The philosophy of sound/silence

[markjia]

sthayashi PMed me about USB sound cards a few days ago, and what started as comparison of the different devices has grown into something else...

I don't think that either of us are very sure of what our discussion has become. All I know is that it has become rather philosophical. I would say that, in part, the issues deals with how sound/music/silence is heard and what about it is appreciated.

We welcome any opinions about any of the issues that we have raised in our discussions, so here they are:

I don't want to crap up that thread, but I'm curious about a couple things.

Have there been any formal reviews comparing the Sonica Theater to the Audiophile USB? Up until this point, I thought the primary differences were that the Audiophile had MIDI (and probably uses the Via Envy24), and slight differences in the DAC. Are those differences actually ABX-able (i.e. can it pass an ABX test?)

That's alright, you're not the first person to have PMed me after I posted in that tread.

I'm not sure if any formal review exist...and generally, most of these supposed "formal" reviews are very poor when it comes to sound quality evaluation. They usually just talk about feature/usability type topics. But to be fair, getting the equipement to do true objective and meaningful testing is expensive, especially when it comes to something as subjective as sound quality. I don't know of any ABX type evalutions are out there either.

I've always found reading up on forums to be the best way. It has been a while since I've visited those forums, but the one I used to frequent was head-fi.org. It specialized in headphones, but when it comes to matters like audio source equipment, there is no real diff btw speaker vs headphones. The opinions you get there are more applicable and reflect first hand experience.

I've felt that the general opinion there about which computer based sourse is best is (in order from best to worse):

1) Pro consumer PCI cards (like M-Audio and Terratec cards) w/ ext. DAC
2) Audiophile USB
3) Sonica/Transit
4) Sonica Theatre

IMO, using a seperate DAC blows the competition away. I have an Audiophile 2496 PCI card, and after I addded a seperate DAC (an Art DI/O) to my system, the sound improved tremendously. You can use a DAC with the USB devices as well. I would guess that the quality of the digital output of all these devices are very similar, and probably indistinguishable. However, the Sonica/Transit only have toslink, and I much prefer coax.

Hmm... I've read a lot of subtle implications that the nForce2 Soundstorm resamples, but nothing definite. Those that review it, don't mention it, and those that claim it does resample offer no proof (except that it's an implementation of the AC '97 Codec, which I guess requires resampling up to 48KHz). Frankly, I've never had a problem with the audio on the Digital-Out, out to my receiver, but I wish there were a way I could tell if it were resampling. I don't think the udial.wav test will tell me or not.

As for ABX, it shows only one thing. Whether or not you can actually hear a difference in quality. All too often, it's up in your head. Like 16-bits vs 24-bits. It CAN be heard, but not to that many people. And for those who sit down and listen carefully (and do an ABX test), they sometimes find that it's not NEARLY as easy as they think when coming to it.

Sound is very much a science. This whole site is a testament to that. Music is the art.

If different DACs DO make a significant difference, then all an audiophile needs to do to convince the skeptic is do blind/double-blind tests. At the DAC level, this isn't terribly difficult to do (assuming you have all the DACs, which is the hardest part). Do you know if it's your DAC that makes things sound better or is it the tube preamp?

I'm familiar with the harmonic distortions of the tube vs transistor (though I've heard mixed things about different transistor technologies. I'd like to reread the paper that made that discovery, but I'm not a member of IEEE anymore). But here's the counter argument. Shouldn't a perfect amplifier have no distortions? Some people eschew the accurate for the flavored and are happy with it. That's cool.

But at a certain level, I'm convinced that most people cannot hear the difference. If they're happier with the supposed higher quality, that's great, but other words, they're essentially happier with spending more money. That's why I swear by ABX test. If it sounds better, prove it, by showing that it at least sounds different. Don't waste your money or your time, until you can establish that.

You don't need an anechoic chamber to do ABX, or even blind AB, just a reasonably quiet room, or even typical listening environment (if you live by the train tracks like I used to, then it's even easier). In fact it's almost better that you don't, since it'll help you get more practical information. But all you need is the equipment and a friend. Like I said, even attempting such a test is quite revealing at how easy or difficult it is to hear the difference.

I've gone on WAY too long now, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts. I know that you say that music is meant to be enjoyed and not measured, but to me, that's a cop-out argument that audiophiles use to justify expensive purchases (or worse, what salespeople use, like in the case of Bose). You don't seem like someone who would go blindly purchasing the most expensive audio hardware simply to enjoy it, so I'd like to hear your opinion on it.

Well, I've never used the nForce audio chipset, but I'm pretty sure that it will resample the audio...every single consumer product does that. It's just cheaper to make. And the public seems to always think that 48kHz is better than 44.1kHz...I guess they just like the bigger number.

