[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:05:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no
reason to expect that any two DACs would sound the same.

Seems very unscientific. Appears to totally reject the well-known and widely
accepted belief that the ear has thresholds for perception of noise and
distortion.

No, my statement does not in any way reject that premise. However, it is
being found that these thresholds are not fixed and can not only vary greatly
from individual to individual but can be affected in a single individual by
levels of stress, and other psychological variables of human emotional
response.

Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar DACs
and ADCs were compared without positive results.

While that's true, it doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything. Remember the
scientific axiom: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While DBT
results are useful (especially when a positive result is returned or when
negative results proves a physical or mathematical prediction), negative
results that do not support an otherwise provable result, are just that;
negative results.

The analog stages are different,

So what? I can build a 100 different analog buffers that can't be
distinguished from each other in a proper listening test.

See above.

the pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap
DACs, and very sophisticated in expensive ones).

Wrong on several counts.

One is that the industry standard chips for doing this sort of thing are few
in number, and the more popular ones appear in both very inexpensive and
very expensive equipment.

I invite you to look at a DCS Scarlatti or Paganini DAC or an Antelope Zodiac
Gold DAC, and while you count the number of "standard chips" employed, take
a look at the non-standard and proprietary circuitry involved. I would like
to especially direct your attention to DCS' proprietary "Ring DAC". It is not
a Delta-Sigma DAC, it is not a single-bit DAC, or any other "standard chip"

Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
simply isn't paying attention.

No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.

That's an assumption not in evidence - on several fronts. First, you are
assuming that proper bias controlled tests haven't been performed, and
secondly you are assuming that a null result (or even lots of null results)
is definitive. No reputable scientist would ever make that mistake.

Here's a link to a JAES paper that makes many relevant points:


http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...ility-of-a-cd-
stan
dard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

OK, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that this paper addresses
the audibility of SACD/high-resolution DVD-A against 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD
quality playback. I don't see where it addresses what we're talking about at
all - even peripherally. It makes me wonder why you bothered to post the URL?
Thank you though, It made for interesting, albeit irrelevant, reading.

At least Meyer and Moran (the paper''s authors) understand well enough the
worth and limitations of DBT tests' ability to ascertain sonic results to
print the following disclaimer: "Now, it is very difficult to use negative
results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There
is always the possibility that a different system or a more finally attuned
pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data,
using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that
the burden of proof has now shifted."

IOW, they are acknowledging the difficulty of proving a negative. Like I said
above, DBT is useful in confirming an outcome that is predicted by physics
and maths (such as that interconnects and speaker cables have no effect on
the signal that they are passing at the lengths in which they are typically
used) and less useful at making determinations about unknown qualities (like
amplifier sound) where a null result can be less than informative.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:10:58 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 1, 11:40=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expec=
t
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different, =
the
pre-D/A data handling is different =A0(as in simple and cursory in cheap =
DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones).

There's no reason necessarily to expect otherwise, either. You can't
just look at the design of two units and determine whether there are
audible differences between them.

I'm not really seeing where anyone is doing that.

You need either appropriate
measurements or objective listening tests.

The first is easier than the second. A controlled listening test is only
definitive when it returns a positive result, or a negative result in support
of a proposition proved-out by physics and mathematics.

And when we conduct
listening tests with proper controls documented, we discover that,
defects and outre designs aside, humans can't tell DACs apart by sound
quality alone. As I've said, this is so basic a fact that you can find
it in standard college textbooks.

In other words, in the tests with which you are familiar, there have been
null results?

Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Mast=
er
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

Well here's a test comparing a Benchmark to a Behringer unit costing a
quarter the price. Care to guess the result? No peeking!
http://snipurl.com/261ucd

I'm sorry Bob, but your supplied snipurl returned an empty page, and in fact,
the translated page had the URL "http://66.196.80.202/", which looks like a
local, rather than an internet address. Can you please re-post this. I'd like
to see the comparison, I truly would.

Not familiar enough with Antelope. I believe the DCS contains numerous
filters, some of which may alter the frequency response of the unit
sufficiently to be audible.

But if you look at the measured test results:

http://tinyurl.com/4j8t9fw

You'll see that the frequency response is not altered.


A DAC with a switchable equalizer attached
will indeed sound different than a DAC without an equalizer. Alert the
media.

True, but irrelevant in this case.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:10:43 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):
Audio Empire wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb ]

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expect
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different,
the
pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap
DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones). Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.


In case of DCS Scarlatti it's little wonder it might sound different --
thing is made from discrete components, so a good reason tu suspect some
nonlinearity as well some troubles with repeatable results.

While your observation is correct, your conclusion is flawed. Why
would you suspect nonlinearity in a system made up of discrete
components rather than standard chips? Why would it be more likely
that a discrete circuit would have more nonlinearity than an IC?
Especially when it is easier to correct such nonlinearity in a
discrete circuit (after the fact) than it is in a chip that is found
to be a faulty design? As for repeatability, as long as precision
parts are used, there should be none.

If you look at the measured data in Stereophile's review of the
Scarlatti:

http://tinyurl.com/4j8t9fw

You will see that it is literally state-of-the-art in every way (I'm
talking that DAC here, not the transport, which is another subject).

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:03:29 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Scott wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:14 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 26, 7:39=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Surely an ADC/DAC that
can be looped through 20 times with no audble
deterioration is flawless in the same way.
Hardly. All it takes is one brick wall filter that is
audibly degrading the original analog signal to shoot this theory
out of the water.
False.

No it is true, If the filter degrades the sound of a particular ADC it
does not matter how many times you loop the signal through the ADC/DAC
with zero degradation.

There is no zero degradation. There is inaudible degradation. Just since
sinc filter (ideal brickwall filter with 0 phase) is unrealisable (it
would require infinite delay) every iteration adds to sound degradation.
All phase nonlinearities will add, all not ideal brickwall effects will
add as well.

The system that system will degrade any
original analog signal.

And it will degrade it on each iteration.

The claim that the transparancy of the loop
proves transparancy of the system is fatally flawed for this reason.

It's not. Signal passes antialias and reconstruction filters on each
iteration, not once.

[...]
This is very poor logic.


There was no logic involved Arny. An assertion was made and I showed a
clear flaw in it.

You showed no flaw. Apparently you just misunderstand how DAC/ADC works.
Filter is an integral part of DAC as well as ADC component. When signal
runs through ADC/DAC chain many times it runs through antialiasing and
reconstruction filter the same number of times as well. All the signal
degradation accumulates as well.

It is a fact that if the filter of an ADC is colored
the ADC/DAC conversion of an analog signl will also be colored no
matter how many times you can run that signal through a loop without
degradation.

And in each iteration those colorations *will* accumulate.

That's the way I understand the process. Well described. Now perhaps if we
strung a series of A/D and D/A converters together and bypass their
antialiasing and reconstruction filters so that we are just re-digitising and
decoding a stair-step waveform over and over again, we might get the result
that Mr. Kruger predicts, but I'd have to think about it as I'm not 100% sure
that even that assumption is correct.

[bob]

On Mar 1, 7:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:10:58 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

There's no reason necessarily to expect otherwise, either. You can't
just look at the design of two units and determine whether there are
audible differences between them.

I'm not really seeing where anyone is doing that.

That's funny. I'm seeing you do that very thing.

You need either appropriate
measurements or objective listening tests.

The first is easier than the second. A controlled listening test is only
definitive when it returns a positive result, or a negative result in sup=
port
of a proposition proved-out by physics and mathematics.

A single negative DBT result proves very little. But what we have over
the course of years is a series of DBTs conducted by a wide range of
people, published in a number of different venues, ALL pointing to the
general inability of humans to detect differences between DACs. And on
the other side, we have one anonymous Internet poster.

I think inductive reasoning helps us sort this out.

=A0And when we conduct
listening tests with proper controls documented, we discover that,
defects and outre designs aside, humans can't tell DACs apart by sound
quality alone. As I've said, this is so basic a fact that you can find
it in standard college textbooks.

In other words, in the tests with which you are familiar, there have been
null results?

In other words, all published tests have produced null results, unless
there is some easily measurable explanation to the contrary.

Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/M=
ast=3D
er
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

Well here's a test comparing a Benchmark to a Behringer unit costing a
quarter the price. Care to guess the result? No peeking!
http://snipurl.com/261ucd

I'm sorry Bob, but your supplied snipurl returned an empty page, and in f=
act,
the translated page had the URL "http://66.196.80.202/", which looks like=
a
local, rather than an internet address. Can you please re-post this. I'd =
like
to see the comparison, I truly would.

Snipurl has never failed me before. Here's the real URL:
http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...s&lp=3Des_en&=
trurl=3Dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.matrixhifi.com%2fmolingor do5_pc_dac1_beh.htm

BTW, if you can read Spanish, you can probably find a more
decipherable version.

Not familiar enough with Antelope. I believe the DCS contains numerous
filters, some of which may alter the frequency response of the unit
sufficiently to be audible.

But if you look at the measured test results:

http://tinyurl.com/4j8t9fw

Also a bad link.

You'll see that the frequency response is not altered.

=A0A DAC with a switchable equalizer attached

will indeed sound different than a DAC without an equalizer. Alert the
media.

True, but irrelevant in this case.

Well, it's either that or your imagination. Take your pick.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:08:19 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 1, 7:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:10:58 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

There's no reason necessarily to expect otherwise, either. You can't
just look at the design of two units and determine whether there are
audible differences between them.

I'm not really seeing where anyone is doing that.

That's funny. I'm seeing you do that very thing.

You are "seeing" nothing of the sort, although you might be imagining it, I
wouldn't know. OTOH, I have cited several DAC DBTs that I have been party to,
so any comments I might make about DAC sound is at least predicated on the
fact that I have LISTENED to them.


You need either appropriate
measurements or objective listening tests.

The first is easier than the second. A controlled listening test is only
definitive when it returns a positive result, or a negative result in sup=
port
of a proposition proved-out by physics and mathematics.

A single negative DBT result proves very little. But what we have over
the course of years is a series of DBTs conducted by a wide range of
people, published in a number of different venues, ALL pointing to the
general inability of humans to detect differences between DACs. And on
the other side, we have one anonymous Internet poster.

I think inductive reasoning helps us sort this out.

=A0And when we conduct
listening tests with proper controls documented, we discover that,
defects and outre designs aside, humans can't tell DACs apart by sound
quality alone. As I've said, this is so basic a fact that you can find
it in standard college textbooks.

In other words, in the tests with which you are familiar, there have been
null results?

In other words, all published tests have produced null results, unless
there is some easily measurable explanation to the contrary.

Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/M=
ast=3D
er
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

Well here's a test comparing a Benchmark to a Behringer unit costing a
quarter the price. Care to guess the result? No peeking!
http://snipurl.com/261ucd

I'm sorry Bob, but your supplied snipurl returned an empty page, and in f=
act,
the translated page had the URL "http://66.196.80.202/", which looks like=
a
local, rather than an internet address. Can you please re-post this. I'd =
like
to see the comparison, I truly would.

Snipurl has never failed me before. Here's the real URL:
http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...s&lp=3Des_en&=
trurl=3Dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.matrixhifi.com%2fmolingor do5_pc_dac1_beh.htm

Thanks but I get nothing. I've tried it with Safari, Microsoft Explorer and
Firefox.

BTW, if you can read Spanish, you can probably find a more
decipherable version.

Not familiar enough with Antelope. I believe the DCS contains numerous
filters, some of which may alter the frequency response of the unit
sufficiently to be audible.

But if you look at the measured test results:

http://tinyurl.com/4j8t9fw

Also a bad link.

Funny. I've never had TinyURL fail me?????

You'll see that the frequency response is not altered.

=A0A DAC with a switchable equalizer attached

will indeed sound different than a DAC without an equalizer. Alert the
media.

True, but irrelevant in this case.

Well, it's either that or your imagination. Take your pick.

There is a third alternative.... that you are wrong.

[RoySon]

However, it is being found that these thresholds are not fixed and can not only vary greatly from individual to individual but can be affected in a single individual by levels of stress, and other psychological variables of human emotional response.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:10:43 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):
Audio Empire wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb ]

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to expect
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different,
the
pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap
DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones). Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

In case of DCS Scarlatti it's little wonder it might sound different --
thing is made from discrete components, so a good reason tu suspect some
nonlinearity as well some troubles with repeatable results.

