What are those things? Things I have tested for and across hundreds of hours of carefully conducted AB tests of SACD, DVD-A and CD for example were low-level detail, "air", decay of notes, high frequency transients, bass impact, etc. Do audiophiles ignore all of that and listen for something else instead?
Let's Talk Computer Audio
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
Waiting with interest for them (and us) to be shown to be wrong. It shouldn't be hard - all you need to do is publish a few measurements and some ABX results. Funny that nobody has done that yet...
Just trying to help
Yes, it's the guys who deny what they hear that will be proven wrong but still won't accept it!!
Ah, I see your confusion - reclocking is a term that covers so much - asynch USB devices don't work in the same way as your reclocker so yes you have answered your own question correctly with "No, didn't think so."
Last edited:
Here's how this usually goes:
- denial that the difference exists/could possible exist (that's the phase we're in now)
- denial that the published measurement differences are:
1) significant enough to be audible
2) of any significance when a "adequately designed" DAC is used
3) require DBTs to prove - the old canard of the pseudo-scientist
So yes, I'm sure your waiting with interest but I doubt it's because you want the truth, evidenced by the fact that you use the phrase "funny nobody has done that yet". In that one phrase, often used by people of your mindset, shows how disingenuous you are.
- it denies the obvious fact that this will be a hard measurement to achieve
- it pretends that this should be so trivial a thing to do that those who don't do it are being evasive/deluded or snake-oil salesmen
No denial, just scepticism. Especially when claims are made by someone with a commercial interest.
Funny that you should refer to doubt as "denial". "Denial" is an emotionally charged term that usually refers to someone who rejects am uncomfortable fact despite overwhelming evidence. I have not seen any overwhelming evidence, so maybe you could help us by providing some?
No, pseudo-scientists tend to claim that "controlled tests and scepticism makes you not hear the difference, even if it is there".
So, as you clearly don't believe in controlled tests, how do you suggest we can verify the differences exist for real and are not caused by expectation bias and other psychoacoustic effects?
And why would it be so hard? If there is a difference, it ought to be measurable? And if it for some reason is so hard to measure, then why wouldn't it show up in controlled, double-blind tests?
To clarify, I don't think you are a snake-oil salesman (at least knowingly). But the fact that you are engaged in an audiophile boutique business shows that you believe in the "cause" of audiophile paraphernalia, and those beliefs are probably strengthened by your financial interest in the business, so I would not be surprised to find a bias towards hearing differences where others don't hear them.
Ah, yes, the next piece of ammunition is trotted out. Well done, you're performing up to expectations.
I don't believe in the pretend DBTs that I see being requested here. Either do a fully rigorous DBT with all biases & variabe controlled or stop pretending that you are doing "real science". I believe in real controlled tests, not the sort of DBT BS that is trotted out on audio forums
There you go again with your pseduo-science. You are now just adopting the usual simplistic view "If there is a difference, it ought to be measurable". Might appeal to simplistic readers but is disingenuous. Everybody knows the arguments & I'm not going to be dragged into them here - once you can produce a set of measurements that can FULLY characterise all that the sense of hearing does then you can use that statement otherwise your just faffing
I've got work to do/commercial interests to be looked after so I won't reply for 8 hours or so.
Great! Looking forward to you posting some of the results.
Ah, yes, "everybody knows" usually equals "I know I have no evidence for it, but...".
I am not asking for measurements that fully characterise everything, I am simply asking for measurements that show *a* difference (rather than *every* difference). I assume you have some way of measuring if your improvements work or not?
No prob, we can wait...
Did you ask what device I use? No. Are you aware of its design? Probably not without knowing what it is, no. Did you still leap to conclusions founded in your own opinion (and they do vary) of what re-clocking devices do and do not do, and in a complete lack of knowledge of what kind of device you were dismissing? Yes. You did.
That kind of desperation, on the part of those who "hear" these problems (and sell solutions to them) to dismiss technologies (other than the ones they sell) that might address the problems out of hand is probably the most compelling evidence that they are hearing what they want to hear; believing what they want to believe. And remaining in denial.
Actually, all the real evidence is already against them. And they remain in denial.
Tim
How is Tim's "device" that takes in USB, reclocks and isolates, and spits out S/PDIf and AES/EBU, any different from what any USB converter does? Certainly, this is precisely what my Offramp 5 and at some point my HiFace EVO does.
There are of course also reclockers that don't convert, but this is not the type of device he owns.
I'm interested therefore as to how you are going to prove this to us John
. Sounds like a whim and a prayer to meAudiophiles listen to all the things you refer, but valuate a lot others some people consider secondary. Something I praise highly is the feeling of the room and the almost physical presence in a stage. Great stereo manages to create it using cues in the recording and the help of the system. Often just changing source equipment will kill this effect. I do not know how to look for it using headphones. I have to say that my opinion about the quality of CD has been slowly increasing along the years as speakers and systems ameliorated in aspects I think I would never notice using headphones.
