Tír Na HiFi

Oh, btw, the reason I linked to that software was for another reason - instead of guessing how it works/what has been changed as in commercial players we can know this from the developer himself. He has recently released 3 versions which only have a small single statement code change between them & it results in increasing bass. Here's what he said for all you geeks (you know who you are)

"the instruction was buffer db 8192 dup(?) which allocates space for the buffer, changing it to dw 4096, dd 2048, dq 1024 and oword 512 affected the bass."

Anyway, I thought that if you were doing blind tests using this program would be more suitable as we can correlate any audible differences heard with known changes instead of being somewhat in the dark about things.

DaveF wrote: Great post John.

I would certainly agree with all of the above as well as what I've quoted. Indeed I've had first hand experience of the effects of digital switching 'polluting' the analog world except in my case it was in the photonics (light) world. We were seeing distinct tones in a laser output that was being controlled by some high speed op-amps and DACs. There was a direct correlation between the DAC write signals and tones that were showing up in the output spectra. All as a result of non-ideal PCB layout, DAC distortion or other noise sources on the board. Too much to detail here.

Anyway, I was curious as to whether such affects could exist in the audio world or to be more precise whether its actually audible.

Thanks Dave, great to see correlation of these findings coming from other non-audio applications!
I would be interested in the details of your findings if you have the time & energy to write it & email me?

The one chink in your example & one that is always used as a counter argument is the "properly designed" mantra i.e the non-ideal pcb layout in your example was causing your issues, the DAC itself was not shielded adequately from noise, other noise sources were not "competently" dealt with - you know how it goes?. And the conclusion that with a "competently designed" system there will be no problems in audio, either!

There is certainly some truth in this but it's an idealists view that doesn't cater for the existing reality of where we are in this venture. We don't understand all the mechanisms involved, we are interfacing a number of different pieces of complicated equipment together, one of which is a very complicated system (PC & OS) not designed to operate in a real-time environment that is audio reproduction.

So it's a highly complex engineering analysis which is not being addressed by the real scientists with budgets/equipment for doing this sort of research.

Out of interest what are the counter arguments that the detractors come up with regarding all of this? I take that the digital-analog interface analysis mentioned above has been discussed on the PinkFish forums. Do they just dismiss it until more data correlated with blind listening tests become available?
(I think I've only ever visited that place once and that was a good while ago)

DaveF wrote:Out of interest what are the counter arguments that the detractors come up with regarding all of this? I take that the digital-analog interface analysis mentioned above has been discussed on the PinkFish forums. Do they just dismiss it until more data correlated with blind listening tests become available?
(I think I've only ever visited that place once and that was a good while ago)

As I said the counter argument is a mantra "all competently designed XXXX sound the same". Everything except speakers can be substituted for XXXX in the above, DAC, amp, preamp, etc. Not just on Pinkfish (PFM) but elsewhere too.

When asked what constitutes a "competently designed" DAC, the question is either dodged or some circular logic follows - like "one that all sound the same are competently designed"

jkeny wrote: As I said the counter argument is a mantra "all competently designed XXXX sound the same". Everything except speakers can be substituted for XXXX in the above, DAC, amp, preamp, etc. Not just on Pinkfish (PFM) but elsewhere too.

I remember such people from the newsgroup days (on rec.audio.high-end) and the funny thing was that such obstinate hard-headedness turned me very strongly away from the "objectivist" camp, despite that being my natural leaning. In fact, I firmly believe that such people make it more difficult to impose a line in the sand (i.e. the right side of the Clever Little Clock, etc.) than any of the subjectivist nutters. I'm still not sure where I fall in all of this, although I'm probably getting a bit more hard-headed as time goes on. The problem with all of that stuff is that, for me, it just renders the hobby utterly joyless. Far better for us to entertain ourselves and each other with our experiences (however potentially flawed they may be) than to sit at home listening to your competently-designed everything while spending every spare moment arguing away at your computer. I don't get it.

On some level I don't even care whether these things make a difference or not as long as I'm having fun and enjoying the music more.

On some level I don't even care whether these things make a difference or not as long as I'm having fun and enjoying the music more.

Amen to Simon, Messing around with CA I have got to meet a huge amount of people had a good laugh, got introduced to music I was never really aware of, ok ended up spending more money on hifi equipment then originally intended but have had my eyes opened to all the myriad different types of systems that are out there. Great thing about this site and the people is nobody is dumping on anybody else. If TT's are your thing go for it. If CA don't rock your boat stick with your cd sure who cares variety is the spice of life.

