[warrior1975]

I wish this member would go post this observation from the Realtek discussion thread in the Chord Mojo thread so we could watch the uproar:
:evil:

Live by the hype, die by the hype.

Now Realtek will be crowned a 'Mojo killer' and become FOTM for a while.

That would cause quite the stir... The Internet could very well explode. I'd definitely enjoy the reactions.

 

[U-3C]

Hey, I always enjoyed my onboard realtek over my CEntrance hi-fi DAC! The CEntrance DAC is actually a noisier due to some usb issues when I tested it, but it's not audible at all.

My onboard is also dead quiet while my dedicated DAC has a very high noise floor (and to think they advertised it for the SE846, claiming it's a perfect pairing. )

 

[GuyUnder]

I'm a bit confused here.  Apparently the Wyrd or iPurifier2 or Jiitterbug would all increase my fidelity (your claim) when already I've measured the iPurifier2 and it introduces distortion, not reduces it. I've also run blind tests with the Jitterbug, and noticed no difference.

In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it. You've admitted that you tested the Jitterbug mostly with the iDSD.

My question to you - have you run a volume matched blind test with any of this gear you've suggested, and been able to tell the difference to a statistically relevant level?  I'm guessing by your posts so far - the answer to that would be no.  If yes - and we could arrange it - would you be willing to take part in an experiment in controlled conditions (so it could actually be independently monitored)?

I run comparisons all the time. Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible. Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear. Generally if I feel a difference seems to be attributable to a slight volume imbalance I would chalk it up to "in my head" or really a level imbalance. I often go back to old configurations and gear to double-check that Ive actually achieved an upgrade.

I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.

Furthermore - you've stated that the developers of Foobar are wrong with their statement regarding placebo and real music - but have not said why.  I'd suggest you demonstrate it - and show some empirical testing, as the personal tests I've run would indicate I can't tell the difference with upsampling or downsampling after volume matching (feel free to tell my I have tin-ears at this stage - that is the normal route after questioning my audio chain). 

The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.

Anyone should be able to tell the difference between a NOS DAC and a modern DS DAC when, for example, playing a CD through them. I would agree that a minor difference of aliasing present between a 44.1 kHz sample as a 96 kHz sample would be difficult to tell apart from one another (especially with lower-end gear...). The difference is there but as mentioned above, minute.

Thirdly - can you explain this:

So you're saying a digital signal now has analogue components?  I am thoroughly confused.  Or maybe its you.  I'm trying to be really polite here - but the hole you're digging, in this particular thread, just gets deeper and deeper.  Perhaps you'd like to quit while you're behind?

You're trying to hard. Digital signals are 1s and 0s. 1s and 0s are turned into analogue square waves traveling across analogue lines with resistance, capacitance, etc. The rises and falls are chopped up into time blocks; if the clock didn't exist the square wave could not be interpreted successfully and therefore no communication is possible. Of course, I understand perfectly what yourself and others are referring to by "clock" is the WRDCLK signal, which USB audio does not carry. It's just that you guys are trying to hard to jump on me for something I said "wrong".

It's exactly because the receiver has no sync with the transmitter's clock timing it has to make educated guesses about imperfect anaolog square waves coming in.

BTW, just to show off, this is what I bought and am waiting for delivery. That's a USB controller card with a 24MHz OCXO on external power! It would be great if it solves my noisy DSD512 problem...

 

[U-3C]

In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it. You've admitted that you tested the Jitterbug mostly with the iDSD.
I run comparisons all the time. Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible. Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear. Generally if I feel a difference seems to be attributable to a slight volume imbalance I would chalk it up to "in my head" or really a level imbalance. I often go back to old configurations and gear to double-check that Ive actually achieved an upgrade.

I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.
The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.

Anyone should be able to tell the difference between a NOS DAC and a modern DS DAC when, for example, playing a CD through them. I would agree that a minor difference of aliasing present between a 44.1 kHz sample as a 96 kHz sample would be difficult to tell apart from one another (especially with lower-end gear...). The difference is there but as mentioned above, minute.