While your observation is correct, your conclusion is flawed. Why
would you suspect nonlinearity in a system made up of discrete
components rather than standard chips?

Because such things like thermal stability and temperature induced changes
compensation. If it's needed adjustment is desiogned into a chip and is
routine part of production process (sometimes it's as simple as
electrically burning some fuses on chips, sometimes it requires
application of lased power to pretetermined places on IC).

Why would it be more likely
that a discrete circuit would have more nonlinearity than an IC?
Especially when it is easier to correct such nonlinearity in a
discrete circuit (after the fact)

Well, in reality if not easier (process like adjuastmewnt using laser is
not easy, but in large manufacturing plant it's just there to be used),
then quicker and cheaper is to adjust chips.

than it is in a chip that is found
to be a faulty design?

But I'd assume serial produced chips is rather unlikely to have faulty
design (especially as industry has learned how to make DACs).

As for repeatability, as long as precision
parts are used, there should be none.

Well, precision parts like resistors have what procession? 0.25% is
considered good. Parts' precission is not enough -- precission must come
from proper design.


If you look at the measured data in Stereophile's review of the
Scarlatti:

http://tinyurl.com/4j8t9fw

You will see that it is literally state-of-the-art in every way (I'm
talking that DAC here, not the transport, which is another subject).

Indeed, the thing measures excelent. So DAC seems to be good (but expensive)

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:05:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...bility-of-a-cd
standard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

OK, maybe I missed something,

You surely did miss a great deal. The experiment that this paper is based on
is essentially a comparison of an 44/16 DAC/ADC connected back-to-back as
compared to straight wire as shown in Figure 1. The source materal was the
playback of so-called High Resolution recordings. The experment used a
number of sources, a number of systems, and a number of listeners to try to
hear the effect of the DAC/ADC pair being inserted and removed from the
signal chain.


Just to make the experiment more tasty, the converters involved were not
SOTA and lacked common features that enhance their performance at any sample
rate including 44/16. Remember that they did not limit the resolution of
the straight-wire alternative path that was freely available to the
listeners.

Conclusion?

"We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music and specific
program; type of high-resolution technology; age of recording; and listener
age, gender, experience, and hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have
shown any correlation with the results, or any difference between the
answers and coin-flip results."

"Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility
of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility
that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a
difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and
capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now
shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades
highresolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind
tests."

This is modern, peer-reveiwed paper - your challenge - provide comparable
postitive results using a similar but fully comparable methodology.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


While your observation is correct, your conclusion is
flawed. Why would you suspect nonlinearity in a system
made up of discrete components rather than standard
chips? Why would it be more likely that a discrete
circuit would have more nonlinearity than an IC?
Especially when it is easier to correct such nonlinearity
in a discrete circuit (after the fact) than it is in a
chip that is found to be a faulty design? As for
repeatability, as long as precision parts are used, there
should be none.

The challenge with traditional DACs that are made of discrete parts is
linearity. The DAC is composed of a large number of resistors whose
resistance needs to have matched ratios within a tiny fraction - something
like 1/1,000 of a percent. One way to completely avoid this problem is the
well-known Sigma/Delta design, but it appears that DCS has made a big point
of not using this methodology. It is eaiser to match and stabilize the
ratios of resistors on a chip because then all of the parts are tightly
clustered in a microscopic area whose temperature is far more likely to
remain consistent.

That all said, the Stereophile review of the DCS Scarlatti appears to show
sonically blameless technical performance. But so does the DAC in my $30
Sansa Clip +. Yes, the Clip is far less blameless based on technical
measurements, but in actual listening tests, it is blameless.

And that has been my point all along. We have modern equipment with truely
amazing absolute performance and incredible price/performance. But, we have
the same old ears which were designed to hear approaching enemies and
receive verbal messages, not sort audio gear.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


That's the way I understand the process. Well described.
Now perhaps if we strung a series of A/D and D/A
converters together and bypass their antialiasing and
reconstruction filters so that we are just re-digitising
and decoding a stair-step waveform over and over again,
we might get the result that Mr. Kruger predicts, but I'd
have to think about it as I'm not 100% sure that even
that assumption is correct.

Your assumption that we can't string a large number of ADC and DACs together
with their filters intact and not have a transparent chain has been shown to
be false many times. Figure 3-6 cheap ones and maybe 20 or 40 expensive
ones. For most applictions, one ADC and 1 DAC suffices. So, cheap ADCs and
DACs are 3X overkill.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:05:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no
reason to expect that any two DACs would sound the same.
Seems very unscientific. Appears to totally reject the well-known and widely
accepted belief that the ear has thresholds for perception of noise and
distortion.

No, my statement does not in any way reject that premise. However, it is
being found that these thresholds are not fixed and can not only vary greatly
from individual to individual but can be affected in a single individual by
levels of stress, and other psychological variables of human emotional
response.

Yes, but that does not change the facts that there are limits to those
tresholds anyways. In a similar way, some men could run much faster than
others, especially after proper training, nutrition, preparations before
run, etc. But it doesn't change the reality that about 25mph is absolute
top human speed. And creating a device wchich would outrun every athlete,
even the best ones, is pretty easy.


Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar DACs
and ADCs were compared without positive results.

While that's true, it doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything. Remember the
scientific axiom: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While DBT
results are useful (especially when a positive result is returned or when
negative results proves a physical or mathematical prediction), negative
results that do not support an otherwise provable result, are just that;
negative results.

But in this case we have apropriate "physical or mathematical
prediction"... FR is flat within +/-0.2dB (better than some combinations
of cable+speaker), and in most significant 35Hz-10kHz it's +/-0.1dB, THD+N
is down below -110dB, IMD is down below -100dB, phase response is flat,
ringing is down -80dB, preringing is even less, jitter is below 1ns, etc.
As with best athletes speed limit below 25mph, there are real
unsurpassable limits even for the best human ears+brain combo. For example
level differenciacion for narrow band (1/6 octave) noise at around 3-4kHz
is about 0.3dB, maybe 0.2dB (thus flatness to 0.1dB in 35-10000Hz range is
considered enough with a margin). Similarily for pure sine waves that
differentation threshold grows to bit above 1dB, for signals beyond best
hearing range of 0.3 to 6KHz it's even lower. Distortion detectability is
around -60dB, maybe -65dB in best conditions -- -80dB is considered
undetectable -- and in case of DACs we talk about distorions well below
-100dB. Phase distorions of many precent are thought to be unhearable.
Noise floor detectability (in music with piano-pianissimos) lies about
-85dB (again we have noise floors well below that). And so on and on...

The analog stages are different,
So what? I can build a 100 different analog buffers that can't be
distinguished from each other in a proper listening test.

See above.

the pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap
DACs, and very sophisticated in expensive ones).
Wrong on several counts.

One is that the industry standard chips for doing this sort of thing are few
in number, and the more popular ones appear in both very inexpensive and
very expensive equipment.

I invite you to look at a DCS Scarlatti or Paganini DAC or an Antelope Zodiac
Gold DAC, and while you count the number of "standard chips" employed, take
a look at the non-standard and proprietary circuitry involved. I would like
to especially direct your attention to DCS' proprietary "Ring DAC". It is not
a Delta-Sigma DAC, it is not a single-bit DAC, or any other "standard chip"

But what's important is that it's measurements, while excelent, are no
better than some $10 chips (likie for example SES9018)

Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
simply isn't paying attention.
No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.

That's an assumption not in evidence - on several fronts. First, you are
assuming that proper bias controlled tests haven't been performed,

I might remember things wrong and I could miss some test descriptions of
yours, but from what I remember you descrived one DBT of three DAC's you
discuss few paragraphs above. But from what I rememeber, some claimed
results had no statisticaly significant backing. Also, as far as I
remember, statistical analysis iself (not its claimed results) and full
set of each test results of all participants (not just one person( were
not given to you and that person conducting the test was an representative
of a party interested in demonstrating that $$$$$ components are sonically
improved against $$ components.

and
secondly you are assuming that a null result (or even lots of null results)
is definitive.

But there is an overwhelming amount of null results as well as strong
theoretical prediction for such null results. Thus it's now (reasonalbly)
considered, that non-negative results require very careful scrutiny and
detailed descriptions of how they were obtained. Extraordinary claims call
for extraordinary evidence.

In such case, claim that test was pefromed correctly without disclosing
such details, like actual answers by all participants, as well as exact
methodology, is simply not enough. And not due to assumed dishonesty of
the claimant, but due to possibility of mistake/misunderstanding, etc...

No reputable scientist would ever make that mistake.

But given the body of null results, obtained in carefully controlled
conditions allows reputable scienits to claim, that while valid contrary
result could not be excluded, it's possibility is considered very remote,
and evidence for the contrary must be very firm.


Here's a link to a JAES paper that makes many relevant points:


http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...ility-of-a-cd-
stan
dard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

OK, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that this paper addresses
the audibility of SACD/high-resolution DVD-A against 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD
quality playback. I don't see where it addresses what we're talking about at
all - even peripherally. It makes me wonder why you bothered to post the URL?
Thank you though, It made for interesting, albeit irrelevant, reading.

Well, the limits of CD quality playback lie many dB above differences
between current DACs. And if those could not be heard, some claim that
differences about 10 dB below are actualy hearable is rather suspiciuos.


At least Meyer and Moran (the paper''s authors) understand well enough the
worth and limitations of DBT tests' ability to ascertain sonic results to
print the following disclaimer: "Now, it is very difficult to use negative
results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There
is always the possibility that a different system or a more finally attuned
pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data,
using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that
the burden of proof has now shifted."

Excatly, "the burden of proof has now shifted."


IOW, they are acknowledging the difficulty of proving a negative. Like I said
above, DBT is useful in confirming an outcome that is predicted by physics
and maths (such as that interconnects and speaker cables have no effect on
the signal that they are passing at the lengths in which they are typically
used) and less useful at making determinations about unknown qualities (like
amplifier sound) where a null result can be less than informative.


You're ignoring here the above claim of Meyer and Moran, that "the burden
of proof has now shifted."

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:32=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:20=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. =3D3DA0Using the SACD version. =3D3DA0And the
culprit....the preamp. =3D3DA0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. =3D3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D3D en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.
Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
completely eroneous conclusions.
Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.

Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous.

Fact? Or you assertion? Don't confound facts and your assertions, please!

The
primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM were
recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were recorded
individually in various clock stores.

So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.


Perhaps you should steer clear of
Dark Side of the Moon as a reference.
Perhaps you should concentrate on the core of the matters discussed.

Kind of an ironic assertion givn that you just jumped into this side
topic.



If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different way=
s, =3D
a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording =
was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated =
fai=3D
rly
well.
What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studio=
s,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3DA0It =
is co=3D
mmon
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the m=
ix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners.
And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were recorded in
an acoustically dead studio room with your experienced ears as a
recording engineer you concluded that the clocks were recorded in a
dead studio room and were close miced. Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there.
Wchich one?

I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one which is
singular?

So may I rephprase: Which ones?


Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that
the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an
excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the
CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The
sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there
on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not? Echo
chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments are not
played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via speaker(s) in
the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.

We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber on DSOTM.
That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was used on
that recording.

How you know all uses of the chamber in the recording? That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used then
state of the art processing.

BTW. As a sidenote, the SF article (quoted part in fact) contains real
audiophilic gem. Mr. Atkinson claims to remeber, after 30 years, subtle
details of characteristic sound of studio and (especially) "unique" echo
chamber. Funily enough echo chamber could be (and is) easily adjusted to
particular needs of recording being produced.

So you are personally familiar enough with Abby Road studios that you
can speak from experience about th eroneous nature of Atkinson's
claims?

Nope. I'm familiar enough with how ear-brain system works as well as such
things like adjusting stuios and chambers to know that. The fact he
pretends to remember unique fine details of studio room sound (again:
which one and how set up) and echo chamber (again: how set up) is simply
funny.


And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." =A0 =A0 ooops.....=
.
Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...

No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about the
recording of DSOTM.

Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?


Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studio. They
were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any
clock shops that are acoustically dead?
Yes, most are oooooops.

Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what clock
shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the space is
actually a dead acoustic space.

I've shown in another post. Absorbitive material is not good for mid-low
frequencies. "Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.

Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)

I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc. Anechoic is
extremely dead. Moreover I explicitly stated what I consider dead space.
For example typical library room or carpeted and densely furnitured living
room are both rather dead spaces.

so do tell us
how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops of all
things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual been in
one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they use to
hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. so do
tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are more common
than not.

