[chesebert]

I am so confused. Would be great if you can demonstrate at one of the canjams your (or anyone’s) ability to hear a timing difference of 10us (that is 0.000001 second)

This would make a great YouTube video

also, how did you get 10us if your pass band is beyond 22khz and the reflection does not appear to be anywhere close to 20khz.

 

[GoldenSound]

I am so confused. Would be great if you can demonstrate at one of the canjams your (or anyone’s) ability to hear a timing difference of 10us (that is 0.000001 second)

This would make a great YouTube video

As said, I have one coming (not on that very specific claim but just on the audibility of filters overall, and by extension showing that yes, DACs sound different)

 

[griff500]

This is starting to look a bit desperate...

Interesting information and infinite patience @GoldenOne

 

[chesebert]

As said, I have one coming (not on that very specific claim but just on the audibility of filters overall, and by extension showing that yes, DACs sound different)

I want to see a demonstration of any person having the ability to discern a timing difference of 0.000001 second.

 

[GoldenSound]

I want to see a demonstration of any person having the ability to discern a timing difference of 0.000001 second.

Then please see the links I posted

 

[chesebert]

Then please see the links I posted

That’s an interaural study, not relevant to human perception of 10us timing difference in general. This study would be more relevant for speaker design (not even for headphone).

 

[GoldenSound]

That’s an interaural study, not relevant to human perception of 10us timing difference in general. This study would be more relevant for speaker design (not even for headphone).

Why would an interaural study not be relevant? You still need to achieve that level of timing accuracy.
Additionally it's absolutely still relevant to headphones. You're still listening with both ears.

 

[Sonic Defender]

This is something I have a video coming on in future.
The TLDR is yes, I personally am able to reliably demonstrate an audible difference between a filter that adheres to the 'sufficient' adherence to Nyquist described in my above post vs a 'close to perfect' one, to a more than statistically significant degree.

What the average hifi enthusiast, average joe off the street etc would/wouldn't be able to hear I've no idea. But in my view if something CAN be audible even if it ends up being something you have to train yourself to be able to hear, it's something that people can therefore have valid reason to want to address/improve.
I don't think many people on this forum are here because they're happy with 'good enough'. Else they'd have bought some decent wireless headphones and called it a day.

The nice thing about filters is that because you can do it digitally, you can demonstrate that with an ABX test that can be remotely verified. You don't actually need special hardware like an MScaler to do it and tools like the foobar ABX plugin plus HQPlayer and PGGB are helpful for this.

Interesting perspective, but if you'll entertain me a moment, I would suggest that if you need to deeply train yourself to detect what is arguably at best a difficult to discern difference (not referring to the M-Scaler here, just generally speaking) a) it could be suggested reasonably that without very well vetted scientific methods to demonstrate discrimination that the perceived difference is imagined (applies to any sighted listening as a test) and more importantly b) that is not listening to music, nobody could possibly enjoy listening to music like that, the person is now listening to equipment so why bother using music for that?

Seriously, who consumes music focused on attempting to detect the smallest aberration from perfection, aberrations that are so theoretically small that one could be imagining them altogether? Is that at all how anybody listens to music? If those differences are so very, very, very, very small that one must train themselves to detect them in the first place, wouldn't it make much more sense to save thousands of dollars and simply ignore the theorized aberrations in the first place?

 

[chesebert]

There are so many things Chord needs to fix/add to Dave, being able to have an even sharper window function is not one of them. Just off the top of my head: power supply, digital noise suppression, headphone amp, volume control, network bridge and a rack-friendly case.

 

[GoldenSound]

it could be suggested reasonably that without very well vetted scientific methods to demonstrate discrimination that the perceived difference is imagined

Absolutely, which is why the test needs to be rigorously controlled, and in my video it will be.

- The test is done entirely digitally, no hardware is being changed to avoid any potential differences in playback hardware itself as well as the control issues that arise when doing a 'physical' ABX.
- The test files will be provided for inspection so anyone can examine and see that nothing other than the reconstruction filter has been altered
- The test utility provides checksums for the files, so anyone can verify that the files provided ARE indeed the files used for the test
- The test utility communicates with the DAC in a bitperfect fashion
- The test will include sufficient runs so that achieving a P-Value of 99% or higher is possible.
- The test results are verified by a checksum that verifies the output device, files used, and result.

that is not listening to music, nobody could possibly enjoy listening to music like that, the person is now listening to equipment so why bother using music for that?

