Resident /g/ audiophile here, this time discussing a topic which came up last thread which I'll continue addressing here. The phenomena of the non-audiophile cultist.1. Has never been exposed to high end audio once in his life.2. In spite of having absolutely no experience with audio better than his own meager setup he feels he can deny the very existence of better audio.3. Has very little understanding on audio technology. He has a fuzzy set of legends / factoids that he picked up browsing the Internet.4. In spite of having so little knowledge of the topic he feels he can tell people demonstrably vastly more knowledgeable that they're dumb.5. He claims to "believe" in "science" but actually he doesn't understand or even care about the science he's just running off a pre-programmed NPC script.6. In the end of the day they enjoy the sense of belonging to a marketing cult where they feel excited about cheap junk they feel is attainable for easy consumption.7. The cult attacks people with more disposable income who can afford better audio. In reality it's just empty class envy.8. The cult leader uses simplistic FFT plots as the primary marketing tool. He points out what is "good" and "bad" in large colorful fonts for cultist consumption.9. No one in the cult knows what it is they're actually looking at, but the echo chamber assures them that it's reality, the cult leader is showing them the truth, and this is a good, inexpensive product to consume.10. The cult leader occasionally measures expensive gear which he rates "bad" to give some red meat to the class envy but also to promote the marketing of cheap toys.
>>79678248bro the point of music is how it makes you feel, not gay autistic shit like how much fidelity it has to some original copy, like holy shit go to church or something if you want something to care about this much
>>79678279If you're a non-audiophile, ie, you don't care about the quality of audio, that's perfectly fine. Most people don't care which is why audio is in such bad shape in the general market but since you don't care that's just a problem for a few of us who do.
>>79678248yeah fidelity is good, but nowadays the difference between consumer high-end and studio high-end is hardly noticeable for listening if you listen to old recordingsthe recording hardware matters the most, and that is THE thing what makes the difference
>>79678248>7. The cult attacks people with more disposable income who can afford better audio. In reality it's just empty class envy./thread
>>79678248Projection from an audiophile cultist. Audiophiles lose ABX tests most of the time.
>>79678630always, not most of the time
>>79678383The difference is enormous. This is an example of posting an opinion about something with which you have zero experience.
>>79678248Calling people cult members while typing these unhinged screeds on a daily basis is a good bit.You reek of someone who dropped five figures on some meme DAC and is twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to cope with the buyer's remorse when you realized it only has a marginal improvement over a $100 DAC.
>>79679005My DACs are 4 figures (most expensive one is $3500). $10k+ DACs are not "memes" because I heard them at shows. But now you’re going to tell me about the MSBs, Nagras, Lampizators, etc, you’ve compared to your FiiO...right? Certainly you have in order to make such a statement.
>>79679142I tried some of those exact models out in the E-earphone in japan (with both an HD800 and whatever STAX they had out in he showroom, I don't remember). The difference between the DACs was completely and utterly eclipsed by the differences in the headphones, which was already at a fidelity where I was just picking based on taste rather than one being objectively better than another. I decided at that point it would be best to just get an adequately transparent audio chain and DSP in whatever distortion I felt like that day.
>>79679229Oh good, so you at least have some experience with high-end audio. So you know that the $100 DAC doesn’t hold a candle to a high-end one? Also, why didn’t you mention all the other qualities besides "transparency"?
I don't have a horse in this race but holy shit OP, do you sound butthurt.Can you just admit that you spent a lot of money on something you love and leave it at that? It's really okay if you like the sound of a high-end vinyl setup. You have my permission to enjoy yourself.
>>79679309Did you read my post? There was almost no difference between the DACs once you broke past like $150. The only trait a DAC should have is transparency, having it color the sound is insane when you can color the sound exactly how you want with DSP for free. Until you have spent $600 on your headphones, every cent you spend on a DAC/Amp would be better spent on better headphones. Every cent beyond $150 spent on a DAC would be better spent on nicer headphones (or speakers). I don't like these threads because it convinces newbies to waste a bunch of money on a DAC/Amp when they only have $200 headphones. It's fine if you enjoy your high end equipment and can hear a difference, but most people (including audio engineers/trained listeners) can't tell the difference, and testing equipment (not just from ASR) is incapable of measuring a substantial difference, so it's probably not a good buy for most people.Anyways, when the guys mastering the music are using midrange DACs/ADCs in their mastering equipment and wear HD800s (or apple earbuds these days) you don't gain much by buying more than that. Also high end microphones have way way worse fidelity than your average set of midrange headphones, so why bother spending more on equipment just so you hear the distortions from the mics and mediocre ADCs.
>>79679652Wait. You claimed to have listened to a HD800 and Stax at a shop with high-end DACs, then claim there’s hardly a difference between those and $150 toys? I can immediately expose that as false right now with the gear I have on-hand. Did you not hear the much better separation, staging, micro- and macro-detail retrieval? The much more robust tonal quality? Was it just too loud in the store that day and you couldn’t hear it? We’re there people waiting behind you stressing you out?
>>79679448If I’m butthurt it’s because I have to deal with the frustration of bad-attitude have-nothing kids and NEETs belittling high end audio for no other reason than they can’t afford it — and pretending it’s a scientific fact.
>>79678248>Enjoy your current headphones>Decide to buy more expensive, supposedly better ones out of curiosity>They do sound better, you can no longer listen to your older headphones>Realize you could have kept enjoying your previous headphones without wasting a penny on new hardware>Realize you've set the price tag for any potential new headphones you buy higher for no good reasonUnless you can tell precisely what's wrong with your current audio without comparing it to something better, you shouldn't buy anything better.Unfortunately most audiophiles hear the brand and not the headphones themselves, that's why normies like me keep calling them 'cultists'.You can look up case studies of wine professionals who are given random wine samples to observe a similar phenomena.
>>79679843It's just a DAC, the same chips are used in the super high end ones as in the $150 "toys" (unless you think these tiny companies are rolling their own silicon lmao). They might have spent a bit more time tuning the surrounding components, in the end it's going to be a delta-sigma chip from TI or Cirrus (like $3 a unit) or if you are crazy fancy Xilinx FPGA ($12 for one that can do delta sigma), and the same is likely true of DSD DACs but I can't find a newer DSD module on digikey. People like to meme resistor ladders, but those are even cheaper. The maximum possible BoM for a DAC is like $70 for everything on the circuit, and the rest of the price is the case and RnD (remember that RnD costs are spread across every unit, so high volume manufacturers can put the same RnD effort in and sell their product for much cheaper). What exactly are you getting in a $1000 DAC that isn't in a $100 DAC?
>>79680166http://www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com/alpha-dac-reference-series-3>With less accomplished DACs, it sounds as if a whole layer of very low-level information has gone missing
>>79679448If "/g/'s resident audiophile" enjoys his equipment so much wouldn't he be listening to it instead of trying justify it on an anonymous board obsessed with five year old business laptops?
>>79679927Well, is it better to just be ignorant of better audio? That's an actual argument. Maybe it is? If you don't know of anything better than that's high-end to you.
High end equipment is useless if you don't use any kinds of crystals or other "tweaks". Even decent quality low end equipment is going to sound better than the best high end equipment if the former has crystals applied and the latter doesn't.
>>79678248these dumb posts are getting lower and lower quality lol
>>79680246This is an ad full of inane blathering about how it "feels" to hear a machine that uses the same fucking $4 TI PCM chip inside. Also shout-out to them for advertising their 192-384KHz performance, that's really gonna come in handy for when I play the 3 audio files in existence that are recorded with those frequencies for my dog. (Inb4 "lost information", 44KHz offers perfect reconstruction for any human per the nyquist theorem).
>>79680415The benefit is the extreme time domain resolution. Sound quality continues to improve right down until jitter is below two picoseconds.
>>79680465post prooflike actual scientific data
>>79680481Refer to H.Mandell's statement:http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf
>>79680510well that's just your opinion, man
>>79680465No it doesn't. Why the fuck do all these audiophiles that spent $3K on their DAC spend so much time pretending the nyquist therom doesn't exist when it's literally the foundation of the engineering of their machine. You can get immaculate reproduction of any frequency domain by sampling at double the highest frequency in the domain, and I don't care what some guy trying to advertise the equipment says. It's literally fucking math.
>>79680363The crystals jab has no effect because no actual audiophile anywhere uses them or believes in them. I can’t even think of a product. Did you just google "audiophile snakeoil" and found some factoid from the 90s?
>>79681232Ever heard of Coconut Audio? They're a pretty big deal in the audiophile community. Maybe if you weren't a poseur you'd be aware of them.
>>79680415No high-end gear uses your junky mass-market opamp. High end gear use carefully matched discrete output circuits. Some lower end products may use high-end discrete opamps but no $100 toy is going to use a $40 Sparkos. You’ve been marketing cheesy IC-based toys, this is not in any way high-end. If something has little cheap ICs doing output I would laugh at it and call it junk REGARDLESS of who makes it or how much it costs. Now go and find any high end gear that does this. Just one. MSB, Nagra, Rockna, Aqua, T+A, dCS, Esoteric, EMM, etc etc. Hell, is there even one in the sub-$10k bracket: Luxman, BAT, McIntosh, etc? Not even the better Chinese manufacturers do this: Audio-gd, LKS, Matrix, Line Magnetic, etc.
>>79678248By the way, I'm sorry that you can't even fathom enjoying audio to a higher level than the chinese junk you poors and children have to resort to buying, your world shattered view would be if you listened to a system using a half decent CD trasport as source, though this something about is thread else entirely so please comment there instead of shitting up this one >>>79681539
>>79678248you're going at this from the assumption that you can't be wrong, and are looking for ways to interpret reality in a way that will legitimize your ideasguess whatyou're wrong, lots of people who listened to, have owned and/or own high end audio systems, me included, have told you you're wrong, have thoroughly explained how a lot of your points were wrong or baseless or retarded specifically, such as SSD introducing noise that affects the DACs, or switching PSUs being worse than linear ones because they're switching, and you ignored thempoints 2 to 6 are a good description of yourself, OP>>79681603oh wow
>>79681420I was talking about DACs, why are you going on about op amps all of the sudden.Cursory googling shows that McIntosh uses a rebranded TI PCM1796 ($4.02 off digikey). Nagra uses an off the shelf XMOS chip (this one is probably a bit pricier since it has the full microcontroller for DSP). MSB and Rockna uses a resistor ladder with an off the shelf DSP chip (again, resistor ladders are cheaper than delta sigma DACs). I don't want to waste more time checking the rest of them, but they probably either use a $2 resistor ladder or annoff the shelf chip. Again, these companies are not rolling their own silicon and do not have silicon designers on their staffs, they are either going to make a cheap resistor ladder design and market it as superior, or use a more expensive off the shelf IC and rebrand it to try and obfuscate that fact.
>>79678890It is not. You might be able to hear the difference if you have more expiriance with audio equipment, but the difference is really small. In the 90s and early 2000s, yeah, but in 2020 the difference is really pretty small. That doesn't mean that you won't get better audio going from the intigrated hardware found in a typical computer to a 30,000 dollar set up, but going from a 500 dollar set up to a 30,000 dollar set up is a pretty tiny increase comparitively.
Cope and seethe.
>>79681788>>79681603I should also clarify that resistor ladders done on silicon are much better than discrete ones since the resistors can be laser trimmed to tune them. A resistor ladder requires the accuracy of the resistors to double for each bit added. ( You are allowed to be R/(2^n bits) out of spec for a given resistor in the board, e.g. a 16 bit resistor ladder requires the resistor at the 16th bit to be within 1/65535 or within 0.0015% before measurable artifacts emerge. Seeing as even very expensive high tolerance resistors still have a minimum error of 0.01%, this limits the non artifacting bits a resistor ladder can do to 13 with very high end resistors (despite what companies claim, this is a physical limit of discrete resistor ladders and they have to DSP the artifact out after the fact). Or you can just get a silicone resistor ladder which is cheaper and performs better since you can tune it, or you can just use a delta sigma dac which is still cheaper and performs better.
>>79678338The second part of that statement is true. People don’t care about sound quality any more, and audio is now normalized to play on shitty phone speakers as loud a possible by blacks in line at Wendy’s. Audiophile shit aside, anything mastered in the last 20 years has fuck all dynamic range compared to shit that came before.
Schiit has a live stream event happening on their YouTube channel and Facebook at 4pm Pacific today. Recommend everyone be there for breaking product news including their new CD transport.
>>79682120I am honestly amazed you kept on with this as long as you did. You cant educate people that only look at sales fliers, slick sheets, and paid reviews. They are in their own little world, and defend it tooth and nail. While there may be a small credence to the claim its better (if they even have a valid claim however small it really ends up being) but as you said, once you pass a specific point you are paying exponentially more, for essentially the same thing.I feel like a lot of it is sort of just to have something to beat people over the head with and gatekeep. "you've never heard music until you hear it on this, its like you never lived you peasant!" because IF you know someone that gets into that, they always want to show you their new gear, and tell you how yours is shit.I already know the THD of my amp from 1979 is pretty bad and it wastes like 50% of its power to heat, and drives a cheap set of paper conned speakers with some cheap dome tweeters and a cheap set of ribbon tweeters too. Its also playing a record I've listened to for 30 years, with an oblate spherical stylus that looses definition and clarity in order to not run out the pressing as fast. I know its bad. But it also does what it needs to, and I dont talk shit on the guy that has something lesser unless its so bad it crunches everything up, and then I try to be helpful, not hateful.
>nooo everyone is wrong and evil but me!>there's a cult dedicated to mocking me!>I'll keep making threads to show them!Kill yourself, audiopedo.You're not even funny anymore.