To be honest, I would take scores like those found with ABX with a grain of salt. Sound is not really just a science, it's also an art, or music in other words. I'm not really sure how you stand on the subject, but these are just my opinions (and I mean no offense).

For one thing, I use a tube based amp...compared to most solid state devices my amp will not compare in terms of accuracy. But truthfully, why does it matter? All I really care about is how much I enjoy the sound...sure it's not exactly what the original sounded like, but I like it. Everyone's preferences are different, who is to say that one sound of one device is better than another (esp when the differences become very close). For one thing, people are all physically different, so everyone picks up sound differently. the same sound will always sound different for different people.

In case you're interesting, tube amps produce even ordered harmonic distortions, which are less annoying than the odd ordered ones of SS gear. In fact, even ordered distortions can even enrich the sound.

Different DACs do make a significant difference IMO. There is nothing anyone can say to really convince any skeptic...this is just an opinion. In fact, I don't see the point of any arguments about whether one thing sounds better than the other. Even if the two devices sound exactly the same, but some says that prefer one, let them. If they enjoy it more, good for them. It's hard enough to find joy in life...why deny someone of theirs even if it is artificial? Not to imply that my opinions are fake.

Furthermore, without an anechoic chamber and professional equipement there is no way to take accurate measurements. You have to consider the errors present in the device used to measure the sound.

So basically, the reasons I don't trust measurements are: 1) Music is meant to be enjoyed, not measured. 2) Whatever makes you happy is good enough for me

Nope, ABX is how I described it. Although there is another really good test that is similar to how you described it. Using Digital out to output to a DAT and then using Digital-In to record from the same DAT to measure whether or not the digital signal is bit-perfect. I've heard of people taking images, and renaming them to .WAV to do that test. I wish I could run that test myself, but sadly, I don't have a DAT.

As for the external vs. internal DAC, I completely agree with you. I've been effectively using external DACs for sometime now. On my main machine, I use a Stereo-link (from www.stereo-link.com), which is effectively an external DAC. With my Shuttle, I used a Tos-link cable to connect to my Yamaha receiver (up until recently). In fact, my arguments were on the basis of the suggestion that Computer EMI is worse than differences in DAC quality.

I'm amused that you suggest that Psychology is an art. It's an assertion I tend to agree with. I have no doubt that noise can be very subjective, and that's why the reviewers for this site have a very difficult job. That's also why there's a big push for a objectivism. So everyone can be on the same page and get a rough idea of how loud or quiet something is.

But this is an offshoot of what I thought was being implied. I suspect that you feel that the quality of sound (or sound signals, as I'm interpreting them) is an art. I look upon it as a science. I say sound signals, because I'm more interested in the quality of the signal right before it gets to the speaker. The reason is, it tends to be at that point where audiophiles can claim to hear a significant difference from one piece of equipment to another. I find that to be very interesting, because that's also a point that can be definitively measured, either through instruments like Oscilliscopes, or through testing to the same speakers.

An amp will never be perfect, but I'm convinced that the technology exists to make an amp good enough for almost everyone, without costing a hefty fortune for perfection. I guess this would be similar to making a quiet system vs. a silent system vs. a fanless system. The first is easy, the second is difficult, and the third can be f***ing hard.

You've brought up the placebo effect but here's a question. How can you identify the placebo effect? The answer is when someone thinks there is a change when there is in fact no change. This effect has been proven in the past to audiophiles. Where there is the $5,000 amp, and the $1,000 amp, and an engineer says "Here's the $5k amp *plays music*, and here's the $1k amp *plays music again* which of these two sounded better?" Most will tend to lean towards the $5k amp, even if the $1k amp was plugged in the entire time!

One key difference between audiophiles and SPCRers is that SPCRers always have a gold-standard reference available. Compare it to the machine turned off. Blindfold yourself if necessary. Audiophiles aren't that lucky, sadly. The only perfect reference they have is the world around them. And to the best of my knowledge, no audio setup will be indistiguishable from the world around them (though I have had moments of that myself on my humble system).

Though you mention something else that I consider an error in the situation/solution. When someone makes a very obvious and measurable change, but does not notice the change and is thus not happy with it. Granted, the change is not worth it, but then something else is causing a problem. Can he not focus on the change? Does he not have that sense (a deaf person cannot hear a drastic change in sound)?

Yes, I do think that sound quality (in regards to something like music) is an art. I feel that achieving "good" sound is both an art and science. The science is in choosing the equipement that performs "best" for the price. The definition of "best" is the art. At one level, you have the mechanics of the sound, such as how accurate it is to the original recording. The other level is what you appreciate about it. The latter is not as easily quantifiable, yet in my opinion is ultimately the only thing that matters. It all goes back to my opinion that all that matters is your own appreciation. regardless of how unrealistic it may be.

