[bigshot]

Of course all digital equalizers sound different! But it isn't because of the filters. You have them all set to different curves and different output levels!

 

[Ghoostknight]

Of course all digital equalizers sound different! But it isn't because of the filters. You have them all set to different curves and different output levels!

the filter curves are all the same while i tested, so "nope", why even bother to argue with such a dumb argument you think i havent noticed it ? there is no difference in filter curves if we compare FIR/IIR/FFT/SPM.... however, the filter curves are indeed different if you compare the filter types like RLC/APO

 

[dmagnan]

You have this backwards. There is no musical information loss, especially in the high frequencies, or at least none anywhere near audible levels within the audible spectrum, due to the sampling rates and bit depth. This is in contrast to analogue with all kinds of tape hiss, distortion, saturation and other “macerations” at high freqs which are audible!

Again, no. It’s a highly accurate mathematical representation with no data losses, distortions or aliasing that are audible.

The digital system has not macerated the music in the first place and does not macerate it again. Again, this is in contrast to analogue, which does add distortion, noise, etc., in the first place and adds more with each subsequent process.

No it doesn’t, the “toll” occurs at bit depths way beyond anything that can even be reproduced downstream, let alone at audible levels, again, unlike analogue.

There is no loss in resolution and no such thing as “digital grunge”, especially in the high frequencies and therefore it does not affect the naturalness of massed strings. And, the human ear does not have “great sensitivity to time-related distortions” compared to the time related distortions which actually occur with digital audio. If the human ear were so sensitive, you would easily hear all the time-related distortions of analogue, which are magnitudes greater!

Of course it doesn’t, music exists in the acoustic “dimension” NOT the analogue “dimension”. That’s why we need microphones to change the “dimension” and speakers/HPs to change it back again. Surely you must know this?

Of course they operate mathematically, EQ and other processes are defined mathematically and then circuits designed to implement that math, even the pick-up patterns/characteristics of mics. How do you think EQ and other analogue processes/processors operate?

Now you’re contradicting yourself. Analogue has all these and other distortions, which digital either doesn’t have at all or has magnitudes lower but digital “macerates” the music and analogue doesn’t?

What relative lack of time related distortions? Analogue EQ has exactly the same mathematic processes as digital EQ processors, with exactly the same artefacts plus additional noise and distortion, while digital does not have “other digital artefacts”! Where’s the trade off?

You mean you prefer the higher noise, distortion and other “macerations” of analogue!

Unfortunately, your post was packed with a whole list of the false marketing invented and employed by the audiophile community since Sony’s infamous SACD/DSD marketing. It’s completely contrary to the actual facts/science and is based on myth and falsehoods! Although it did elucidate exactly the false audiophile marketing I mentioned.

G

The biggest difference here is that I have long chosen to go by what my ears are telling me, rather than conventional theory. You even haven't apparently ever noticed the hashy "digital strings" typically encountered in digital orchestral recordings.

 

[bigshot]

Did you level match?

 

[gregorio]

The biggest difference here is that I have long chosen to go by what my ears are telling me, rather than conventional theory.

Have you though? Have you actually tested “what your ears are telling you” or do you only “go by” what your (biased) perception is telling you?

Also, “conventional theory” (Sampling Theory) was proven nearly 80 years ago, then digital devices (including digital audio) were developed from that theory and of course extensively objectively measured and reliably tested. Therefore, the “conventional theory” is not wrong and if it were then there would be no digital devices or digital audio. You’re surely not claiming that are you?

You even haven't apparently ever noticed the hashy "digital strings" typically encountered in digital orchestral recordings.

Firstly, what is “hashy”, did you just make that up? Secondly, I was a formally trained and then a professional orchestral musician for many years, so I’ve got a better knowledge of what orchestral strings should sound like than most and, as a professional sound engineer working with orchestras for many years subsequently, in some of the worlds top studios and concert venues, I’ve objectively analysed many orchestral recordings. There is none of this “hashy” (whatever it is). Furthermore, if there were something “hashy” then the world’s top soloists, conductors, orchestras and the top engineers and producers who record and create orchestral recordings would have demanded digital audio be changed or would simply have not employ it. In fact, the exact opposite occurred and classical/orchestral music were the first to fully adopt digital audio.