You refer that you carried hundred hours of careful conducted AB tests B tests of SACD, DVD-A and CD. Can we know what were your conclusions?
Agreed. But these cues in the recording are not mysterious. They are the impact of mic placement - its distance from the source and the ambience created or eliminated by that distance - or the emulation of ambience through effects; they are the placement of instruments and voices in the stereo field in the mix; they are the relative volumes of voices and instruments in the mix, creating a sense of placement front to back. All of these things can be heard, though differently, through headphones and can, in fact, be heard more clearly within the isolation of headphones. And yes, changing any component in the system can kill this effect if that component's channel separation and dynamic range are poor enough. Ironically, those who seem most fixated on these effects are often devotees of old analog technologies that have relatively poor performance in these areas.
Tim
I readily test and hear "feeling of the room" with headphone testing. Indeed when testing for high resolution audio, that is precisely what I focus on. How well notes decay into silence -- something that is actually harder to do with speakers since you can't isolate noise unless you listen at reference levels. It is those smaller "bits" that provide a sense of being there. Digital is superbly good at loud signals so testing for low level signal is where it is at, and where headphones shine.
Is there a cross-channel effect that you can't hear as well with headphone? Possibly. But there is little that I test for that is not at the heart of what hear and value. Mathematically it is not possible for each mono channel not providing the improvement we might hear in stereo.
This was at the launch of the format with the players I had on hand. I found that on a lot of content it made no difference. On carefully chosen material (by me), SACD had the largest improvement over CD. DVD-A was in the middle. To what extent that was the player performance, is hard to say. I did find a lot of variation between players. I also tested the players using my outboard Mark Levinson DAC. That DAC closed the gap between CD and DVD-A substantially. Didn't make CD the same as DVD-A but was a major improvement over those same players playing CD.
I have no technical explanation as to the performance of SACD in that regard as some of the content where that showed, actually originated as 24/96 KHz PCM!
Channel separation is not exactly that big of a deal considering solo vocals, bass guitars and kickdrums are typically panned near or at dead center. The omnidirectional properties of bass likewise have them caught almost equally on minimalist recordings. Just thought I'd throw that in since you started analog bashing.
I got that part
I think he's referring to the casual A/B comparisons folks on audiophile boards, like Hydrogenaudio, often do. I agree that these tests, or at least the ones I've done at home, are informal and not statistically valid. I don't think that makes them BS. I think it just makes them something that is meaningful to me, in that I discover what is important, significant and inaudible for me. They don't mean a thing to someone with a different system, ears and room. But that doesn't make them BS. Or at least no more BS than coming to similar conclusions without doing any blind listening, and, because you "trust your ears," (ie; are immune to bias), presenting your conclusions as a reality that we all would embrace if only we had the same high quality of ears and gears.
A common subjectivist position, even in this unusually balanced and reasonable audiophile community.
Tim
Well said!!!! The subjective nature of our hobby is the very thing that keeps things interesting. We can all like something different!!! And actually hear - something different!!! Does it make one person better than another - no way!!!! I'm going to say something that may be blasphamy to many here....I remember listening to the JA Pulsars in 2012 - I was wowed - and then going to the next room and listening to the Aerial 9t I thought they were horrible!!!! What was it? It was my mind being subjective and comparing apples and oranges! The Pulsars were great - but giving the 9T a second chance ...without the Pulsar in my head - I found out that they were great too. I was subconsiously comparing the Pulsar with the Aerial in my head...adding variables such as - the small speaker kicked the 9T all over the place, and so on. I did this later on with the MBL...why - because they were playing a type of music I didn't care for - (but I quickly realized - these were good speakers - just didn't like the music).
Computer audio is no different - change a DAC, soundcard, with prepro, no prepro etc...you'll more than likely change the sound. I'm wondering can changing the way a program handles the 0's and 1's change the sound in the time domain (not the data). Would we tell the difference
some say yes others say no, and you won't be able to tell either differently because its etched in their minds. Put black and white lines closer and closer together on a red backround you will swear that where the black and white lines almost touch - is green. Its a mind trick - even though we know its black and white. When one of you at the forum finds perfection - don't forget to lend me your ears and your brain - because more than likely...we will disagree on something
. That makes this hobby fun!
Yes. Stereo mixes are subtle these days compared to the old days. I'd argue that makes good channel separation even more critical than it was back in the day when the bass was in one speaker, the piano in the middle, the horns in the other. And I don't mean to analog bash, analog can sound fabulous. But real audio images are not made of dreams and illusions. They're made of recording techniques, mix, channel separation and dynamic range, and regardless of what the devotees of vinyl, valves and mylar want to believe, there may very well be something there that creates a feeling of space that they love, and I'm happy for them, but what's not there is better channel separation and dynamic range. And I'm struck by the irony that so many analogphiles place such high value on that which is a weakness of their technology of choice.
Tim
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |