The DIY'rs Cookbook

Dec 17, 2015 at 2:33 AM Post #181 of 1,974
So I was reading the "Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0" and ran across the "Table 7-6. Maximum Allowable Cable Loss" chart.
Which doesn't transfer to this format, at least in any sort of readable format without much fussing…

So the gist is, USB doesn't like to loose signal strength.

So as an experiment I liberally applied Caig ProGold to the contacts at both ends of both of my USB cables that feed my DAC.
The results were subtle, which means they were in the 15% or less portion of the scale of change.

I would invite any of you who have access to ProGold (Now called DeoxIT® GOLD) to try this and see if cleaning up the contacts alone will help, at all.
It certainly can't hurt.
And insert and then plug back in a few times just to help wipe away any detritus from the contacts themselves.
And it might be a REALLY good idea to do this with ALL OF THE POWER OFF.

You know Just In Case…

JJ
ps Duck Island?
Do we need to bring bright orange safety vests? :atsmile:
 
Dec 17, 2015 at 10:17 AM Post #182 of 1,974
With all the brilliant guys in this thread, i'm hoping I can get some knowledge to some options for a solid Network streamer for my setup.
 
Ideally I would like a device just like the Auralic Aries. NOT a dac, but more of a bridge and with software for the Ipad to control and access music. Likely I will get a SSD and use this to store files. I have been streaming files from the internet to my Ipad and through Jriver to my Master11. Personally I would like something better to stream full resolution files around 24bit 192khz. And something with a femto clock like the Aries would be perfect. I don't want to spend over a grand. I would love to try the Aries if someone knows someone with one. Its a tad over budget but likely just what I need. But there must be other products out there that have these features and are NOT a dac. I want to keep the sweet sound of the master11.  Are there any recommendations that anyone could give me to look around and see whats out there. I prefer to do a ton of research before buying anything. This may take some time.
 
I hope to find a solution to stream music to my M11 at each audio meet and avoid the silly apple ipad as a source since it's fairly limited. Albeit Neutron player is able to break that limit somehow and send out files. It's just that the interface of it has a lot to be desired. Jriver is far better, but for some reason will not stream out 24bit 192khz. Maybe i'm missing something. The only work around is having the audio transcoded. I must avoid this for ultimate quality of sound.
 
Off subject, but many of you guys are local and would love to hear your thoughts on this. 
 
Dec 18, 2015 at 9:54 PM Post #183 of 1,974
As the Computer Audiophile review of the Aries server/player states, "The Auralic Aries is a unique product in high end audio."
Replicating it, or at least those functional aspects you would need might prove to be a bit challenging without lots of other 'issues' cropping up.

Case in point, I can control my PSA PWD DAC via JRemote on my ipad that is being fed from JRiver Media Center, since the PWD has an ethernet connection to my local network.
Using a dedicated Mac Mini would work equally as well.

But it takes all of this interoperabillity, that works together (a big assumption), to achieve this degree of overall control.
And the Aries is designed just for this (and more it appears).

Just my 2¢
JJ
 
Dec 21, 2015 at 11:23 PM Post #184 of 1,974
What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?

Part 8 Getting your hearing ‘calibrated’…
What?


No this doesn’t call for a trip to the audiologist. :D

Instead this is about how we know what is ‘the best’, based upon what we have personally previously heard.

And the ‘better’ we have heard, the ‘better’ is our ‘standard’ for what IS best.

In short we calibrate our sense of what is ‘the best’ for ourselves as we hear improvements and hear other systems that truly are ‘better’ than we have heard previously.
It’s like we keep raising the bar as we experience ‘better’ and as we do so, we can more easily distinguish what isn’t ‘better’.

In short we ‘train’ ourselves to know what IS ‘better’, During and After we hear it, recognize it, desire it.
So ‘better’ is a changing and moving target, and it’s different for each of us as we only pay attention to those aspects of the acoustical and sonic presentation that we are aware of and value.
We learn how and what to listen to and for as we learn to identify certain triggers or indicators of “Better”.