Rather densely packed space. Lot of little corners and "corrugations"
formed on the walls. Clocks form cabitets with significant holes where
sound sinks in. Typically, a counter divinding the space, table(s),
shelves, etc. Some soft furniture.

I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
the basics of room acoustics.

Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.
Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies. Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various sizes is
quite good absorber. The same wall is good diffusor for mid-high frequencies.


Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely =A0possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."
Nothing strange or wrong with that.

Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
incorrect?

Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!


Let's take an example you should know more than audio engineering. Lets
take an example of photography.

Let's stick with audio.

And you snipped the rest. Was the argumentation righit, perhaps? Was too
hard to refute?


Maybe the CD you have used as a reference is the one with the one
being examined by Jon Atkinson with the screwed up CD layer? that
might explain how one could listen to the recording and draw such
eroneous conclusions
The lackings of the recording, as described in Mr. Atkinson's article,
will not hide such things like type miking used.

I suggest you reread the article. Mr. Atkinson did not describe any
lackings in the recording.

Ok, not recording but mastering. The sense of my statement was clear, I
hoped...

understanding this fact is paramount in
understanding this thread.

Not catching interlocutor by words is paramount in productive discussion...


about the recording venues given your assertions
about the listening skills of "experienced recording engineers" such
as yourself. But we don't know which version of DSOTM you listen to. I
did ask after you posted that terribly inadequate list of variaious
masterings. You never answered.
Desnt matter if the recording was the same.

So you don't understand or simply deny that mastering affects the
sound of recordings?

Please don't twist&spin. I've never claimed such a thing. And reread the
photography example you've snipped.


mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chosing the
better masterings.
Doing your homework does help understand the matters discussed, like how
echo chambers are utilised, for example.

That is a fine example and had you done your homework you would have
known better than to post information about it that was irrelevant to
how the echo chamber was actually used in the recording of DSOTM.

See above. One particular use doesn't preclude other uses.


DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on this
thread.
You're trying to turn the discussion in irrelevant side matters, like
how many remasters of DSotM are there.

No I am responding to and correcting misinformation. Much like I am
doing in this post with the misinformation you have added to the
thread.

Could you, please, show what misinformations I've added?

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:03:43 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:05:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no
reason to expect that any two DACs would sound the same.
Seems very unscientific. Appears to totally reject the well-known and
widely
accepted belief that the ear has thresholds for perception of noise and
distortion.

No, my statement does not in any way reject that premise. However, it is
being found that these thresholds are not fixed and can not only vary
greatly
from individual to individual but can be affected in a single individual by
levels of stress, and other psychological variables of human emotional
response.

Yes, but that does not change the facts that there are limits to those
tresholds anyways. In a similar way, some men could run much faster than
others, especially after proper training, nutrition, preparations before
run, etc. But it doesn't change the reality that about 25mph is absolute
top human speed. And creating a device wchich would outrun every athlete,
even the best ones, is pretty easy.


Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar DACs
and ADCs were compared without positive results.

While that's true, it doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything. Remember
the
scientific axiom: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While
DBT
results are useful (especially when a positive result is returned or when
negative results proves a physical or mathematical prediction), negative
results that do not support an otherwise provable result, are just that;
negative results.

But in this case we have apropriate "physical or mathematical
prediction"... FR is flat within +/-0.2dB (better than some combinations
of cable+speaker), and in most significant 35Hz-10kHz it's +/-0.1dB, THD+N
is down below -110dB, IMD is down below -100dB, phase response is flat,
ringing is down -80dB, preringing is even less, jitter is below 1ns, etc.


That's not what I meant. I meant that in the case of cables, for instance,
the physics tells us that cannot be any difference between cables and
interconnects and that they can have no "sound". The physics says that this
is so, and the maths performed on any cable for which we have specs
(resistance/ft, capacitance/ft, inductance/ft) allows us to calculate the
impedance of that cable at any frequency. From "DC" to at least 20 KHz, we
can see that any speaker cable and any interconnect on the market , in any of
the lengths commonly used in home audio, that these conductors have
absolutely no effect on the signal passing through them. The DBTs confirm
what we already know.

Now show me the same sort of physics and maths that predicts that all A/D,
D/A and amplifier circuits will sound the same irrespective of design,
component quality, or build quality.

As with best athletes speed limit below 25mph, there are real
unsurpassable limits even for the best human ears+brain combo. For example
level differenciacion for narrow band (1/6 octave) noise at around 3-4kHz
is about 0.3dB, maybe 0.2dB (thus flatness to 0.1dB in 35-10000Hz range is
considered enough with a margin). Similarily for pure sine waves that
differentation threshold grows to bit above 1dB, for signals beyond best
hearing range of 0.3 to 6KHz it's even lower. Distortion detectability is
around -60dB, maybe -65dB in best conditions -- -80dB is considered
undetectable -- and in case of DACs we talk about distorions well below
-100dB. Phase distorions of many precent are thought to be unhearable.
Noise floor detectability (in music with piano-pianissimos) lies about
-85dB (again we have noise floors well below that). And so on and on...

The analog stages are different,
So what? I can build a 100 different analog buffers that can't be
distinguished from each other in a proper listening test.

See above.

the pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in
cheap
DACs, and very sophisticated in expensive ones).
Wrong on several counts.

One is that the industry standard chips for doing this sort of thing are
few
in number, and the more popular ones appear in both very inexpensive and
very expensive equipment.

I invite you to look at a DCS Scarlatti or Paganini DAC or an Antelope
Zodiac
Gold DAC, and while you count the number of "standard chips" employed,
take
a look at the non-standard and proprietary circuitry involved. I would like
to especially direct your attention to DCS' proprietary "Ring DAC". It is
not
a Delta-Sigma DAC, it is not a single-bit DAC, or any other "standard chip"

But what's important is that it's measurements, while excelent, are no
better than some $10 chips (likie for example SES9018)

Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
simply isn't paying attention.
No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.

That's an assumption not in evidence - on several fronts. First, you are
assuming that proper bias controlled tests haven't been performed,

I might remember things wrong and I could miss some test descriptions of
yours, but from what I remember you descrived one DBT of three DAC's you
discuss few paragraphs above. But from what I rememeber, some claimed
results had no statisticaly significant backing. Also, as far as I
remember, statistical analysis iself (not its claimed results) and full
set of each test results of all participants (not just one person( were
not given to you and that person conducting the test was an representative
of a party interested in demonstrating that $$$$$ components are sonically
improved against $$ components.

I heard a difference. between the DACs as did some others. No, I did not get
to see the tabulated results, as I said a few months ago. Whether I or anyone
else "got it right" with any statistical certainty is unknown to me. But the
fact that I found it fairly easy to distinguish one DAC from another has made
me mighty skeptical of the "All DACs sound alike" school.

Since then I have lived with both a DCS Scarlatti/DCS Master Clock box as
well as the Antelope Zodiac, and they do different things to the same digital
source on long term listening (I've already established to my satisfaction in
a DBT that they are "different" and now the long-term testing in my system
tells me what those differences are), and it ain't subtle!.

and
secondly you are assuming that a null result (or even lots of null results)
is definitive.

But there is an overwhelming amount of null results as well as strong
theoretical prediction for such null results. Thus it's now (reasonalbly)
considered, that non-negative results require very careful scrutiny and
detailed descriptions of how they were obtained. Extraordinary claims call
for extraordinary evidence.

In such case, claim that test was pefromed correctly without disclosing
such details, like actual answers by all participants, as well as exact
methodology, is simply not enough. And not due to assumed dishonesty of
the claimant, but due to possibility of mistake/misunderstanding, etc...

No reputable scientist would ever make that mistake.

But given the body of null results, obtained in carefully controlled
conditions allows reputable scienits to claim, that while valid contrary
result could not be excluded, it's possibility is considered very remote,
and evidence for the contrary must be very firm.


Here's a link to a JAES paper that makes many relevant points:


http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...ility-of-a-cd-
stan
dard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

OK, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that this paper addresses
the audibility of SACD/high-resolution DVD-A against 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD
quality playback. I don't see where it addresses what we're talking about
at
all - even peripherally. It makes me wonder why you bothered to post the
URL?
Thank you though, It made for interesting, albeit irrelevant, reading.

Well, the limits of CD quality playback lie many dB above differences
between current DACs. And if those could not be heard, some claim that
differences about 10 dB below are actualy hearable is rather suspiciuos.


At least Meyer and Moran (the paper''s authors) understand well enough the
worth and limitations of DBT tests' ability to ascertain sonic results to
print the following disclaimer: "Now, it is very difficult to use negative
results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There
is always the possibility that a different system or a more finally attuned
pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data,
using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that
the burden of proof has now shifted."

Excatly, "the burden of proof has now shifted."


IOW, they are acknowledging the difficulty of proving a negative. Like I
said
above, DBT is useful in confirming an outcome that is predicted by physics
and maths (such as that interconnects and speaker cables have no effect on
the signal that they are passing at the lengths in which they are typically
used) and less useful at making determinations about unknown qualities
(like
amplifier sound) where a null result can be less than informative.


You're ignoring here the above claim of Meyer and Moran, that "the burden
of proof has now shifted."

I'm not ignoring it. Had I wanted to do that, I would have left out that part
of the quote (as some who post here would have, no doubt, surely done). I
agree that the burden of proof is on those of us who are skeptical of Meyer
and Moran's (or any of the other null-result tests of this particular
premise) result. I just don't know how to go about testing that hypothesis in
a scientific manner. IOW, if one is sure that DBTs aren't reliable for this
kind of test because one is 100% sure that DACs sound different and that
those differences make themselves known only over time, how does one prove it
to the satisfaction of all concerned?

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 05:38:39 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:10:43 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):
Audio Empire wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb ]

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no reason to
expect
that any two DACs would sound the same. The analog stages are different,
the
pre-D/A data handling is different (as in simple and cursory in cheap
DACs,
and very sophisticated in expensive ones). Anybody who can't hear the
difference between a Benchmark, an Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti
DAC/Master
clock combo, simply isn't paying attention.

In case of DCS Scarlatti it's little wonder it might sound different --
thing is made from discrete components, so a good reason tu suspect some
nonlinearity as well some troubles with repeatable results.

While your observation is correct, your conclusion is flawed. Why
would you suspect nonlinearity in a system made up of discrete
components rather than standard chips?

Because such things like thermal stability and temperature induced changes
compensation. If it's needed adjustment is desiogned into a chip and is
routine part of production process (sometimes it's as simple as
electrically burning some fuses on chips, sometimes it requires
application of lased power to pretetermined places on IC).

Why would it be more likely
that a discrete circuit would have more nonlinearity than an IC?
Especially when it is easier to correct such nonlinearity in a
discrete circuit (after the fact)

Well, in reality if not easier (process like adjuastmewnt using laser is
not easy, but in large manufacturing plant it's just there to be used),
then quicker and cheaper is to adjust chips.

No doubt, but that's not the question. It might be more costly do it
manually, but replacing precision resistors to correct non-linearity is
fairly easy, technologically, even if it is labor intensive. Besides, the
folks at DCs tell me that they pre-screen all the critical parts in their
Ring-DAC before assembly. I guess when you charge that much for a DAC you can
afford to do that!

than it is in a chip that is found
to be a faulty design?

But I'd assume serial produced chips is rather unlikely to have faulty
design (especially as industry has learned how to make DACs).

No, you're right. That was merely my hypothetical reply to your hypothetical
comment.

As for repeatability, as long as precision
parts are used, there should be none.

Well, precision parts like resistors have what procession? 0.25% is
considered good. Parts' precission is not enough -- precission must come
from proper design.

Obviously...


If you look at the measured data in Stereophile's review of the
Scarlatti:

http://tinyurl.com/4j8t9fw

You will see that it is literally state-of-the-art in every way (I'm
talking that DAC here, not the transport, which is another subject).

Indeed, the thing measures excelent. So DAC seems to be good (but expensive)

It sounds great too. I had one on loan for more than a week. To be honest, it
was revelatory, especially in soundstage and imaging. Much better than
anything else I've heard. But worth $50K+? No, not to me. If it were
reasonable, I'd say that I had to have what it does. But it is not reasonable
and that's that.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


While your observation is correct, your conclusion is
flawed. Why would you suspect nonlinearity in a system
made up of discrete components rather than standard
chips? Why would it be more likely that a discrete
circuit would have more nonlinearity than an IC?
Especially when it is easier to correct such nonlinearity
in a discrete circuit (after the fact) than it is in a
chip that is found to be a faulty design? As for
repeatability, as long as precision parts are used, there
should be none.