>>79682344His schizo rant against AudioScienceReview in the OP made me give up on him, but I figured I should do my best to battle the worst of the consumerist off this godforsaken board.
When you are young, listening to a compressed dynamic range is an advantage for your brain if you want to go into an analytical field. When you are older and you want to waste your money, you can buy fancy things that you enjoy. People collect funko pops, everyone needs a hobby because of the existential anguish of knowing you are going to die some day. I hope you enjoy your headphones and are kind to other people
>>79682513Its the jargon that really gets me cracked up most of the time. All sorts of flowery meaningless prose to sell the product, or at least prop up the feeling of the consumer in their own mind that it was worth paying what they did for the product.Its not just audiophiles though that do this, they just seem to be very vocal about it to the point where often times, I cannot tell if its a real user, or a troll poster. But half the time if you ask them anything even remotely technical like how to phase array their drivers, they cant tell you. They probably could not even put together a knock down kit with everything in the box. Now Some of them may be that down in the details with it, But most of them Ive met just buy from a "high end" retailer and that's that.>>79682605Not really sure what this first sentence is supposed to mean. But the rest of it seems accurate. So long as you are not using it to bash other people sure, guy buy a 10000 dollar headphone and amp, go buy some 30,000 dollar speakers, and so on and so forth. It becomes cancerous when they just want to shit all over others who dont see the return on that or cant.
>>79682699This is a borderline schizo pet theory of mine about why some people are retardsWhen some people add numbers together, they imagine offsets on a rope and cannot add numbers if they are using their hands. When other people add numbers together they are using their linguistical facilities and cannot add numbers if other people are talking too much. (Lots of other ways to do it too) I believe that this is due to choices in approach made when very young. If children hear too much dynamic range in music, or the music is too cinematic, they engage in a passive listening consumption process similar to being medicated and watching a movie. If children hear a compressed, shitty distorted sound, they will eventually become aware of the transfer function of the headphones and this awareness makes you better at understanding the world, especially in quantitative fields
You are either genuinely retarded or just trolling at this pointIn any case you are a tiring parody and you bring a bad name to sane people who are into audio
>>79682605>>79682856To make it clear I am not OP and these are my only posts in this thread
>>79682106>31hz to 19Khz human>source: my assI can hear mid 20's just fine, my high end cuts off 15.9Khz. But seriously go play with a sine wave generator you don't want to hear things >13Khz there's a reason it get's yeeted with some compression techniques>>79678248Alright take it from someone who's been studying signal processing for audio visualization for four years now, you're delusional https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
>>79683066All right if you're going to dismiss the source and make up some anecdotal shit, here's a better source that isn't as generous with the figures: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924
>>79683160The first line in that says 20hz to 20khz which is widely accepted, I'm just calling that 30hz statement bullshitNot sure what you're trying to prove / achieve here?
You can remember detailed auditory information for four seconds, maybe twelve but probably four, and if your comparison methodology doesn't take this into account then the results are useless.Let alone louder things sounding better in comparisons, or more expensive things sounding better even with all else being equal, or any number of other possible bias.
>>79680415I've never once used anything but clear and direct terms to describe sound. Did you find 6moons or did you pick this up from another cultist?
>>79680555On one hand, intuition and groupthink NPC settings consuming marketing. On the other, shining stars of high end audio engineering. We all know which one the cult prefers.
>>79680679Nyquist describes the math of sampling. I won't bother with the technicalities because that will just fly over your head, so let's try a different route: According to Nyquist, CD-quality audio should be sampled high enough to ensure the audio band is perfectly reproduced right? It's perfect, right? Okay. So. Why is dithering applied to CD masters? Answering this question SHOULD lead you down the right path.
>>79681685And YET they universally refuse to at least expose themselves to high-end audio. Do you know why 10,000 people went to AXPONA in 2019? Why 21,000 people went to Munich High End that year? Why there's shows in virtually every major city on Earth? These are people who've heard high end audio and have become audiophiles. Why is it that the people denying there's any difference between high end audio and basic consumer junk have never heard high end audio? What's up with that? How can they hold such a position without having experienced it? It's like me saying "supercars don't drive any different that mass market cars" and when asked which supercars I've driven I say "I don't need to, prove to me first they're any better".
>>79682150>anything mastered in the last 20 years has fuck all dynamic range compared to shit that came before.Except for vinyl releases, for some reason.
>>79682008>the difference is smallThe difference between a $150 DAC and high-end DAC are as night-and-day as anything can be in audio. Maybe only the difference between plastic PC speakers and horn arrays would be more obvious. I don't have any high-end DACs, the closest I have to that is a Yggdrasil Analog 2 (which is often reported to be as good as any DAC regardless of price but more thoughtful reviewers place around $8k). I've heard better of course at shows. But the point is, I can take this and compare it to any of the little DACs I own or have owned....currently a Modi 2, a Dragonfly Red and a little USB amp/dac unit from the cult recommendation.
BTW the Schiit QA is live:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToIjKCUvrow
>>79683860the compression curve you have to use and the phsycal limitations of the groove and stylus mean you cant just make everything louder else the needle starts jumping track.They found that out like a 100 years ago. The medium prevents you from doing some very specific stupid things.
Mike Moffat just said the new Schiit CD transport will have a USB OUTPUT. That's BIG.
>>79683687Are you actually fucking retarded??? Dithering is for bit depth (16 bits in CD, 24 is standard now). Nyquist has to do with the sampling rate (44.1KHz for CDs, which they don't touch). Nyquist theorem has literally nothing to do with dithering. I'm allowed to call you retarded because I actually know what I'm talking about, and you keep making shit up ("high end mfgs don't use off the shelf silicon") or blatantly misunderstand the basic science ("nyquist theorem has to do with sampling depth not sampling rate"), but don't say say something's going to go over my head when you haven't addressed my resistor ladder or IC posts.
>>79684036>>79683910>>79683893Thinly veiled schiit shilling thead
>1. Has never been exposed to high end audio once in his life.I interned at mark levinson several years ago when i was in college (technically harman which owns mark levinson but worked at the place where they designed the shit). Everyday i would listen to higher end audio equipment then you ever listened to in the perfect listening room.>2. In spite of having absolutely no experience with audio better than his own meager setup he feels he can deny the very existence of better audio.see above>3. Has very little understanding on audio technology. He has a fuzzy set of legends / factoids that he picked up browsing the Internet.I have a degree in electrical engineering and interned at an audio company and now design audio equipment. (technically i dont design the hardware or anything i am an embedded code monkey but still gives me more knowledge then you) I think i know a little more then the average audiophile boomer. >4. In spite of having so little knowledge of the topic he feels he can tell people demonstrably vastly more knowledgeable that they're dumb.You are dumb and i know more then you>6. In the end of the day they enjoy the sense of belonging to a marketing cult where they feel excited about cheap junk they feel is attainable for easy consumption.>7. The cult attacks people with more disposable income who can afford better audio. In reality it's just empty class envy.I have a harman citation 19 and other semi expensive shit. im not poor.everything else is schizo rambling. OP vinyl is a scam eat shit and die. Digital 4 lyfe!
>>79678248>>1. Has never been exposed to high end audio once in his life.Yes, I have. I have studio monitor headphones made out of steel and have had them for 10 years, and they're never going to break and 50mm drivers in them. When the earpads wore down, I replaced them, and when the cable broke, I replaced it.>4. In spite of having so little knowledge of the topic he feels he can tell people demonstrably vastly more knowledgeable that they're dumb.Most audiophile knowledge is snakeoil branding and bro science.>5. He claims to "believe" in "science" but actually he doesn't understand or even care about the science he's just running off a pre-programmed NPC script.I'm a literal research scientist. I don't believe in science, it's just a tool that I'm trained to use.>6. In the end of the day they enjoy the sense of belonging to a marketing cult where they feel excited about cheap junk they feel is attainable for easy consumption.My headphones aren't cheap junk.
Maybe if your hobby wasn't full of so much misinformation and lies people would take it seriously. If you want to blame somebody, blame the audio equipment salesmen and the enthusiastic hobbyists that promote their favourite products. Not the people that heard them cry wolf so many times, that they began to reject everything they say. When someone repeatedly lies to me, I no longer listen to them.
>>79684100TRY to follow along. You can rise above your NPC settings. I'm simplifying it of course but it's good enough for a 4chan post: Nyquist-Shannon describes the math for achieving perfect reconstruction of the waveform over a given range. This is used by NPCs to explain why CD-quality audio is perfect. It is, in fact, NOT perfect. I brought up dithering because this SHOULD prove that CD-quality audio ISN'T perfect. In fact it's FAR from it.Also, it wasn't widely known at the time of Nyquist-Shannon (if at all) that humans are much, MUCH more sensitive to time domain information than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest. For example, humans will respond to MOMENTS of sound that are much smaller than is required by a 20kHz waveform. This is PROBABLY (I don't think there is any definitive evidence yet) the reason why high-res audio sounds better. In other words Nyquist-Shannon isn't WRONG, it just doesn't describe the full story. All audiophiles knew at the start of the digital era that this CD stuff sounded AWFUL. It's improved tremendously over the decades with better DACs, better clocks, better circuitry and better parts, better understanding of what makes it sound good, etc, but it's still a fact that analog sounds better and CD as a format falls short.
>being that butthurtI cannot even imagine it.
>>79684196>Everyday i would listen to higher end audio equipment then you ever listened to in the perfect listening room.Okay liar, name the cheap DAC or amp that matches this Mark Levinson experience.
>>79684244Okay, please name your headphones.
>>79680253>obsessed with five year old business laptopsMake that ten.
>>79678248>1. Has never been exposed to high end audio once in his life.I have, much more expensive than the literal garage built crap you have>2. In spite of having absolutely no experience with audio better than his own meager setup he feels he can deny the very existence of better audio.Yes, I can, my setup it's ultimate >3. Has very little understanding on audio technology. He has a fuzzy set of legends / factoids that he picked up browsing the Internet.You literally don't even know calculus >4. In spite of having so little knowledge of the topic he feels he can tell people demonstrably vastly more knowledgeable that they're dumb.Like you do?>5. He claims to "believe" in "science" but actually he doesn't understand or even care about the science he's just running off a pre-programmed NPC script.Oh, bringing the pol memes>6. In the end of the day they enjoy the sense of belonging to a marketing cult where they feel excited about cheap junk they feel is attainable for easy consumption.There's no reason for audio to be particularly expensive in 2020, most of the serious problems where fixed back in the 80s, audio it's a mostly solved problem on the technical side>7. The cult attacks people with more disposable income who can afford better audio. In reality it's just empty class envy.Keep believing that>8. The cult leader uses simplistic FFT plots as the primary marketing tool. He points out what is "good" and "bad" in large colorful fonts for cultist consumption.Just like SBAF does>9. No one in the cult knows what it is they're actually looking at, but the echo chamber assures them that it's reality, the cult leader is showing them the truth, and this is a good, inexpensive product to consume.Just like SBAF and HeadFi do, but with expensive trash>10. The cult leader occasionally measures expensive gear which he rates "bad" to give some red meat to the class envy but also to promote the marketing of cheap toys.Yeah, take the Stereophile paid ads
>>79678248I have a legitimate question for you OP and I want a legitimate answer. Have you ever played a musical instrument before?
>>79682605At any age, recordings that have a lot of lower-volume detail in the higher frequencies are a lot less fatiguing with dynamic compression. It's only when it's so distorted that those details are muddled, or in loudness wars where compression combined with equalization that emphasizes the midrange the ear is already most sensitive to, that it becomes otherwise. It's also the case that in the early years of digital, a lot of analogue recordings were dynamically expanded far too much when re-mastered for CD to suppress noise, and digital ones to "impress" with with extra difference from vinyl. But those are not only a lot more irritating to listen to, they're also unrealistic, and make the sound of a chamber orchestra heard from the front row, for instance, sound pleasantly compressed by comparison.
So, what music audiophiles sperging over their equipment end up listening to?
>>79684582Dithering has nothing to do with sampling dumb retard, you're the one spouting preprogrammed headfi scripts
>>79682150Honestly think that change contributes to the revival of city pop and 80's jpop, music with high dynamic range just sounds much more alive, less like noise that all has the same texture.
>>79684676Captain Beefheart or some other insanely complexly layered composition that sounds like absolute ass like you had pushed an orchestra down the stairs in unison. (based on a highly highly biased sample size of like 4 persons I have met)Im not knocking how absolutely hard it is to have played and recorded TMR without them harmonizing all without cutting and sampling. But god damn it sounds bad.The people into snake oil audiophile tier tend to listen to some avant garde weird eclectic stuff and herald it as a lost art. Maybe if it was all that amazing we would have pressed it onto a gold record and launched it into space, but we did not. >>79684739city pop also just sampled for the most part western pop and funk from the prior decade. They are beats a lot of people already know. City Pop Loved to copy the bay city rollers, herbie hancock and others. In some cases they eve managed to get the original artists to show up on the new city pop track
>>79684663>have you ever played an instrumentOutside of high school, no.
>>79684582Dithering only happens to amplitude not frequencyNyquist only has to do with frequency and not amplitude If I rise above my NPC settings will I be able to understand how the nyquist theorem is apparently invalid because of amplitude dithering on CD remasters?I took a signal processing class, I've actually learned all the math you are pretending to know and then abstracting away with "I'm simplifying it of course...". Also your second paragraph makes it clear that you never actually read the wikipedia page for the nyquist theorem because it is generic to all signals and is not specific to audio or human hearing (which you imply with the first sentence). The rest of the second paragraph is just shit you made up, CDs sounded awful because of the loudness wars and are better now because the streaming services enforce average loudness limits. I've kind of assumed I've been being baited since like the second post you made but even this is a bit much.