Dave the wigwam thread I got sucked into and just kept at it to try and stay reasoned and point out how manic and abusive some of these people are. I was always on a loser and knew that.
You have a much higher tecnhnical understanding then I do about how all this is working and I can understand somebody like yourself looking for solutions and reasons. I just turn up to as many meets as I can and enjoy listening to the various different flavours on offer. The ones I can afford and like I embrace the others happy to just except that I can't get to that point.

One last thing on the blind testing the one thing I was going to try and do at the next meet was go to the perceived 'best' configuration first and then back to the 'ordinary' set up second. I noticed we generally do the opposite. I think that colours the interpretation as the second and third time of listening to a track you are aware of the stuff to listen out for. Personally I think after about 1hr max of 2hrs of 'testing' it becomes impossible to be objective as confusion sets in. On the wam the thread the most vociferous individuals who kept asking about double blind testing when I had a quick look at their posts on equipment they tested double blind testing never entered the equation.

When Simon brought over his wadia cd player awhile back the expectation on all our parts was that computer audio set up would best it but none of us fell into to that trap and all identified the wadia as presenting a nicer more engaging sound then the CA. If that was wigwam it would have been 2 for and 2 against.

haswell i3's on the market, great stuff

http://www.komplett.ie/site/productList ... ode=21_cpu

nige2000 wrote:haswell i3's on the market, great stuff

http://www.komplett.ie/site/productList ... ode=21_cpu

We need to be careful here that line sounds very much like a woman screeching with delight because the latest autumn collection has just hit the stores!
Anyway just in case I am interested is this a likely candidate? I still think when I build again I will do i5 just in case!


http://www.komplett.ie/komplett/product ... tails.aspx

On more mundane things I am now using 4/4 on core server. I think it sweetens the sound and not finding the bass over bloated and soft but screechy davis is mellowed out. Need to hear this type of set up against the wadia again. Now that Dave is back in the fold I think he should bring his box of black magic to any meet as we all need to be able to dismiss it at first hand!

Yes, Simon, the name objectivist is actually very incorrect for these people for a number of reasons
- they are probably more subjective than most with their "belief systems"
- they believe measurements can tell us how something sounds
- they believe we know the limits of our hearing & it is established by these measurements
- they believe in DBTs but have no idea how to run a DBT, it's cost, structure or what internal self-checks are needed within such a test
- they believe that eliminating the sight of devices is eliminating biases
- they claim to believe in science but have no notion what science or the scientific principle is about

They have give the term objectivist a bad reputation. They really have another agenda which they mask with pretend science & pretend measurements.

We all live with unsurety, all the time so why should audio be any different? So what we may be wrong thinking A sounds better than B, big deal. Over the long term, our mistakes get ironed out & we progress towards better reproduction system.

One thing about listening tests that we have to be careful about - it is a different way of listening to our more relaxed, maybe less focussed way of listening. What we are doing with A/B listening tests is focussing on differences - it's a conscious style of listening. I believe we are also affected subconsciously by our reproduction systems & it may be just as important or even more important for our enjoyment of music. I'm not talking about emotional attachment to music we already know. I believe the better systems affect us at a deeper level than we are aware of. So the only way to evaluate A & B is really to live with them in your system over a period of time, giving each one enough time for relaxed evaluation. Sure A/B auditioning will give us a handle on obvious differences, hopefully! But remember, even with these differences there are some (many) who don't seem to be able to hear differences such as sound stage, body, dynamics. Often better systems sound louder because they are more dynamic & body. I have seen people adjust the volume to match by ear A to B (in other words they believe one has a higher voltage output than the other & is therefore louder) - this isn't possible with bit-perfect digital output i.e if both digital streams are bit-perfect they match one another exactly at the bit level.

tony wrote:On more mundane things I am now using 4/4 on core server. I think it sweetens the sound and not finding the bass over bloated and soft but screechy davis is mellowed out. Need to hear this type of set up against the wadia again. Now that Dave is back in the fold I think he should bring his box of black magic to any meet as we all need to be able to dismiss it at first hand!

I'd be more interested to see if transports make a difference due to the ground plane noise coming down the cable. Whether the Devialet is susceptible to it is another story. I need a transport to replace the on loan one at some point.