Thirdly - can you explain this:
You're trying to hard. Digital signals are 1s and 0s. 1s and 0s are turned into analogue square waves traveling across analogue lines with resistance, capacitance, etc. The rises and falls are chopped up into time blocks; if the clock didn't exist the square wave could not be interpreted successfully and therefore no communication is possible. Of course, I understand perfectly what yourself and others are referring to by "clock" is the WRDCLK signal, which USB audio does not carry. It's just that you guys are trying to hard to jump on me for something I said "wrong".

It's exactly because the receiver has no sync with the transmitter's clock timing it has to make educated guesses about imperfect anaolog square waves coming in.

BTW, just to show off, this is what I bought and am waiting for delivery. That's a USB controller card with a 24MHz OCXO on external power! It would be great if it solves my noisy DSD512 problem...

-_-;

You realize you are contradicting yourself and are labeling exactly how you fall under confirmation bias right?

...

Just to add a bit so I don't seem like spam... The jitterbug is a filter that is advertised to be chain together for even better results. Two or three in a row is even better than one, so they claim. How come stringing it together doesn't work in this case.

If it adds noise and distortion...it adds noise and distortion. Why would it magically not work and make things worse in this case, just because he has a special DAC?

Also, cool thing you showed off...what about it? 0.0;

 

[headwhacker]

Hey, I always enjoyed my onboard realtek over my CEntrance hi-fi DAC! The CEntrance DAC is actually a noisier due to some usb issues when I tested it, but it's not audible at all.

My onboard is also dead quiet while my dedicated DAC has a very high noise floor (and to think they advertised it for the SE846, claiming it's a perfect pairing.

)

 
Yeah the Hifi-M8 is the prime example of a product that is full of hype but doesn't make anything it supposed to do, well. 
 
They even ride the hype and deliberately claim features which are false (e.g. the balanced output). You have to pay them to lower the noise floor so you can use your SE846. But then you can no longer use your full-size headphone because the mod will just decrease the power output so it can lower the noise floor.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I'm a bit confused here.  Apparently the Wyrd or iPurifier2 or Jiitterbug would all increase my fidelity (your claim) when already I've measured the iPurifier2 and it introduces distortion, not reduces it. I've also run blind tests with the Jitterbug, and noticed no difference.

In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it. You've admitted that you tested the Jitterbug mostly with the iDSD.

I would assume that he means measuring the USB signal directly rather than the resulting sound.

As for the rest--Typical audiophile mentality--thinks you are above the common findings of psychoacoustics. Things that have been proven to actually make no difference "obviously" makes a difference in your mind so any test results that contradict this--even self-administered tests--are quickly discarded. :rolleyes:

 

[U-3C]

Yeah the Hifi-M8 is the prime example of a product that is full of hype but doesn't make anything it supposed to do, well. 

They even ride the hype and deliberately claim features which are false (e.g. the balanced output). You have to pay them to lower the noise floor so you can use your SE846. But then you can no longer use your full-size headphone because the mod will just decrease the power output so it can lower the noise floor.

A cheap 1 dollar inline volume control thingy from eBay solved the truck. CEntrance was like NO!!! BUT THE FIDELITY!!!! IT MAY RUIN-

Screw you guys. If I can find a 1 dollar solution to make me enjoy my music and that doesn't have any audible issues or permanent effects on the device, even a toddler will cost that over paying you more to fix your mistakes.

This product isn't the Hi-fi M8 by the way, it's the DACport Slim/HD. I guess CEntrance is going on a streak these days with their modding/we-screwed-up-and-couldnt-hide-our-laziness-so-how-about-tip-us-100-bucks-to-fix-our-issues! Their thread for the Hi-fi Skyn doesn't lack very upset customers and prior are still waiting for their Mixerface product to be delivered...two years after it was promised, but with no explanation of what is going on. A bit of transparency well at least engine some empathy, but simply not giving any details at all in what is going on has made even the most loyal fans rather grumpy. By the way, according to reports of people who have the "upgraded" model of the DACport Slim/HD, they didn't really fix the issues and the noise floor is just as high. Go figure.