IOW our ability to focus and concentrate upon certain sonic aspects improves as we get calibrated with “Better” acoustical experiences.

Even so as we improve the playback to more closely match it’s original acoustic source, those aspects of the presentation that we do pay attention to, will be ‘better’.
And so the rewards of hearing more of and deeper into the music, will be ‘better’.

IOW the more “Better”, the more we like it.
Well Duh… :D


So I brought up the idea of getting calibrated first, because the next topic CNST (Central Nervous System Tap) is an experience that can set a new high water mark for what is possible.
IOW it can deliver a degree of calibration that is simply astounding.

And currently I am seeing signs and indications of aspects of CNST and related observations popping up already and from differing sources and coming from different directions.
But they are all pointing towards the same outcome, namely…

CNST
Central Nervous System Tap
Um, What?


By now some may be wondering where all of what I’ve written so far is ‘coming from’ so to speak.
I mean, I figure that some are wondering what IS all of this, and what is the basis for all of these observations, among other questions.
And yes these are observation / experiential based audio TidBits I’ve gleaned along the way in my decades of audio investigations.

You see there was a singular event that set a high water mark that a fellow audiophool and I literally stumbled upon back in the early 70’s.
And both of us have been attempting to get back to that degree of realism, that degree of jaw dropping, attention getting, near spiritual experience, ever since.

With these latest developments in equipment (Schiit Dacs, wires, HD-800’s etc.) along with the recent attempts and refinements to reach fully 120dB capable playback systems, I have achieved ≈ 80-90% of the overall sonic impact that we both experienced way back then. Of course today some things are much better, like not having to deal with mis-tracking, and vinyl’s limited dynamic range etc., which when compared to what is available in today's digital sources, are but faded memories.

I mean back then we were using Altec EQ-5’s driven by a Phase Linear 400 driven by an Audio Research SP-3a1 from a Shibata tipped Audio Technica cartridge on a Thorens table with a Decca Unipivot arm. I mean nothing here is unique or special, but the synergy of that system in that particular house just gob smacked us up(in)side our heads.
We did do a couple of things in the setup that were a bit ‘unusual’ at the time, which I’m sure were pivotal in attaining the results we did. But we both thought that it was just us, ‘hearing things’, until another audiophool friend came by and was transfixed in and to the sweet spot for the entire album side. We both looked at each other and we knew that it wasn’t just us, this system was WAY beyond ANYTHING we had ever heard before, or since.
And until just recently with the advent of the major improvements in DAC’s and transducers etc. along with AC power system tweaks etc. that are available now, I had not really been able to even approached this level of direct personal involvement IN the music.

Back then none of the tweaks I’ve been mentioning here, were even a gleam in a marketers eyes…
But we hit a lick (as we liked to say), we hit it hard!
This system, the experience of being grabbed by the music had such a profound impact upon us both that we were forever calibrated, for life.

It f’n Rocked!

The sound enveloped us, to the point that we were immersed within the sound field. It wasn’t just ‘out there’ we were IN it. Put another way it surrounded and carried us along with it.
The sense of palpability, of reach out and touch each and every ‘voice’ was captivating and awe inspiring.
Our audiophool friend didn’t move once he fell into the sweet spot, well except for his jaw… (this is where I first observed the idea of IMPERATIVE.)
Like I said, we both have been on a mission ever since to get back to that degree of sonic nirvana.

But what struck me and astonished me the most was the sense of connectedness we experienced with the music while being IN the music. We deftly memorized all the words to Stevie Wonder - Talking Book, Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon, Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks - Striking It Rich, National Lampoon’s - Radio Diner, Frank Zappa’s - Apostrophe/Overnight Sensation and just about anything else we played.

The only way I could even approach an adequate description to convey what the experience was like, was to coin and use the phrase Central Nervous System Tap - CNST. And it only points and hints at the experience of being IN the music, and/or having the music surround and be embedded within us.

Being in the music is only a partial description and I use the term Central Nervous System Tap to emphasize that when experiencing music in this way the whole experience is of being completely linked into the music, of it being so IMPERATIVE there is literally nothing else to do, or that you want to do other than listen with your whole body
IOW to be immersed IN the music.

