[analogsurviver]

Do you deny that expectation bias is a potential problem in observing difference between electronics? If not, how do you know that what you claim is true?

No, I do not deny the potential effects of expectation bias. That is why try to "employ" as many people not "electronically scientifically affected" - utterly incapable of any expectation bias of whatever origin. They simply say which is the closest to the real thing - end of story.
 
It is NOT fun to listen to, switching among while recording, to :
 
1. Mike feed
2. Recorder A
3. Recorder B
 
I try to get the levels as equal as possible - but not at the cost of having to record at reduced level just to get the same output from a recorder that has higher output for the same nominal level of recording and no output level control. Louder should be better - right ? But if the lower output recorder trounces  the louder one - it must be doing something a lot better - wouldn't you agree ?
 
This has been confirmed by others - clients for my recordings. They only listen to their performances - and will, with a delay ( a CD gets out approx half to one year after the recording ), respond to any changes I made to the equipment. They have mostly absolutely no idea about the technicalities - only the end result counts.  It is good it is on CDs only (so far...- due to financial constraints) - any hirez would highlight these differences even further.

 

[KeithEmo]

To a certain extent I agree. Online customer reviews on sites like Amazon with social moderation (e.g., thumbs up/thumbs down voting) have a lot of weight with consumer purchases now. And that's good for the many consumer products for which there were often no reviews easily available in a print-only media age. And they do come in handy sometime for audio equipment purchases. But one has to know how to evaluate the credibility of the individual poster. It does seems like many users gravitate toward these over professional reviews, and tend not to know how to weight and evaluate them. Ironically, many consumers seem to trust amateur YouTube reviewers, even though they have no professional experience nor may have very little long term experience with the type of product. One popular youtube reviewer I know of has primary credentials that he helped his father install home theater systems (lol).

That being said, in the pre-Internet age, what reviews did we have to rely on? Magazine reviews, right? What necessarily made those reviewers expert? Some were journalist/writers who specialized in doing reviews that may or may not have any audio science training or knowledge, and you can tell some are better than others. And then because magazines require ads for revenue and free equipment for reviews, audio reviews in magazines are often highly questionable. Many audio reviewers have been criticized for always being positive, for not pointing out negatives. This is still true for some now Internet based audio review publications. And then we KNOW many of the professional reviewers love to "hear" differences between equipment that measures accurate, transparent, where any distortion should be inaudible.

So was there ever an easily found, reliable base of "experts" to listen to for reviews on audio equipment? I think you guys might be lamenting a guilded age in which people paid attention to audio experts that never was.

 
Oh, no, I agree with you entirely.....
 
The audio industry never had very many of what I would call "credible experts"......

 

[StanD]

  Because you are the most stubborn one claiming that "nothing" is audible.
 
I have much better things to do than to fiddle with those who would do anything to defend the status quo. I can not help if good equipment is - and will remain to be - costly, I can not help if manufacturers keep cutting corners in subsequent models ( that is why the very first of the breed,  where the goal was to show something works, was made best it could be - and later it is skimped on everything that can reduce cost ). And can not help if most recordings available are not up to the task of revealing the differences I can hear on daily basis.
 
But I can not keep quiet regarding "this is not audible, that is not audible, you have to be bat in order to perceive it, etc - just look at your own posts for the entire list.
 
I was recording last Monday (acoustic guitar), last Thursday and Wednesday ( modern music festival), on Thursday I was literally charging batteries - for recordings on Saturday ( organ and harp in that little chapel ) and Sunday ( mixed choir in a large church ). In between I went to Munich High End 2015 - 650 km by train overnight in both directions - the only day open to public I could afford to attend.
 
You'll get everything promised - ASAP. I can not possibly afford to put this thread in front of authoring the CDs from these and previous recordings from this month and end of April. 

I never said that nothing is audible, where do you come up with that? That would mean everyone is deaf. All I'm saying that human beings as all things have limitations, something that you want to stretch beyond reality and fail to substantiate. We've all read your posts as well.