The challenge with traditional DACs that are made of discrete parts is
linearity. The DAC is composed of a large number of resistors whose
resistance needs to have matched ratios within a tiny fraction - something
like 1/1,000 of a percent. One way to completely avoid this problem is the
well-known Sigma/Delta design, but it appears that DCS has made a big point
of not using this methodology. It is eaiser to match and stabilize the
ratios of resistors on a chip because then all of the parts are tightly
clustered in a microscopic area whose temperature is far more likely to
remain consistent.

That all said, the Stereophile review of the DCS Scarlatti appears to show
sonically blameless technical performance. But so does the DAC in my $30
Sansa Clip +. Yes, the Clip is far less blameless based on technical
measurements, but in actual listening tests, it is blameless.

And that has been my point all along. We have modern equipment with truely
amazing absolute performance and incredible price/performance. But, we have
the same old ears which were designed to hear approaching enemies and
receive verbal messages, not sort audio gear.



Yet I have heard the Scarlatti in my own system and it is more than just
sonically "blameless" it reveals levels of sound present on recordings that
lesser DACs miss. Especially in the realm of soundstage and imaging.

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and probably always has)
save you a heap of money 8^)

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:13:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect
(after all, they're transducers, just like speakers
and phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect,
and the analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often
sonically transparent. Comparing the sonic purity of
phono cartrdiges to good converters is like comparing
mud to milk.

Talk about wrong! Nothing made by man is perfect,
including audio electronics.

I did not say that audio electronics were perfect. I
said that they are often "sonically transparent", which
means that signals representing music can pass through
them without reliably noticable audible alternations.

That's just as wrong as saying they were perfect.

Why not?

If they had no audible affect on signals representing music, then
they would all sound the same.

That's why DACs do sound the same once certain fairly achievable levels of
performance are met.

Clearly they don't.

Only in the judgement of people who reject the many findings of science and
technology that are relevant to this.

I've had that proven to me in a number of DBTs involving amplifiers.

I don't recall any accounts of proper DBTs showing this.

Here, collect this man's money:

http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

And that has been my point all along. We have modern
equipment with truely amazing absolute performance and
incredible price/performance. But, we have the same old
ears which were designed to hear approaching enemies and
receive verbal messages, not sort audio gear.

Yet I have heard the Scarlatti in my own system and it is
more than just sonically "blameless" it reveals levels of
sound present on recordings that lesser DACs miss.

There is no technical reason to believe that the Scarlatti would sound any
different then any of numerous so-called "Lesser DACs" that have sufficient
accuracy to be sonically transparent.

Especially in the realm of soundstage and imaging.

Especially that.

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and
probably always has) save you a heap of money 8^)

It is all about being able to hear with the ears and not have that affected
by the eyes.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:23:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

And that has been my point all along. We have modern
equipment with truely amazing absolute performance and
incredible price/performance. But, we have the same old
ears which were designed to hear approaching enemies and
receive verbal messages, not sort audio gear.

Yet I have heard the Scarlatti in my own system and it is
more than just sonically "blameless" it reveals levels of
sound present on recordings that lesser DACs miss.

There is no technical reason to believe that the Scarlatti would sound any
different then any of numerous so-called "Lesser DACs" that have sufficient
accuracy to be sonically transparent.

Especially in the realm of soundstage and imaging.

Especially that.

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and
probably always has) save you a heap of money 8^)

It is all about being able to hear with the ears and not have that affected
by the eyes.


I agree, mostly. But It's also about being able to hear with the ears and not
have that affected by the pocketbook.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:23:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and
probably always has) save you a heap of money 8^)

It is all about being able to hear with the ears and not
have that affected by the eyes.

I agree, mostly. But It's also about being able to hear
with the ears and not have that affected by the
pocketbook.

In the crowd I hang here in Detroit, limitations of the pocketbook has never
been an issue. However, none of see any purpose in enriching audio
charlatans.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:40:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:23:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 07:06:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I'm happy for you that cheap satisfies you. It will (and
probably always has) save you a heap of money 8^)

It is all about being able to hear with the ears and not
have that affected by the eyes.

I agree, mostly. But It's also about being able to hear
with the ears and not have that affected by the
pocketbook.

In the crowd I hang here in Detroit, limitations of the pocketbook has never
been an issue. However, none of see any purpose in enriching audio
charlatans.




No doubt that there are charlatans in abundance in the audio hobby. They sell
cables and interconnects and line cords that do nothing, green pens for your
CDs and DVDs that do nothing, cheap, digital clocks that have been "treated"
to act as line-noise eliminators when plugged into the same circuit as one's
hi-fi, and they do nothing either (except keep time). Then there are
myrtlewood blocks, which, when placed on top of your components, make them
"sound better" - needless to say, these are less than worthless. There are
such things as ceramic elevators to get your beautiful fire-hose sized
speaker cables up off your nasty carpets or wood floors, and of course, caps
for unused audio inputs which keep the stray electrons from "spilling out",
neither of which are of the slightest worth either.

But good equipment is a good audio investment. While you maintain that every
modern piece of electronic equipment sounds the same, I maintain that they
are all different. I do agree that the differences are inconsequential in the
long run (mostly. There are exceptions), and that lots of equipment is
overpriced for the performance advantage that it might enjoy over lesser
equipment, but I am sure that such differences do exist. It's up to you
whether or not they are important enough to you to pay the price.

Last time I was through Detroit, it looked like the entire populace would
have to pool their financial resources just to buy a newspaper! I've never
seen such poverty and urban blight in my life! The city is a disgrace to
this country. Detroit makes Oakland CA look like Beverly Hills by comparison!

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

: Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar DACs
: and ADCs were compared without positive results.

: While that's true, it doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything. Remember the
: scientific axiom: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While DBT
: results are useful (especially when a positive result is returned or when
: negative results proves a physical or mathematical prediction), negative
: results that do not support an otherwise provable result, are just that;
: negative results.

: Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
: Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
: simply isn't paying attention.
:
: No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.

: secondly you are assuming that a null result (or even lots of null results)
: is definitive. No reputable scientist would ever make that mistake.

Really? Actually, you're wrong about this.

You have a point in that null results are usually taken with a serving
of "how do we know the experiment was sensitive enough to find the
result if there is one?". That is, a null result (a failure to find
a diffrence between A and B in whatever domain you're studying) could
be due to two factors:

a) there really is no difference between A and B, and the experimental
results are consistent with this.
b) There really *is* a difference between A and B, and the experiment
was improperly designed, and missed the difference.

But you can't, no matter how much you believe A and B are different,
merely assert (b) and walk away. You really have to be able to
identify the poor design aspects, and then re-design the experiment to
be better.

Working scientists do this ALL the time. Any good experimenter will
always ask, about his own work, whether this has happened.

But pretty much the same is true in the opposite case, where an
experiment finds a difference between A and B. Paralleling the above,
this result could be due to two factors:

c) there realy is a difference between A and B, and the experimental
results are consistent with this.
d) There really is NO difference between A and B, and the experiment
was improperly designed, and gives the appearnce of a difference
that's due to a spurious source.

And, again, working scientists are always asking this about their own
work, and do replications, partial replications with different stimuli
or equipment, and gradually gain confidence about (c) [when the
results replicate].

Now there's a whole literature in statistics on this, and why for
example it's harder to publish a null result. A lot of it boils down
to people thinking that it's more likely that a given poorly designed
experiment will find no difference where there is one, compared to
another poorly designed experiment finding a difference where there is
none.

Why should that be?

Well, partly because it's really easy to make up really, really bad
experiments to illustrate the (a)/(b) scenario: do a listening test
with the headphones unplugged, do a study of reading with the lights
off, etc.

And partly because -- and this is really kinda crucial here -- the
literature on experimental work in any area, in this case psychology
of perception, has sorted out, ovr the decades, a lot of the more
subtle ways an experiment can go wrong, and students get trained to
avoid these mistakes, so a well-trained experimenter is simply less
likely to design an experiment in which you get a positive result for
bad reasons. And a major component of this is: drumroll here

DOUBLE BLIND EXPERIMENTS WITH A LOT OF SUBJECTS AND A LOT OF TRIALS


This prevents all sorts of things happening like:

subjects know when A is plugged in and when B is

subjects can see the equipment and have preconceived, unconscious
biases to think the shiny/cool-looking/larger/blinkier/brand-X one
is better.

the experimenter (non-deliberately) cueing the subject in to the
expected results

running the study report through (sometimes anonymous) peer-review

encouraging yourself and others to always try to find the problem
in the study, whether your own or someone else, and creating a
culture of constructive critique and gradual refinement of the
theory.

So, here's the thing: since Arny has cited a study which seems to
follow all of these criteria, we can be confident -- not sure, not
convinced, not thinking that the point is proven, but confident --
that there is NOT an extraneous design problem which created the lack
of results for the wrong reason.


: IOW, they are acknowledging the difficulty of proving a negative. Like I said
: above, DBT is useful in confirming an outcome that is predicted by physics
: and maths (such as that interconnects and speaker cables have no effect on
: the signal that they are passing at the lengths in which they are typically
: used) and less useful at making determinations about unknown qualities (like
: amplifier sound) where a null result can be less than informative.

Actually, that's not completely right, although it is true that a
result of any sort i taken more seriously if there was a prediction
beforehand -- this is what lies behind the one-tailed vs. two-tailed
statistical test. This is rather peculiar. Suppose you hve two labs
which run exactlly the same experiment (same stimuli, same number of
subjects, same equipment). To make it concrete, suppose the
experiment is to determine differences, if any, between speed of
reading a word aloud if it's a noun, and when it's a verb.

Both labs predict a difference in speed.

Lab 1 predicts the direction of the difference: its researchers
hypothesize that nouns will be read faster.

Results: nouns are read faster.

But ... it's quite possible for that result to be statistically
significant in lab 1, and NOT in lab 2, due to the differences in the
hypotheses in the heads of the experimenters in the two labs.

Going back to your point above: have you read about the
Michelson-Morley experiment? It's worth reading about in detail, but
here's the basics:

In Newton's conception of the universe, objects can act on another at
a distance, with no physical connection between them. Apples fall to
the ground because the apple and the Earth can detect ech oher's
presence, and pull on the oher; the Earth pulls a lot more and the
apple moves to the Earth (and the earth moves a teeny bit toward the
apple).

This caused a lot of consternation, and resulted in the aether theory:
the universe is filled with an invisible aether, which acts as the
medium to connect two seeminly distant objects, and served as the
medium through which light is carried (as a wave is carried through a
body of water, or a sound wave through air). This made a strong
prediction: light should travel at different speeds depending on
it's direction relative to the Earth's surface, and relative to the
season of the year. It should diflect slightly if travelling
perpendicular to the aaether, and so on.

M&M designed an incredibly tighly contrained set of equipment,
including inventing the interferometer, which could actually measure
the speed of light between two points accurately enough to tst this
prediction.

Result: A null result. There is no difference in the speed of light
between two points correlated witdirection, season, or anything else.
Light travels (through a fixed medium, e.g. air) at a constant speed.

This pretty much demolished the theory of the luineferous aether. And
it was a null result.

Given that that theory was the only game in town, physicists were
perplexed. And it took 20 years for Einstein to come along, with
Special Relativity, which finally gave a framework within which the
M-M result made sense.

Moral #1: Null results can be important.
Moral #2 (re DBTs): we really do know a lot about designing
experiments of perception at this point. And we know a
lot about unconscious biases, and how to avoid them in an
experiment. We really do. And knowing that shows, among
other things, how we can be so badly led astray by our
biases and convictions in a badly done experiment, or in a
home observation of what you *think* you hear.


-- Amdy Barss

[bob]

On Mar 3, 6:47=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote:

snip, but you should read the whole thing!

IOW: The only relevant response to bad data is better data. If you
don't have actual data that supports your case, you don't have a case.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests
PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.

Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and
get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are
overwhelming that you screwed up the test.


Wow, what an argument.......

...if you don't hear a difference, that "proves" there is no difference
(despite statistical certainty that this is not so)

...if you do hear a difference, then you or the test itself are statistical
outliers that I believe are in error (so, just accept as fact that you
didn't actually hear anything different).