When the music is presented in this way, you have no choice but to get sucked into the experience and just ‘go with the flow’. The degree of compulsion, of insistence that all of your focus be locked onto what is being heard and experienced is difficult to adequately convey, using only words, thus me coining the term CNST.

It had our full, undivided attention, in no uncertain terms.

We were both ‘calibrated’ by that system and those experiences from 4+ decades ago.
And now being able to achieve this degree of replication of the experience is the realization of a promise I made to myself back then.
To achieve the same degree of being surrounded IN and enveloped BY the music, to experience that CNST again.

Only it’s not the same.
It’s better and ‘different’ all at the same time.
Of course to really expect it to be the same is both unrealistic and a welcome change. I mean the mis-tracking was screechy and there was turntable rumble, and wow and flutter and tape hiss etc. All of which is either now gone or has been tamed even further to the point that they just add another degree of ‘texture’ and nuance to the music.
And I don’t miss, the limited dynamic range necessitated by vinyl, nor having to get up every ≈ 25 minutes to change the album, no, not at all.

And the bass resolution while way better than anything we had heard up until that time has been bested, in every way. The timbre, subtle inner details, the musical note that each drum head (and cymbal) is tuned to, and along with all of the harmonically related resonant over and undertones (which were amazing back then) all now have better resolution, better coupling, faster response. And it’s not just in the leading edge where these new improvements show up, but everywhere else as well, especially evident are the improvements due to reductions in decay time in the transducers, and the AC power delivery enhancements, along with major 'Jitter' reductions and so much more.

But the magic we can now achieve, the insistence that compels attention to and involvement with what is being heard (It Is IMPERATIVE), regardless of what it is (which is another key aspect in and of itself) is now beyond mere stellar. No matter how horrid the music, no matter how wretchedly it was mangled by compressors and limiters, driven into saturation and distorted and then recorded along with hiss and wow and flutter, despite ALL of this, the music can now yield increased insight into the music’s innerds, and these improvements are by orders of magnitudes. And all of these new sonic technical achievements have turned tracks, that used to be bad enough that it was ‘painful’ to hear, into musically inviting, well, music.

No matter how bad some of the early Rolling Stones tracks were, now they are not just listenable but the reaction to grab the volume control and turn it down or better yet off, has just vanished. Every track is intriguing, even the distortions and sonic hiccups are but added layers of musical information to be enjoyed right along with the rest.


And I suspect that all of my tweaking, is going to take a giant-mother-may-I leap forward, or up, or ahead, or in, in the very near future.
And for me it will be like returning to familiar ground, or realizing a 40 year old promise…

Only WAY better. :thumb

So if anyone else has had a CNST type of experience I’d REALLY like to hear about it.

This is get’n REAL interesting! :D


JJ


End Part 8
Next up A Thought Experiment.
 
Dec 22, 2015 at 11:29 PM Post #185 of 1,974
IOW the cable plugs into and connects two transceiver chips (one at each end) which both transmit and receive data packets interchangeably. How the chips 'deal with' the various electrical and signal characteristics, in real time, and especially in the USB realm where audio and video present very different requirements (ie. real time streaming) to what its original design intent was, also adds more complexity to this already complex situation.
 

 
On the subject of USB being used for streaming, here's an excerpt from a recent interview by Mike Moffat (when discussing Schiit Wyrd):
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-mike-moffat-schiit-audio
"There's been some controversy over the Schiit Wyrd, which is a "Audiophile USB Hub". From a technical perspective, why does the Wyrd make a difference in terms of a system's sound quality?
That is an interesting concept, particularly given Schiit's policy of making no sonic claims for any of our products. We do that not so much out of sonic agnosticism – we well know that products sound different; rather, we prefer to let our customers determine for themselves what pleases them sonically. I also strive to find measurable differences between sonic differences. I have several projects to that end in process now.

