Baffled about computer power

[Andre Marc]

Okay, now you got me going:
"All of the problems with digital are analog problems."

Not true. There are a whole class of problems that are uniquely digital. Its like saying the signal issues with termination of a digital signal are the same as with an RF signal. Not really. For example, in the RF case you care about VSWR or voltage standing wave ratio (amplitude of reflection). In Digital, we care about timing of reflections as well as amplitude. The delay along the cable is important in Digital.

It is true that all digital signals are essentially analog first.

"in ANY digital system, it is rare that the errors are so large that there will be actual corruption of the data"

This I agree with. There are tons of posts on the forums from people that believe there are errors. Maybe reading a CD, but not transferring digital data.

" it turns out that far more important than the absolute amount of timing error is the spectral distribution of the error (ie, how much error is there at high frequencies versus low frequencies), and whether that timing error is correlated with the audio data (music signal) or if it is just random variations"

I also agree with this.

Its interesting that Gordon did not address the reasons why Async USB interface is imperfect, ala common-mode noise....

Steve N.

Well, Steve, I don't think it is a big secret that these fellows are very brilliant, but VERY opinionated as well.

I have a lot of respect for Charlie Hansen, but he does come up with some odd stuff on occasion.

I have never heard Wavelength products, but I know Mr. Rankin has been marketing async USB as the cure all
for everything, so not a surprise he does not address its shortcomings, what ever they may be.

 

[Empirical]

Steve I agree with you on many things. But I have become a purist lately. No eq, no tone controls, the least amount cables the better, shorter signal paths etc.

There is no right or wrong, but to my ear, simpler is better.

Andre - Simpler is better, I agree, but this is simpler. Rather than adding a component to fix the room resonances, you are doing it in software. The playback software is already doing DSP, so this is just a little more DSP. Even volume control is DSP. Amarra is so transparent that it is a net win IMO.

I have tried other boxed DSP engines and they just don't compete with Amarra.

The real simplification that we need industry wide is to generate multiple crossover files from a stereo file and then output these using Ethernet to powered speakers, thus totally eliminating the passive crossover. The passive crossover is one of the most detrimental things left in the system, right up there with jitter. This would elevate the SQ of systems from $100 to $100K.

Steve N.

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre - Simpler is better, I agree, but this is simpler. Rather than adding a component to fix the room resonances, you are doing it in software. The playback software is already doing DSP, so this is just a little more DSP. Even volume control is DSP. Amarra is so transparent that it is a net win IMO.

I have tried other boxed DSP engines and they just don't compete with Amarra.

The real simplification that we need industry wide is to generate multiple crossover files from a stereo file and then output these using Ethernet to powered speakers, thus totally eliminating the passive crossover. The passive crossover is one of the most detrimental things left in the system, right up there with jitter. This would elevate the SQ of systems from $100 to $100K.

Steve N.

Honestly, I don't believe ANY software is truly transparent. Just my opinion, I am not making a definitive statement.

Well, isn't Meridian ahead of the curve then?

 

[Empirical]

Honestly, I don't believe ANY software is truly transparent. Just my opinion, I am not making a definitive statement.

Well, isn't Meridian ahead of the curve then?

You are talking to a skeptic that tried many different DSP solutions. I even used to mod some of them. They all added some compression or distortion, but not Amarra. You would not believe how good this is. This is the same EQ that is used in recording studios. You must use the right version however, not just any version.

Steve N.

 

[edorr]

You are talking to a skeptic that tried many different DSP solutions. I even used to mod some of them. They all added some compression or distortion, but not Amarra. You would not believe how good this is. This is the same EQ that is used in recording studios. You must use the right version however, not just any version.

Steve N.

Have you tried Trinnov and/or Dirac? No compression I'm hearing.

 

[NorthStar]

Dear people,
I'm in the wrong forum.
Goodbye.

Forgive me Joshua but no such thing; it is up to you, and you only, to make it right.
It goes even beyond the overall picture. ...And nobody has ever said that team work doesn't require extra effort.

Now come back here my dear! :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Experience with lots of audiophiles has taught me some things about SQ.

1) Like Golf, most audiophiles go through a series of "levels" of perfection, based on their system refinement and resolution. This is why it is so difficult to talk about these things on the forums. Everyone has a different reference of their current "perfection".

2) Many audiophiles stall at some level and don't get to the next level due to losing interest, lack of will or lack of money. Some stall due to relying too much on measurements. If they don't see a product with significantly better measured performance, they stick with what they have.

3) Some audiophiles have the perseverance and will to continue upgrading and tweaking until they reach their personal nirvana. Then they quit. The problem is how to determine if they have gone as far as they can go? My measure of this is when the music moves you so much and draws you in that you cannot get up. It creates a significant emotional response that stimulates those areas of the brain similar to addictive drugs. It actually changes your mood and takes you to another place, like a good movie will. I have found that as the playback quality transitions from just detailed to include more of the high and low frequency reflections of the recording venue, reproducing the actual dynamics and capturing more of the subtle details of the performance, that the emotional response increases dramatically. This is the point where my customers tell me that they are just into buying more music now and they are done tweaking, at least for a while until their curiosity gets the better of them.