>>79684676Usually it’s famous recordings of orchestral and jazz. Also classic rock. Check out the old Decca recordings, Mobile Fidelity and Analogue Productions catalogues. Audiophiles tend to focus on these famous greats because of how well high-end systems expose them. There’s lots of very high-end modern recordings from the likes of Channel Classics, 2L, Reference Recordings, Hyperion, etc. Modern DG and sometimes even Sony Classical can put out great albums occasionally.
It's really not envy. Can't you understand that the over saturation of grifts in the audiophile community turns a lot of people away? It's like the conspiracy theorist community. Conspiracies happen all the time but grifters running amok leads to nothing being taken seriously. I don't dislike Alex Jones because I can't afford Super Male Vitality supplements. I dislike him because he's running a grift on millions of people toward an end that only enriches himself.
>>79685058What you are trying hard to pretend to not recognize is that Nyquist-Shannon does not mean "perfect audio". If you understand this why don’t you correct people who repeat this misinformation?Furthermore, humans don’t listen to waveforms. That is, in our context, an electrical phenomenon. Sound waves are three-dimensional physical phenomena which gets translated into an electrical current. The current then gets transformed into binary logic. There is a huge amount of loss involved in this process, including the reverse process.
>>79685021hmm, so if you're classically trained then you understand musical notes and can immediately recognize them in a production right? Sound is something you trust your instincts on most of the time. I know that my synths sound noticeably different on their raw output vs. through my DAC, even when I was using really shitty $20 headphones. But regardless it overall has no effect on any real mix unless im isolating tracks. And even then EQ exists...And this is the part where I re-read your post and see that you're claiming non-audiophiles are cultists haahahaYou clearly don't know what a cult it. But everything I said still applies. For the vast majority of people that have no experience with audio or music, they just need to trust their ears. The extremely nitty gritty of sound is truly only important to hobbyists. Its not important that they experience good headphones/good sound, the fact of the matter is that they wouldn't know the difference.
>>79685148Name all these grits. I can name a few which you’ve probably never heard of. Which others? Monster Cables? Okay, then? Name one well-known name in high end audio and explain how it’s a grift.
>>79685292Brilliant pebbles, cables + cable accessories like elevators, EM filters/conditioners, vibration dampeners aside for those for turntables like dampeners for amplifiers.
>>79685436I've never heard of pebbles or rocks except for Shakti Stones which is universally reported by audiophiles to do nothing. Cables are real and not a grift. Power cables make the largest difference -- not in every situation but in those where it does matter they can make a huge difference, like a different amp. Be honest and tell me you can't hear the difference:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntU3vb0e4Y4Power filters are 100% real and can have a large impact. In fact that exists in pro audio and home theatre it's by NO means some audiophile niche. If you go to shows almost every room has a Furman filter unit. You can get get small balanced isolation transformer from AliExpress for less than $200 shipped. Vibration dampeners are are also legit, but obviously some gear benefits it more from others. Most high-end gear will have high-end vibration isolation feet, even lower end units will at least have something.
>delivers audiophile quality sound>only $300>only 1 thin cableHow does Apple do it?
>>79685764Forgot my pic
>>79678248> ad-hominem; the post.Really GUTB? Is this where we're at now..?
>>79685791That thing is as far from being audiophile grade as I am from walking on the moon.
what OP is describing has also been described as the 'toxic casual'. You can see this human-trope in almost every hobbiest activity from technology, to competitive gaming, to fashion, music, etc..
>93 replies of shit flingingStill no velocidensitry pasta
>>79685268Yeah I was talking about the guys sampling at 192KHz and advertising that like it's anything beyond placebo. Sampling at 44.1Khz is completely sufficient to perfectly reproduce anything a human can hear. Describe a scenario where this is untrue.
>>79684781Yea, it's definitely a foreigners look into american pop culture, so you end up with a different view of something familiar, plus the fidelity and instrument choices compared to today just really makes it that much more interesting.
>>79685746>Be honest and tell me you can't hear the difference:I can't hear the difference, and if I could there's no reason to think some guy selling $5000 power cables isn't altering the audio. And, youtube's transcoding of audio is going to have more on an effect on audio than power cables.
>>79685746You are beyond redemption if you think the cable does fucking anything, especially the power cable which goes through hundreds of miles miles of shitty transmission line, many noisy as fuck transformers, and then through a hundred yards of shitty romex before finally entering your diamond encrusted cable for the last 2 feet of the journey.
>>79684582>I'm simplifyingPlease stop. You only come across as though you don't even understand trigonometric functions. Describe it in terms of the sinc.>I brought up dithering because this SHOULD prove that CD-quality audio ISN'T perfect.Dither is a matter of quantization. It is not one of sampling.>Also, it wasn't widely known at the time of Nyquist-Shannon (if at all) that humans are much, MUCH more sensitive to time domain information than our frequency domain acuity would otherwise suggest.The sampling theorem concerns anything that can be construed as a signal and anything that can transmit information. It does not specifically relate to audio or human perception.Sampling has no general issue with encoding phase shifts, therefore time. Again, see that the sampling theorem outlines a general method for the exact reconstruction of bandlimited functions.
>>79686017Sorry, hig-res audio perception has been scientifically proven. Check into the cult forum for an updated NPC setting.
>>79686070Well it’s possible your system is so low quality it won’t show up. Listen for a sense of increased separation of sounds between the silver and basic cables. Use the time stamps to switch between them. I listened to this and was able to pick it up even through YouTube compression and ADC from my speakers and Cherry amp from my PC setup with no power conditioning and just a Wyrd for USB conditioning. I didn’t even need to break out my headphones. I can believe it because I’ve heard for myself how much difference power cables can make with much cheaper cables in my own system. Yes I suppose he could be cheating the playback but as mentioned I’ve tested this myself in my own system so I have no reason to believe it’s fake.
>>79686233This is an example of NPC behavior. No matter what you try to do with Villager A, you’ll get a set of programmed responses assigned to Villager A. I’m not debating Nyquist-Shannon, I’m trying to point out that reliance on it to "prove" CD quality audio is "perfect" is wrong.
>>79679923You're welcome to leave at any minute. Just to let you know, you don't have to read 4chan posts to cope with buyer's remorse / mid-life crisis, head-fi and reddit are more suitable for your placebo-phile hobby bubble. Also take your meds, you sound a bit scizo.
>>79686879~60% correct based on a selection of overall studies, meaning that hi-res audio perception is, at best, just higher than random chance.t. audiofag's supplied source
>>79687182Or how about leaving the cult? If I leave high end audio is still there and you'll still be in a sad marketing bubble.
>>79687890Nope. It's a statistical analysis of 1 bunch of different studies, and the range of success is very large even though it averages to be 60%. It also controls for trained listeners which have a massively improved chance success. Even if it was literally 60% across the board we're dealing with numbers that still makes it statistically significant -- meaning it's real. Update your cope or leave the cult already and explore a world of audio you're trying hard to pretend doesn't exist right now.
>>79687167You were the one who brought up CD quality when we were talking about the nyquist theorem, you kind of brought that one upon yourself.>>79686963You are delusional, which I don't blame you for. If I got fooled in to spending a bunch on cables that let you turn your volume knob down by about 5%, I'd spend a lot of time trying to cope too.>>79686879Why do you think I'm in the ASR cult, I only know about it because of people like you whining about it and I've visited the site like twice. >>7968794760% is well within margin of error, but after seeing how you uh interpret the nyquist theorem I can't really expect you to understand things like p-value or margin of error. This doesn't matter because you have a $3500 DAC so you've already bought in hook line and sinker and nothing I say will convince you I'm just hoping you look dumb enough to onlookers that I stop someone from shoveling money to the snake oil salesmen that permate the hi-fi world.
Differences between studio monitors and audiophile speakers:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcbHJg5aFgQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcbHJg5aFgQ
Instead of making these threads why don't you just conduct ABX tests? Surely you will pass every time and prove us wrong. Why are audiophiles so afraid of ABX tests?
>>79688400>>79688400ABX testing is just a wall the cult puts up to avoid listening to high-end audio. ABX is difficult to conduct in the real world and of course you know that. But critically, ABX testing is basically worthless. Why? The ABX protocol fails to handle audio memory effects. I have first-hand experience with this having challenged a few sample-rate ABXs in the past. I hear an unmistakable difference in one track, ie, cymbals have a bright shimmer effect, better separation, etc, but those differences disappear after the first couple of switches. The effects which were evident disappear completely, they never come back. No matter how carefully you listen you just can't make out any differences whatsoever. What's happening is that audio memory is taking these two similar sounds and mushing them together so that you can't tell them apart anymore. This effect hits very fast. So unless there's a huge difference that can get past audio memory effects ABX is worthless. It fails to identify differences that would otherwise be identifying using other protocols which is why no one bothers with it anymore -- except bad faith cultists who throw it out as a discussion-ending, thought-ending barrier.
>>79688592>huge cope about why he fails ABX testsHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>79688592>No matter how carefully you listen you just can't make out any differences whatsoever.This is a huge Freudian slip
What are your thoughts on ABX tests?
>>79688606Clown, YOU'RE the one falling down a flight of Freudian stairs. The NPC premise is that the audiophile imagines differences in sound from placebo. Why does placebo stop working in an ABX test? It's not that I think I hear something but turns out to be wrong, it's that I lose the ability to hear ANYTHING different. So where did my placebo go?? Why does it always desert me at critical times?
>>79688592>I can't prove my beliefs in an empiric manner>So you're either too poor or too dumb to understand that my magic crystals enhance audio qualityThat's a big cope
>>79688668>So where did my placebo go??Placebos aren't real. That's why you fail ABX tests and that's why you're coping.
>>79688592Oh my gosh this is a massive cope. /g/ audiophile is on the ropes
>>79688673Is visiting a high end audio dealer REALLY that difficult? Of course not, you just don't WANT to. You prefer ignorance and being marketing cheap toys.
>>79688681Placebos ARE real. Of course I know you don't actually know that you're just Villager A repeating your script.
>>79688704>admitting its a placebo effectHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA OH NOOO
>>79688695This is the standard cope of the audiofool. After you bring up ABX they either:>Outright lie and claim they aced some undisclosed test>Claim they don't work because reasons>Otherwise ignore youIt's always one of these 3.This guy went fucking nuclear and wrote a wall of cope.
>>79688704You are failing ABX tests because its a placebo effect. When you don't know which system is "high end", you admit you can't hear a difference. Keep coping
>>79688704>Placebos ARE realScreencapped and will post in every shitty thread you keep making
>>79688718So, I "admit:" a reality? What's wrong with you? Will you now admit that placebo is less effective in clinical trials vs the drug being tested? Hey, where did this audio placebo effect come from? Who studied it? Surely the cult has informed you?
>>79688746CLOWN. If placebo is what causes me to hear things not there to begin with, WHAT about ABX testing destroys the placebo effect? Well?
>>79688752Google the word before making a fool out of yourself in public.
>>79688773>WHAT about ABX testing destroys the placebo effect?Its a blind test and you don't know which is the "high end" system, so you no longer can tell a difference. This isn't hard to understand, keep coping.
>>79688668>play clip you think should be better>brain thinks it sounds good>switch to clip you think should be worse>brain assumes it sounds worse, placebo ensures a negative reaction, even if nothing has actually changed>switch a few more times>nothing actually changes, so you lose the effect as the brain realises nothing is actually changing
>>79688766>my audiophile gear is producing a placebo effectHey as long as you keep admitting it, I won't stop you
your meds, schizotake them
>>79687913>you'll still be in a sad marketing bubbleGet a load of this guy. He spent insane amounts of money on inane shit and thinks other people are in "marketing bubble".
>>79688803>>79688681>>79688704>>79688752i think you guys might be getting your wires crossed a bitplacebo is a real thing, but it's in your head, placebo can make two literally identical sounds seem different, through the influence of unrelated stimulus, such as how shiny something is, or what logo it stuck on itthis is why blind testing exists, the idea is to remove unrelated changes from the system, so you can't be influenced by them
>>79687947The "range of success" on individual levels is not given. Even if there were people there getting 100% correct, they would have to be significantly outweighed by people doing no better than random chance to bring the average down to 60%.However, there is no evidence of this given in the study. The results of one study which are presented, show claimed audiophiles and audio professionals still averaging around 60-65%.Some other studies have overall results much closer to 50% (but over, bit under).So the statistically significant result we have is that some people can, or can be trained, to notice a difference between "regular" and "hi-res" audio at least some of the time.That's the most pragmatic conclusion you can take from that study.
>>79688668>Why does placebo stop working in an ABX test?Because you're no longer in control of knowing what audio or gear is being used.
$10,000 can make anything sound like it came straight from heaven, even a vinyl recordhow can it possibly be anything short of astounding, if it costs so much money?
>>79688773>>79688781Wow, the amounts of cope are unreal. Have you ever read the definition of placebo?
>>79689016>Puts it through a $5 speaker DSPnothing personell kid
>>79689016>$10,000 can make anything sound like it came straight from heavenExcept bad music.
>>79689016>how can it possibly be anything short of astounding, if it costs so much money?Uhh I don't know... Maybe because they convinced a bunch of idiots to pay for it because of its "amazing tonal clarity and depth"?
>>79688793My LORD these NPCs....I explained that the differences I could hear in the BEGNING of the ABX disappear after the first few toggles. There's no sighted component. I have no idea which is which.
>>79688802The ABX test was a challenge put out by someone who ensured there was no way to tell the files apart. The ABX plugin also completely hides which file is which. If my placebo caused me to hear something one time, why did it fail to help me out after the first few switches? Well?