Whata cogent case.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.
Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper listening tests
PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are unacquainted.
Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an experiment and
get a result that contradicts all previous results, the odds are
overwhelming that you screwed up the test.


Wow, what an argument.......

..if you don't hear a difference, that "proves" there is no difference
(despite statistical certainty that this is not so)

If noone other heard the difference then it shows that existence of
audible difference is highly unprobable.


..if you do hear a difference, then you or the test itself are statistical
outliers that I believe are in error (so, just accept as fact that you
didn't actually hear anything different).

Whata cogent case.

Nope. If you claim that you could run on feet 30mph then you're not a
statistical oulier, you're simply in error.


rgds
\SK

--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[C. Leeds]

On 3/3/2011 3:16 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

No doubt that there are charlatans in abundance in the audio hobby. They sell
cables and interconnects and line cords that do nothing...
But good equipment is a good audio investment.

Oh no, audio equipment is a terrible investment. It is the very rare
component that actually appreciates; most of it is just a depreciating
asset and a lot of it ends up in a landfill.

That doesn't mean that good audio equipment can't be a good value, but
that isn't the same as a good investment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 7:52=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:06:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Lack of experience with proper listening tests noted.

Don't you mean "Lack of experience with proper
listening tests PRESUMED"?=
You
can't note anything concerning people with whom you are
unacquainted.

Actually, it's a fairly safe assumption. If you do an
experiment and get a result that contradicts all
previous results, the odds are overwhelming that you
screwed up the test.

Wow, what an argument.......

..if you don't hear a difference, that "proves" there is
no difference (despite statistical certainty that this is
not so)

Of course that is a total misrepresentation of the paragraph that it
pretends to summarize.

..if you do hear a difference, then you or the test
itself are statistical outliers that I believe are in
error (so, just accept as fact that you didn't actually
hear anything different).

Whata cogent case.

Absence of actual reelvant facts or arguments noted.

Here's something for you to chew on, Harry:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message



But good equipment is a good audio investment.

Really not so good if sonic performance is your main criteria.

While you
maintain that every modern piece of electronic equipment
sounds the same,

How many times do I need to correct this flagrant error?

I maintain that they are all different.

At some microscopic level, everything is different even the channels of
every component with 2 or more channels.

I do agree that the differences are inconsequential in
the long run (mostly. There are exceptions), and that
lots of equipment is overpriced for the performance
advantage that it might enjoy over lesser equipment, but
I am sure that such differences do exist. It's up to you
whether or not they are important enough to you to pay
the price.

The concept of "lesser equipment" is the question.

Last time I was through Detroit, it looked like the
entire populace would have to pool their financial
resources just to buy a newspaper!

There's a big difference between the demographics related to the 951,270 or
so people who live in Detoit and the over 4 million people who live in the
Detroit area.

However, you may be surprised to learn that even the city itself is far from
being homogenious, and there is plenty of honest money in some hands.

I've never seen such poverty and urban blight in my life!

There are worse places, even in the US. Detroit city is actually on a bit
of an uptick since about 6 years ago, even with the recession and all.
There was a period of about 20 years where vanishing numbers building
permits were issued. There is now a modest amount of new construction.

For example Detroit's riverfront was virtually 100% industrialized since the
late 1800s. There is now a scenic River Walk (a chain of privately-owned but
with 100% public access, as well as city and state parks) that runs for
about 4 miles of the river front, centered on downtown. It includes two
large very active entertainment venues, a medium-sized high fashion shopping
mall, a back-to-nature state park, new SOTA marinas for pleasure boats, and
other areas of interest. Some of these anchor elements have been around for
a while, but they are now all tied together. The older ones have been
refurbished just lately. My wife and I have been visiting it and inspecting
the new additions as they came on stream. (The stream being the nearly mile
wide Detroit River which is now pollution free). Great view of Canada to
the south. ;-)

The city is a
disgrace to this country. Detroit makes Oakland CA look
like Beverly Hills by comparison!

Detroit had a head start on passing its prime. :-(

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:03:43 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:05:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no
reason to expect that any two DACs would sound the same.
Seems very unscientific. Appears to totally reject the well-known and
widely
accepted belief that the ear has thresholds for perception of noise and
distortion.
No, my statement does not in any way reject that premise. However, it is
being found that these thresholds are not fixed and can not only vary
greatly
from individual to individual but can be affected in a single individual by
levels of stress, and other psychological variables of human emotional
response.
Yes, but that does not change the facts that there are limits to those
tresholds anyways. In a similar way, some men could run much faster than
others, especially after proper training, nutrition, preparations before
run, etc. But it doesn't change the reality that about 25mph is absolute
top human speed. And creating a device wchich would outrun every athlete,
even the best ones, is pretty easy.

Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar DACs
and ADCs were compared without positive results.
While that's true, it doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything. Remember
the
scientific axiom: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While
DBT
results are useful (especially when a positive result is returned or when
negative results proves a physical or mathematical prediction), negative
results that do not support an otherwise provable result, are just that;
negative results.
But in this case we have apropriate "physical or mathematical
prediction"... FR is flat within +/-0.2dB (better than some combinations
of cable+speaker), and in most significant 35Hz-10kHz it's +/-0.1dB, THD+N
is down below -110dB, IMD is down below -100dB, phase response is flat,
ringing is down -80dB, preringing is even less, jitter is below 1ns, etc.


That's not what I meant. I meant that in the case of cables, for instance,
the physics tells us that cannot be any difference between cables and
interconnects and that they can have no "sound". The physics says that this
is so, and the maths performed on any cable for which we have specs
(resistance/ft, capacitance/ft, inductance/ft) allows us to calculate the
impedance of that cable at any frequency. From "DC" to at least 20 KHz, we
can see that any speaker cable and any interconnect on the market , in any of
the lengths commonly used in home audio, that these conductors have
absolutely no effect on the signal passing through them. The DBTs confirm
what we already know.

Now show me the same sort of physics and maths that predicts that all A/D,
D/A and amplifier circuits will sound the same irrespective of design,
component quality, or build quality.

To be exact, in the case of cables physics tells us they're same sounding
if the connections are good, thickness is within sensible range, etc.
Interconnect in which there is a cold bond bewteen a cable and a connector
might sound a bit strange IOW two cables sound the same given their
parameters are within range.

Now physics and psychoacustics predict that all A/D, D/A and applifier
circuits sound the same given their parameters are within range.

Getting withing range is significantly easier in case of cables, of
course. But that doesn't preclude both improperly made cable (there are
such) as well as properly made active component (with parameters withing
range).

[...]
Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
simply isn't paying attention.
No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.
That's an assumption not in evidence - on several fronts. First, you are
assuming that proper bias controlled tests haven't been performed,
I might remember things wrong and I could miss some test descriptions of
yours, but from what I remember you descrived one DBT of three DAC's you
discuss few paragraphs above. But from what I rememeber, some claimed
results had no statisticaly significant backing. Also, as far as I
remember, statistical analysis iself (not its claimed results) and full
set of each test results of all participants (not just one person( were
not given to you and that person conducting the test was an representative
of a party interested in demonstrating that $$$$$ components are sonically
improved against $$ components.

I heard a difference. between the DACs as did some others. No, I did not get
to see the tabulated results, as I said a few months ago. Whether I or anyone
else "got it right" with any statistical certainty is unknown to me. But the
fact that I found it fairly easy to distinguish one DAC from another has made
me mighty skeptical of the "All DACs sound alike" school.

Since then I have lived with both a DCS Scarlatti/DCS Master Clock box as
well as the Antelope Zodiac, and they do different things to the same digital
source on long term listening (I've already established to my satisfaction in
a DBT that they are "different" and now the long-term testing in my system
tells me what those differences are), and it ain't subtle!.

Well, I've maybe written about this before, but I'm not sure. Anways...
Some (not very long) time ago my friend tried to decide which aplifier to
buy (as his pevious one showed aging problems). He took 3 amplifiers home
and wanted to check them. He also wanted to consult with someone other
which would be the right buy, so invited me to listen to them. So the
informal test begun. We compared amp A with amp B. Amp B seemd to sound
nicer -- "sweeter" and more "musical". So we compared B against C -- again
C sounded nicer again (again "sweeter" and more "musical"). So compared C
against A (to close the cycle). And, funili enough, it was A which souned
nicer. One could repeat the test and it was the same -- next applifier
souned nicer in each compared pair We then reversed order to B vs A and
then it was again, the second one of each tested pair souned nicer. So far
with such kind of evaluation. Results were clearly in our brains (and most
probably short and mid term musical memory) not in the equipment.



I'm not ignoring it. Had I wanted to do that, I would have left out that part
of the quote (as some who post here would have, no doubt, surely done). I
agree that the burden of proof is on those of us who are skeptical of Meyer
and Moran's (or any of the other null-result tests of this particular
premise) result. I just don't know how to go about testing that hypothesis in
a scientific manner. IOW, if one is sure that DBTs aren't reliable for this
kind of test because one is 100% sure that DACs sound different and that
those differences make themselves known only over time, how does one prove it
to the satisfaction of all concerned?

Well, DBT could be performed over long periods of time (even days or
weeks). It needs some preparations, but is doable. Setup two devices being
compared, set their gain to measuredly same level (within 0.1dB), and
connect them to the same source and allow them to work concurrently. Only
put blind randomized switch to their outputs. Turn the random switch at
the beginig of the session/day/week/other listening period, when, after
comfortable time of otherwise normal usage of the sysem, you feel you know
which output of which device is passed by a switch (and which is blocked)
note down your answer and then check what was real switch setting and note
down wether your answer was right or wrong. Something like this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-revi...owViewpoints=1
simple device allows to split digital signal coming from one source to
inputs of two devices. Alternatively, if those DACs do not show the level
of the incoming signal or indicate wether incoming signal is present (or
is non zero) one could switch the inputs as well.

There should be about 15 or more such sessions to get statistically
significant results, so the whole test could take a while, but it doesn't
make it impossible to perform.


rgds
\SK

--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/4/2011 8:25 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's something for you to chew on, Harry:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm



The one odd thing I noted was the statement that the "students ... could hear out to 16-18 kHz".

That is distressing for such a test! When I was a student I could hear out to 23 kHz.
Today, at 66, I can only hear out to 14kHz at high levels, or 13.5 kHz at
levels of normal music. There is more difference between 16 and 23 than between 13.5 and 16!
But, course, likely less musical difference, except in very special cases.

A test with people who could hear to 23 kHZ might have produced different
results.

Doug McDonald

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

IOW, if one is sure that DBTs aren't reliable for this kind of test
because one is 100% sure that DACs sound different and that those
differences make themselves known only over time, how does one prove
it to the satisfaction of all concerned?

This sounds more like philosophy than a scientific/technical question.
I don't understand how anyone could be 100% sure of anything that they
couldn't prove in a double-blind test, so I'm not sure the question
even makes sense to me. I'd have to ask the person *why* they are
100% convinced: simply hearing a difference doesn't do it, since
everyone is prone to hear nonexistent differences between sounds.

For example, let's say that I could hear the clear and unsubtle
difference between Amplifier X and Amplifier Y. But, according to
their measured performance, they were both as close to pieces with
"wire with gain" as makes no difference. So, if I were really
interested I'd do double-blind tests to see if I really could tell the
difference. If I got a null result I'd be surprised, because I was
*sure* I could hear a difference! So, I'd do the tests again. And,
if I still could not get a positive result after a lot of tries, I
would have to come to the conclusion that I could not hear a
difference. Even though, when listening sighted, the amplifiers still
had an obvious and unsubtle difference in sound.

I'm not assuming that tests are perfect: there is always a small
possibility that blind comparisons diminish hearing ability, or more
likely, that there was something wrong with a test. So, it's possible
that I'd come to the wrong conclusion; I doubt it, but I'm not 100%
sure of anything.

We know, for sure, that we are all subject to illusions. One way (the
only way?) to reduce the effect of these illusions is to test things
scientifically, and the gold standard of scientific testing is the
double-blind test.

Andrew.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:29:00 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:03:43 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:05:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

I can't answer that except to say again, that there is no
reason to expect that any two DACs would sound the same.
Seems very unscientific. Appears to totally reject the well-known and
widely
accepted belief that the ear has thresholds for perception of noise and
distortion.
No, my statement does not in any way reject that premise. However, it is
being found that these thresholds are not fixed and can not only vary
greatly
from individual to individual but can be affected in a single individual
by
levels of stress, and other psychological variables of human emotional
response.
Yes, but that does not change the facts that there are limits to those
tresholds anyways. In a similar way, some men could run much faster than
others, especially after proper training, nutrition, preparations before
run, etc. But it doesn't change the reality that about 25mph is absolute
top human speed. And creating a device wchich would outrun every athlete,
even the best ones, is pretty easy.