 

[BzzzzzT]

.

 

[Brooko]

Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible. Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear. Generally if I feel a difference seems to be attributable to a slight volume imbalance I would chalk it up to "in my head" or really a level imbalance. I often go back to old configurations and gear to double-check that Ive actually achieved an upgrade.

I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.
The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.
 

 
Sorry - but probably best we avoid each other as the three statements you just made above can be translated to:
 

1. No - I've never tested properly (but I'll still make claims I cannot substantiate)
2. I'm prepared to call my ear more accurate than an SPL meter or multi-meter (therefore ignoring the reality of psycho-acoustics - louder sounds better)
3. When actually performing blind testing - and realising I can't really tell things apart - I'll blame the test rather than accept the reality that there is no audible difference and I'm guessing)

 
I'll leave you to the guys here.  Basically if thats the extent of your methodology - then there is nothing more to say.
 
Have fun on the forums 

 

[Brooko]

BTW - I didn't really understand the clock debate - but as clocking generally has to do with jitter, and I've never heard a system with actually audible jitter before, again I simply fail to see the relevance of adding a device to any system fixing an issue which isn't there.
 
I suppose it can make it look pretty - the iP2 had some nice LEDs.  But again I really can't see the point.

 

[watchnerd]

 Where volume is a concern I do my best by ear.

 

 
Why are you unable to measure SPLs to set volume?
 
Matching by ear isn't really good enough.

 

[castleofargh]

 the jitterbug as far as I understood it, is mainly a filter. and what does a filter do to a square wave? ^_^ not making it squarer that's for sure. so what can possibly be the technical benefit if we're not crippled by noise at whatever frequency it filters?
 
 
@GuyUnder I'll stick to the fundamentals:
you don't do what's needed for proper control testing, yet find it perfectly relevant to make all sort of claims based on those exact improper tests. why?
all while doing the exact opposite to dismiss abx with as a reason, that it doesn't agree with your belief on something. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you're in the wrong section of the forum. telling us you don't carefully level match, is the same as telling us "do not believe anything I will tell you from this point on".
 
I wouldn't go as far as saying we're all objectivists(I never felt like one myself), but we do care that objective claims be backed up by objective means. those are the ways of our little tribe.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
Why are you unable to measure SPLs to set volume?
 
Matching by ear isn't really good enough.

 
It just seems so odd that those that have a passion for obtaining excellent audio quality can be so dismissive of legitimate attempts to find it.
 
Is it a lack of critical thinking?  Is it ignorance, willful or otherwise?  Does doubt frighten them in some manner?  Is it indoctrination?  Is it misplaced trust in our own senses? 
 
What makes some people continually want to seek out discomfirmation and others to simply hold true to beliefs without any type of proof?  
 
While there is certainly no box that anyone belongs to, generally speaking, both sides think that they are open-minded and the other is biased, yet the scientific method relies on open-mindedness at its core.  I'm confident that my approach is the more impartial, as I requires evidence that attempts to remove prejudices that may influence the results.  But I am always open to the notion that I may be wrong. It's my nature, or at least what I perceive my nature to be, though further testing is required.
 
Oh well, I'm happy being ostracized by the masses in a hobby that I enjoy.   

 

[gregorio]

1. In the case of the iDSD that is the expected result as the iDSD has an iPurifier built into it.
2.Due to the nature of these experiments blind testing is impossible.
3. I've taken ABX tests (using Foobar ABX add-on) for certain sound tests but I found them overall useless as minute differences between, for example -- 96kHz and 44.1kHz -- were quickly muddled after minutes of rapid ABX switching.
4. The technology and understanding of neuroscience doesn't exist yet to empirically measure with accuracy the true quality of music that is perceived by the listener.
5. Thirdly - can you explain this: You're trying to hard.
6. Digital signals are 1s and 0s. 1s and 0s are turned into analogue square waves traveling across analogue lines with resistance, capacitance, etc.
7. BTW, just to show off, this is what I bought and am waiting for delivery.