So obviously, what you think “your ears are telling you” is faulty, both according to the objective facts and measurements and according to the subjective evaluations of the most highly trained and skilled professionals who perform and create the recordings. Yet for some strange reason you have “long chosen to go by” your faulty hearing/perception rather than the actual facts and then come to an actual science discussion forum and argue nonsense/made-up “facts”?

G

 

[dmagnan]

Have you though? Have you actually tested “what your ears are telling you” or do you only “go by” what your (biased) perception is telling you?

Also, “conventional theory” (Sampling Theory) was proven nearly 80 years ago, then digital devices (including digital audio) were developed from that theory and of course extensively objectively measured and reliably tested. Therefore, the “conventional theory” is not wrong and if it were then there would be no digital devices or digital audio. You’re surely not claiming that are you?

Firstly, what is “hashy”, did you just make that up? Secondly, I was a formally trained and then a professional orchestral musician for many years, so I’ve got a better knowledge of what orchestral strings should sound like than most and, as a professional sound engineer working with orchestras for many years subsequently, in some of the worlds top studios and concert venues, I’ve objectively analysed many orchestral recordings. There is none of this “hashy” (whatever it is). Furthermore, if there were something “hashy” then the world’s top soloists, conductors, orchestras and the top engineers and producers who record and create orchestral recordings would have demanded digital audio be changed or would simply have not employ it. In fact, the exact opposite occurred and classical/orchestral music were the first to fully adopt digital audio.

So obviously, what you think “your ears are telling you” is faulty, both according to the objective facts and measurements and according to the subjective evaluations of the most highly trained and skilled professionals who perform and create the recordings. Yet for some strange reason you have “long chosen to go by” your faulty hearing/perception rather than the actual facts and then come to an actual science discussion forum and argue nonsense/made-up “facts”?

G

An angry and vituperous response. Must have stepped on a sore spot. My impression is that you may be one of the closed-minded strictly by-the-book "meter-reader" engineer types who like to think of themselves as audiophiles, but who (contrary to the long experience of legions of true audiophiles) dismiss as hype, self-suggestion and delusion the obvious to most audiophiles differences between different cables, power conditioners, amps, preamps, DACs and so on, and also of course the multitude of "tweak" accessory products. I have some technical material to explain this, but due to your orientation on the issues you are probably not interested.

 

[bigshot]

I bet all of your technical material is sales pitch written by high end audio salesmen... nothing from actual peer reviewed scientific journals.

 

[gregorio]

An angry and vituperous response. Must have stepped on a sore spot.

It was neither and you didn’t step on a sore spot. You on the other hand failed to answer a single question or address any of points I raised and instead just responded with personal attacks!

My impression is that you may be one of the closed-minded strictly by-the-book "meter-reader" engineer types who like to think of themselves as audiophiles …

Ah, thanks for presenting another typical “audiophile impression”, IE. Completely contrary to the actual facts. But when did being completely wrong ever affect audiophile assertions/claims?

who (contrary to the long experience of legions of true audiophiles) dismiss as hype, self-suggestion and delusion the obvious to most audiophiles differences between different cables, power conditioners, amps, preamps, DACs and so on, and also of course the multitude of "tweak" accessory products.

Show me/us some reliable evidence of actual audible differences and we’ll stop putting it down to gullible, delusional audiophiles. How difficult should this be for “the long experience of legions of true audiophiles”? Not a single person out of all these legions for 4 or more decades, why are we still waiting?

I have some technical material to explain this, but due to your orientation on the issues you are probably not interested.

No you don’t have any “technical material to explain this”. You might well have marketing material falsely presented as technical material in order to fool gullible “true” audiophiles.

If you have any real technical material/reliable evidence then post it! But if it turns out to be just more audiophile marketing BS, then all you will obviously achieve is reinforcing the premise of gullible audiophiles who don’t know the difference between reliable evidence/technical material and marketing BS.