 

[KeithEmo]

Just a reminder that this is the Sound Science forum.
Slightly rolled off high frequency response? What's the -3 dB of the Lyr? And what headphones/loudspeakers are you using that are flat all the way out to where the Lyr starts rolling off?

se

 
Hmmmmmm.  Let's see. I've actually compared how the Lyr and the Asgard sound - and I say they sound different. The manufacturer says they sound different. Virtually everyone I know who owns either, but has auditioned both, agrees that they sound different. Yet you, who don't even claim to have actually heard either one, "just know" that they "can't possibly" sound different based on the specs (which neither one of us has confirmed anyway).
 
That's really impressive.... but it's getting to be a bit boring.
 
Perhaps it's not really rolled off - and it's some other sort of "psychoacoustic effect" - or perhaps their specs are just wrong (I didn't measure it).

 

[KeithEmo]

   
Happy to help!
 
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE HUMAN EAR
Thresholds of Perception
 
FREQUENCY RESPONSE
20 Hz to 20 kHz (optimal hearing)
20 Hz to 15 kHz (over 50)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range
 
DYNAMIC RANGE
Peak volume 130 dB (threshold of pain)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html
Noise floor 30 dB for (quiet listening room)
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
 
GROUP DELAY (PHASE SHIFT)
Threshold of Audibility 1 to 3 ms (500Hz to 8kHz)
http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm
 
DISTORTION
Just Detectable Threshold: 1% (Non Linear Distortion)
http://www.audioholics.com/education/acoustics-principles/human-hearing-distortion-audibility-part-3
http://www.alpsadriaacoustics.org/archives/Full%20Papers/Furdek_Harmonic%20Distortion%20Perception%20Threshold.pdf
 
JITTER
Just Detectable Threshold in Music 20ns
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=8354 (needs subscription)
 http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf (cited in section 2.2)

 
I'm kind of assuming you didn't actually read these, right?
 
For example, the Wikipedia article states that "the commonly accepted range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz" (it also cites some textbooks that say that) - but then it goes on to state that human hearing has actually been shown to extend to 12 Hz. (So am I supposed to accept your conclusion as accurate - or what the source article actually says?)
 
I haven't got the enthusiasm to see how many of the others seem credible to me....

 

[analogsurviver]

  I never said that nothing is audible, where do you come up with that? That would mean everyone is deaf. All I'm saying that human beings as all things have limitations, something that you want to stretch beyond reality and fail to substantiate. We've all read your posts as well.

I wish you had the access to the High Quality version (requires Korg DSD capable DAC or MR series DSD recorder in order to authorize the software in High Quality - free is only Light Load version, which sounds considerably worse )
http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/page_6.php
You can change playback resolution of PCM from 192/24 down to 44.1/16 - during the playback.  Even in Light Load version, there should be no problem to hear the deterioration of SQ as one plays back native PCM 192/24 or DSD (it converts it on the fly to PCM - unless a Korg DSD capable DAC is connected ) - you need another person to prevent sighted test. 
 
If you can not hear the difference...

 

[cel4145]

No, I do not deny the potential effects of expectation bias.

And yet you continue to make claims in this forum that you could only know to be true if you are not susceptible to expectation bias.

I *think* my NFB-11 sounds a bit (and just a bit) better than my ODAC/Asgard 2 dac/amp setup did. But I *know* that I can not know it to be true without ABX testing, and I could easily be perceiving difference that is not there. That is the application of understanding expectation bias.

So you seem conflicted about what you know based on some of your statements that A sounds better than B. To accept the "potential effects of expectation bias" is to accept that your sighted subjective evaluations are flawed. This does not mean A sounds the same as B. It just means you do NOT know.

 

[cel4145]

Oh, no, I agree with you entirely.....

The audio industry never had very many of what I would call "credible experts"......

And that's why we need vendors (and reviewers) to publish measurements, like Emotiva does (which I'm sure you'll agree). It's one of the reliable things we can count on to help consumers make audio purchases

 

[analogsurviver]

And yet you continue to make claims in this forum that you could only know to be true if you are not susceptible to expectation bias.

I *think* my NFB-11 sounds a bit (and just a bit) better than my ODAC/Asgard 2 dac/amp setup did. But I *know* that I can not know it to be true without ABX testing, and I could easily be perceiving difference that is not there. That is the application of understanding expectation bias.

So you seem conflicted about what you know based on some of your statements that A sounds better than B. To accept the "potential effects of expectation bias" is to accept that your sighted subjective evaluations are flawed. This does not mean A sounds the same as B. It just means you do NOT know.