 
1. "Expected result", expected by what, how was that expectation created? It certainly wasn't created by the science, so that leaves; marketing BS and testimonials from shills and those who have already fallen for the marketing BS. And, you stated (here or in another thread) that you apparently "certainly don't suffer from expectation bias" and yet here you are completely contradicting yourself?!
 
2. Just because you personally find something difficult, cannot figure out how to do it or just can't be bothered, does NOT mean it's "impossible"! Your misuse of the word "impossible" as part of such a weak excuse doesn't even stand up to scrutiny in a pub conversation, let alone here in the science forum!
 
3. Then don't "rapidly" switch, switch slowly or however you want, to optimise your chances of identifying the difference! Of course you're not interested in this simple fact, you're only interested in any excuse, regardless of how irrational or pathetic, to support your marketing driven beliefs and faith in your resultant perception!
 
4. And again, more mis-information which shouldn't be capable of fooling even a high school student and here you are trying to peddle it against the whole world of science? "Quality" is a relative term and a subjective opinion, which therefore varies (sometimes wildly) from person to person and for this reason there is no such thing as a "true quality". Therefore, there obviously can't be a measurement for it. I can see how this argument/misuse of language might work on a gullible audiophile actively looking for any excuse to validate their flawed belief but how can you possibly think it would work here in a science forum?
 
5. Yep, educating oneself does take considerable effort. From the perspective of someone who "can't be bothered" (see #2 above), I can see how educating oneself could be viewed as "trying too hard". Of course, that's not a valid excuse for ignorance and worst still, trying to argue from a position of ignorance with those who have put in some effort.
 
6. OK. You've demonstrated you don't understand much about digital audio, now you're demonstrating you don't understand analogue audio either! Analogue audio is where something (an electrical current in this case) is used as an analogue to the acoustic sound pressure waves being recorded/reproduced. Unless your entire CD collection is of nothing other than 1.4mHz square waves, what's passing down you USB cable is NOT an analogue signal! The problem with an analogue signal is that being analogous, anything which contaminates that signal is reproduced. Pretty much the WHOLE reason why digital audio was invented in the first place, is because it's not susceptible to signal contamination. Apart from the fact that it's also an electrical current, what's passing down your USB cable has nothing in common with an analogue electrical signal! Within fairly extreme limits, it does not matter what quality or how contaminated that electrical current is, how perfectly square it is or is not or how much noise it contains, the digital data can still be recovered perfectly. In fact, the USB protocol does not even assume a square wave, it assumes an "eye" shaped signal and the USB specs are based on how this "eye pattern" is handled. So whether you've got an "ipurified" USB signal makes absolutely no difference, unless you make the square wave so perfect that it no longer complies with the USB specs (eye pattern)!
 
7. Oh dear! That might be viewed as "showing off" amongst the more extreme audiophile forums you're obviously more accustomed to but here it accomplishes the EXACT OPPOSITE! What you're actually "showing off" is your ignorance of jitter and your gullibility in actually buying snake oil. Embarrassment would actually be the appropriate response, rather than "showing off"! There's still time though, maybe one day you'll learn enough about how digital audio actually works and then the embarrassment will set in .. or maybe not, maybe you'll remain proudly ignorant and never realise you've been duped, who knows?
 
G

 

[watchnerd]

   
It just seems so odd that those that have a passion for obtaining excellent audio quality can be so dismissive of legitimate attempts to find it.
 
Is it a lack of critical thinking?  Is it ignorance, willful or otherwise?  Does doubt frighten them in some manner?  Is it indoctrination?  Is it misplaced trust in our own senses? 
 
What makes some people continually want to seek out discomfirmation and others to simply hold true to beliefs without any type of proof?  
 

 
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.  Admitting that one has blown huge amounts of money on stuff that doesn't matter very much, does nothing, or worse, is harmful, is a hard truth to face.
 
Also, it seems like most of today's hobbyists are consumers -- believing a new piece of gear is the answer to everything.  
 
As opposed to pursuing a process to identify weaknesses in an audio chain and correct them, some of which may not require new gear at all.
 
TLDR; most audiophiles these days seem more interested in bragging about gear than how they got the best sound possible for the least money