Respectfully disagree (sort of).
Doing ABX testing isn't listening to music no. But the ABX test is being done to show that there is an audible impact of this particular thing, which provides an audible improvement when just listening to and enjoying music normally.

Plenty of people have said that using an MScaler, HQPlayer, PGGB etc provided a great benefit in their listening experience, and the response has usually (and reasonably) been "Well you need to conclusively prove that". Which is what I'm doing. Then I can get back to enjoying the music

Seriously, who consumes music focused on attempting to detect the smallest aberration from perfection, aberrations that are so theoretically small that one could be imagining them altogether? Is that at all how anybody listens to music? If those differences are so very, very, very, very small that one must train themselves to detect them in the first place, wouldn't it make much more sense to save thousands of dollars and simply ignore the theorized aberrations in the first place?

I don't think many people do (at least I certainly hope not).
But some things once you become accustomed to them are a little difficult to 'unhear' once they're taken away and as a result many people like to try to maintain the highest possible quality playback chain they can.

You can absolutely listen to and very much enjoy music on a pair of airpods. But we wouldn't be on this forum if we were satisfied with just that.

 

[griff500]

Interesting perspective, but if you'll entertain me a moment, I would suggest that if you need to deeply train yourself to detect what is arguably at best a difficult to discern difference (not referring to the M-Scaler here, just generally speaking) a) it could be suggested reasonably that without very well vetted scientific methods to demonstrate discrimination that the perceived difference is imagined (applies to any sighted listening as a test) and more importantly b) that is not listening to music, nobody could possibly enjoy listening to music like that, the person is now listening to equipment so why bother using music for that?

Seriously, who consumes music focused on attempting to detect the smallest aberration from perfection, aberrations that are so theoretically small that one could be imagining them altogether? Is that at all how anybody listens to music? If those differences are so very, very, very, very small that one must train themselves to detect them in the first place, wouldn't it make much more sense to save thousands of dollars and simply ignore the theorized aberrations in the first place?

Perhaps training simply allows one to understand and verbalise or explain a difference rather than being necessary to enjoy the benefit.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

very confused by all this “high fidelity” talk. Mscaler is an upsampling box that adds no new relevant information other than allowing the use of a more gradual sloped reconstruction filter. However, given Chord dacs already have thousands of taps on that reconstruction filter the additional benefit from additional upsampling is next to zero in terms of making the sound “high fidelity“. Science says you only need to sample at 2x the band-limited frequency to capture an analog signal perfectly in discrete digital format. I am with science on this one.

As said, I have one coming (not on that very specific claim but just on the audibility of filters overall, and by extension showing that yes, DACs sound diffe

As said, I have one coming (not on that very specific claim but just on the audibility of filters overall, and by extension showing that yes, DACs sound different)

You could show over and over that there is an audible difference and these people claiming "science" will not accept it. The M Scaler's work is mostly in the time domain and you don't see any of these "science" people even understanding what Rob Watts is trying to achieve. I find it hilarious that some of these people keep arguing their science on this forum instead of the science forum of HeadFi and always trying to disprove what Watts and Chord are doing. Why all the effort in fighting Rob Watts and his long interpolation filters? . If I was happy with the Chi-Fi stuff they keep peddling I wouldn't try to disprove what other companies are doing I'd just enjoy the music with the equipment. Oh well.

 

[Hiker816]

Interesting information and infinite patience @GoldenOne

I concur, and want to say thank you, @GoldenOne , for having so much patience, as this is proving very educational for people like me who are not as educated about the technical aspects.

 

[Sonic Defender]

@GuiltyRocker To be fair, some might suggest that you have drank the cool aid. And that is absolutely fine, we are all allowed to make our choices and decide what we care about.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

@GuiltyRocker To be fair, some might suggest that you have drank the cool aid. And that is absolutely fine, we are all allowed to make our choices and decide what we care about.

They can suggest whatever they want, having listened to the most expensive brands of DACs and then listening to a Chord DAC that I had no idea what it was and it blew all others away according to my ear, that is all that matters. I had no idea what Chord, or Watts was. Having played musical instruments, I know what music sounds like, others just think they do I guess, in the end I get what I like, not what some magazine or Chi-Fi "science" sites measuring stuff want.