Many examples in the scientific literature where even very dissimilar
DACs
and ADCs were compared without positive results.
While that's true, it doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything. Remember
the
scientific axiom: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While
DBT
results are useful (especially when a positive result is returned or when
negative results proves a physical or mathematical prediction), negative
results that do not support an otherwise provable result, are just that;
negative results.
But in this case we have apropriate "physical or mathematical
prediction"... FR is flat within +/-0.2dB (better than some combinations
of cable+speaker), and in most significant 35Hz-10kHz it's +/-0.1dB, THD+N
is down below -110dB, IMD is down below -100dB, phase response is flat,
ringing is down -80dB, preringing is even less, jitter is below 1ns, etc.


That's not what I meant. I meant that in the case of cables, for instance,
the physics tells us that cannot be any difference between cables and
interconnects and that they can have no "sound". The physics says that this
is so, and the maths performed on any cable for which we have specs
(resistance/ft, capacitance/ft, inductance/ft) allows us to calculate the
impedance of that cable at any frequency. From "DC" to at least 20 KHz, we
can see that any speaker cable and any interconnect on the market , in any
of
the lengths commonly used in home audio, that these conductors have
absolutely no effect on the signal passing through them. The DBTs confirm
what we already know.

Now show me the same sort of physics and maths that predicts that all A/D,
D/A and amplifier circuits will sound the same irrespective of design,
component quality, or build quality.

To be exact, in the case of cables physics tells us they're same sounding
if the connections are good, thickness is within sensible range, etc.
Interconnect in which there is a cold bond bewteen a cable and a connector
might sound a bit strange IOW two cables sound the same given their
parameters are within range.

No. The physics and math tell us what the performance characteristics of the
wire is. And of course, measurements will tell us the quality of the
connections.

Now physics and psychoacustics predict that all A/D, D/A and amplifier
circuits sound the same given their parameters are within range.

I disagree. Measurements tell us what some of the performance characteristics
of a electronic circuit will be and the physics and math will characterize
that device to a certain point. We use maths to design these devices, they
tell us, for instance, what resistors to use to bias a transistor for the
correct current flow, and to set the feedback for the gain. Maths tell us,
what size capacitor to use to couple the lowest frequency in which we're
interested from stage to stage. Maths also allow us to tailor filters to our
needs and tell us how they will perform in the frequency domain. What the
physics and maths don't predict at the design level (among other things) is
the difference in many performance parameters between components of different
qualities. For instance, I can design an all transistor amplifier and get all
of the component values right, and yet ruin the design sonically, just by
choosing the wrong kind of component. A high gain stage might call for 33,000
Ohm resistor. OK, fine. I'll use a 33,000 Ohm resistor. But if I choose a
carbon composition resistor instead of a metal film, that high gain stage
will be noisy. The maths and physics I used to design that amplifier didn't
predict that, and if I build TWO such amps, one with metal film resistors and
one with carbon comp resistors, they'll sound different and anyone will
instantly tell them apart in a DBT! Same thing with capacitor selection. If
my design called for a a series of coupling capacitors capacitor in the
signal path and I used tantalum capacitors in those spots instead of a some
kind of low DA film capacitor like a polypropylene or a mylar film
capacitor, the amp circuit is going to sound different than it would had I
used the low DA types of capacitors.

This is not as cut and dry as it seems. While the laws of physics will
predict that the two types of resistors will have very different self-noise
characteristics, that's not generally a primary consideration when designing
an amplifier. Sure, the designer probably knows better than to use certain
components, and what the results would be if he did, but the physics behind
the design exercise don't encompass those types of choices. They only predict
such things as frequency response, gain, harmonic and intermodulation
distortion and signal-to-noise ratio based on the parameters of the
components used. However, change the quality of the components and one can
make two identical amplifier sound different, and that's the point.

Getting withing range is significantly easier in case of cables, of
course.

Yeah, for interconnects it just need to be wire. For speakers, it just needs
to be heavy enough wire for power of the amp used.




But that doesn't preclude both improperly made cable (there are
such)

Yeah like cables with suspicious boxes and bulges built into them suggesting
that they contain components other than just wire and a couple of connectors.
But these are no longer conductors, they are passive filters - fixed tone
controls, as it were.


as well as properly made active component (with parameters withing
range).

But that's a tall order. Electronic components sound different from one
another and lots of them in a big design like a high-power amplifier or even
a preamp add together and change the sound. That's why designers have to
measure and listen to their designs after they've designed and prototyped
them. To hear Arny and some of the others here, One would think that all an
audio designer need do, is draw the design out on the back of a napkin and
say, "put it into production!" I mean if all amps sound the same, why spend
the time and money testing and "tweaking" the design?


Anybody who can't hear the difference between a Benchmark, an
Antelope, and a DCS Scarlatti DAC/Master clock combo,
simply isn't paying attention.
No, they're simply doing good bias-controlled listening tests.
That's an assumption not in evidence - on several fronts. First, you are
assuming that proper bias controlled tests haven't been performed,
I might remember things wrong and I could miss some test descriptions of
yours, but from what I remember you descrived one DBT of three DAC's you
discuss few paragraphs above. But from what I rememeber, some claimed
results had no statisticaly significant backing. Also, as far as I
remember, statistical analysis iself (not its claimed results) and full
set of each test results of all participants (not just one person( were
not given to you and that person conducting the test was an representative
of a party interested in demonstrating that $$$$$ components are sonically
improved against $$ components.

I heard a difference. between the DACs as did some others. No, I did not
get
to see the tabulated results, as I said a few months ago. Whether I or
anyone
else "got it right" with any statistical certainty is unknown to me. But
the
fact that I found it fairly easy to distinguish one DAC from another has
made
me mighty skeptical of the "All DACs sound alike" school.

Since then I have lived with both a DCS Scarlatti/DCS Master Clock box as
well as the Antelope Zodiac, and they do different things to the same
digital
source on long term listening (I've already established to my satisfaction
in
a DBT that they are "different" and now the long-term testing in my system
tells me what those differences are), and it ain't subtle!.

Well, I've maybe written about this before, but I'm not sure. Anways...
Some (not very long) time ago my friend tried to decide which aplifier to
buy (as his pevious one showed aging problems). He took 3 amplifiers home
and wanted to check them. He also wanted to consult with someone other
which would be the right buy, so invited me to listen to them. So the
informal test begun. We compared amp A with amp B. Amp B seemd to sound
nicer -- "sweeter" and more "musical". So we compared B against C -- again
C sounded nicer again (again "sweeter" and more "musical"). So compared C
against A (to close the cycle). And, funili enough, it was A which souned
nicer. One could repeat the test and it was the same -- next applifier
souned nicer in each compared pair We then reversed order to B vs A and
then it was again, the second one of each tested pair souned nicer. So far
with such kind of evaluation. Results were clearly in our brains (and most
probably short and mid term musical memory) not in the equipment.

I'm sure it was in your brain. The point is that's no way to evaluate an
amplifier. The way to evaluate which amp you like best is to replace your
current amp with a new contender and listen to it for a few days. Get to know
how it sounds on a variety of program material. If you find that after a few
hours, any differences that you heard between your old and your new amp have
sort of disappeared in your mind, then the new amp is probably fine. If those
differences still bother you after a few days, then you'd best try another.
The reality is that modern solid-state amps sound much closer to one another
than they ever have in history. This is because there are things that have
become standard practice in amp design, things like no or low global
feedback. The use of low-noise resistors, polypropylene and polystyrene
capacitors throughout, oversized power supplies, strong class-A bias for the
first 10-30 Watts of power, MOSFET output devices, etc.. The result is that
most amps sound very good these days. So good that the differences disappear
from most of our consciousnesses after but a few moments of listening.


I'm not ignoring it. Had I wanted to do that, I would have left out that
part
of the quote (as some who post here would have, no doubt, surely done). I
agree that the burden of proof is on those of us who are skeptical of Meyer
and Moran's (or any of the other null-result tests of this particular
premise) result. I just don't know how to go about testing that hypothesis
in
a scientific manner. IOW, if one is sure that DBTs aren't reliable for this
kind of test because one is 100% sure that DACs sound different and that
those differences make themselves known only over time, how does one prove
it
to the satisfaction of all concerned?

Well, DBT could be performed over long periods of time (even days or
weeks). It needs some preparations, but is doable. Setup two devices being
compared, set their gain to measuredly same level (within 0.1dB), and
connect them to the same source and allow them to work concurrently. Only
put blind randomized switch to their outputs. Turn the random switch at
the beginig of the session/day/week/other listening period, when, after
comfortable time of otherwise normal usage of the sysem, you feel you know
which output of which device is passed by a switch (and which is blocked)
note down your answer and then check what was real switch setting and note
down wether your answer was right or wrong. Something like this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-
reviews/B000RWDUYO/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie
=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
simple device allows to split digital signal coming from one source to
inputs of two devices. Alternatively, if those DACs do not show the level
of the incoming signal or indicate wether incoming signal is present (or
is non zero) one could switch the inputs as well.

There should be about 15 or more such sessions to get statistically
significant results, so the whole test could take a while, but it doesn't
make it impossible to perform.

But we still don't have proof that DBTs are reliable for audio, we just
assume they are because they work so well for other kinds of bias-controlled
testing.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:25:04 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2011 3:16 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

No doubt that there are charlatans in abundance in the audio hobby. They
sell
cables and interconnects and line cords that do nothing...
But good equipment is a good audio investment.

Oh no, audio equipment is a terrible investment. It is the very rare
component that actually appreciates; most of it is just a depreciating
asset and a lot of it ends up in a landfill.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that audio equipment is a good FINANCIAL
investment, I mean that it's a good expenditure of one's audio dollars
because the stuff is well designed and well made. I have an Audio Research
SP11 preamp that I purchased used about 20 years ago. With a periodic change
of tubes and cleaning of the Alps pots and all the switches, as well as a
"de-tox" of all the connectors, it continues to perform yeoman service. It
even still exceeds it's published technical specs. I also have a pair of
Crown IC-150 preamps that still work perfectly. Both of these devices, when
they were made, were built like tanks. It shows.

That doesn't mean that good audio equipment can't be a good value, but
that isn't the same as a good investment.

There are exceptions. Macintosh and Marantz tube amps, preamps and tubed
tuners from Marantz (the 10B) and H. H. Scott (the 4310) still fetch many
times what they cost new, My SP11 is still worth about $4000 (I didn't pay
anywhere near that for it when I bought it). But most older equipment is just
that, old, used electronic gear and not worth anything but as land fill.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:11:56 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 3/4/2011 8:25 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Here's something for you to chew on, Harry:

http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...ity-of-a-cd-st
andard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm



The one odd thing I noted was the statement that the "students ... could hear

out to 16-18 kHz".

That is distressing for such a test! When I was a student I could hear out to

23 kHz.
Today, at 66, I can only hear out to 14kHz at high levels, or 13.5 kHz at
levels of normal music. There is more difference between 16 and 23 than
between 13.5 and 16!
But, course, likely less musical difference, except in very special cases.

A test with people who could hear to 23 kHZ might have produced different
results.

I doubt it. But the fact that most of these students can't hear above 16-18
KHz is probably a result of a lifetime of listening to music via iPods and
ear-buds at ear-damaging levels.

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/4/2011 2:35 PM, ScottW wrote:


Now I'm not saying that some people can't hear well above 20kHz, but
I've never meant anyone who could prove it.



All you need is me and a time machine.

I DID test using a signal generator, a good quality HP one, and
an AR3a speaker. I really could hear very clearly, strongly,
to 22 kHz, and weakly to 23. Some others could too.

Doug McDonald

[bob]

On Mar 4, 2:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

But we still don't have proof that DBTs are reliable for audio, we just
assume they are because they work so well for other kinds of bias-control=
led
testing.