>>79689213So why couldn't you identify the gear by the first time you listened then? You forgot which one sounded like what?And even if what you say is true what's the point of paying for expensive shit when you can use a "toy" that begins to sound like the real thing after 5 minutes?Anyway I know you're a troll I'm just playing along
>>79688592>I hear an unmistakable difference in one track, ie, cymbals have a bright shimmer effect, better separation, etc, but those differences disappear after the first couple of switches. The effects which were evident disappear completely, they never come back.A clear sign that they were never really there.Remember, placebos are only effective when you don't know it's a placebo. That's all that is happening.Once you realize that there isn't actually any difference, you stop hearing a difference.
>>79678248>>79688773>>79688704>>79688592>>79688668Reminder that this faggot has been banned from most audiophile forums, objective or not, due to his superiority complex. If you don't agree with him, you're in a "cult" and then starts throwing around words that even he doesn't understand. He has NEVER posted any proof of his "setup" and all he has is his "experience". He gatekeeps his hobby and even makes fun of other people's music taste. I've never seen even the most retarded audiophile do this, since most of them actually enjoy listening to music, not just wank over some vinyl player.He's still here and enjoys this shit flinging and you guys just are just classically feeding the troll.You can easily find him and recognize his trolling style by his GUTB handle.https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/61455-favorite-mqa-albums/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1100433https://drop.com/buy/massdrop-o2-amplifier/talk/1660319His superiority complex is not even limited to audiophilia. As expected, he's also an Apple fanboy because "android is for poor people". This thread especially has aged beautifully.https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/shield-tv/9/217837/tegra-is-dying/He's mad on ASR because they called him out on his trolling, laughed in his face and then banned him, as any sane person should do.https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/purifi-class-d-review-and-observations.18867/
>>79688842I'm not in a forum cult consuming graphs of the cult leader telling me what I should buy and how it's better than expensive stuff which is for dummies. A core tenant of the cult is not only claiming cheap toys being mrketed to you is just as good, but that it's also BETTER than the expensive, fancy products. Your cult leader was LITERALLY CAUGHT fudging the Yggdrasil measurements. WHy would he do such a thing? To sell cheap junk. Later on someone at SBAF found that the Chinese distributor of these things had a site where it did nothing but shill ASR reviews. Interesting.THe reason why I tell you people to VISIT A HIGH END DEALER is because I GET IT that most of you don't have the spending power to do things I do, ie, buy a bunch of gear and test it. So at least you can visit a good showroom and get that experience under your belt, so that MAYBE some reality can break through the programming. Even if it's some $50k system you'll never be able to afford the point is to have experienced what high end sounds like, that it's not fake, it's not placebo, it's the real deal. I can describe what it sounds like all day but the only way to really get it is to hear it.
>having to justify your wasted money this hardCant tell if serious
>>79689279Oh, good thing you replied. So that everybody can see you gatekeeping again like I mentioned here.>>79689278
>>79689279I am so glad I'm not you.
>>79689255Look, just google ABX challenge. I believe they were from Hydrogenaudio forum years ago. It was s ample rate test, like if you could hear the difference between the same track at different sample rates or bit depths, something like that. This is what I challanged. There is no gear, no sighted, no way for me to tell which was which. I didn't cheat by running the files through an analyzer. The Foobar ABX plugin completely hides which is which. Differences I heard in the beginning disappeared very quickly, after the first few toggles. No matter how hard I listened I couldn't find the differences again. Audio memory simply swamped the differences out and muddled the two tracks together until I was reduced to just wild guessing.
For your viewing pleasure.https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/26997-gutb/content/
>>79680510You didn't just take the >We feel that jitter should be kept to well below 2 picoseconds.To mean>people are sensitive to time variance down to 2 picosecondsdid you?Please tell me you didn't.
>>79689279And again, i have a more than decent setup at home, even "audiophile grade" with high end headphones and both solid state and tube amps (tube amps are a meme btw). I went and listened to plenty of ~50k$ speaker setups and even the Sennheiser Orpheus. I even posted some pictures from there on some of your older threads, which you conveniently ignored, since you ignore proof. And you can other people "cultists".
>>79689333>. This is what I challanged. There is no gear, no sighted, no way for me to tell which was which.That's the point.>No matter how hard I listened I couldn't find the differences again.So that's proof of theplacebo.
>>79689278Good LORD. I've posted my setup with pictures MANY times in past threads. I have a $20k (paid, not MSRP) system in a dedicated, treated listening room. I also have a headphone system by my main PC. I have a custom audio PC with linear PSU, battery-powered audiophile USB card and SSD isolation as my digital source, and a Triangle Art vinyl rig as my analog source. I talk about my system all the time over in Audiophile Style and Audiogon, two places which haven't banned me. I get banned everywhere else because of class envy mostly. I get accused of gatekeeping when I point out there is much, MUCH better sound to be had than a sub-$1000 system. It's the truth. Amongst actual audiophiles that's not debatable. There are many of them in these forums with MUCH more experience and MUCH MUCH better systems than me. You would fall over dead if you found out what some of them have. In fact, $20k is about the AVERAGE range for a typical audiophile system. It's the price of a small car, yes that's true -- but OH WELL these things cost money. I'M SORRY. It's this class envy that kills me with you people.
>>79689413And there you go being a smug cunt again, you smug cunt.
>>79689413Yeah, the cult is strong in this one.
>>79689413>You would fall over dead if you found out what some of them have.I would fall over dead from laughter at their and your idiocy maybe. God, I wish I had the money to invest in an audiophile start-up. I'd be filthy rich in a couple of years with geniuses like you.>I have a custom audio PC with linear PSUYour genius is showing again. Feeding switching circuits with a linear power supply.See, the issue is not that you spent that much money on dumb shit. It's not even a question of worth and class envy. Everyone but you knows that their investment was probably dumb. But at least they don't try to rationalize and promote it like the second coming of Christ.
>>79679927This is why I never upgrade my shit when I'm not already dissatisfied with it. It's just not worth it. I'm still using HD 280 Pros on motherboard audio for this reason.
Music is vibration.Vibration is the language of the universe.Vibration is therefore divine
>>79689333I recognize this.I don't know if it has got a name but it's basically a fallacy. You're claiming that you've already done some ABX test and aced it, but giving a reason why you can't take it again, just in case we present it to you.Yeah, I totally landed a double back flip, but after doing it a couple of times my rhythm got fucked and now I can't do it anymore. But just trust me guys!
>>79689413Tyrone, give it back
>>79689542I didn't ace any ABX test. I explained why ABX tests are not useful and then illustrated the point by describing my own experiences with it.
>>79689766Of course they're not useful to you since they disprove the shit you're spewing.
>>79678248The singular of phenomena is phenomenon.
>>79689278I'm sure this retard would feel right at home in the Steve Hoffman forums.>>79689279>go to this snakeoil salesman, he'll show you that the snakeoil I bought is real!
>>79684781What's wrong with Trout Mask Replica? I mean, remasters exist and a variant without vocals exists as well.>if Id waz so gud why didn't we play it in space broI guess this stupid shit is only second to "it's topping the charts, so it must be good".
>>79689766Oh, so it's just simple poisoning the well, then.
>>79689936I don't even understand what you're saying?
>>79685436>EM filters/conditionersNot an audiophool but these actually can make a difference if you have sort of shitty equipment or bad power (though they don't matter in the way audiophools claim they do)I've been considering building one myself since I can hear lightswitches being thrown and the refrigerator starting up over my system
>>79678248I'm an engineer in a company that makes a pretty high profile product marketed to audiophiles, and most of us find this kind of guy annoying and pitiful. Most "high-end" stuff is just placebo or personal preference (the looks count way more than the sound at this level)Also, ask me anything, I'm bored
>>79690520Please tell us which company this is so I can be sure to avoid it as a scam company.
>>79680510there's no scientific data in that articlethe statement you're referring to is a qualitative figure from a company's president, backed up by nothing whatsoeverwhen the guy write "scientific" he meant something scientific, where they explain how they conducted a rigorous enough test that resulted in a statistically significant portion of subjects being able to hear any difference between a signal affected by a 2ps jitter vs a 4ps jitterwhich by the way doesn't exist because humans perception isn't that detailed>>79683641>shining star of high end audio engineeringthat's a company's president speakingit would be like saying Jen-Hsun Huang and Elon Musk are the shining stars of cutting edge AI implementation research>>79683791but they don't refuse to try high end stuffsome of them do listen to high end audio equipment and still find fault in your baseless assertions, such as those I mentioned before, or the ridiculous stuff like vinyl records being the pinnacle of hi-fi audio, or anything you've posted about dithering, which by the way people have explained to you to be flat out wrong while you go on about how they don't even know the Nyquist theorem, which describes a sampling rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are band-limited to a given bandwidthPERFECT FIDELITYthe Nyquist theorem contradicts your assertion that 176,4 > 88,2 > 44,1kHzgo and read what it says>why do people go to high end audio showsbecause they're interested in high end audio I supposewhat does that have to do with you being right or wrong about how sampling/PSUs/SSDs/converters/speakers/... work?>people deny the difference between high end audio and low end shitthey don't, that's all in your headwhat people say is some stuff that you don't like is better than some stuff you like, which apparently drives you to think of the most absurd explanations for why they might not have ears at all
>>79690545Nope :^)But don't be sad, the marketing guys absolutely love you. They literally make shit up, feed it to you guys and you can "totally hear the difference"... It's cringeworthy, really
>>79690520How much should someone spend on a specific product category in your line-up before he gets scammed (e.g. x amount of $ for an amp)?
>>79690598So, it’s just a scam company? Do you enjoy developing scam products? Sounds like software the way you’re talking and so you’re just a programmer I guess?
Audiofag>i listen to MQA-CD and regular CD back to back and can easily hear the differenceAlso audiofag>i can't do ABX testing because if i listen to the clips back to back i become unable to tell the difference between themHis ability to identify high quality/high resolution audio appears to hinge on his knowledge of which he is listening to.An unfortunate blow to the credibility of our resident audiofool.
>>79690717It's not a scam company, we don't build high end amps or speakers, but what we do build really delivers value. I do write software that goes embedded into some third party audio products that I think are scams, but my software really does deliver real value for our clients even if they are not audiophiles. I think I couldn't stand working in a scam company, really.>>79690663I think you could sink 1k USD in your whole setup before getting outright scammed, but I really think it's not worth going anywhere near that. Personally, I use $200 headphones plugged in to my cellphone, streaming 320khz over wifi (I'm not poor)
BTW I set up my MoFi StudioDeck and AT-OC9L/II and IPhono 2 next to the headphone system. It’s been a long time since I did a shoot out between the old system and the Triangle Art setup. The MoFi will have an edge by being in a different room so it’s low mass won’t be held against it.
>>79683687dithering is applied to CD masters if the original audio is at a bit depth higher than 16bit and/or was processed digitally at a higher-than-16bit resolution, which is the case with any modern DAWit's used to remove quantization errors (the distortion you may introduce in a signal converting it from a more-than-16bit to 16bit)it has nothing to do with the time domain, and isn't done if the original material is 16bit and processed at that same resolution>>79685268>doesn't understand the Nyquist theorem>insists that it's everybody else not understanding ithuh>There is a huge amount of loss involved in this processthere is a loss, though it's not by any means caused by sampling at 44,1kHzyou'd know if youy' knowunderstood the Nyquist theorem
>>79690805320 kbps mp3*Also, I won't say that those products are outright scams. They just deliver an experience that isn't just sound quality
>>79689231in that case it may have just been a fatigue thing
>>79690844>BTW I use arch.
>>79689541I hope you're trolling, like OP.
>>79678248I'm not an audiophile, but bump for a thread that for once goes against /g/roupthink.
>>79691375>audiofool>goes against groupthinkTake your pills and share some with OP, he refuses to take his.
>>79678248I don't understand wtf your talking about but i know that some sound cards and speakers are bad
>>79688592>chemical ph testing is just a cult dogma put up to avoid savoring the low hanging fruit>those grapes are actually sour, as I said before
>>79691681op is suggesting a conspiracy by people selling cheap audio gear to convince people that bags of quartz crystals cellotaped to cables don't actually do anything
>>79678248Imagine being banned from every website and finding yourself here of all places. What a fucking disgrace.
>>79691803>posts on 4chan>still acts like he's above anyoneop is suffering a very serious case of denial
>>79685791>MonoJump off a bridge
>>79691777No one is buying bags of crystals. Lots of people are being sold low-fidelity junk while being told that it’s the best audio available.
>>79690520>>79690805Ok this nigga works for Roon or a similar service 100%
>>79679927But then there are tracks you can only appreciate with sufficient quality audio. But yeah, I would stop at ~100$ headphones (and ~80$ PCIe audio card, probably cheaper now) because I don't hear much difference beyond it and I think I can hear pretty much all details (not breathing of the drummer but I don't think that's relevant).>You can look up case studies of wine professionals who are given random wine samples to observe a similar phenomena.I thought these guys actually knew their shit. I mean, taste is pretty complex.
>>79683791>supercars don't drive any different that mass market carsWell, yeah. In the city they don't. Just like "muh super fidelity audio" sounds all the same for humans. No point going above limits of human ear.
>>79684244>studio monitor headphones made out of steelAre they heavy?
>>79693010Actually the only thing you learn with the sommelier story is the wine quality is NOT directly related to price. Experienced it literally yesterday when I got a 2 dollar bottle from lidl I bought to make a sauce was the best bottle I had in years.My friend who knows his shit told me that people who fancy wine found out about the quality of some bottles and raid the store for the good shit when they restock.
>>79692954you can go too far in both directionsthere is certainly such thing as low end audio, but at the same time, there are upper limits as well, and a point where it's not worth spending more moneythe stuff people shit on here are well past sensible improvements and into totally imperceptible territorynobody can possibly benefit from powering an ssd from a battery bank
>>79688100>using NS10s as an example of the typical monitor speakerthe guy is either extremely ignorant or is purposely choosing examples that aren't in any way representative of real monitor speakers to make the products he sells look better in comparison>if music is mastered on monitor speakers than you should use monitor speakers to listen to it, according to the ignorant pro audio guys>music is recorded in mastering studiosa number of mastering studios use hi-fi speakers for work, the B&W 802 are relatively common, and recording studios are something else entirelyI get the feeling that this guy really is ignorant>monitor speakers are chosen for specific characteristics that are desirable to the recording/mixing/mastering engineer but that are probably not what "we, as music lovers" are interested inthough it's not like he feels the need to elaborate>our 1,2ton, 108 driver system in a room designed specifically to house it sounds different than monitor speakers in commercial facilities where costs are a considerationis that supposed to be testament to the fact that hi-fi speakers in general are better than monitor speakers in general?>is this what audiophiles listen tovery clearly not>a lot of mixing rooms sound different than my systemI'm sure they dowhether they sound worse though...>this guy who runs an audiophile label and engineers recordings uses extremely accurate, custom built speakers that you, though listener would hate themso the point is that monitor speakers sound accurate, detailed and revealing, and hi-fi speakers don't, hence audiophiles, who hate listening to accurate, detailed and revealing speakers/recordings, hate monitor speakers?>B&W speakers sound sterilewhich would be another way to say accurate, detailed, revealing, transparent... though making it look like a bad thing?>hi-fi speakers bring life to musicaka they color it and distort it yada yada, though making look like a good thing?
>>79678248I'm listening to flac on a moto e on a pair of edifier speakers in my living room. Sounds good
>>79686215you reminded me of pic related from a previous thread
>>79685746what does vibration dampening do to anything that isn't a turntable / tape deck?
>>79693270Many parts inside electronics are microphonic. Capacitors, coils and some semis are susceptible to this. Normally it's not an issue.
>>79693361are there any measurable differences in output with various amounts of ambient vibration?it doesn't really matter if it's possibly /in theory/, is it a concern in practice?it's possibly in theory for a crt to produce x-rays, just not in normal operation scenarios (doesn't stop people going on about it though)
>>79680246You are a pathetic redditor who got scammed trying to fit in and impress your fellow retards in the audiophile cult. After suffering buyers remorse after not hearing any difference you found out how many people mock you retards. You resolved your cognitive dissonance by oding on copium and your seething hands now quotes literal ad testimonials to defend your cult on /g/
>>79693511In practice yes it can be an actual concern but if you have an audible issue with a modern piece of equipment you likely have a defective product.It's much more of a problem inside of things like guitar amps. Some very beloved amps own their qualities because of microphonic ceramic caps that pick up the speaker.
>>79688668>why are ABX test results not influenced by the placebo effectbecause it's a blind test, or, you aren't revealed what you're listening to, thus the influence of any preconception you might have goes out of the window, and you're left with only the discernible difference in sound A vs sound B>>79688766>placebo is less effective in clinical trials vs the drug being testedsorry what>where did this audio placebo effect come fromthe fact that you believe something such as a brand, a topology, a price tag... will correlate to a better sound, thus when you listen to sound A being labeled as "expensive tube class A amp" and the same sound A as "mid level chinese produced class D amp" you hear A "tube class A" sounding better than A "chink class D", even though they're the same sound>who studied itcountless researchers, mainly in the fields of medicine and psychology since 1799, knock yourself outhttps://sci-hub.st/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941>>79688773>why are ABX test results not influenced by the placebo effectsee the beginning of this post>>79688850based clearposter>>79689213>I could hear in the BEGNING of the ABXbecause of course you believe you will be able to hear a difference between sound A and sound B your brain helps you out a little and makes you hear a faint difference, which disappears after a bit because your brain doesn't have any reason to cope, so to speak, and you're left with only the discernible difference in sound A vs sound B, which in your case is apparently none if you have no idea which is whichif the differences you heard were real you would be able to ace the test quickly>>79689231>The ABX plugin also completely hides which file is whichthat's called a blind test, yesit's typically desirable as far as scientific rigor is concerned>but I could hear a difference right at the beginningsee the answer to your previous post
>>79689333>I couldn't find the differences againimagine listening to a system for a few minutes, getting used to it, and then almost instantaneously changing systemthe differences would be clear, the clearer the more you got used to that sound systemsame thing applies here, if you listened to sound A for a minute or two and then switched to sound B any difference would become apparent if there was any>audio memory simply swamped the differencesthat might make sense if there was a pause of 5 seconds between sound A and sound B, though with foobar2k's ABX plugin the silence is closer to 250msif you can't hear the differences you were hearing so clearly when you looked at which file you were listening to it means that those differences you heard were caused by the placebo effect>>79689766>I explained why ABX tests are not usefulquite the opposite, by reporting your own experiences with them you showed in what way they're useful - they remove the placebo effectsleep on it, then decide what you want to trust, your own subjective impressions, that by the way change significantly when you run a test that, among its characteristics, removes the placebo effect, and have been disproved time and again, or the result of a scientific enough test, and consider whether the reason you might choose the former is only the fact that else you'd be irrevocably proven wrong
>>79678248you have tuned your bot to write better text this time
>>79689279>cult leader was LITERALLY CAUGHT fudging the Yggdrasil measurementswrong and contested>>79563187
>>79693095which wine was that?asking for a friendI don't know if they only sell it in Italy, though there was a Primitivo with a mostly white label going for €4 a bottle at lidl just a short while ago and I wholeheartedly recommend it
>>79694088Enclos des Tuileries 2019. Its a bordeaux I don't know if they sell it in Italy. Don't serve it to your snob guests lmao. It's pretty good with nice woody notes. It really goes down easy. I almost felt bad for making a sauce out of it until I gobbled up two plates of the bœuf bourguignon I made out of it.
>>79694190thanks, and cheers
>>79683893All garbage DACs beaten by 9038s.
>>79683893While the Yggdrasil is pretty good, it's still worse than their new modi 3. Schitt barely got good at making devices and their older stuff that hasn't been refreshed yet is way behind.
>>79679652What's the absolute best DAC you can get for 150$?
>>79694682Topping E30 probably
>>79694682>>79694727Was going to post the exact same thing.
>>79679005Usually the $100 DAC is better than the $10,000 DAC. There are so many idiots like OP whole like jewellery for 60+ year old men.
>>79681788discrete R2R ladder DAC is actually quite expensive as you need very good tolerance resistors and high performance switches. They also achieve a performance level far below the best Delta Sigma ICs.
>>79693797>https://sci-hub.st/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.113006.095941......are you people purposely misunderstanding simple English language statements? Where does this AUDIO placebo effect come from and who studied it? It COULDN’T just be NPCs picking up something they heard about in medicine and applying it to their class envy target in a derogatory fashion....right? Certainly not, right?
>>79693116The funny thing about this is:EVEN if they really enjoy the coloring and think its so much better than a clean and accurate sound,then the best course of action would be buying the most accurate and clean speaker possible and running it through an effects chain with eq, reverb and distortion.After all, you can accurately tweak every parameter in the chain to your perfect liking, so it must be the most superior solution.They could never admit this though.
>>79678248I design your high end audio products for consultancy money. All the EEE's are laughing at you.
>>79678248I don't know why all those psychologists even bother with all the books and test subjects when threads like these exist. Not only do you get the most deep and detailed insight into the mind of a madman you can also talk to him without having to worry for your dear life.
>>79694946>Where does this AUDIO placebo effect come fromthe review I linked explores the psychological mechanisms behind the placebo effect, and a number of easier explanations have been provided in this thread, I especially liked >>79688850the placebo effect has been, again, most commonly studied in the field of medicine, but its effects have been found in a number of other fields, as of course it's outlined in the review I linkedif what is included in that review isn't enough for your reading pleasure, here's a couple more citations:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182251a0e10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52the first one is an experiment where they rounded up a few people and told them they'd be participating in a trial for hearing aid technology, they were fitted with the same hearing aid twice, asked about their impressions and made to participate in a few hearing tasks, though one time they were told the hearing aid was a "conventional" one, while the other it was a "new" hearing aidaccording to the statistically significant results, which you're encouraged to check out by yourself in detail, participants consistently preferred the "new" hearing aid (which was the same as the "conventional" one in everything but name) and performed better in hearing tasks when fitted with itthat is to show that the placebo effect has a demonstrated influence on what people hearthe second one is a few experiments showing how the placebo effect, which is a psychological phenomenon, can affect research subjects in a number of ways, particularly "when individuals have a goal that can be fulfilled by confirmation of the placebo expectation", such as yourself
>>79694946moreover, read up about ABX tests and (double) blind tests, why they originated, why they're used, what advantages they have over other paradigms...their main advantage is that they remove a number of biases, including but not limited to the placebo effect and the Rosenthal effect, so it's plain to see for everybody that what changed between the condition where you were able to effortlessly tell sound A and sound B apart is your knowledge of what files sound A and B corresponded to - the test became blind, and as soon as it became blind you couldn't reliably distinguish A and B anymore>>79695208this one is actually not that interesting as it's just him repeating sour grapes and ignoring the reasonable explanations and finding improbable excuses that get demolished time and againyou should look up the backfire effect, those kids really aren't allright>without having to worry for your dear lifelittle known fact, fiction greeeatly overrepresents the amount of people who are dangerous as an effect of a mental disorder, people affected by literal schizophrenia for example most commonly suffer from so called negative symptoms, aka deficits in emotional and often physical response, it's not uncommon to see people staying in the same, contorted and uncomfortable position for hoursalso the voices mostly just tell you you're shit and you will never make it and similar stuff rather than kill that passerby and it will become all betterI just mean for people to understand mental disorders a bit better, sorry for being pedantict. psychologist
man, you can really ripe these cultists apart just by mentioning ABX tests huh? they go insane and start coping
>>79695708>>79695731Great explanation anon, i enjoyed the read. Unfortunately, you've pretty much wasted your time with him. The audiofool will not respond and will refuse to read any reasonable assessment or proof. No worries though, he'll probably be back tomorrow with another 10 ideas that make no fucking sense anywhere but on his audiophile echo chamber forum. You'd probably get a good laugh and a ban if you went to https://audiophilestyle.com
>>79695067This statement proves you’ve never been exposed to high end audio. Somehow you were led to believe "coloring" is what makes high end audio and since you have no idea what it sounds like and you dislike financially secure people it’s a great description. Other reports you don’t enjoy so those are discarded.
>>79696676Coloring makes audiophile audio. Lack of coloring makes high end audio.
>>79696676I wasn't talking to you, retard.
@79689278You sound a lot more obsessed about him than he is about audio.
>>79693097>the stuff people shit on here are well past sensible improvements and into totally imperceptible territory>nobody can possibly benefit from powering an ssd from a battery bankThe strange thing that happens is that these esoteric components often perform worse than sensibly designed parts. The usual reason is that the esoterica are usually not made by competent engineers. This is a substitution of parts or a schematical dogma over performance.>>79695731>biasWhen I learned about these things, it was more to do with the ear-brain as part of a dynamic feedback loop.I thought phenomena such as the McGurk effect or flash-illusions better demonstrate the need for strict control of variables and blind testing. Besides demonstrating the natural multisensory/multimodal nature of human perception, it shows that input from other senses can result in incorrect judgments of the stimuli.Jens Blauert used to refer to a series of experiments in this vein. Showing the listeners different images with the same sound stimulus would change the reported loudness and timbre.
>>79691540>>audiofool>>goes against groupthinkYes.
>>79695708>10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182251a0eThank you for scouring the internet and finding something related to audio placebo. A 20-person hearing aid test will have to do. You fail to report that 25% reported no preference. One quarter of the subjects were not swayed by placebo. Also, what did the placebo is this trail effect? Someone's quality preference, ie, if they liked it better or not. Due to suggestion and not having the ability to compare, we can see that it's not hard to get someone to report something which they believe to be superior sounding better. Even so, 25% were not swayed. So, can we say that one out of four people who visit audio shows and dealers just shrug their shoulders and say "nothing special I heard this every day out of my Bose"? When cultists attack people with disposable income and a desire for high quality sound using "placebo" as a weapon do they consider that placebo in medicine is far from a universal constant in effect? That means a very significant portion of people aren't swayed by it? I'm not describing my preferences, I can reliably and accurately describe specific sounds and effects. When I accidently leave my USB plugged into the wrong port (not my audiophile USB card) I immediately notice my sound has become more hashed / noisy / congested? That's a spooky placebo effect. Even though the change was obvious and noticeable when I started playing music, I'm certain that it would mush together and become indistinguishable if you could somehow ABX it.
>>79693097Isolating the SSD's power line had the largest signal impact on the quality of the audio PC. When I tried it based on DIY forum threads I was skeptical but since it could less than $10 in parts I thought what the hell you have to try things. I was SHOCKED at how effective it was. Significantly greater impact than my $400 linear PSU. All those people on the forums swearing up and down how major it was weren't lying or deluding themselves. I've since learned more about noise and the effects on jitter propagation and it's much more sophisticated interaction than what your limited intuition believes right now.
>>79697126>I've since learned moreWell keep learning because you still apparently know next to nothing about audio technology!
>>79684781>Captain Beefheart sounds like assI'm not even an audiophile but you have shit taste.