Your point that SPCRers having a "gold-standard" of silence is interesting. However, I don't believe that can prove anything. This situation can be extended to the test of $1000 vs $5000 system you've described. Consider if the test were done with two people, one of whom is a musician. This is a very similar situation, someone who has a firm grasp of what is trying to be achieved, and one who does not. It's possible that the musician would be less likely fooled, but even they are not impervious to the lie. And we are not taking about something black and white here, such as silent vs noise, but rather about quiet vs quieter.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying in regards to actual changes that cannot be detected by the individual. My point was only that the upgrade was not worthwhile (which it seems you agree with). Meaning that even if an upgrade is real, there is no point if you personally cannot tell the difference. If the problem is with something else (like you hearing), you should try to fix that first if possible, or just ignore it and be happy with what you have.

[Edward Ng]

This is a touchy subject, so I'll tread lightly here...

Being an audiophile myself (my original reason for silencing my rig), and having been weened (sic?) on hi-fi since being born (my dad's an audiophile), and blessed with, supposedly, "damn good ears," I've been able to detect, in double-blind tests, that there are differences in even the finest changes in equipment/settings and particularly, placement (more so with certain types of equipment than others of course, for example my dad's Magnepan MG 1.6QRs are far more sensitive to placement than my Paradigm Studio/20s). I can tell you immediately that the difference when swapping up from a resampling card, in my case an Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro, to a semipro dedicated digital audio card with full sample rate lock, such as my Echo Mia MIDI, yields a profound and obvious improvement in sound quality. This is, of course, only valid given proper software utilization of said equipment; Windows Media player playing lossy compression won't help you one bit; my tests were done using Foobar2000, kernel streaming output of lossless FLAC and Monkey's Audio media via sample rate locked Echo Audio control settings, via S/PDIF to my Onkyo TX-SR501 receiver for digital to analogue conversion.

The resampling effect is far more dramatic than bitrate changes (taking 24-bit source material and outputting it at 32-bits), and is actually almost as noticeable as (acoustically poor) gain adjustment. For the cleanest output, I've found that my receiver's volume control is more transparent than the DSP volume control as well as the software gain adjustment of Foobar2000. It is just as he said; external DACs and hard equipment operate in far cleaner (EMI-wise) environments than an internal soundboard, and that has a huge effect on output quality!

I would venture to say that swapping from above average speaker cabling to truly fine speaker cabling is a decent example of the improvement in going from an internal resampling sound board to one with sample rate lock, and disallowing any resampling (until it reaches your DAC, at which point you either have control or don't, over the sample rates that the DAC operates in, depending on the DAC; my dad's MSB Link DAC is far superior to the DAC in my Onkyo receiver, and has far more audiophile-oriented controls and upsampling options to experiment with).

All this of course is greatly dependent on an incredible amount of other factors, including speakers you're using, speaker cabling, quality of amplification, quality of power source, your ability to listen, the acoustics of the listening environment, the list goes on and on and on.

-Ed

[sthayashi]

Edward, I don't know if we've had this discussion before or if it happened all in my head (and I'm not going to try and use the search to find out), but one day when I get enough vacation time, I'd like to head up there and personally conduct a formal double blind test on your ears regarding speaker wire. You live about 6 hours away from me, so maybe I can find the time soon.

I can believe that people have the ability to hear the difference between resampling and non-resampling artifacts. This is mostly a function of me not fully understanding the algorithms of resampling. But I don't believe that there are audible differences between normal speaker wire (Someone on HA managed to hear the difference difference between lamp cord and Cat-5 UTP, but those two cables are different enough in build that I can accept that someone can hear the difference between the two).

The real question and point of this thread is, How much of what we do here at SPCR (or in the field of audio, since I know half the reviewers have a foundation in high-end audio) is Science and How much is art? And where do those two merge?

[Edward Ng]

I heartily welcome you to have this test if you don't mind coming all the way up; the problem is that I live on a busy commercial street, and no proper testing can be done until it's rather late at night (i.e. AM hours), when the traffic is much less. This is also the time period that my father and I both do the majority of our serious listening; daytime I play music more for ambience. Being a suburb, the daytime noise level and noise level at 3:00AM are like comparing Times Square at noon versus, "Uncle Timothy's farm," without Mother Nature's acoustic salad of crickets etc.

If you have some sort of accomodations in the NY area and can spare an overnight stay up here (that or don't mind driving home in the random twilight hours before sunrise), then I think a listening test would fit quite well. Let me know; I need to clean the place up before you come; I wouldn't dare let you see it in the shambles it's in right now!

Feel free to bring any sort of cabling you wish to test, the worse in grade, the better, to better contrast with the hand-crafted pure silver cabling that I'm using at the present.

-Ed

PS This is also the reason why it is often difficult for me to get many acoustic tests done immediately; I need to have spare time extremely late at night to do listening tests.

EDIT: Btw I've had one occasion in the past to visit Pittsburgh, back when I was a senior in high school, to see Carnegie Mellon University. It's a quaint little town you have there! It's a shame the cost of a Carnegie Mellon education was quite far from realistic for someone like myself.

EDIT 2: Given the sensitivity of Magnepan speakers to cabling, as well as the fact that my dad's setup is better sounding in general, if you do come up, I would also prefer to do testing on both his system and mine, for your ears.

[MikeC]

How much of what we do here at SPCR (or in the field of audio, since I know half the reviewers have a foundation in high-end audio) is Science and How much is art? And where do those two merge?

Naturally I have to drop in my pennies...

I'd separate audio from PC silencing:

With audio (assuming sound reproduction) mostly you are dealing with music, which is so complex that it defies the ability of machines to measure differences between gear that human listeners can quickly discern instuitively, instinctively. Without always being able to explain why one recreation sounds more real than another. So there's lots of art there, though in design & manufacturing, science is paramount.

With quiet PCs, it's mostly science.

Heat * Cooling * Airflow * Ambient Conditions * User Preference.

Those are the main elements and Noise is the key we balance everything around. There really would not be much argument about whether something makes more or less noise if you got 10 people in a room together to listen to the source at the same time. It's only because we can't all be listening to the same thing at the same time that it's hard to reach consensus.

There's creativity in the particular ways we achieve this balance, and some people are artistic in this regard, having almost an intuitive sense of what will work well. Like artistic creativity, it can be improved with practise.

But there is an issue about what balance is right and what is audible / acceptable for Rocker Jane in her Greenich Village NYC walkup corner st. apt environment and mega gaming needs versus Classical Joe in his padded basement den in a sleepy surburban Vancouver house at the edge of a forest. (No, not a self-sketch...)

Having watched the discussions here for over two years now, it's clear to me that more than half the yik-yak is noise values clashing, not disagreements about the actual level of noise.

IE, if you have two people arguing in the forums about the relative noise levels of a particular PSU model, and you could get them in the same room to hear the same PSU in the same system, one might still say, that's way too loud, and the other might still say hey that's already so quiet, what are you worrying about? They will both agree that another quieter PC is indeed quieter and another noisier PC is indeed noisier. But they may still disagree about whether any of this is quiet enough or not.

That's not art. That's expectations, values, conditioning, etc...

[mpteach]

We need an interactive test. It will start with many multiple choice questions. Then there will be a calibrated audio sample section where you rate a library of sounds at diferent levels.

In the end you get labeled as one of a dozen Sonic Styles. Then you are offered your detalied sonic report for a $15 fee. It will have to be PHD certified and thus will solve all our problems at SPCR.

[markjia]

Mike,

I agree that deciding btw the noise of devices is far easier than music. However, I don't believe that noise can be definitively quantified either.

For one thing, noise from different setups will always be at different frequencies. Hence, different people will pick up more of each range, and not necessarily come to a agreement.

A more significant issue though, is with not always being able to AB test your equipement. For instance, after you mod a device, you may not be able to remember exactly how loud the system was beforehand (and you can't always remove the mod). Also, after having put in the effort to make the mod, one would logically expect to see an improvement. Unfortunately, this is not always the actual case. Yet, after spending all the time/money, one would naturally believe they have achieved something even if it is no better.

I say that if you believe that your change was worthwhile (even after prolonged time), then it was worthwhile.

I'm not saying that we should randomly make upgrades regardless of whether or not they are effective. Research should be done first. But after having done it, we should be satisfied with how we feel about it, despite what other say.

[Edward Ng]

Realize, also, that many people perform modifications in batches, without doing listenings tests between stages of modification. For example, a member may purchase a VGA Silencer along with a passive northbridge cooler for their mainboard, a new CPU cooler and a set of new AcoustiFans, and install them all at once. When you do that, it's much harder to figure out which item did just how much to improve acoustics in what area (volume, tone etc.).

[wim]

gosh i think here is the first time i've seen someone willingly come forward and label themselves an audiophile. it seems most other times to be used as an insult.

Being an audiophile myself (my original reason for silencing my rig), and having been weened (sic?) on hi-fi since being born (my dad's an audiophile), and blessed with, supposedly, "damn good ears," I've been able to detect...

blessed! oh dear edward, can't you see, you have been cursed with 'damn good ears'. aural snobbery is a most lavish and expensive disease!

say you buy a new pair of speakers. they cost twice as much as what you had before. and you put on mozart's requiem. unless it 'moves' you twice as much, you got ripped off! i'd want to see double the shivers in your spine, twice as many tears (and not tears over how badly you got ripped)

what is the aim here? as markjia writes, all that really counts is his enjoyment and appreciation of the music - the output. if it takes 300 hours effort (reading, research time, testing) followed by $?0,000 expenditure and your hand-crafted pure silver cabling to get X amount of listening satisfaction, then this is to your own detriment.

and as for this listening test, the SPCR heavyweights Edward Ng vs. sthayashi speaker wire challenge.. where can i make a wager/buy tickets? my money's on sthayashi!

[silvervarg]

Wim:
and as for this listening test, the SPCR heavyweights Edward Ng vs. sthayashi speaker wire challenge.. where can i make a wager/buy tickets? my money's on sthayashi!

Well, this depeds.
If he uses single-threaded phone wires I bet he can tell the difference.
If he uses very weak speaker cables I am still certain he can tell the difference.
If he uses electrical cables or really cheap standard speaker cables he has a chance to tell the difference.
If he uses fat high quality speaker cables vs the handcrafted silver speaker cables the difference will be so small that the connectors is likely to have a bigger impact.
With any kind of decent cables I would also put my money on Sthayashi.

A few audiophile friends of mine did a few test with the most expensive speaker cables the store had (they just borrowed the cables for the test) and compared them to the good cables they allready had. When they know what cables was used they claimed to hear the difference, but both of them failed the blind test, so they ended up returning the cables.

When scientifically measureing you can clearly see that the connections make a difference, even if they are gold plated, and they are exposed to air, so they could potentially change with time, depending on the material.
There is little point in beeing able to disconnect the cables both in the speaker end and the amplifier end, so the only thing that makes sense is that one end should be fixed (typically the speaker end).
So, how come zero high end systems come with fixed cables to the speakers? Some really cheap systems have fixed thin cables, but that is just to save the cost of the connector.

[Edward Ng]

gosh i think here is the first time i've seen someone willingly come forward and label themselves an audiophile. it seems most other times to be used as an insult.

Being an audiophile myself (my original reason for silencing my rig), and having been weened (sic?) on hi-fi since being born (my dad's an audiophile), and blessed with, supposedly, "damn good ears," I've been able to detect...

blessed! oh dear edward, can't you see, you have been cursed with 'damn good ears'. aural snobbery is a most lavish and expensive disease!

say you buy a new pair of speakers. they cost twice as much as what you had before. and you put on mozart's requiem. unless it 'moves' you twice as much, you got ripped off! i'd want to see double the shivers in your spine, twice as many tears (and not tears over how badly you got ripped)

what is the aim here? as markjia writes, all that really counts is his enjoyment and appreciation of the music - the output. if it takes 300 hours effort (reading, research time, testing) followed by $?0,000 expenditure and your hand-crafted pure silver cabling to get X amount of listening satisfaction, then this is to your own detriment.

and as for this listening test, the SPCR heavyweights Edward Ng vs. sthayashi speaker wire challenge.. where can i make a wager/buy tickets? my money's on sthayashi!

Do you automatically assume that it costs five figures and hundreds of many hours just to get it tuned in right? What is it about audiophiles that people find so insulting, that they don't with wine enthusiasts, fine dining enthusiasts and connoiseurs of fine automobiles? Is it because the quantifiability of the difference between a fine grade wine and poor grade wine seems more obvious? I'm not out to prove that audiophilia is for everyone, just as I'm not here to prove that fine dining, fine wine or fine automobiles is for everyone, wealthy or not! For example, I get very respectable sound and am quite happy with my little setup; the cables, for your information, were from Audio Parts Inc. and cost me only $185 for the pair. The speakers are only $700 for the pair and the Onkyo receiver used to sticker for $350. Add $250 for the sound card plus the cost of the speaker stands and the whole system still comes out to under $2,000. I'd hardly consider that astronomical for the sound quality that I'm getting. There's no way in hell I'd spend $50,000 in a sound system; as you said, that's simply not worth the money! I don't think it's going overboard to spend the amount that I have for the level of sound that I've achieved; is it asking too much to desire a better sound than someone else's Bose bullshit (now that is a rip-off)? I highly doubt it.

Do I sound like an audio snob?

Do I sound like a lavish spender on expensive sound system components?

Maybe you need to see the difference between someone who's got their head on straight and simply wants to achieve a certain minimum standard in sound quality (albeit a higher standard than held by the majority, and I do admit it), versus someone who's gone overboard and no longer understands the value of money in life, spending horrific amounts of it on something that is better only in their mind.

-Ed

[sthayashi]

what is the aim here? as markjia writes, all that really counts is his enjoyment and appreciation of the music - the output. if it takes 300 hours effort (reading, research time, testing) followed by $?0,000 expenditure and your hand-crafted pure silver cabling to get X amount of listening satisfaction, then this is to your own detriment.

and as for this listening test, the SPCR heavyweights Edward Ng vs. sthayashi speaker wire challenge.. where can i make a wager/buy tickets? my money's on sthayashi!

