results. First of all, “superclock” was invented by Digidesign as a clock format for their specific hardware topology (digidesign ad/da converters and the common need to “lock” several of them together), you have the matching Digidesign/Avid kit do you? Secondly and more importantly, I take it that you have human ears? If you did actually hear a difference, you must have really screwed up your “mod”!!

I suppose most know not to post such technical understanding in the science sections cause of too many without courtesy manners and respect ruling the roost.

What “technical understanding”? As this is the sound science forum, “technical understanding” is respected here. What is NOT respected is nonsense BS falsely claimed to be “technical understanding” and doing that in this (or any other) science discussion forum is “without courtesy, manners or respect”. So do NOT get on your high horse when your complete lack of courtesy, manners and respect get reflected back at you!!!

G

 

[bigshot]

One of the nice things about digital audio is that errors that cause audible artifacts are rarely subtle. When digital audio errors, it errors all at once in a burst of clearly audible noise... big clicks, pops or gorfs. It isn't like analog audio where noise is layered over the sound. Digital is all or nothing.

So if your playback sounds OK, you don't have a problem with the transport. Improving the transport won't make a lick of audible difference. In just about all cases, this isn't an issue. I had one drive that didn't play correctly when it got old, but it was in the process of dying and it was obvious that something was wrong with it.

 

[Davesrose]

So if your playback sounds OK, you don't have a problem with the transport. Improving the transport won't make a lick of audible difference. In just about all cases, this isn't an issue. I had one drive that didn't play correctly when it got old, but it was in the process of dying and it was obvious that something was wrong with it.

With a digital connection, there isn't a lick of difference. As you indicate, if there was a problem with the digital signal, you'd be hearing clicks or static. That's why I'm floored that there's many threads on this site going on about how an expensive optical cable or LAN cable makes a difference. I'm still referring to the iFi LAN silencer thread. The "psychologist" is still active going on about how all these subjective impressions are great. And that they're asking about more expensive audiophile LAN silencers (the impression being, more expensive is that they sound beefier).

When it comes to the transport itself, with an optical CD it's pretty simple. The CD is uncompressed PCM data, that gets sent asynchronously to the receiver. Data error of the disc and jitter are irrelevant, as if there was data error, there would be audible skips. And with jitter, it's also irrelevant as the receiver is getting the stream in its own time. Most folks are getting an optical player that does high definition video (be it blu-ray or UHD). Here then, we have HDMI and lossless surround sound (so even larger bandwidth audio).

I've only noticed there could be a potential difference in source when it comes to USB device. My preface is that it's not a difference in price or anything: mainly just how the implementation is done with audio device interface. I have a cheap mobile flac/mp3 player that has USB DAC capability, along with my iPhone, and various computers. I did find there was an audible difference with the iPhone vs my other devices (where it didn't sound quite as full). I'm only noticing this when it's a direct comparison, and I'm not saying there's a deficit. Only thinking there could be a difference in this instance due to computer system (IE if there's a direct hardware interface, or if there's another stage in the iPhone with an audio EQ/DSP).

 

[KinGensai]

With a digital connection, there isn't a lick of difference. As you indicate, if there was a problem with the digital signal, you'd be hearing clicks or static. That's why I'm floored that there's many threads on this site going on about how an expensive optical cable or LAN cable makes a difference. I'm still referring to the iFi LAN silencer thread. The "psychologist" is still active going on about how all these subjective impressions are great. And that they're asking about more expensive audiophile LAN silencers (the impression being, more expensive is that they sound beefier).

When it comes to the transport itself, with an optical CD it's pretty simple. The CD is uncompressed PCM data, that gets sent asynchronously to the receiver. Data error of the disc and jitter are irrelevant, as if there was data error, there would be audible skips. And with jitter, it's also irrelevant as the receiver is getting the stream in its own time. Most folks are getting an optical player that does high definition video (be it blu-ray or UHD). Here then, we have HDMI and lossless surround sound (so even larger bandwidth audio).

I've only noticed there could be a potential difference in source when it comes to USB device. My preface is that it's not a difference in price or anything: mainly just how the implementation is done with audio device interface. I have a cheap mobile flac/mp3 player that has USB DAC capability, along with my iPhone, and various computers. I did find there was an audible difference with the iPhone vs my other devices (where it didn't sound quite as full). I'm only noticing this when it's a direct comparison, and I'm not saying there's a deficit. Only thinking there could be a difference in this instance due to computer system (IE if there's a direct hardware interface, or if there's another stage in the iPhone with an audio EQ/DSP).

Wasn't there something about Apple integrating a Fletcher-Munson compensation curve into their DAC software? I thought I heard that somewhere... If that's true, that might be what is causing a difference.

This is just a quick article describing something to that effect
https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/12/homepod-impresses-audiophiles/

 

[Davesrose]

Wasn't there something about Apple integrating a Fletcher-Munson compensation curve into their DAC software? I thought I heard that somewhere... If that's true, that might be what is causing a difference.