>>79697716So what’s the cause of power isolation of the SSD resulting in higher audio quality? You’re judging my knowledge level so let’s hear it.
>>79697872Nah, isolating SSD is fine, it's that you should have been using toslink all this time, or at least a long USB cable.
>>79678248lol even flacs are just placebo nevermind "hifi" audio gear wtf are you going on about.
>>79697872>You’re judging my knowledge level so let’s hear it.Your knowledge is zero and experience is placebo. You have no idea how computers and tiered memory(cache) even work. If you did, you wouldn't even make these shitty claims.Also, your overengineered linear power supply still feeds switching circuits, in the VRM, the RAM, the CPU, storage and all tertiary components. Even if it feeds "cleaner" power, the noise level is negligible. If you had even basic EE knowledge, you'd know how dumb this is.If you don't believe me, get an oscilloscope and measure the noise at the ATX 12V rail, the VRM output and USB, both with a standard PSU and your placebo linear PSU. There are more points that you can measure, but that would mean actually doing research and not just believing three paragraphs of bullshit marketing material. You can afford 20 grand on audio equipment, I'm sure you could afford a crappy 200$ battery powered oscilloscope from aliexpress. I don't think even those things are sensitive enough to measure the difference. But I'm sure you ears you won't do it, since your placebo ears are better at sensing noise than actual equipment and you don't even know how to operate a basic tool.
>>79698260Even better than that, you could get an USB sniffer to compare packets and error rate and use the oscilloscope to see the actual signal, noise, slew rate and everything.I can't believe I have to explain this basic shit like you're a toddler.
>>79697082>thanksof course, even though this is not any more relevant than any other paper I've linked earlier>you fail to report that 1/4 of the subjects reported no preferenceI'm sure you're just trying to mock me and in reality you do understand statistics, which is what I reported, the results of two statistical tests, together with an encouragement to check out these results in detail>1/4 was not swayed by the placebo effectnot quite, there was a significant increase in performance when the subjects believed they were using the "new" hearing aid technology, and there's no data indicating whether that means that improvement was brought upon by the same subjects that rated the "new" hearing aids as preferable or notsubjects may have improved their performance in the FAAF and sound quality rating tests without noticing it consciously>due to suggestion and not having the ability to compare it's likely that they'd report a preference for the "new" aidthey had the ability to compare though, it's called a within subjects design, every subject is subjected to all experimental conditionsthey had the ability to compare, and there's a statistically significant preference for the "new" hearing aid, even though they were actually the same, on top of making the subjects perform significantly better in the hearing tests>can we then assume then that 3 out of 4 people will be affected by the placebo effectno, because this paper indicates that the placebo effect has that relevance on a relatively specif pool of subjects (elderly people) and you should read the other papers I linked to get more generalizable results, though for the sake of the argument let's even say that just 1 out of 2 people will be affected by the placebo effect
>>79697082>>79697082>when people make me feel inadequate do they consider the fact that the placebo effect might not be biasing my impressions?yes, of courseour reason to believe the differences you hear between sound A and sound B are due to the placebo effect is that they disappear when you run an experiment that controls for the placebo effect>That means a very significant portion of people aren't swayed by itoh, so you really do not understand statistics eithermy bad, let me explain it then, the placebo effect is so prevalent that is enough to skew the results of clinical trials to a point where trials conducted without accounting for it aren't considered up to standards of scientific rigor, which in turn means that there's a statistically significant amount of people that, even in serious conditions such as those of a medical trial, will find their perception being affected by the placebo effectany prediction more than this is conjecture on anyone's partit is possible, though, to determine whether the placebo effect is at work in a specific situation - you can, for example, do a non-blind trial followed by a blind trial, and if the results of the blind trial are statistically insignificant and the results of the non-blind trial are significant, particularly if they confirm the subject's previous ideals, or they're compatible with what was suggested to be more desirable/better, or they're correlated with some other characteristic such as price, then it's beyond any doubt that those results are skewed by the placebo effectso it's not like anyone's assuming that, because you find a difference between things that most people can't differentiate, you're being biased or it's the placebo effect or whatnotthe reason is that you yourself, you personally, have said to only be able to differentiate between sound A and sound B when you are in a condition where the placebo effect can have an effect on you
>>79697082>I can reliably and accurately describe specific sounds and effectsunless you don't know which file you're listening to, in that case the differences aren't there anymore even if you know what to listen to, even though it would stand to reason that you'd be able to pass an ABX with just a couple switches per trial if you knew exactly what the differences between sound A and sound B were>but I can reliably describe the differences between sound C and sound Dwhen you know which sound you're listening to in advancenow that's not to say that you wouldn't be able to do that in an ABX between any pair of things, I figure you might be able to pass an ABX with a 128kbps mp3 vs a 24/44,1 lossless file, though given that you've shown you're very much affected by the placebo effect you really can't be sure that those differences you so readily hear while looking at your equipment are really there, and would still be so very clear when you're doing a blind test>the change was obvious and noticeable when I started playing musicif this was the case you'd have aced the ABX in a short timethis was pointed out a number of times by me and at least one other person, so I assume you are going to ignore it, just know this is a key point here to show that those differences were just in your head>I'm certain that it would mush together and become indistinguishableyou might be on to something - there might well not be a difference you can hear between the two USB ports you can hear, thus you'd not be able to distinguish between sound C and sound D in an ABX teston the other hand if you believe that there really is a difference you can hear here than this is you coping for not being able to hear any difference in the ABX you said you failed>>79697872same as before, there's no actual difference that you could hear if you didn't know what you were listening to, and you couldn't provide any measurement because there's no difference
>>79678248>Could my small and restricted group be a cult?>No, it's the rest of humanity that is a cult
>>79678248EVERY FUCKING THREAD. EVERY FUCKING DAY.Seriously sick of audiophiles. They're fucking LARP'ers and cultists.Do you know why pro-audio guys laugh at audiophile guys? Its because we know you're fucking LARP'ing and spending $$$$ coping with fucking 'quantum chips' and gold cables to make yourself seem like an interesting person.you're not.What's the point in the charade? We don't engineer recordings to be heard on super duper crystal DACs with zero-point energy membranes. We produce it for consumers with fucking earphones or little speakers in imperfect environments.None of the gear we produce with has been designed or engineered with your niche shit in mind. Would you buy a 4k monitor to look at low res photos from a flip phone? No? So why do you buy audiophile shit to listen to audio made for normal consumers. You're all fucking pathetic, and I hope when you get paralysed, and you are stuck in your listening rooms pissing and shitting yourself that you realise how pointless and how much of a waste of time it was.
>>79678248>anyone who disagrees with me is a "cultist"I really wish mods would do their job and ban blatant trolls.
>>79698893by this dumdum logic everyone'd be mixing on NS10s and 2L wouldn't exist
>>79699065>everyone would be mixing on NS10sYes. That's exactly why we have NS10s in absolutely every major studio in the world. I'm glad you picked up on that. And its the same reason why we'll use 57's, why we don't have mix rooms that look like fucking spaceship pods etc.Even our high end gear has a ceiling. We produce at a certain level of fidelity. Why you audiophile cucks would spend $$$$ to try and go above that with a bunch of snake oil shit makes no sense. What is there of any value in listening to details that no one, from the artist, to the recording engineer, to the mix engineer to the mastering engineer, ever cared about or even noticed. If you actually get off trying to listen to details that are probably imperceptible to people past the age of 25 anyway, then why are you listening to our music which had none of that in mind. Go outside and listen to the real world.
>>79678248This is the mentally ill schizo that comes into the /hpg/ threads.
>>79698893Pro audio engineers, unless they work for an audiophile label do not have any experience with high-end audio. But let’s set that aside for a minute. Every engineer knows that different gear sounds different, right? Every single one understands different mics, mic preamps, etc etc sound different. Yet for some reason they’re not targeted by class envy-fueled accusations of placebo? Why is that? Because the cult NPCs aren’t in the market for these products and they don’t mind that a Neve sounds better than a Tascam.
>>79699820>Pro audio engineers, unless they work for an audiophile label do not have any experience with high-end audio.Citation needed.>Yet for some reason they’re not targeted by class envy-fueled accusations of placebo?Everyone knows that things sound different. The question isn't about "different", it's about "better". And how much you're paying for that "different". And whether that "different" is even closer to reproducing the actual original sound, or if you're just trying to distort it to match your preferences.
>>79699820What's YOUR experience with high end audio? Do you have any papers or research to prove it? By your retarded mentality, if you buy a Lamborghini, you automatically know more about cars than an engineer working at Renault or Ford.I like how you selectively answer only the posts which you can refute with mental gymnastics.
>>79700359Extensive listening experience at audio expos, dealers and of course my home. Huge amounts of technical / theoretical information various high end engineers — magazine interviews, articles, DIY forums, direct communications with designers including speaking to them in person at shows. Did you think I just randomly strung together words I thought were impressive? I started this journey when I was exposed to high end audio for the first time, not because I saw some bling and decided I needed to own it.
>>79678248sorry residentaudiobro, my hearing is shit and i'm poor, i can't tell the difference between $5 panasinocs iems and $450 etymotics.some of us are just cursed.
>>79700609>Huge amounts of technical / theoretical information various high end engineers You have proven already in this thread that you DON'T have any actual technical knowledge,or else you would know all this stuff that is literally part of every beginners-course on signals-processing.You are fucking retarded, and EVERY electrical engineer in this world would know that.
>>79700088>citationTake this as you will: https://youtu.be/JcbHJg5aFgQ
>>79700609>Did you think I just randomly strung together words I thought were impressive? I don't "think" you string words together. It's just fact. Half of the terms you're regurgitating like an NPC (e.g. hashing) don't even have a definition in the audio/EE field. If they don't have a definition, then they are just made up. But keep thinking that going just in front of the curtains and listening to marketers makes you smart. Don't research any further, don't question your senses or your knowledge. I'm sure you're a pleasure to be around IRL.BTW, you didn't refute anything from my post above (>>79698260). Did you run out of experience or does your higher level thinking prevent you from going in any type of low level discussion?>>79700697Good thing you cited another marketing material from a vendor as objective fact. You've just proven again how clueless you are.
>>79700694High-end designers aren’t EE students, their whole lives are building better sounding gear and they operate in a realm of theory and accumulation of experience not in a textbook. I pick up these topics in overview of course. A student’s understanding of these topics is just a student’s understanding. For example your insistence on buffers solving jitter; you learned some factoid about it which led you to a cognitive barrier (if you’re being honest anyway, you could also just be pursuing a class envy agenda) stopping you from learning something new. Setting aside jitter propagation you also have no alternative explanation whatsoever. "It’s placebo" is only sufficient if you can establish that what’s being heard doesn’t exist. You can’t of course, the tools, processes, and understanding of our auditory system doesn’t exist for that. So why can’t you make the assumption that all the people who hear something aren’t lying and least sone of them aren’t being fooled by placebo? Can you even describe the placebo effect that could possibly account for it? No, of course you can’t, there is in fact no such measure.
>>79699240>welol>NS10s are in every major studiololeven where they're available they're not used to mix so much as do a few double checks>we produce music for consumers, hence why we use 57sI don't see the correlationI don't see why you would use a 57 in a high end recording studio at all but that's just me>you audiophile cucksyou must have mistaken me for someone else>nobody involved in the production cares about lots of detailsthat's a lack of involvement or knowledge on your part>details that are probably imperceptible past age 25I get where you're coming from, but the musicians, mixing and mastering engineers would laugh at you for your ostentated carelessness and lack of attention to fine details, which of course you should be able to discern if you're a half decent engineer and you have a half decent monitoring systemI sincerely hope you're exaggerating it for the sake of the argument>>79699820>pro audio engineers don't know high end audiomega cope, audiophiles can't imagine what a really transparent system sounds like, let alone a good one>Every engineer knows that different gear sounds differentyes>Yet for some reason they’re not targeted by class envy-fueled accusations of placebobecause mostly everyone agrees on the characteristic sound of certain unit, there actually is a measurable difference between one and another unit, most people agree that good recording and monitoring systems can be acquired for relatively cheap, most people find blind tests useful, yada yadaon the other hand you can't refute the fact that what you can't hear in an ABX test doesn't exist, and so you resort to excuses>>79700609>Huge amounts of technical / theoretical informationwe'd all like to see any example of those, because mostly every technical comment you've made has been shown to be wrong>did you think I just randomly strung together words I thought were impressive?at this point I figure it's what most of us think, yes
>>79700609Also, I would love to see some proof of these "magazine interviews" and some of your "DIY projects".
>>79700609>I went to the snake oil expo and bought the snake oilAnd that's exactly it. You just proved the fucking point. Do you hear audio engineers sitting there going 'ah yes I prefer this DBX 160 with capacitor X over this Fairchild because look at this graph of voltage response! look at this these thousands of fucking data tables that some PhD student spent years analysing! That's why I'm using it!'No. and that's why you're a fucking retarded cultist. Audio engineers build products based on what consumers like to hear. That applies from engineers working on the audio, to the engineers who design the gear that other engineers use. No one starts out by saying 'I want to build a microphone that has this exact response and has this and that on the technical docs'. They aim to make a microphone that sounds good and that their customers will like. When the selling point of the product is a bunch of abstract technical info that is detached from the end user experience, and people are trying to sell you products based on those meaningless numbers, you're being fucking scammed mate. For comparison, when you buy a high end car, you buy it because its drives well, because its fast, because its comfortable etc. You don't buy it because the wheel has a gold plated connector to the engine.
>>79700877>I don't see why you would use a 57 in a high end recording studio at all but that's just meYou really can't be trying to pass this off as not bait
>>79700697see >>79693116>>79700869>"It’s placebo" is only sufficient if you can establish that what’s being heard doesn’t exist.yesthat's what we established when you said you couldn't find any difference between sound A and sound B in an ABX test, even though they were clear as day when you knew which file you were listening tothat's literally what it means>Can you even describe the placebo effect that could possibly account for it?yes we can, see the following posts>>79688802>>79688850>>79689262>>79693797>>79693813>>79695708>>79698750>>79698768>>79698805
>>79700877>>nobody involved in the production cares about lots of details>that's a lack of involvement or knowledge on your partThat's misquoting me. What I meant was, alot of what audiophiles are trying to 'uncover' with high end gear is overlooked by the engineers. That's not to say engineers don't take care in their work. They (mostly) work in broad strokes. Look at Andrew Schepps or CLA. They don't have these big long signal chains with a billion little notch EQ's and layers of tiny tweaks. They'll have a simple signal chain, they'll sweep the controls to get it 'roughly' where they want it, and they'll dial it in tighter later if needed. The ultimate point is that the end user is fundamentally limited to the level that a pro-audio engineer works at, which is much much lower than the fidelity that audiophiles try to get.
>>79700869>You can’t of course, the tools, processes, and understanding of our auditory system doesn’t exist for thatThey do exist. You or your ears are not as complicated as you think, biologically speaking. They've been studied over hundreds of years by people with actual scrutiny and peer review. Same goes for the equipment and measurement techniques and formulae. You haven't discovered the audio relativity theory.You just think you can hear some stuff, fart some ideas in your echo chamber, other fools smell your farts and agree they smell nice. Until you put some actual research in this, on paper, your brainfarts are just that. The saddest thing is that they're not even your farts, you literally paid money to inhale them from somebody.
>>79700697So, yeah, that didn't support you at all, really. One anecdote and an example of what an engineer uses IN THE STUDIO, not what experience he has with audiophile audio.But it did help prove me one thing, that audiophiles are aiming to distort the music to match their tastes.This whole trying to bring live music into the home is bananas. You're distorting the sound to make it something it's not. Sound cards have those effects if you want them. I want my music to sound like it was recorded, and if that sounds like it was recorded in a closet, then that's how it should be.
>>79697126with an appropriately-configured pc, it /can't/ make a differencewhy? because your media player should be caching entire tracks into system ram during the first handful of milliseconds of playback, then the ssd will be asleep for 99.9% of the trackyou aren't playing music directly from your storage device like you do with things like cds, tapes, records, etc, there's many buffers in between the ssd and your dac
>>79697126Out of interest, what's your signal chain, from memory to digital interface to DA converter to monitors?
>>79700927>Audio engineers build products based on what consumers like to hear.though in this case the consumers are other audio engineers, studio managers and so onGeorge Massenburg surely wasn't thinking of any "end listener" when coming up with the 8200 design>I want to build a microphone that has this exact responsethat's what everyone who designs and/or manufactures capsules starts from, same as what everyone who produces units """inspired""" by a certain prized austrian or german mic design or olden german pre's or US compressorthat's also the starting point for a number of other, more technically informed and linear/transparent designs such as the TLM170 and most higher end DPA and some Earthworks mics>when they try to sell you numbers, which by the way don't really describe how a unit behaves in the real world, you're being scammedyou sound like you agree with OP, why are you being this aggressive towards him?>when you buy a high end carthis is the worst possible analogy, most people who buy high end cars buy them precisely because of what they represent and what they look like and what they signal to others>>79700948I honestly can't see a reason to>but muh classic snare top/guitar cabthere are so many better options it's not even funnyunless ofc the producer wants you to make everything sound just the same as everything else, which I suppose might be a reason to use a few
>>79700951I challenged an ABX test set up by someone in hydrogenaudio forum years ago. If I recall, one was a 16-bit vs 24-bit test, and the other might have been a 48-vs-96 test I can't remember off the top of my head. I took the challenge fair and square, didn't cheat, didn't peak at others' results, etc. I spent some time trying to grasp the differences in the sound in the bit depth test, I recall them being very close, but I thought I had managed to grab onto some cymbals one part which seemed to have a brighter shimmer, perhaps a little longer decay. After a few more times of toggling though I completely lost it. No matter how hard to find anything again, my placebo completely failed me. It didn't supply me with new differences I picked wrong, it simply deserted my altogether. What an awful placebo.And why do you people chose to completely ignore my wrong USB port story? I assure you I was being completely honest in my account. It was an asbolute fact that I started playing music one day and was immediately struck by lower quality; I didn't suspect the USB connection at all, in fact I recall just chalking it up to the specific albums I was listening to, etc. It wasn't until I went over to the PC to unplug the USB card battery for recharging (it causes a crash if you try charging it with it powering the card while the PC is running), and it was only then did I realize the USB cable was plugged into motherboard, not the USB card. Swapping it back immediately solved the quality issue. I'm not lying and all you can do is take my world for it. Assuming I'm not lying, how does placebo possibly play into this scenario? Does my placebo have extra-sensory perception powers?
>>79701056>a lot of what audiophiles are trying to 'uncover' with high end gear is overlooked by the engineersyes, that's a lack of involvement or knowledge on the engineer's part>look at CLA, he doesn't have those big long signal chainsbe prepared to find no less than 3 discrete compressors on each single channel + more on the busses + the ones on the aux returnsAndrew Schepps admittedly doesn't use that much gear, though keeping it simple is in no way a lack of careAl Schmitt uses even less gear in general, though he might take offense in someone mistaking simplicity for lack of care>the level of detail that a pro audio engineer works at is much lower than that at which an audiophile listens to stuffare you sure you're not a bedroom producer who thinks LSR308s are the best speakers you can get under 3k EUR?the commercial studios I set foot in all had monitoring systems that would make a 10k EUR hi-fi system pale in comparison, SAE Italy being the one I liked most (no I didn't study at SAE), and I do hate to sound like OP here but if that's not your impression you should visit more studios and hi-fi showrooms
>>79697082the difference between someone who is and isn't affected by placebo is how strongly they believe there should be a differenceif anyone is going to be affected by placebo, it's audiophiles
>>79701281if you don't know which of the tracks are which, then you won't be affected by placebo, since for placebo to work, you need some external difference on which to judge, such as which is 16bit and which is 24bitthe fact you couldn't reliably tell a difference absent these numbers, tells me that you can only tell the difference if you know what they are, that is, you are affected by placebo
>>79701281>No matter how hard to find anything again, my placebo completely failed me.As it should, because it's placebo.
>>79701281not sure about the usb story, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe your motherboards' usb is actually just broken in some wayi don't think you're a liar, just a bit confused
>>79678248wtf is this. what i am doing on /g/. i thought you guys were gonna post funy richard stallman pictures
>>79701277>offense in someone mistaking simplicity for lack of careyeah I'm sure he would because my point is the vast majority of *professional* engineers have owned their craft through understanding that simplicity works over over-complicating, and over-engineering shit. The objective function is 'does this sound great' not, 'does this tick all the technical bells and whistles that I can use as indicator that it should sound great'.look, at the end of the day we're talking about something that is very much constrained to subjective experience. What I don't like about audiophiles is they try everything possible to make it an objective analysis of audio. It's like someone saying 'this bar of chocolate is objectively the greatest because it has this exact ratio of cocoa to milk, and is packaged in a perfectly crafted aluminium wrapper.'. No, a chocolate bar is good because it tastes good, and overengineering said bar of chocolate is not a proxy indicator for it tasting good.>I honestly can't see a reason to (use the SM57)I was the same very early on. My general approach was 'the more expensive the better' when I first started. Every engineer i've ever worked with or for used them more than I thought they would. I noticed that the top engineers (names we mentioned above) all use them too. Eventually I got it. We love using them because they're familiar, we know what they're getting and frankly, they sound good. Why fix what ain't broke?
>>79701281>And why do you people chose to completely ignore my wrong USB port story?Because it's an anecdote. People also tend to remember things they were right about more than wrong. This is specifically why I asked you how often you were wrong, which was apparently never.It's a bias.
>>79701297I have 0 pro audio experience. I only know what I've picked up here and there. Pro audio is somewhat audiophile adjacent. Why is it I can go onto youtube right now and find reviews and shootouts over every piece of pro gear imaginable? There was one interesting one that had like 25 different mic preamps, and even through youtube's compression I could tell the differences. If that was an audiophile product shootout it would have been automatically dismissed as sighted-biased and ridiculed as snakeoil. However, none of these videos, none of the Gearslutz threads, etc, are burdened by this. Why is that?
>>79701483this is the more highbrow /g/ humour thread
>>79700609>Did you think I just randomly strung together words I thought were impressive?I do.As an answer to this>Am I not allowed to have an opnion on things I don't have an engineering-level knowledge about? Must I pick at every single not?No, you don't get to have any opinion on engineering topics without background knowledge first. You are ignorant of the technical disciplines and have managed to express more physically absurd and mathematically incorrect ideas than not.
>>79701493>even through youtube's compression I could tell the differenceswell there's your answer. Admittedly there is some level of price based buying in pro audio, but this tends to disappear the more 'pro' you get. People new will debate whether a 451b or a 451e are better early on. People with more experience will tend to dismiss it because the difference is insignificant compared to how the mic is used.The only other time people get all freaky over pro audio gear is when its a replica of more famous gear. This obviously induces an expectation effect and subsequently a placebo effect.
>>79701281>some cymbals one part which seemed to have a brighter shimmer, perhaps a little longer decaythose differences were just in your head and, as you recount, readily disappeared after your brain stopped trying to cope and got used to the fact that it couldn't find any difference between sound A and sound Bif this wasn't the case you'd have aced the ABX in a short time, without the need to toggle any more than a couple timesthis was pointed out a number of times by me and at least one other person, so I assume you are going to ignore it, just know this is a key point here to show that those differences were just in your head>No matter how hard to find anything again, my placebo completely failed mebecause for the placebo effect to work you need to be aware of some other characteristic linked to what you're listening to (in the case of audio ABX testing specifically), so to know which file is which, and then your brain can use your expectations to skew your perception and make you hear things that don't existmore in general, you need to have expectations about what you're listening to, which you can't have if you don't know what you're listening to>what an awful placebofor everyone's sake go anywhere, wikipedia, the encyclopedia britannica, the DSM 5, or above in this thread and read about how the placebo effect works
>>79701281>And why do you people chose to completely ignore my wrong USB port storyI didn't, in fact I addressed it here >>79698805let me sum it upthere might be a difference in the sound of your unit depending on which USB port it's connected to, but since your impressions have been shown to be seriously affected by the placebo effect we, you included, can't know whether there really is a difference>assuming I'm not lyingthen there really is a difference in the sound of your unit depending on which USB port it's connected to, you are able to hear it easily enough, you would be able to reliably tell sound C and sound D apart in an ABX test, and you'd be able to measure the difference easily enough with a relatively cheap, battery powered oscilloscope>how does placebo play in this scenarioassuming you're not lying, then the placebo effect doesn't come into playbe careful not to take this as testament to the fact that whatever you hear is real rather than in your head, because you've proven to yourself that that fact is false with the aforementioned ABX test, or that USB power filtering makes that much of a difference in every and all unit, because that would only be an uneducated hypothesis on your part>>79701491>understanding that simplicity works over over-complicatingthat's not the same as overlooking details at all, and what you call "overcomplicating" might well be another day of work for someone who mixes those big top 40 lady gaga/katy perry/dua lipa recordsI have the feeling we're just getting hung up on terminology>audiophiles try everything possible to make it an objective analysis of audiothat's hardly what audiophiles do at all, haven't you read OP's post about how people who do that are all part of a cult?>the more expensive the betterI have found that most mics that are more expensive that 57s are, in fact, betterI have also found that a number of similarly priced mics, such as the sE V7 and the Line CM3, sound a lot better as well
>top engineers use them tooCLA hasn't done any tracking work for more than a decade, see pic related for Scheppsa number of big name engineers use them indeed, but that doesn't make them any less bad>they sound goodyou were saying something about bait?they sound good for a €100 mic, but you have so, so many better options if you just go up a bit>>79701493typically because the differences between a 1073 and a 3124 and an HV-3C are dramatic and well documented enough that everyone agrees on themof course if you look at pro audio converters or the sound difference between 500 series lunchboxes or such you see more rigorous and blind comparisons just as well as more people saying ludicrous stuff and people saying stuff that's been measured and documented doesn't exist
On the buffer solves jitter intuition. It doesn't. It's true that any jitter-related issues disappears after the data has entered the buffer, assuming the buffer is correctly sized...but that's only relation to the data in question. As I've explained over and over again, jitter / phase noise is cumulitive in nature and effects the DAC's clock and circuit, the data itself is hardly relevant -- it is from a phase noise accumulation standpoint, but not from the standpoint of the data itself being corrupted somehow. Noise so bad as to cause data errors is another topic and not directly related to this issue.When we understand this phenomenon we can understand why things like USB cables, audiophile USB cards, linear power supplies, SSD power conditioning, CD transports, etc, can impact sound quality. I didn't make this up, this is something I researched to understand why those things seemed to have such a major impact on sound quality. The nature of these quality upgrades are all the same: greater sense of clarity / lowering of the "hash", or kind of distortion which sounds like "smearing" of low-level details (microdetails) and broader details (macrodetails) seeming to bleed into one another especially when the sound gets loud and busy. This can be heard by anyone with even a simple conditioning measure like a USB filter, and the improvement ramps up from there the deeper you go.I know that runs into your intuition. I had the same intuition before trying out my first USB conditioner years ago. The intuition is wrong.
>>79702288>On the buffer solves jitter intuition.It does everywhere but the DAC chip itself.