Don't compare me to Edward. Though we both have high post counts, he is in different league from me. He actually contributes to SPCR with insightful posts and actual articles. I, on the hand, simply repeat what has been told to me and have gotten most of those posts from answering simple questions to others.

I think you may have addressed Markjia's and my differences. I can appreciate (and tend to agree with) that if you put in a crap load of effort, you will have a result that will be good to your ears. What's more, it's something you can be proud of. It will probably be worth while. But I make a distinction between effort and money. I'm willing to put in 1,000 hours of work for a lot of things. But there are very FEW things that I'm willing to put $1,000 worth of money into. Yeah, I know that time == money, but money flows much more quickly and easily than time. So I would disagree with the idea that simply throwing money at it is always worthwhile. Because if you spend enough money on something that is not easily quantifiable, then you will think it's better. In that regard, I suspect most if not all Zalman TNN500A case owners probably think they have the quiestest computers in the world.

Ultimately, this is where I'm challenging Edward. He spent $185 on his cables. I'm going to be spending maybe $30-40 on the ones for the test, maybe a little more if I go through with all the plans kicking around in my head.

And if any of you are actuall willing to sponsor this challenge, then that would increase the possibility of it actually happening soon.

[HammerSandwich]

About 10 years ago, I was much more of an audiophile objectivist than today. A few interesting experiences have convinced me that the "prove you can hear it" approach misses some things. The most interesting one came from an informal listen at a high-end store. I heard a hyper-expensive system that had been fully tweaked by a subjectivist audiophile. In addition to some basic room treatment, fancy cables, and so on, some of the unquestionably BS "voodoo" tweaks (e.g. green CD pen, Mpingo discs) were in place. As I sat with my eyes closed, listening to Coltrane, I had a major complaint about the system: there was a noticeable weak spot around 125Hz that just destroyed the tenor sax. While I reflected that the setup had really missed the mark, the rear of the soundstage moved to the left. The perspective changed completely - very alarming! I opened my eyes, jumped up, and saw the store's owner at the back wall with his finger on an Mpingo disc. He'd moved the thing an inch or so, and I swear I heard it. How could this be ABX tested?

And if any of you are actuall willing to sponsor this challenge, then that would increase the possibility of it actually happening soon.

If you don't mind the company, Steve, I'll kick in $ for gas (but buy a Prius first, okay?) and share the driving. Does your Onkyo have pre-out, Edward? If so, I can bring my Pass Aleph 3. And I wouldn't mind having a real-life SPCR reviewer hear my PC briefly...

[Edward Ng]

Even if my Onkyo doesn't have a preout, my dad's system should be suitable for playing with your nice little toy.

This is definitely starting to get interesting!

[sthayashi]

HammerSandwich, the Prius is over a year away, and that's before I even walk into a dealership (I've heard people have been on waiting lists for months). If it makes you feel better though, one of my friends drove my car from New Jersey to Pittsburgh at the beginning of June. He said that the car seems to function at its best at 90MPH.

As for your soundstage issue that you ran into, I don't know. Of all things audio, soundstage is the most difficult concept for me to grasp, and I've never really gotten a feel for it. And since I don't know much about Mpingo discs... But anyways, how do you ABX that? With time, and in a manner very similar to the test methods that I emailed to Edward.

Dammit, now I'm really going to have to scourage my calendar to see when I can make this drive. I don't think I want to do it in the winter if I can avoid it.....

[tay]

/me joins the peanut gallery. I'd love to see results of a double blind test.

I agree with silvervarg here (which is generally a safe bet I might add). Cables would make a difference depending on the delta in quality, but just like silencing gear the rest of your components matter along with your ears!

On a side note i have a slew of sound related questions :
1. can you guys hear differences between 256 bit mp3 or aac and cd on your sound systems?

2.How do you shield your monitor from the speaekers if you use bookshelf speakers with your pc? Can you buy small shielded speakers?

3. When connecting speaker cables do you solder your cables to the connectors or simply pinch the cables after winding them around?

I'm thinking of going to a discrete system from my shitty altec lansing computer speakers.

TIA!!

[mpteach]

I agree with Edward Ng, I have minimum starndard too. Im about to spend $400 dollars to buy a set of Klipsh 5.1 promedia ultra speakers (400W) and an m audio revolution 7.1 soundcard. They sound great for a smaller room without treatments.

I worked in a mansion once with a 50KW sound sytem. Guys flew from vegas to set it up. All the speaker were twice my size. While swimming in the indoor pool we put some music on and played at level 2 of 10. My ears hurt on level 3. Nowadays that guy is in debt and doesnt own the house anymore, he even had to sell the ferari's.
I dont even want to guess at the price of his former sound sytem. The amps,mixers dj equipment fog machine etc occupied a small room.