Returning to the Wyrd, it was initially designed as a fix for the very widely variable performance of USB sockets on computers in general, and PCs in particular. Since PCs come from many makers, the quality variance over a large sample of PCs varies significantly according to cost. The connector quality varies as well. What this means in the real world is that one USB socket on one computer does not equal another on different machines, nor even on the same one.
A significant cost for Schiit, one that becomes critical when we sell tens of thousands of $100, $150, and $400 digital to analog converters is that of customer service.
Hence the Wyrd – it was built as an inexpensive, quality USB Hub for the purpose of streaming reliability. It was the first product of its kind, and is well suited for that purpose. We are well aware of the fact that many have noted sonic differences, even though there is little in the way of consensus. That may make sense in system sample to sample variability, given the differences in source USB, and target converters. This gives rise to an exponential rise in YMMV, and makes it even more important with this product to stress we make no sonic guarantees. It is first and foremost a reliability enhancer."
Obviously all USB receivers (and cables) are not made equal, affecting real-time streaming reliability.
 
On a different note, it's funny how he very subtly tackles the "subjectivist/objectivist" debate, noting that products do sound different and that they're looking into ways to quantify that. Would be sweet if Schiit came with some solid evidence for audible differences, while avoiding the reliability pitfalls of ABX testing in audio.
 
Dec 23, 2015 at 12:33 AM Post #186 of 1,974
IOW the cable plugs into and connects two transceiver chips (one at each end) which both transmit and receive data packets interchangeably. How the chips 'deal with' the various electrical and signal characteristics, in real time, and especially in the USB realm where audio and video present very different requirements (ie. real time streaming) to what its original design intent was, also adds more complexity to this already complex situation.

 


On the subject of USB being used for streaming, here's an excerpt from a recent interview by Mike Moffat (when discussing Schiit Wyrd):
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-mike-moffat-schiit-audio
"There's been some controversy over the Schiit Wyrd, which is a "Audiophile USB Hub". From a technical perspective, why does the Wyrd make a difference in terms of a system's sound quality?

That is an interesting concept, particularly given Schiit's policy of making no sonic claims for any of our products. We do that not so much out of sonic agnosticism – we well know that products sound different; rather, we prefer to let our customers determine for themselves what pleases them sonically. I also strive to find measurable differences between sonic differences. I have several projects to that end in process now.


Returning to the Wyrd, it was initially designed as a fix for the very widely variable performance of USB sockets on computers in general, and PCs in particular. Since PCs come from many makers, the quality variance over a large sample of PCs varies significantly according to cost. The connector quality varies as well. What this means in the real world is that one USB socket on one computer does not equal another on different machines, nor even on the same one.
A significant cost for Schiit, one that becomes critical when we sell tens of thousands of $100, $150, and $400 digital to analog converters is that of customer service.
Hence the Wyrd – it was built as an inexpensive, quality USB Hub for the purpose of streaming reliability. It was the first product of its kind, and is well suited for that purpose. We are well aware of the fact that many have noted sonic differences, even though there is little in the way of consensus. That may make sense in system sample to sample variability, given the differences in source USB, and target converters. This gives rise to an exponential rise in YMMV, and makes it even more important with this product to stress we make no sonic guarantees. It is first and foremost a reliability enhancer."
Obviously all USB receivers (and cables) are not made equal, affecting real-time streaming reliability.

On a different note, it's funny how he very subtly tackles the "subjectivist/objectivist" debate, noting that products do sound different and that they're looking into ways to quantify that. Would be sweet if Schiit came with some solid evidence for audible differences, while avoiding the reliability pitfalls of ABX testing in audio.

I think in this case being the Devils advocate with this piece of equipment is just plain mean spirited. You like or you don't . It's 100 bucks, really go this far??
 
Dec 23, 2015 at 1:38 AM Post #187 of 1,974
For me the Wyrd was, along with a few other tweaks, enough to replace the ethernet data stream path I was using.
Up until the Wyrd came out, using the USB data stream was significantly inferior to the ethernet method of passing the digits and bits along to my PWD dac.