>>79702337Before we discuss jitter propagation, please answer this question: why does the DAC conduct a clock recovery phase on the incoming data?
>>79702423Because the specific data communications method between the DAC chip and, presumably, the USB interface has the clock signal embedded on the data packets. So it needs to recover the clock signal before it can read the data packets correctly.Again, this is a binary process is that it is either right, or wrong. Lateness means nothing if the read is correct.
>>79702423many especially serial data communication protocols omit a dedicated clock signal line, and instead design the data format in such a way that the receiving clock can be syncronised using the data signal (namely using techniques such as EFM, cd's for example use this, there is only a data track, no clock track, so the clock to read the bits from the disc is synced to the data bits themselves)there's literally nothing wrong with this over a dedicated clock signal, and it doesn't matter anyway, since everything we're talking about is buffered on the receiver, meaning any possible clock jitter is erased entirely anyway
>>79702423>>79703914(ps. yes, this does mean that OPs super fancy oven-controlled crystal oscillator usb card is only being used to clock out data bits, and the clock is being relatively roughly recovered from the data signal on the device side using it's own cheap clock circuit)
Okay, so now we established and are on the same page re: clock recovery. Simply loading bits into a buffer isn't sufficient, the signals MUST be metered in and out. A crystal oscillator is what does this in an electronics circuit. In most DACs, a TCXO is often used, high-end DACs will frequently have an OCXO. These are very simple devices. They take a power source, connect to ground, and provide a clock output. An OCXO will additionally have an oven with sensors etc but those aren't related to the clock function. The point is, they are very susceptible to power noise. The ultra-low phase noise clocks used in DAC (like this Crystek: https://www.crystek.com/crystal/spec-sheets/vcxo/CVSS-945.pdf) are especially susceptible to power noise. They require pristine power to achieve their maximum performance spec.The 5V line in a USB connection has a huge amount of power noise being transmitted via the PSU's 5V rail, see: https://andybrown.me.uk/2015/07/24/usb-filtering/ and this noise will get into the DAC unless heavily filtered or galvanically isolated: very few DACs have that feature. This directly impacts the DAC's delicate clock and has nothing to do with the signals being transmitted over the data lines.The noisy power situation in the PC also effects the transmission clock, which, unlike the DAC's expensive ulta-low phase noise oscillator, is just some 5-cent junk crystal. The jitter / phase noise performance vastly inferior. This matters because the when the data line's voltage reference line is crossed over (when 1s and 0s are detected) that generates noise which ends up in the ground pin of receiver, and phase noise of the transmitter is now in the ground plane of the DAC, to which the DAC's clock is also connected. This is essentially the accumulation of jitter via not just power noise from things like leakage currents, but also the jitter caused by the low-quality transmission of the data. The data itself isn't harmed.
>>79678248hey OP, I found your cap
>>79704978Let me direct you to >>79702337 again, because you don't seem to understand.
>>79704978The old and incorrect intuition is that these relatively minute amounts of jitter are inaudible. As it turns out, that's not the case. So when you do things to clean up power noise -- linear power supplies (much lower ripple, less susceptible to leakage currents, etc), filtering, isolation, etc -- audible improvements are realized. Not only that, by improving the quality of the transmitter (USB re-clockers, high end clocking of components, etc) quality can also be improved. Data is not impacted at all. Bits being read from an SSD don't care at all that the SSD's power line is isolated to a battery or running through a filter. However, that power noise which would otherwise be dumped back into the PSU's 5V rail is not there, resulting in a higher-quality transmission and a quieter USB power line.
>>79704978In a data connection a shared ground is necessary, but this isn't tied directly to ground on both sides of the link, that would be dangerous.So this idea of noise propogating through the ground is pure fantasy.
>>79705073As you've noted a ground is required, because there needs to be voltage on the line. Phase noise gets into the ground plane of the DAC this way from data tranmission.The 5V power line on the USB connection also gets into the DAC. Even if the DAC is mains powered and doesn't use bus power at all, most USB controllers (ie, XMOS, Amanero, etc) still need to detect the presence of the 5V line in order to function. This detection process necessarily makes an electrical connection, even though no or very minuscule current is actually pulled from it.
REMEMBER, I'm not discussing wormhole theory. I'm discussing factors which result in audible phenomena that anyone here can hear for themselves with a minimal amount of effort / expense.
>>79705165then share some studies that demonstrate what you're claiming
>>79705130As I noted, the transmission grounds are not tied directly to the ground planes, so phase noise transmission is a fantasy.Noise on power rails could definitely get through, if poorly isolated, but noise is, well, noise. We know what noise sounds like and it isn't what you suggest the benefits of isolating this are.But worse, you can't seem to demonstrate or provide links to measurements showing that any of this is actually taking place.Noise dumped on the 5V line from the SSD would be easy to demonstrate. Showing it carry through to the DAC would be easy too. Before and after measurements from PSU to battery would be trivial. You provide nothing but your word.
>>79688696Oy vey, support your local audio merchant.
>>79702288>>79704978This retard did so much mental gymnastics, his neuron broke a knee and now thinks people agree with him and others have to prove now that what he hears is real. He doesn't even understand the purpose of a clock signal, which is probably the saddest thing.>I know that runs into your intuition.No, it's just common sense and documented scientific research> I had the same intuitionSo you admit that, at some point, you had common sense and you lost it>The intuition is wrongProve it. Phase noise can be both calculated and measured.
>>79702288You do realize that, if your DAC has an optical input, all of your retarded theories can be dismantled with a simple toslink cable?
found a study which tests how power supply noise affects crystal oscillatorshttps://www.signalintegrityjournal.com/blogs/8-for-good-measure/post/1817-evaluating-oscillator-power-supply-noise-rejection-its-the-total-jitter-that-matterstook me a bit to realise the unit he's measuring this is fucking /femtoseconds/like holy shit how in the absolute fuck is is anything that needs measurements to that degree of accuracy to see could possibly have an audible effect on anything
>>79705980UpTone is apparantly working on building a lab since last year with the requisite high end measuring tools to do just this. Last I heard from them in the forums that they're facing challenges, ie, the gear is so sensitive that just standing near to them affects readings. This kind of measurement is not nearly as simple as your intuition thinks it is because putting out FFT graphs seems to be easy (it's not, but that's another story...). The reason why they're going through this expense and trouble is because they're trying to turn their theories until something measurable. I'll wait and see what they come up with. Sadly there's not much money in this kind of research, only a few companies put serious research into audio but none of them into this kind field which crosses over multiple disciplines of digital signaling, electrical engineering and audio. Once again, this isn't a wormhole theory. We're attempting to understand the audible phenomena and the placebo theory just doesn't fit. You seem very dug in against this topic.
>>79706022It's not my theories and they only seem retarded to an NPC. Optical (toslink) have other serious flaws with jitter which generally outweigh the immunity to electrical noise. Low-quality LEDs, internal reflections, poor fiber media, etc.
>>79705756I realized I forgot that if a device accepts USB power it would have to have to use the USB ground as its ground, so that would be tied.But at least we can now agree that audiophile grade network switches are snakeoil, as Ethernet cables definitely do NOT tie ground planes together and audiofag agrees that "jitter propagation" or "phase noise" doesn't go over data lines (so I guess that would make Ethernet the best wired connection to your DAC?)I'm afraid, though, that he also made his hyper accurate clock audiophile USB card useless as well, because as he said it doesn't affect the data reading correctly, but it would still be causing his fabled phase noise.You might also want to get out your multimeter and check that the USB ground is actually disconnected from the PCIe ground. Would be a shame if they didn't disconnect it.
>>79706110should also mention the oscillators in question are tiny surface mount cheap shit standard parts, not some fancy high end things
>>79706110Has the thread reached bump limit? Thank you for the information, I've heard from a DAC designers on a forum that phase noise is impacted by power quality but it's not like they post references for everything they talk about and it's a pain to try and find material on these topics.
>>79706316yea, the take-away is that yes, power supply noise affects the clock phase noise... by maybe a couple hundred quadrillionths of a secondlike a lot of this stuff, it's another "technically makes a difference, but not in a remotely noticeable way"
>>79706190>Sadly there's not much money in this kind of research, only a few companies put serious research into audio but none of them into this kind field which crosses over multiple disciplines of digital signaling, electrical engineering and audio.Didn't stop them marketing shit based on it.You're basically saying they're making and selling products based on a theory they haven't tested because it's expensive.Sure would be terrible if they measured and found it wasn't a problem after all.
>>79706190>This kind of measurement is not nearly as simple as your intuition thinks it is because putting out FFT graphs seems to be easyYou're clueless and have provided no proof up until now that you understand the shit you're writing.>only a few companies put serious research into audio but none of them into this kind field which crosses over multiple disciplines of digital signaling, electrical engineering and audio.So you admit that most of the audiophile brands sell snake oil with no scientific background. Good thing we're on the same page now.>We're attempting to understand the audible phenomena and the placebo theory just doesn't fit.Placebo is not a theory. It exists and it works. It has been tested and proven, unlike your mental gymnastics.>You seem very dug in against this topic.Not really, but you sound like a flat earther. The planet has been proven and agreed upon that it is round, via various experiments. It's the duty of the flat earthers to prove that it's not. You have to do the same if you want to go against the agreed and proven truth.>>79706208>Optical (toslink) have other serious flaws with jitterProvide the definition of jitter in optical media>Low-quality LEDs, internal reflections, poor fiber media, etc.Of course you would say that. However, i don't think your 20k setup has "low quality LEDs" or "poor fiber media". You could also use an optical USB cable for complete galvanic isolation and provide your own 5v power at the receiving(DAC) end. You said yourself that the data is not harmed by the phase noise.
>>79706342Well, up to 10,000 femtoseconds.Which is still 10 billionths of a second.
>>79706209The Paul Pang card isn't useless, it produces a significant upgrade in sound (as described many times by now, reduced "hash" or the bleeding together of sounds, perception of reduced noise floor, etc). Quality goes down if I use a linear power supply instead of a battery to power it. Now it IS true that I have no idea how much if at all the big OCXO impacts the sound; it could be that the quality upgrade simply come from externally powering the card with a clean power source. I'm willing to admit it, but I have no way to test that. Clock upgrades is a hot topic in the DIY threads though. One company in Taiwan(?) offers a service for modding your motherboard to link other system clocks to a central upgraded clock or provide an input for an external clock. Paul Pang and several other companies seem to believe in clock upgrades to various components of the PC and network devices. The forums seem to be universally positive over these upgrades, I haven't seen a single comment that said they found no difference. Is it possible they're ALL under placebo? Possibly but it seems very unlikely. So it's a matter of understanding the phenomenon.
>>79706378yea, for the even cheaper crystal, and at very low frequency noise (like 50Hz AC), that's as bad as it getswould you even find noise that low frequency in a computer past it's power supply?pic related, even cheaper crystal in question
>>79706392>I haven't seen a single comment that said they found no difference. Is it possible they're ALL under placebo?Wow guys, an echo chamber provides echoes. Is it possible they're all living under the same false presumption? No, of course not, it's just the entire world is filled with NPCs.
>>79706392>Quality goes down if I use a linear power supply instead of a battery to power it.the funny part is that your linear psu probably outputs cleaner power than your usb power bank, as the latter takes the variable voltage of the lithium cells and puts it through a switching boost regulator to produce the ~5v
>>79706392>>79706475read it and weephttps://goughlui.com/2014/08/09/exploration-improving-power-bank-ripple-performance/
>>79706392>Is it possible they're ALL under placebo?Absolutely.And I seem to be able to find a number of complaints about Paul Pang products for various reasonshttps://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/22437-paul-pang-audio-v3-usb-card/page/3/Defective cards.Music servers that don't work.Defective clock chips.Bad customer support.Quotes like>PP parts = low reliability. And good luck if you should need customer service.are not hard to find.It's also questionable when you find people talking about "burning in", "breaking in" or "running in" the USB card and quotes like>That little silver transformer takes a lot of running in.It's a fucking high precision clock. You don't have to burn it in, or run it in or whatever, because then it wouldn't be a high precision clock.These are people who want to believe, and so they will.
>>79706533Ouch. That's probably worse than the completely unmeasured alleged ripple claimed to be dumped into the 5V rail by the SSD.
>>79706533random example of a standard atx psu's ripplehttps://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/corsair-rm550x-power-supply,4484-8.htmlthis is much less than the 30mV that was used in >>79706110, by the way>>79706612i'm sure you can find better than the cheap ones he tested, but the point remains that just because it's a battery, doesn't mean it's ripple-free, even expensive ones will still be switching regulators because they're the most efficient, even with good filtering, it will still have some ripplei'd actually be surprised if you can find a battery bank with less 5v ripple than an atx psu, if for no other reasons than cost and space limitations
>>79706633oh, and remember, the atx spec requires 50mV or less ripple on the 5v line, usb is not even remotely as strict (i understand they don't even specify a specific limit for ripple)
Looking at photos I don't see anything disconnecting the Paul Pang USB cards from the PCIe ground. They just look like they've had a Molex connector and external DC jack bolted on.
These threads are both entertaining and informative. Thanks GUTB for being a stupid faggot and thanks to the EEs who prove him wrong all the time.
>>79706392>Paul Pang and several other companies seem to believe in clock upgrades to various components of the PC and network devices. they believe people will pay a premium for such things, yes
>>79706533ABSOLUTE PEAK COMEDYThis thread is probably has the most aduiophile myths debunked in one place I've ever seen, I should download it as a reference.
>>79706533He'll never reply to your post, and next thread he'll make up some new nonsense to say that it's totally not noise.OP should just neck himself but he won't.