[Edward Ng]

/me joins the peanut gallery. I'd love to see results of a double blind test.

I agree with silvervarg here (which is generally a safe bet I might add). Cables would make a difference depending on the delta in quality, but just like silencing gear the rest of your components matter along with your ears!

On a side note i have a slew of sound related questions :
1. can you guys hear differences between 256 bit mp3 or aac and cd on your sound systems?

As you said:

just like silencing gear the rest of your components matter along with your ears!

for determining the difference; I've not messed with AAC so I cannot give you a definite answer; I will tell you, however, that the difference on my system, to my own ears, is quite obvious between true lossless such as FLAC or Monkey's audio, compared to 100% VBR MP3. As a matter of fact, switching from even the highest quality MP3 encoding to true lossless yields a greater improvement in sound than going from resampled to sample rate locked out.

3. When connecting speaker cables do you solder your cables to the connectors or simply pinch the cables after winding them around?

On my speakers, we run the bare leads into the back; I believe dad does the same, but he has utilized soldered banana plugs in the past.

-Ed

EDIT: A typo in that boldface line.

[POLIST8]

Looks like the Audophiles are speaking their minds these days.

My opinion:

Creative
Terratec

I've used AND recorded music on both. And you CAN hear a quality difference between 96/24 and 44/16

I'm excited about 192/32...

Ah...The war goes on and on and on and on...

I love it!

[markjia]

Yes, there is definately an audible difference in those sampling frequencies. It can even be mathematically shown that there can be differences. For instance, a 44 kHz sampling (found on regular audio cds) can only produce at most 22 kHz, but this is only in a ideal situation. Once you factor in the dynamics of sounds, it becomes clear that this is completely insufficient (even for frequencies well below this, and completely within the audible range of most people). DVD-A and SACD work at 96/192kHz.

[croddie]

Why 22khz "only in an ideal situation"

Ever thought of upgrading that Onkyo, Ed? As you dare to call yourself an audiophile . Wouldn't even the Panasonic digital receivers be much better for the same price? Might make it easier for you in those blind tests

ABXing should work up to a certain level of system - where it shouldn't be too hard to make noticeable differences. Of course you are ABXing one variable the others need to be good - just as SPCR couldn't review case fan noise if the rest of the computer is making more of a din.
At hydrogenaudio they seem to take the extreme of ignoring any opinion which hasn't been abxed even if sound differences are claimed to be obvious, and also of taking negative results too easily as valid - the point of abx tests is to eliminate the psycholigical desire to hear a difference, whereas at hydrogenaudio they generally would rather not (I exaggerate to make a point).

[sthayashi]

POLIST8, since I don't know where you live, I'm not even going to bother to threaten to pay you a visit and ask to test your ears.

To address tay:
1. I don't believe I can. I have not sat down and tried. However, I've seen posts on Hydrogen Audio of people who have successfull ABX'ed mp3 at every level. AAC, I'm not so sure, but I suspect that the same people may be able to ABX the difference.

2. I use an LCD screen. Before that, I just kept my bookshelf speakers away from my monitor on the opposite sides of the room. If I were to get speakers again for my computer, I'd probably invest in Ascend Acoustic speakers, which I'm very happy with for my living room (and I may bring up with me to get Edward and HammerSandwich to listen to whenever I get this off the ground). The centers are shielded, but I'm not sure about the mains. In either case though, I've never kept them on my desk, but put them on top of things near my desk. It's generally never been a problem.

3. I use these badboys for my speaker connections. I was planning on asking Edward if they would be acceptable to use on his system for the test. It makes connecting and disconnecting tremendously easier than bare wire and it doesn't waste interconnects if you want/need to make the wire shorter.

Truthfully, I think you may be happier spending the money on a set of high-quality headphones and maybe a headphone amp (depending on your soundcard). The cost of even decent speakers is often more than the cost of really nice headphones.

[croddie]

2.How do you shield your monitor from the speaekers if you use bookshelf speakers with your pc? Can you buy small shielded speakers?

Yes, there are lots of sheilded speakers for use with televisions which will protect against whatever CRT monitors do.

3. When connecting speaker cables do you solder your cables to the connectors or simply pinch the cables after winding them around?

Just plug them in, or pinch them, depending on what sort they are.

[sthayashi]

Markjia: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ind ... f=1&t=9311. I have some basic understanding of sampling theory and signal processing. These guys know their stuff far better than most (one of them is actually a professor at a University, IIRC).

Croddie: They feel that claims of obviousness that are purely psychological are useless. Negative results are ones where no difference was distinguishable. This happens in two cases. When there is an error in proper testing (e.g. listening fatigue, idiocy, etc.) and when there is in fact no audible difference. Listening fatigue contributing to an error means one thing. It wasn't obvious. I'm not sure what you mean by HA would generally not (not do what?).