Steve N.

Nothing to disagree with in 1 or 2. #3? I think if you are unable to connect with the music emotionally listening to your car radio, you're simply listening to the wrong music. Really good sound reproduction is wonderful, but it's a delivery system. IMO, audiophilia often gives it far too much importance. It is not production. it is re-production. And if it's doing more than getting out of the way, it's doing too much for my tastes.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Nothing to disagree with in 1 or 2. #3? I think if you are unable to connect with the music emotionally listening to your car radio, you're simply listening to the wrong music. Really good sound reproduction is wonderful, but it's a delivery system. IMO, audiophilia often gives it far too much importance. It is not production. it is re-production. And if it's doing more than getting out of the way, it's doing too much for my tastes.

Tim

Tim,
The point Steve is making is that the more that the re-production system gets out of the way, the more the listener connects emotionally with the music. What I surmise this entails is the re-production system revealing more of the subtle details of the performance in a constant, unvarying way.

This has been talked about before on this forum - the illusion that's being created by stereo is a fragile one, created by our perception of hearing. Our hearing perception seems to quickly analyse the acoustic space being re-produced within our listening environment. This is an active process by the listener, not a passive one i.e we are constantly recreating & analysing this illusion when listening. I believe that the best systems ( & best recordings) keep this illusion intact & allow us to be more involved with the illusion of the performance. Should anything cause a disturbance in this illusion so that we have to adjust our processing of the illusion, then we no longer have the full emotional connection with the performance that we had - we are momentarily pulled away from this full emotional involvement - we are using a different part of our processing power. We intuitively know this - we often listen with our eyes closed, we turn down the lights for romantic evenings or when we want to fully emotionally engage with a good movie, etc.

The better re-production systems seem to maintain the constancy of this illusion. Binaural & multi-channel systems try to address this directly but we are using a much simpler stereo system which is much more fragile & sensitive to variations, I would suggest.

So it's not about good systems adding anything to the mix, rather about good systems getting out of the way more.

 

[Empirical]

Have you tried Trinnov and/or Dirac? No compression I'm hearing.

The only way to hear this is to put the device in flat mode and send stereo through it, then bypass it. If there is ANY difference, then it is coloring the sound. The system has to be up to it though.

I have not heard Trinnov yet.

Steve N.

 

[Empirical]

Nothing to disagree with in 1 or 2. #3? I think if you are unable to connect with the music emotionally listening to your car radio, you're simply listening to the wrong music. Really good sound reproduction is wonderful, but it's a delivery system. IMO, audiophilia often gives it far too much importance. It is not production. it is re-production. And if it's doing more than getting out of the way, it's doing too much for my tastes.

Tim

Maybe someday you will know what #3 is about. You have to be there to get it.

One indicator is if you can walk into the next room and you swear there is a live concert going on in the music room, you are getting close.

Steve N.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The point Steve is making is that the more that the re-production system gets out of the way, the more the listener connects emotionally with the music.

I know what he's saying, John, I just disagree. Or at least I have a very different experience. What I connect with emotionally is the music, not the system, not even the recordings. All but the last of Charlie Parker's recordings are pretty horrible, even by mid 1950s standards. Some of my favorite stuff. Early blues and American folk recordings can be even worse, but I love that stuff. As has been mentioned here before, many of Springsteen's recordings aren't great, I don't care what system you have. But that's ok, I have no trouble whatsoever connecting emotionally with Adam Raised a Cain on my cheesy factory car stereo. Do I prefer better recordings, better reproduction? Of course. I'll take all the clean, detailed and dynamic I can get. But it's not required for the emotional connection. It's not really even relevant to my emotional connection.

YMMV.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Maybe someday you will know what #3 is about. You have to be there to get it.

Steve N.

Maybe someday you will know what an utterly non-intellectualized connection to music is about. It can be slowly developed; it can be as sudden, spontaneous and unexpected as Satori. But you have to be open, to be able to forget the zeros and ones and wires and transformers and stop listening, completely stop listening, to the audio, and connect completely with the music.

It has as much to do with hifi as enlightenment has to do with money. I wish it for you.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Tim,
I'm not taling about music that you already have an emotional connection to & once you hear it, it evokes emotions no matter what the reproduction system.
As Steven says "Maybe someday you will know what #3 is about. You have to be there to get it."

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
I'm not taling about music that you already have an emotional connection to & once you hear it, it evokes emotions no matter what the reproduction system.
As Steven says "Maybe someday you will know what #3 is about. You have to be there to get it."