This was a 'problem' in that the player I was using (Media Center) didn't have the DSP function enabled while using the ethernet data stream, but it had a much better degree of resolution and inner detail etc.
I was unwilling to give up the "Better" SQ, but it did limit my ability to explore the power of DSP's signal modification (EQ, phase reversal, timbre shifts etc.) capabilities.

So for those who want to know for themselves if USB decrapification really is an improvement, or not, its an 'easy' and relatively inexpensive experiment to find out.
And I figure that most will hear a change, one they hear as being "Better",
but some may not.

And now that there are a few 'alternative' usb decrapifiers available, the task at hand is to determine if they too truly do improve the SQ in ones system.

And the latest 'craze' is using multiple Wyrds (or an alternative usb decrapifier) in series.
This has been reported in a few places and we are pursuing this line of experimentation/investigation to determine what the changes are in our systems.

But for me in my system the totally unexpected result of adding the Wyrd and a decent USB cable and other tweaks was, the tonal shift in the SQ.
It was like an analog coloration shift, where the bass was reduced and the mids and up were increased and the entire soundstage took a mother may I step up in SQ.
It was like an EQ change along with increased resolution everywhere.

And since DSP was now 'enabled', I easily compensated for the EQ shift and kept the SQ improvement as a 'bonus'.
I haven't looked back since.

JJ
 
Dec 28, 2015 at 6:39 AM Post #188 of 1,974
  Here is a table comparing the Vrms, Vpp, Ima and Power to achieve 100 dB SPL average and 110 dB SPL peak for various popular headphone, based on published specifications and nominal impedances. This ignores any impedance bumps a given headphone driver may have.

 
 
Just curious about where you got these numbers.
 
For instance, Sennheiser quotes the following in their product manuals:
 
Sennheiser HD800 - 102dB at 1Vrms (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/4746/HD800_DE_EN.pdf)
Sennheiser HD650 - 103dB at 1Vrms (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/4636/HD650_560027_1114_EN.pdf)
Sennheiser HD600 -   97dB at 1Vrms (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/4640/HD600_560026_1114_EN.pdf)
 
At 300 ohms and 1Vrms, that equates to 3.33mW, so the sensitivity per mW is even much less than those Sennheiser dB values at 1mW in your table (about -4.77dB lower).  In any event, the HD600 is nowhere in the same realm of sensitivity as the HD650 and HD800.  I haven't looked at the other headphone documented values in your table, but knew right away that something was wrong with what you have shown for the Sennheisers, especially the HD600.  At 1mW, sensitivity is ~92.23dB for the HD600.
 
Dec 28, 2015 at 10:15 AM Post #189 of 1,974
http://www.head-fi.org/t/168037/db-per-milliwhat-efficiency-vs-sensitivity-vs-how-loud-do-they-really-go#post_3257160 seem to still be there
 
many in the industry are changing the reference from "efficiency dB" re 1 mW to "sensitivity dB" re 1 Vrms - unfortunately the ad copy writers don't always understand the distinction and necessity to put the reference level along with "dB" and you can see either with just "dB" as the unit in the official manufacturer specs for new headphones
 
 ...In any event, the HD600 is nowhere in the same realm of sensitivity as the HD650 and HD800.

I believe tomb/atomicbob are actually looking at a documentation mistake - the older sensitivity spreadsheet is clear on the HD600 giving efficiency of 97 dB re 1 mW, the HD650 at 98
looks like Senn blew it with a HD600  document rewrite by putting the wrong dB re 1 Vrms sensitivity unit with the older efficiency number
 
 
another possible confounding difference is the measurement frequency - the efficiency/sensitivity number is most often measured at 1 kHz - but Tyll has decided to use 500 Hz in his InnerFidelity headphone measurements
 

 
and more broadly there have often been arguments over "perceived loudness" and the manufacturer spec sheet number here on head-fi
which can reflect listening to music with much wider frequency content - then the shape of the headphone's frequency response curve can easily change the overall impression with music vs just 1 kHz or Tyll's 500 Hz single frequency measurement
 
and few mention the average SPL either when giving personal impressions - despite the well known in Psychoacoustics Fletcher-Munson Loudness contours showing perceived frequency response is dependent on listening SPL too
 
Dec 28, 2015 at 10:37 AM Post #190 of 1,974
   
 
Just curious about where you got these numbers.
 