Oh - compared to music heard live, to live mic feed, I should not be able to tell - instantly - which recorder is better ?

 

[StanD]

  I wish you had the access to the High Quality version (requires Korg DSD capable DAC or MR series DSD recorder in order to authorize the software in High Quality - free is only Light Load version, which sounds considerably worse )
http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/page_6.php
You can change playback resolution of PCM from 192/24 down to 44.1/16 - during the playback.  Even in Light Load version, there should be no problem to hear the deterioration of SQ as one plays back native PCM 192/24 or DSD (it converts it on the fly to PCM - unless a Korg DSD capable DAC is connected ) - you need another person to prevent sighted test. 
 
If you can not hear the difference...

Just back to another tangential diversion. Sound deteroration due to poor on the fly conversion or any of this has nothing to do with the human limits of hearing,

 

[cjl]

   
For example, the Wikipedia article states that "the commonly accepted range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz" (it also cites some textbooks that say that) - but then it goes on to state that human hearing has actually been shown to extend to 12 Hz. (So am I supposed to accept your conclusion as accurate - or what the source article actually says?)

To be fair, the required SPL to hear <20Hz is pretty high, and not very many people have transducers that can cleanly output 100+dB of 15Hz. Also, nearly all amps and DACs are flat down to the single digit Hz anyways, so it doesn't particularly matter that much whether hearing extends to 20 or 12 (except for the transducer requirement - it's quite difficult to get high output levels of 12Hz, as I said).

 

[analogsurviver]

  Just back to another tangential diversion. Sound deteroration due to poor on the fly conversion or any of this has nothing to do with the human limits of hearing,

Well, I can not stash a real piece of hardware into a computer , click the mouse and miraclously it will turn up in the home of anyone interested to listen ?
 
I  present the easiest way to hear the differences among 44.1/16 and better resolutiuon(s)  - and if this is for you tangential diversion, fine with me.
 
I do not advocate the five figures DACs - but not $50 ones either. 

 

[analogsurviver]

  To be fair, the required SPL to hear <20Hz is pretty high, and not very many people have transducers that can cleanly output 100+dB of 15Hz. Also, nearly all amps and DACs are flat down to the single digit Hz anyways, so it doesn't particularly matter that much whether hearing extends to 20 or 12 (except for the transducer requirement - it's quite difficult to get high output levels of 12Hz, as I said).

True.
 
Yet we can sense the sound well below 12 Hz - sound pressure levels have to be very high in those low frequencies for us to perceive  -  and the efficiency of normal cone woofers drops off to nothing just below 20 Hz in most cases. For really deep and palpable bass, there is only one subwoofer :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_woofer
 

 
http://www.rotarywoofer.com/
 

 

[icebear]

LOL
that link to the Korg website [features 1] is for sure seriously making a point there :
quote:
[The AudioGate software uses the power of the computer to perform the calculations necessary for D/A conversion, as opposed to slower external hardware. This allows for ideal processing, retaining the audio’s original quality.]
 
Further down at bottom it shows a specially developed headphone for 1DS-DAC products with a link the headphone company
and here the appropriate snake oil :

http://phonon-inc.com/portfolio/phonon-liquid/?lang=en
 
I didn't see any ABX evidence that is does work as advertised:

 

[maverickronin]

  We're working on the website right now - and we're still finishing up some details on the metalwork and packaging. We showed them at Axpona Chicago, and they should be up on the website in a few weeks. The first two will be the "Big EGo" and "Little EGo". Both are USB only (and USB powered); both support PCM only - up to 24/384; both have a nice (chip-based) headphone amp; and both have three selectable digital filters and a headphone blend mode; and both can either be used in UAC2 mode (which required drivers on a PC) up to 24/384, or in UAC1 mode (driverless) up to 24/96. Both have a row of blue LEDs that show you the sample rate (and a red LED for UAC1 mode).
 
The Little EGo, which only has a single headphone output, is about 4-3/4 x 1-3/4 x about 1/2 inches, and will be priced at $169; the Big EGo, which also has separate line and Toslink outputs, is a tiny bit bigger, and will be priced at $219. Both are solid black-anodized aluminum, and are made here in the USA. The EGo Trip will be a lot smaller, have less features, and be priced at $119.

 
Hey Keith, do you know what the output impedance on those is?