Charlie Parker's and Muddy Waters' early recordings were bad the first time I heard them John. I connected to them viscerally. Maybe what Steve is saying is right for him, for you. It's completely wrong for me. If anything, thinking about, tweaking, obsessing over audio is an impediment to enjoying music. The last thing I want to think about when I put on "Miles Runs The Voodoo Down" is jitter. I got away from all the boards for awhile because it was seriously impeding the music. I came back to this one because of its balance, and because after a year of building a band, the dark side (intellectualizing art) had lost its power over me. It's safe here now.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

One indicator is if you can walk into the next room and you swear there is a live concert going on in the music room, you are getting close.

I don't go by this common touchstone of audiophiles. It strongly resembles the sort of aphorism that springs from someone having accidentally had such an experience (maybe the recording was unusually anechoic, or recorded in a similar acoustic to the listening room, or maybe the listener was unusually 'receptive' that day) and deciding that it must be an indication of the quality of their system and therefore a general rule. It is not obvious that such an illusion would automatically translate into the best sound at the listening position. I don't buy it.

You've set me thinking, though. If I were to want to create a simulated 'live' feel deliberately it seems to me that one of the characteristics of a live performance is related to self-reinforcing resonances in the concert hall feeding back into the instruments and/or mics (if it's an amplified concert) and possibly the musicians subconsciously responding to those resonances. Maybe the microphony in valves and acoustic feedback to the turntable is the key...

 

[jkeny]

I doubt Steve is thinking about tweaking or jitter or anything else when listening in the manner he described - I'm certainly not. Rather, it's when I find that I'm no longer listening to the music but thinking about something else that I realise I'm not emotionally connected anymore & it could possibly be because the reproduction system is causing this disturbance.
Analytic listening is a whole different approach & what you are referring to - when the system is being listened to & the sound deconstructed. But this is an analytic form of listening & not the usual mode of listening. At least that's my approach

 

[jkeny]

i am thinking about some nancy sinatra or julie london recordings (for example) and what your are saying, and one interpretation I have of what you are saying is that if the mix or master engineer does a lot of stuff to the recording (and with digital daw there is a lot that can be done) then your ear/brain picks up on this and causes some anexitey or atleast some extra effort in processing the music. I imagine that is why when i record stuff with my handheld digital stereo recorder, and play it back, even over a full blown system, it sounds simple and clean. I dont do any processing except for maybe some tone control intial adjustments. I "think" i get what you are saying John.

Yes, it could be an issue in the recording BUT what I'm really saying is that it also can occur in the playback system - this is what I was really talking about. I believe the illusion is very fragile & unless a playback system is very stable & introduces no variability, we are disturbed in our listening by the fact that we automatically do some additional analysis/processing to adjust to this variability. This disturbs our connection with the performance/music.

There was a thread a while back on room treatment & room "intelligibility" i.e how easy it is to interpret sound in such a room. This is along the same idea but where a room's intelligibility has a fixed intelligibility that we can adjust our listening to (we do this all the time when we enter a new room), a reproduction system could have varying intelligibility factors that can cause a much more disruptive influence. Imagine if the acoustic cues that we use to analyse an acoustic space are constantly changing & how this might interfere with our listening experience.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I doubt Steve is thinking about tweaking or jitter or anything else when listening in the manner he described - I'm certainly not. Rather, it's when I find that I'm no longer listening to the music but thinking about something else that I realise I'm not emotionally connected anymore & it could possibly be because the reproduction system is causing this disturbance.
Analytic listening is a whole different approach & what you are referring to - when the system is being listened to & the sound deconstructed. But this is an analytic form of listening & not the usual mode of listening. At least that's my approach

Sometimes, when I'm driving down the road, I find that I'm thinking about the weather or the beautiful girl in the car I just passed, I find that I'm not completely absorbed in the experience of driving. If it then occurred to me that I had lost my concentration, not because the day or the girl was beautiful, but because my shock absorbers were not of sufficient quality to utterly absorb me in the experience of driving, I would call that analytical. YMMV.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Sometimes, when I'm driving down the road, I find that I'm thinking about the weather or the beautiful girl in the car I just passed, I find that I'm not completely absorbed in the experience of driving. If it then occurred to me that I had lost my concentration, not because the day or the girl was beautiful, but because my shock absorbers were not of sufficient quality to utterly absorb me in the experience of driving, I would call that analytical. YMMV.

Tim

Huh??

 

[Empirical]

I don't go by this common touchstone of audiophiles. It strongly resembles the sort of aphorism that springs from someone having accidentally had such an experience (maybe the recording was unusually anechoic, or recorded in a similar acoustic to the listening room, or maybe the listener was unusually 'receptive' that day) and deciding that it must be an indication of the quality of their system and therefore a general rule. It is not obvious that such an illusion would automatically translate into the best sound at the listening position. I don't buy it.

You've set me thinking, though. If I were to want to create a simulated 'live' feel deliberately it seems to me that one of the characteristics of a live performance is related to self-reinforcing resonances in the concert hall feeding back into the instruments and/or mics (if it's an amplified concert) and possibly the musicians subconsciously responding to those resonances. Maybe the microphony in valves and acoustic feedback to the turntable is the key...

I doubt it. I don't use either.

Steve N.