This is just a quick article describing something to that effect
https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/12/homepod-impresses-audiophiles/

Not sure, and that article is talking about a HomePod. I do have an Apple ecosystem when it comes to a MacBook Pro, iPhone, and a couple Apple TVs. With audio, I've noticed they can be behind the times. Like with the Apple TV 4K: the hardware specs are great, but it doesn't allow bitstream passthrough for audio (so you can't stream DD or DTS/TrueHD). Instead it converts DD or lossless to multichannel PCM (and streaming apps can recognize DD+ Atmos to then stream PCM with Atmos). I have an ancillary program for Plex that's good for 4K on Apple TV (Infuse). It will play 4K Dolby Vision and Atmos if the source is DV video and DD+ Atmos. If it's a UHD rip with Atmos TrueHD, then I have to use my Nvidia Shield to get lossless Atmos. Infuse says that there's a core Dolby 1.0 codec that Apple has that allows DD+ Atmos to be carried through...and Apple still won't upgrade that to 2.0 to support the lossless TrueHD Atmos. That Apple refuses to bitstream audio with Apple TV, is another reason why I think their USB device for iPhone isn't so simple.

 

[bigshot]

As you indicate, if there was a problem with the digital signal, you'd be hearing clicks or static. That's why I'm floored that there's many threads on this site going on about how an expensive optical cable or LAN cable makes a difference.

I think digital audio is so foolproof, people assume there must be something they're missing. Nothing in the world is perfect, right? So they start imagining flaws that don't exist. It gives them an excuse to go shopping again.

Wasn't there something about Apple integrating a Fletcher-Munson compensation curve into their DAC software?

Fletcher Munson affects how we hear frequencies, but a natural response for DAC output is flat. Apple DACs are stone flat. I couldn't access the link you posted. You might have to register to see it. The HomePod is like an Alexa I think. It's a speaker. With speakers you can apply a loudness function to increase bass at lower volumes so it sounds balanced. Most receivers have that. But it is part of the amp, not the DAC, and it is for speakers, not headphones.

 

[Davesrose]

I think digital audio is so foolproof, people assume there must be something they're missing. Nothing in the world is perfect, right? So they start imagining flaws that don't exist. It gives them an excuse to go shopping again.

I did remember the debates about whether coaxial or optical is better when it comes to stereo digital connection....but my god, my eyes have recently been opened about the snake oil with "audiophile" LAN devices. At least the snake oil with CDs themselves were limited to "a CD sounds better if you add a marker at the edge" or you need to shave the edges of a CD. That doesn't require the kinds of testimonials I'm seeing for streaming networks. Even though the premise is that PCs are noisy, and these devices magically eliminate noise (even though measured, they don't)....these folks are saying it's better if you're using high end audio systems and $500 LAN cables. Excuse me, why they heck are you buying a $500 LAN cable if it apparently doesn't eliminate all this supposed noise that can impact audio?

Fletcher Munson affects how we hear frequencies, but a natural response for DAC output is flat. Apple DACs are stone flat. I couldn't access the link you posted. You might have to register to see it. The HomePod is like an Alexa I think. It's a speaker. With speakers you can apply a loudness function to increase bass at lower volumes so it sounds balanced. Most receivers have that. But it is part of the amp, not the DAC, and it is for speakers, not headphones.

A DAC chip by itself is flat. The only issue with some digital systems is if there's processing at certain stages. So the simplest means for having a digital transport with a USB/HDMI device is bitstream. That means whatever compressed file the source file is goes to receiver. However, like the example of my Apple TV, it does not bitstream. It instead converts it to PCM multichannel. I try to have settings where it keeps it there. There could be settings you're not aware of that sets other EQ (for example, home systems often having a "night" mode that tries to compress dynamics).

 

[bigshot]

I don't do Atmos, so PCM is the simplest for me. Anything can decode that flawlessly.

 

[Davesrose]

I don't do Atmos, so PCM is the simplest for me. Anything can decode that flawlessly.

Not sure what you mean by that. So if you have an older coaxial/optical receiver, PCM will get you stereo. If you want surround 5.1, that connection needs to carry Dolby Digital or DTS. Only some of the earliest blu-rays had 5.1 PCM tracks. It's pretty synonymous that blu-rays either have DTS-MA or TrueHD lossless (Atmos being metadata on top of TrueHD). These days, all streaming sources are pretty much DD+ (and if they're Atmos, that means DD+ with Atmos metadata).

 

[bigshot]

My player converts to PCM and hands it to the receiver over HDMI. Too much of a pain to hand the bitstream across. The player is better at decoding all the various formats than the amp. I can't remember exactly what the problem was, but I tried to set it up bitstream at first and bailed because it wasn't as flexible that way.

 

[castleofargh]

At least the snake oil with CDs themselves were limited to "a CD sounds better if you add a marker at the edge" or you need to shave the edges of a CD.

CDs sound better if you put them in the freezer!
Even better if you give them the cryo treatment! https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/cryo-treating-cds
Of course, you need to demagnetize them from time to time(very important!!!!!!!): https://6moons.com/audioreviews/furutech5/demag.html
And also you need this piece of tech: https://6moons.com/audioreviews/nanotech2/pro.html
Clearly, you failed to push your CD library to its utmost potential with your primitive improvements of a CD's periphery. You need to have a holistic approach in audio, consider the entire CD!