G

 

[bigshot]

You have to earn angry and vituperative responses. Keep it up with this strategy of attacking the opponent, not countering the opponent's argument with solid facts and you'll get there.

You mention audible differences between different cables, power conditioners, amps, preamps, and DACs, That kind of scattershot approach won't be easy to defend. It would be better to organize your argument and prove it point by point. I'd suggest starting at the beginning and just provide evidence that interconnect cables sound different. When you've proved that, move on to power conditioners and so on.

I'll start it out. The difference between silver and copper interconnects (or expensive vs cheap) that are properly designed for their purpose fall beneath the level of audibility.

Here is a test from the AES:
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5975

Here is a test from Audioholics comparing a wire coat hanger with a monster cable.
https://forums.audioholics.com/foru...-is-good-enough-enough.2512/page-2#post-15412

Undoubtedly, Gregorio can provide a lot more proofs. This is more his wheelhouse than mine. I'll just get the ball rolling and then step back and watch the fun. Let's see how far you can go without earning a dismissal.

 

[Steve999]

The average word in English has 4.7 characters, whereas vituperative has 12 characters. Moreover, the word vituperative manages to squeeze an extraordinary 5 syllables in the space of those 12 characters, while the tube of linguistic toothpaste we know as extraordinary arguably regurgitates 6 syllables in the space of a parasympathetic 13 characters.

 

[bigshot]

I used vituperative because I don’t think vituperous is a real word.

 

[Steve999]

Google’s Bard says:

The words "vituperative" and "vituperous" are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference between them. "Vituperative" is an adjective that describes the language that someone uses, while "vituperous" is an adjective that describes someone who uses harsh or abusive language.

For example, you might say that a politician's speech was "vituperative" if it was full of harsh language and personal attacks. You might also say that a politician was "vituperous" if they were known for using harsh or abusive language.

Here is a table that summarizes the difference between the two words:

| Word | Definition |
|---|---|
| Vituperative | Describing language that is harsh, abusive, or full of censure. |
| Vituperous | Describing someone who uses harsh or abusive language. |

 

[bigshot]

Well then I was right without knowing why. It just sounded weird to say "vituperous response".

 

[dmagnan]

................................................................

If you have any real technical material/reliable evidence then post it! But if it turns out to be just more audiophile marketing BS, then all you will obviously achieve is reinforcing the premise of gullible audiophiles who don’t know the difference between reliable evidence/technical material and marketing BS.

G

I am an electronics engineer and software designer in the military aerospace avionics field by profession, and also an audiophile for more than 40 years. I formerly before retirement had a successful company, Magnan Cables Inc., marketing my own design of audio cables including interconnects (as for instance the well-known Magnan Type Vi interconnect), speaker cables and power cables.

Guaranteed to outrage the audio skeptics here, the following is a short essay on "tweaks" in high-end audio, an example of some of the technical material I referred to. Also, attached below is a technical white paper I wrote on my own cable design theory. Undoubtedly a lot of snarky comments will follow.

This subject is like the tip of the iceberg - looks small at first examination but actually huge.
I have found through long experience that these effects are definitively real and pervasive in audio, and at least partially can be corrected by various measures.

I have found the following list of "tweaks" or adjustment/correction techniques to be essential for great sound. Individually and collectively these modifications have improved the sound of my system more than any component upgrades such as new amplifiers, preamps, etc. I believe my findings are applicable and useful to audiophiles in general, but of course I cannot guarantee the same results given the great variation in personal taste and component design. Of course, audio skeptics ("meter reader" type engineers) will hear nothing or at least convince themselves that they hear nothing.

A prerequisite is that your system already has to be good enough in terms of resolution, imaging, etc. for these techniques to be of benefit.

This is just a partial and evolving list and only touches on a vast subject. One of the fascinations of audio is the complexity of the basic problem — attempting to reproduce recordings as realistically as possible in a home environment. The elements of the problem include electronics, psychoacoustics, acoustical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics (electromagnetics) and many other disciplines.