For instance, Sennheiser quotes the following in their product manuals:
 
Sennheiser HD800 - 102dB at 1Vrms (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/4746/HD800_DE_EN.pdf)
Sennheiser HD650 - 103dB at 1Vrms (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/4636/HD650_560027_1114_EN.pdf)
Sennheiser HD600 -   97dB at 1Vrms (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/global-downloads/file/4640/HD600_560026_1114_EN.pdf)
 
At 300 ohms and 1Vrms, that equates to 3.33mW, so the sensitivity per mW is even much less than those Sennheiser dB values at 1mW in your table (about -4.77dB lower).  In any event, the HD600 is nowhere in the same realm of sensitivity as the HD650 and HD800.  I haven't looked at the other headphone documented values in your table, but knew right away that something was wrong with what you have shown for the Sennheisers, especially the HD600.  At 1mW, sensitivity is ~92.23dB for the HD600.

I obtained the data from the product manuals that came with the headphones at the time of acquisition. My HD600 headphones were acquired Feb 2010. It appears the manuals have gone through a revision and the reference has been changed from dB/mW to dB/1Vrms. That said, it also appears the sensitivities are being revised. The document I posted was started nearly a decade ago using data from each mfg's supplied manuals.
 
Dec 28, 2015 at 10:59 AM Post #192 of 1,974
Tyll is a source of independent measurements:
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD600.pdf
Volts RMS required to reach 90dB SPL: 0.230 Vrms
Impedance @ 1kHz: 307 Ohms
Power Needed for 90d BSPL 0.17 mW

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf
Volts RMS required to reach 90dB SPL: 0.205 Vrms
Impedance @ 1kHz: 320 Ohms
Power Needed for 90d BSPL 0.13 mW

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800.pdf
Volts RMS required to reach 90dB SPL: 0.242 Vrms
Impedance @ 1kHz: 361 Ohms
Power Needed for 90d BSPL 0.16 mW

 
and HeadRoom which normalizes to 1 kHz so doesn't help directly with efficiency/sensitivity:

 
but as I stated above - there is room for argument over frequency response weighting given the differences in the curves if you want to argue your personal listening perception of their relative loudness
 
Dec 28, 2015 at 11:18 AM Post #193 of 1,974
Well, that's certainly closer to (if not equal to) 97dB for the HD600.  As I said, nowhere near 102dB.
 
Silly me ... imagine referencing a manufacturer's officially posted specifications.
wink.gif

 
Dec 28, 2015 at 11:56 AM Post #194 of 1,974
its not personal - its about comparing evidence, collecting more if there is some question
 
Tyll's 0.17 mW for the HD600  is only 1.2 dB less than the HD650 0.13 mW to reach 90 dB SPL - which is consistent with the 97 vs 98 dB re 1 mW efficiency spec from the older spreadsheet for HD600 vs HD650
 
additionally from Tyll's data: 90 dB + 10*log(1/0.17) ~+ 97.7 dB, quite close to the 97 dB re 1 mW efficiency number for the HD600
 
so it seems likely Senn's spec writer made a mistake in printing Vrms and apparently using the dB mW number
 
Dec 28, 2015 at 3:47 PM Post #195 of 1,974
  its not personal - its about comparing evidence, collecting more if there is some question
 
Tyll's 0.17 mW for the HD600  is only 1.2 dB less than the HD650 0.13 mW to reach 90 dB SPL - which is consistent with the 97 vs 98 dB re 1 mW efficiency spec from the older spreadsheet for HD600 vs HD650
 
additionally from Tyll's data: 90 dB + 10*log(1/0.17) ~+ 97.7 dB, quite close to the 97 dB re 1 mW efficiency number for the HD600
 
so it seems likely Senn's spec writer made a mistake in printing Vrms and apparently using the dB mW number

 
I didn't take it personally - just a little amazed at one of the more trusted mfrs in the business.
wink.gif

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top