[markjia]

Digital audio works by sampling the amplitude of the sound at regular intervals. In order to accurately reproduce a sound, your sample needs to at least contain the upper and lower peaks of the sound. The time btw these peaks is going to be half the period of the sound. Hence, in order to reproduce a 22kHz sound, you need to have taken a sample at the highest and lowest peaks, and 44kHz is the absolute minimum to do this. However, you cannot know where the peaks are going to be, so 44kHz is not sufficient for a pure 22kHz sound under normal situations. In fact, a 22kHz sound will most likely sound completely wrong.

The reason that you sort of get away with this is that music is a harmony of frequencies. Something so complicated will not be as easily succeptable. For instance, an orchestra or voice is full of harmonics, losing some of them is not going to be noticed by many people. But it is noticable, and newer technologies are using higher frequencies. It is also why some higher end DACs perform upsampling.

[croddie]

unless it 'moves' you twice as much, you got ripped off! i'd want to see double the shivers in your spine, twice as many tears (and not tears over how badly you got ripped)

[Pomp]Philosophy only here[/Pomp]
Hearing an accomplished group play the Requiem is great - there's so much in the music itself. But is it obvious what it truly means?Unfortunately Mozart died so young, so we have to work what he left us to the greatest extent, and we listen to inspired performers explain the secrets of the music to us. But these performers - they are so few -; how can we hear what they are trying to tell us unless we strain our ears - and invest in expensive music equipment?

On the other hand, though I may take great efforts to get as close as possible to the sound of Schnabel's Beethoven performances, if he were here I'm sure he would say - who cares how good it sounds!

[croddie]

Croddie: They feel that claims of obviousness that are purely psychological are useless. Negative results are ones where no difference was distinguishable. This happens in two cases. When there is an error in proper testing (e.g. listening fatigue, idiocy, etc.) and when there is in fact no audible difference. Listening fatigue contributing to an error means one thing. It wasn't obvious. I'm not sure what you mean by HA would generally not (not do what?).

would rather not hear a difference
If you accept that claims of obvious difference may be purely imaginary - made by audiophiles who want to hear differences - then you should accept that claims of no difference may be too - made by hydrogenaudiophiles who don't want to.

[al bundy]

Digital audio works by sampling the amplitude of the sound at regular intervals. In order to accurately reproduce a sound, your sample needs to at least contain the upper and lower peaks of the sound. The time btw these peaks is going to be half the period of the sound. Hence, in order to reproduce a 22kHz sound, you need to have taken a sample at the highest and lowest peaks, and 44kHz is the absolute minimum to do this. However, you cannot know where the peaks are going to be, so 44kHz is not sufficient for a pure 22kHz sound under normal situations. In fact, a 22kHz sound will most likely sound completely wrong.

The reason that you sort of get away with this is that music is a harmony of frequencies. Something so complicated will not be as easily succeptable. For instance, an orchestra or voice is full of harmonics, losing some of them is not going to be noticed by many people. But it is noticable, and newer technologies are using higher frequencies. It is also why some higher end DACs perform upsampling.

Hi markjia,

Some DAC's will oversample (e.g. 128-times oversampling, etc) and I'm wondering, how does this affect the situation you described? Does the oversampling operation actually make this situation any better or worse?

[croddie]

However, you cannot know where the peaks are going to be, so 44kHz is not sufficient for a pure 22kHz sound under normal situations.

This is what filters are for, I think. 44khz is not sufficient for recording frequencies up to 22khz for the reason you give, but you should record at much higher frequency and filter out all frequencies above 22khz before making the cd.
I think there's a result that says something like with infinite accuracy per sample 44khz should be able to represent all waves composed of frequencies up to 44khz exactly. Immediately I think - what if you have a 22khz sine wave, then you'll have to shift it so its peaks are in the right place. So the qualifier "something like" is necessary!

[Edward Ng]

My Studio/20's accept banana plugs, so if you bring them that way, we can probably utilize them, but the way we have my current cabling wired in there, it will be a bit of a pain to swap them out, which is another reason why I'd prefer to test with dad's system; his cables are easier to manipulate, due to his solution for doing away with jumpers.

In regards to the shielding question, yes, there are speakers that are shielded and you simply need to ask your dealer about them. For example, on the Paradigm Reference Series, like my Studio/20s, the wood finish models are not shielded, but the black ones are.

My dad's Link DAC III offers an upsampling option (don't know if he normally listens with it on or with it off; I think it's on right now), if you wish to play around with that as well.

-Ed

PS Your's truly got a rather cold reception over at HydrogenAudio; I prefer to keep my tail out of those woods, nowadays.