Theory

I believe that these measures work primarily through two interrelated mechanisms: by increasing the "time coherence" of the system, and by lowering the noise floor. In this context, to "improve time coherence" means to reduce the delay and smearing of sonic energy of a musical event over some period of time following the event. This "time smearing" phenomenon is inherent in the mechanical and electrical systems used for sound reproduction, and the ear-brain system is very sensitive to it. Interesting to note, with digital audio there also is what is called "pre-echo", a ringing propagated in the signal before the transient is encountered. This kind of smear is also poisonous sonically.

Electrical examples are skin effect or frequency-dependent phase shifting of signal current propagated through the interior of a wire and dielectric absorption in capacitors and cables. Mechanical / electrical examples are the time delayed and resonant behavior of speaker drivers and enclosures, flutter (rapid speed variations) in turntables and CD transports, and time smear induced in the phono cartridge output due to stylus contact-generated energy returned to the stylus after first being propagated into the tonearm and record. Interestingly, timing jitter in the CD playback serial digital data is caused both electrically and mechanically by vibration, and rapid speed variations in the transport drive mechanism.

Another example of vibration feedback-induced time smearing is the vibration of wires in cables due to sound pressures from the speakers and to electromotive forces induced by adjacent current-carrying wires.

Another form of mechanical vibration-induced time smearing is the fore-and-aft vibration of a speaker enclosure in response to forces on the driver voice coil. This is simply due to Newton’s law of action and reaction and occurs regardless of the rigidity and degree of damping of the enclosure. Simply placing a 15-20 pound lead weight on the top of the speaker improves clarity of sound considerably by reducing Doppler distortion due to the reactive fore-and-aft motion of the enclosure. Doppler distortion smears sonic energy over a range of frequencies (rather than time) and is inherent in all speaker designs. If a driver diaphragm is moving at both a low and a high frequency at the same time (say 50 and 5000 Hz), the higher frequency is modulated (distorted) by the lower frequency due to the Doppler effect. As the sound source approaches at some velocity its sound is shifted up in frequency proportionately to the speed of approach, and vice versa for the sound source moving away from the listener. This effect "frequency smears" the output of all speakers, with the effect worsening with decreasing efficiency, smaller radiating area and 2-way designs. Of course the weights also improve performance by increasing the damping of cabinet resonance.

The common effect of all these and many other time and frequency smearing mechanisms is a massive perceived blurring, smearing, flattening and veiling of the sonic "picture", along with various tonal imbalances such as overbrightness and bass boominess or looseness.

The items listed below are really more than tweaks — they partially correct fundamental problems such as time smear and RF induced noise that no new improved electronics or speakers can address. As a general observation, each of these techniques achieves unique improvements, which cannot be produced by other tweaks.

The following observations are very important and should be kept in mind when considering "tweaks". The less revealing or resolved the system already is, the less impact the addition of a single modification or tweak will make. Of course, "revealing" doesn’t mean expensive — the transparency, resolution and musical naturalness of a system are more dependent on the quality of setup and tweaking than expense of components. This means that the first few modifications may only slightly improve the sound, but as the system’s resolution gets better and better, subsequent "tweaks" become more and more dramatic in their effect. Basically, the ear/brain system can perceive very small amounts of time smear or incoherence. If a given system mod or "tweak" reduces time smear by x amount and the system initially has 10x time distortions, there is little improvement. If the system is better, with only 2x distortion, the same tweak transforms the sound because it doubles the resolution by halving the time distortion.

My overall tweak technique list keeps expanding, but this is it for now. It is hard to give a relative ranking of all those items, but I have found that as a group the AC power purification techniques make the greatest improvement. Your comments and questions are welcome.

List of Techniques

Power line shunt or parallel filters

Do-it Yourself AC Filtering

Power conditioners

Dedicated earth ground

Ferrite RFI blockers

Turn Off and Unplug

Other Noise and Hum Reduction Techniques

Power Cables

Interconnects

Speaker Cables

Devices designed to correct CD digital errors

Component support and damping

Special component feet

Improved passive parts

Parallel RFI filtering at speaker input

Antistatic sprays

 

[bigshot]

A quick question... What peer reviewed journal was this white paper published in? AES?