To the contrary, we have proof that nothing *except* DBTs are reliable
for audio.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 2, 9:31=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

=A0 On Feb 25, 6:32=3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski=A0 Sebastian.Kalisze=
wrote:
=A0 Scott wrote:

=A0 On Feb 16, 5:20=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
=A0 "Scott" wrote in message
=A0 On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" =A0=
wrote:

=A0 "Harry Lavo" wrote in message

=A0 Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
=A0 grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
=A0 least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
=A0 very unreal. =3D3D3DA0Using the SACD version. =3D3D3DA0And the
=A0 culprit....the preamp. =3D3D3DA0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
=A0 P301. =3D3D3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.
=A0 I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
=A0 movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
=A0 move it in my listening room and list=3D3D3D en to it chime,
=A0 if I want the true live experience.
=A0 Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
=A0 possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
=A0 speakers that are well-configured for the room.
=A0 The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
=A0 claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
=A0 brought into question by the hi=3D3D3D gh end audiophile
=A0 comments on this thread.-
=A0 Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
=A0 mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
=A0 No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reac=
h the
=A0 conclusion that I've provided.
=A0 Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
=A0 completely eroneous conclusions.
=A0 Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.
=A0
=A0 Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous.

Fact? Or you assertion? Don't confound facts and your assertions, please!

Assertions of fact. No confusion on my part.



=A0 The
=A0 primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM were
=A0 recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were recorded
=A0 individually in various clock stores.

So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.

But it is actually clearly wrong. several clock shops is pretty far
from being the same as an acoustically dead studio space.



=A0
=A0 Perhaps you should steer clear of
=A0 Dark Side of the Moon as a reference.
=A0 Perhaps you should concentrate on the core of the matters discussed=
..
=A0
=A0 Kind of an ironic assertion givn that you just jumped into this side
=A0 topic.
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 If you've miced different instruments in different rooms differen=
t way=3D
=A0 s, =3D3D
=A0 a
=A0 recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recor=
ding =3D
=A0 was
=A0 miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estim=
ated =3D
=A0 fai=3D3D
=A0 rly
=A0 well.
=A0 What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or s=
tudio=3D
=A0 s,
=A0 which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3D=
3DA0It =3D
=A0 is co=3D3D
=A0 mmon
=A0 to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during =
the m=3D
=A0 ix.
=A0 Done right, this can fool most listeners.
=A0 And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were recorded=
in
=A0 an acoustically dead studio room with your experienced ears as a
=A0 recording engineer you concluded that the clocks were recorded in =
a
=A0 dead studio room and were close miced. Yikes. Arny, the album was
=A0 recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dea=
d
=A0 there.
=A0 Wchich one?
=A0
=A0 I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one which =
is
=A0 singular?

So may I rephprase: Which ones?

studios 1,2 and 3. You can read up on the subject at the Abby Road
studios website. But first you might want to read up on the basics of
concert hall acoustics and anechoic chambers so you don't make the
mistake of confusing an excellent concert venue for orchestral music
with an acoustically dead space.

=A0 Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
=A0 Jon Atkinson on this recording.
=A0http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
=A0 " since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time =
that
=A0 the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did =
an
=A0 excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
=A0 with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to =
the
=A0 CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. T=
he
=A0 sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
=A0 reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were the=
re
=A0 on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
=A0 But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not? Echo
=A0 chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments are not
=A0 played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via speaker(s)=
in
=A0 the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.
=A0
=A0 We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber on DSOT=
M.
=A0 That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was used =
on
=A0 that recording.

How you know all uses of the chamber in the recording?

I did my homework.

That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used then
state of the art processing.

really? do tell us about the processing Alan Parsons used on DSOTM. Do
tell us what other ways the echo chamber was used in recording DSOTM.




=A0 BTW. As a sidenote, the SF article (quoted part in fact) contains r=
eal
=A0 audiophilic gem. Mr. Atkinson claims to remeber, after 30 years, su=
btle
=A0 details of characteristic sound of studio and (especially) "unique"=
echo
=A0 chamber. Funily enough echo chamber could be (and is) easily adjust=
ed to
=A0 particular needs of recording being produced.
=A0
=A0 So you are personally familiar enough with Abby Road studios that yo=
u
=A0 can speak from experience about th eroneous nature of Atkinson's
=A0 claims?

Nope.

That is what i thought.

I'm familiar enough with how ear-brain system works as well as such
things like adjusting stuios and chambers to know that.

Now that is an assertion as opposed to a fact.

The fact he
pretends to remember unique fine details of studio room sound (again:
which one and how set up) and echo chamber (again: how set up) is simply
funny.

As funny as confusing an acoustically dead studio space with multiple
clock shops?



=A0 And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as=
a
=A0 recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
=A0 generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." =3DA0 =3DA0 o=
oops.....=3D
=A0 .
=A0 Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...
=A0
=A0 No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about the
=A0 recording of DSOTM.

Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?

I already did. If you didn't get them the first time why should I
expect you to get it the next time?



=A0 Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studio. Th=
ey
=A0 were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of =
any
=A0 clock shops that are acoustically dead?
=A0 Yes, most are oooooops.
=A0
=A0 Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what clock
=A0 shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the space is
=A0 actually a dead acoustic space.

I've shown in another post.

Nope. you have shown no such thing.

Absorbitive material is not good for mid-low
frequencies.

Sure it is. It's "good" for absorbing acoustical energy at all
frequencies provided the material is thick enough. this is basic
knowlegde in the world of room acoustics. Oooops.

"Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.

No it doesn't. At best it will provide some crude diffusion. But a
difuse acoustic field is hardly a dead acoustic space. Oooooops. You
really need to do your homework on room acoustics if you are going to
discuss them here.



=A0 Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
=A0 lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)

I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc.

Sorry but you don't get to make that determination. You are not the
arbitrator of room acoustics terminology.

Anechoic is
extremely dead.

Seriously? "extremely dead?" Are we having a "Princess Bride"
flashback? Dead is dead.


Moreover I explicitly stated what I consider dead space.

Yeah and Steven Wright mentioned having an intense argument with a
roulette wheel dealer over what he considered to be an odd number.
Does not matter how explicitely you state misinformation. It is still
misinformation. The terminology is established. Your consideration is
irrelevant.


=A0 so do tell us
=A0 how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops of al=
l
=A0 things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual been in
=A0 one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they use to
=A0 hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. so do
=A0 tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are more comm=
on
=A0 than not.

Rather densely packed space.

Why would you assume that about the clock shops Alan Parsons recorded?

Lot of little corners and "corrugations"

Which does next to nothing to actually deadening a sound space as the
term dead is actually used in room acoustics.



=A0 I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
=A0 the basics of room acoustics.

Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.

references please.


Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies.

This is the second time you have repeated this error in fact.
saying it twice doesn't make it so.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2

"Free-field conditions can be approximated when the absorption by the
boundaries of the room approaches 100%. To reduce sound reflected by
the boundaries to a minimum, the absorption coefficient must be very
high and the surface areas of the boundaries should be large."



Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various sizes is
quite good absorber.

Reference please.

The same wall is good diffusor for mid-high frequencies.

But diffusion does not make a space acoustically dead.



=A0 Again let's look at your
=A0 assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
=A0 like it is entirely =3DA0possible with the CD version, mid-fi elec=
tronics
=A0 and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is know=
n
=A0 for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which a=
re
=A0 generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experien=
ced
=A0 recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
=A0 configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
=A0 conclusion that I've provided."
=A0 Nothing strange or wrong with that.
=A0
=A0 Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
=A0 incorrect?

Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!

I suppose if one doesn't understand the difference between an
acoustically dead studio space and mulitple clock shops.


=A0 Let's take an example you should know more than audio engineering. =
Lets
=A0 take an example of photography.
=A0
=A0 Let's stick with audio.

And you snipped the rest. Was the argumentation righit,

It wasn't even an argument. Unless you really think the the
perceptions of photographs by photographers affected the acoustics
involved in the recording of DSOTM.

perhaps? Was too
hard to refute?

there was nothing to refute. It was utterly irrelevant.



=A0 Maybe the CD you have used as a reference is the one with the one
=A0 being examined by Jon Atkinson with the screwed up CD layer? that
=A0 might explain how one could listen to the recording and draw such
=A0 eroneous conclusions
=A0 The lackings of the recording, as described in Mr. Atkinson's artic=
le,
=A0 will not hide such things like type miking used.
=A0
=A0 I suggest you reread the article. Mr. Atkinson did not describe any
=A0 lackings in the recording.

Ok, not recording but mastering. The sense of my statement was clear, I
hoped...

No it wasn't. That was a huge mistake. don't blame me for your
mistakes.

=A0 about the recording venues given your assertions
=A0 about the listening skills of "experienced recording engineers" su=
ch
=A0 as yourself. But we don't know which version of DSOTM you listen t=
o. I
=A0 did ask after you posted that terribly inadequate list of variaiou=
s
=A0 masterings. You never answered.
=A0 Desnt matter if the recording was the same.
=A0
=A0 So you don't understand or simply deny that mastering affects the
=A0 sound of recordings?

Please don't twist&spin.

I'm not twisting or spinning. You made a claim that it doesn't matter
which mastering is used if the recording is the same. If that isn't
what you meant that is your mistake not mine.

I've never claimed such a thing.

actually you did. You may not have intended to make such a claim but
you did make it. I'm not a mind reader. I can only go by what you
post, not by what you thought.

And reread the
photography example you've snipped.

No point in rereading irrelevant analogies mistaken as legitimate
arguments.



=A0 mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chosing th=
e
=A0 better masterings.
=A0 Doing your homework does help understand the matters discussed, lik=
e how
=A0 echo chambers are utilised, for example.
=A0
=A0 That is a fine example and had you done your homework you would have
=A0 known better than to post information about it that was irrelevant t=
o
=A0 how the echo chamber was actually used in the recording of DSOTM.

See above. One particular use doesn't preclude other uses.

Feel free to cite the other documented uses.



=A0 DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on this
=A0 thread.
=A0 You're trying to turn the discussion in irrelevant side matters, li=
ke
=A0 how many remasters of DSotM are there.
=A0
=A0 No I am responding to and correcting misinformation. Much like I am
=A0 doing in this post with the misinformation you have added to the
=A0 thread.

Could you, please, show what misinformations I've added?

I did

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:29:00 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote (in article ):

No. The physics and math tell us what the performance
characteristics of the wire is. And of course,
measurements will tell us the quality of the connections.

The same is true for more complex electronics.

Now physics and psychoacustics predict that all A/D, D/A
and amplifier circuits sound the same given their
parameters are within range.

I disagree. Measurements tell us what some of the
performance characteristics of a electronic circuit will
be and the physics and math will characterize that device
to a certain point.

That point is very well refined.

We use maths to design these devices,
they tell us, for instance, what resistors to use to bias
a transistor for the correct current flow, and to set the
feedback for the gain. Maths tell us, what size capacitor
to use to couple the lowest frequency in which we're
interested from stage to stage. Maths also allow us to
tailor filters to our needs and tell us how they will
perform in the frequency domain.

The mathematics all predict nonlinear distortion, etc.

What the physics and
maths don't predict at the design level (among other
things) is the difference in many performance parameters
between components of different qualities.

Not true. The mathematical models for various qualities and types of
components are known and can be plugged into the circuit models.

For instance,
I can design an all transistor amplifier and get all of
the component values right, and yet ruin the design
sonically, just by choosing the wrong kind of component.

Not a problem for the reasons already stated.

A high gain stage might call for 33,000 Ohm resistor. OK,
fine. I'll use a 33,000 Ohm resistor. But if I choose a
carbon composition resistor instead of a metal film, that
high gain stage will be noisy.

You're joking, right? Nobody is using carbon composition resistors these
days.

The maths and physics I
used to design that amplifier didn't predict that, and if
I build TWO such amps, one with metal film resistors and
one with carbon comp resistors, they'll sound different
and anyone will instantly tell them apart in a DBT!

I remember what life was like in the days of carbon composition resistors,
and I also remember what happened on the occasions where I replaced carbon
comp resistors with metal film resistors. In general: Nothing. The problem
was not so much what a good carbon comp resistor did, its what happened when
that resistor went into some of its possible partial failure moded.

Same
thing with capacitor selection. If my design called for a
a series of coupling capacitors capacitor in the signal
path and I used tantalum capacitors in those spots
instead of a some kind of low DA film capacitor like a
polypropylene or a mylar film capacitor, the amp circuit
is going to sound different than it would had I used the
low DA types of capacitors.

Same story. I even had a well-known capacitor dielectric maven whose named
rhymed with bung send me some good and bad capacitors to try in some
projects. The so-called bad capacitors were simply not the part that long
accepted wisdom said should be used in the application. The good capacitors
were film capacitors but in actual use there was no measuable or audible
benefit as compared again to what long accepted wisdom said should be used.

DA is important in sample-and-hold circuits and afew other applications. The
fallacies associated with audio enthusiast misunderstandings of DA have been
explained well by well-known and highly regarded experts such as Robert
Pease of National Semiconductor.

This is not as cut and dry as it seems. While the laws of
physics will predict that the two types of resistors will
have very different self-noise characteristics, that's
not generally a primary consideration when designing an
amplifier.

Absolute and total misrepesentation of generally accepted engineering
standards, even those long before audiophile capacitor parania struck.

Sure, the designer probably knows better than
to use certain components, and what the results would be
if he did, but the physics behind the design exercise
don't encompass those types of choices. They only predict
such things as frequency response, gain, harmonic and
intermodulation distortion and signal-to-noise ratio
based on the parameters of the components used. However,
change the quality of the components and one can make two
identical amplifier sound different, and that's the
point.

There are no known relevant audio circuit design performance parameters
other than linear distortion (phase and frequency response), nonlinear
distortion (harmonic distortion and IM) and noise. People can pretend what
they want, but any other performance parameters only show up in poorly-done
listening tests. IOW, they are false positives.

[Scott[_6_]]

[Moderator's note: This subthread has become very repetitive and so is
ended. -- deb ]


On Feb 28, 6:40=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

=A0 On Feb 18, 6:30=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
=A0 "Scott" wrote in message
=A0

=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 On Feb 16, 5:20=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" =A0 =
wrote:

=A0 "Scott" wrote in message

=A0 On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"=A0 ar...@hotpop=
..com wrote:

=A0 "Harry Lavo" wrote in message

=A0 Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
=A0 grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head
=A0 at least eight of various sizes go off at once) to
=A0 sounding very unreal. =3D3D3DA0Using the SACD version.
=A0 =3D3D3DA0And the culprit....the preamp. =3D3D3DA0 Audio
=A0 Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. =3D3D3DA0So much for
=A0 big-box store electronics.
=A0 I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
=A0 movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
=A0 move it in my listening room and list=3D3D3D en to it
=A0 chime, if I want the true live experience.
=A0 Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
=A0 possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
=A0 speakers that are well-configured for the room.
=A0 The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
=A0 claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
=A0 brought into question by the hi=3D3D3D gh end audiophile
=A0 comments on this thread.-
=A0 Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
=A0 mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
=A0 No experienced recording engineer would need such a
=A0 thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.
=A0 Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
=A0 reached completely eroneous conclusions.
=A0 Only in your opinion. =3DA0Now, you're overreaching your position a=
nd
prete=3D
=A0 nding
=A0 to be a cosmic authority.
=A0
=A0 No Arny not in my opinion. You see (or maybe you don't) DSOTM is a
=A0 very popular album and there actually is a great deal of fact based
=A0 inofrmation on how it was recorded out there for anyone to read up o=
n
=A0 or even watch on DVD. Your eroneous conclusions are not a matter of
=A0 opinion. They are a matter of varifiable fact. Just because you didn=
't
=A0 do your homework on the subject of how DSOTM was recorded doesn't me=
an
=A0 it is a mystery to all and subject purely to opinion. one does not
=A0 need to be a cosmic authority just basically educated on the subject=
..
=A0 Clearly I am and you are not.

It might be clear to you, but not necesaritly to others. More below.


Yes it is clear to me. I did my homework on the subject. If it isn't
clear to others than those "others" comment on the subject out of
ignorance.


=A0
=A0
=A0 Perhaps you should steer clear of Dark Side of the Moon as a
=A0 reference.
=A0 Perhaps you should remember that you don't rule the universe. Proof=
by
=A0 assertion is no proof at all. If you've got evidence, then offer it=
..
If y=3D
=A0 ou
=A0 have something to say but OSAF , I'm sure we'd be all glad to hear
it fro=3D
=A0 m
=A0 you.
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 I see no point in trying to "prove" things that are well documented
=A0 and easily accessed by anyone willing to do their homework. What nex=
t?

Next thing should be supporting your asseriotns by evidence. See below.

=A0 Will you ask me to "prove" Pink Floyd was an actual band? One does n=
ot
=A0 have to rule the universe to catch you making gross errors in fact o=
n
=A0 this subjeect Arny. One just needs to know a litle bit about what
=A0 actually went into the making of DSOTM.

As I worte in other post, I don't see gross errors in what Arny wrote.

So what? What you personally see does not determine what is and what
is not.



=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 If you've miced different instruments in different rooms
=A0 different ways, =3D3D a recording paints a fairly detailed
=A0 sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've
=A0 worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
=A0 fai=3D3D rly well.
=A0 What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a
=A0 studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
=A0 exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3D3DA0It is co=3D3D mmon to mic
=A0 close and add the sonic perspective electronically
=A0 during the mix. Done right, this can fool most
=A0 listeners.
=A0 And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were
=A0 recorded in an acoustically dead studio room with your
=A0 experienced ears as a recording engineer you concluded
=A0 that the clocks were recorded in a dead studio room and
=A0 were close miced.
=A0 No such thing!
=A0
=A0 Wow, wow, Arny, really? You really wanted to post this? Abby Road
=A0 Studios dude! Were talking specifically about Abby Road studios.
=A0 =A0http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/
=A0 "Studio One is the world?s largest purpose-built recording studio. T=
he
=A0 space can easily accommodate a 110-piece orchestra and 100-piece cho=
ir
=A0 simultaneously. Studio One?s acoustic is as famous as the location,
=A0 offering a supremely warm and clear sound, perfect for numerous type=
s
=A0 of recording, from solo piano to large orchestras and film scores. T=
he
=A0 live area also has two spacious isolation booths. A Steinway D conce=
rt
=A0 grand and a celeste are also available
=A0 The size of Studio One also makes it a very attractive venue for liv=
e
=A0 music events."

So? How that describes that as acustuically vivid hall?

Do I really need to explain to you why a space that is described as
"perfect for numerous types of recording, from solo piano to large
orchestras" and is "an attractive venue for live music events" isn't
an acoustically dead space? Maybe these websites will offer some help
in understanding these basic concepts in room acoustics.
http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-3/iss-3/p20.pdf
Reflections
According to John Bradley of the Institute for
Research in Construction at the National Research
Council (NRC) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, studies in
the 1950s and 1970s demonstrated that early-arriving
reflections from the sound source were highly significant
for sound quality, especially =93lateral=94 reflections
arriving from the sides of the listener. These early lateral
reflections, along with the right balance of late-arriving
reflections (reverberance), create a sense of being
enveloped within the sound. In the 1990s, beginning
with studies by researchers at Kobe University in Japan,
it was discovered that lateral reflections arriving a little
bit later could be more important than early reflections
from overhead for determining spatial impression in
concert halls. Furthermore, recent tests by Bradley and
his colleagues demonstrated that the perception of listener
envelopment increased as more energy was contained
in late-arriving reflections.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2
"An acoustic anechoic chamber is a room in which essentially an
acoustic free field exists. It is sometimes referred to as a free-
field or dead room."



And what it
tells it was 40 years ago?

Nothing. One simply has to do their homework on that subject to know
what the room was like 40 years ago.

Concert halls and studios do get changed.

We are not talking about generalities. We are talking about Abby Road
studios. If you have any record of any of the three studios being
acoustically dead when Pink Floyd recorded DSOTM then please offer it
up.


Later in your post you imply thayt one part of the Abbe Studios did not
exits 40 years ago, you you use the very same descriptions (picket from
Abbey web page) to infer conclusions about how that stuio was arranged
40 years ago). Sorry but, decide on something.

There is nothing to "decide." The facts are well documented regarding
Abby Road Studios.



I know cocncert hall which has been modernized, and during that
modernization it's acustics were changed. Hall became more vivid and
better balanced.

That's nice. What does it have to do with Abby Road Studios and the
recording of DSOTM?


=A0 =A0So what does thing mean Arny? according to you "only a person who=
has
=A0 never been in a real world recording studio and has no clue about ho=
w
=A0 recording is done in studios could make these claims.(The recording
=A0 spaces are hardly dead there (abbt Road Studios))

That's your (mostly unisubstatntiated) assertion. Please, dont present
your asserions as facts.

I am presenting facts as facts.



=A0 does this mean that
=A0 the people at Abby Road studios making claims about the acoustics of
=A0 their own studio have in fact never been inside their own studio?
=A0 Could it mean that at Abby Road studio when you record an orchestra
=A0 you do so in a dead acoustic envirement? So what next? demands that =
I
=A0 prove that Studio One at Abby Road Studio is actually an acousticall=
y
=A0 reverberant studio?

Yes, you should. As thats what you essentially claim.

Actually it is what the Abby Road studios website claims. of course it
does take a basic understanding of room acoustics to understand that.


Note: acustically dead does not automatically mean anechoic.

An acoustically dead space is in fact acoustically anechoic. See the
reference above and read up on anechoic chambers.




=A0 You should have quit when you were just way
=A0 behind Arny.
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0 Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at
=A0 Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there.
=A0 Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording
studio =3D
=A0 and
=A0 has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these
claim=3D
=A0 s.
=A0
=A0 Including some very lively spaces Arny. Something you think only a
=A0 person who has never been in an actual recording studio would claim.=
As
=A0 you point out Abby Road Studios has many differnt rooms but your cla=
im
=A0 was that "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a stud=
io
=A0 or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly
=A0 dead." So 1. what was actually well known but apparently not to you
=A0 was that DSOTM was mostly recored in *Abby Road Studios* and you cla=
im
=A0 the rooms are generally, with *few* exceptions acoustically dead.

Thats right?

Yes. that is right.



=A0 Clearly studio 1 is anything but dead.

Clearly?

Clearly to anyone with a basic understanding of room acoustics.

I know some large studios

Does not matter. We are talking about a specific studio space that has
been described as an excellent venue for orchestral recording and live
music concerts. That would preclude any acoustically dead spaces.

We can continue this exchange after you read up on room acoustics and
the recording of DSOTM. all I am doing now is correcting your errors
on both subjects. It gets old pretty fast.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 08:33:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

A high gain stage might call for 33,000 Ohm resistor. OK,
fine. I'll use a 33,000 Ohm resistor. But if I choose a
carbon composition resistor instead of a metal film, that
high gain stage will be noisy.

You're joking, right? Nobody is using carbon composition resistors these
days.

No, I'm not joking. I was using an extreme case to make a point, and that
SHOULD be obvious to even the most casual observer. Of course, nobody uses
carbon comp resistors any more, but if one did use them throughout an amp
design, that amp would sound different from one using metal film resistors.

Same
thing with capacitor selection. If my design called for a
a series of coupling capacitors capacitor in the signal
path and I used tantalum capacitors in those spots
instead of a some kind of low DA film capacitor like a
polypropylene or a mylar film capacitor, the amp circuit
is going to sound different than it would had I used the
low DA types of capacitors.

Same story. I even had a well-known capacitor dielectric maven whose named
rhymed with bung send me some good and bad capacitors to try in some
projects. The so-called bad capacitors were simply not the part that long
accepted wisdom said should be used in the application. The good capacitors
were film capacitors but in actual use there was no measuable or audible
benefit as compared again to what long accepted wisdom said should be used.

IOW, Walt sent you some tantalums (or maybe some aluminum) electrolytics and
some Polypropylenes? Tantalums shouldn't be used in audio circuits for a
number of reasons, and you are right, the wisdom not use them is well known
and long established, and I know that. But again, this is an extreme example
to show that component type and quality can change the quality of an
otherwise decent design.

DA is important in sample-and-hold circuits and afew other applications. The
fallacies associated with audio enthusiast misunderstandings of DA have been
explained well by well-known and highly regarded experts such as Robert
Pease of National Semiconductor.

I know that he disagrees with Mr. Jung et al on this issue, but blind tests
between two Hafler preamp kits, many years ago, one wired per the factory,
and the other wired with "Wondercaps" in place of the factory supplied
capacitors, showed conclusively that the "Wondercap" wired Hafler sounded
much cleaner than the one wired with the factory caps. That and an experience
where I replaced the Mylar film caps with "Wondercaps" in my Magnaplanar
Tympani 3Cs (the ones with the eight panels) showed me conclusively (as far
as I'm concerned) that Jung was correct about capacitor sound.