I expect the op is trolling, but even if they are not, the op should know they will get keyboard warriors jumping in to insult their hearing, their equipment, etc. however, I am sure the op knows that not one valid explanation will be coming. The people most likely to be able to offer you an explanation for a difference will also be the ones that will read the ops post, and say "obviously", because absent electrical noise, and absent bit errors, there is no reason for one streamer to sound different from another unless they are manipulating the signal. I am not opposed to them manipulating the signal, more power to them if people like the result. Of course, the data interface is not the only place that noise can get in, but most high end servers are more power hungry than small servers, and EMI requirements (if met) only start at 9KHz or 150KHz leaving lots of room for grunge on the line.
Nope, when you use fiber optic, assuming no bit losses, which is very very easy in the home, then all those other things really don't matter. However, you are attacking peoples preferred view of how things work, so you know what the results are going to be.
|
No trolling here jjss49, calling it exactly as I see it. The op, at least as stated in their post, created a system that is electrically isolated. It is also bit perfect (like most home networks). There is no timing information in the signal .... and he did not hear any difference between streamers, exactly as would be expected because he created a situation where, short of data manipulation, there is no difference. It is not rocket science to pull data off a storage mechanism and serve it up on a data link without bit errors.
Note the author is also using an MSB DAC. I think we can agree that MSB is a competent enough company to design a DAC that does not experience any noise pumping from data arrival. It's not hard thing to do.
So, given the scenario that the op has presented, assuming no data manipulation in the streamer, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that there is no difference as there is no mechanism to create a difference.
However, as expected, even in the face of a solidly presented case, it is a given that some posters will jump on their keyboards and attack the ops listening abilities or some other facet of what was done. Was I wrong?
|
yyzsantabarbara,
Depending on the protocol / app, most audio over ethernet will retry, and most buffer to give time for retry. If streaming locally, odds are you almost never need retry.
|
@kijanki ,
Unless I am mistaken (definitely could be), as the op was talking about networking connections, I believe he means fiber optic network I/F not fiber optic SPDIF. As well MSB offer fiber optic isolated USB I/F.
TOSLINK is typically slow, the ST based fiber optics interfaces are much faster. Of course it is possible to create fiber optic interfaces as fast or faster than electrical I/F because of the lack of interference.
|
The test you did Mihalis sounds well thought out and the results exactly as expected.
It is possible for the incoming data stream to impact clock timing but that would be expected in a poorly constructed $50 USB DAC from China not an MSB, not to mention the pro-ISL fiber does not communicate USB.
There is also no guarantee that thyname's high end streamer does not manipulate the bit stream or that what he compared it against manipulated the bit stream and the one he prefers does not. We like magic and so we hold on to the magical explanation when the more likely one is almost always right.
Keep in mind a lot of high end components are intentionally euphonic and their euphonic signature dominates their sound not necessarily their technical competence.
|
The Supra was designed by Toyota, using a bevy of BMW parts from the Z4, and ASSEMBLED by Magna Steyr. This is a contract manufacturing model that probably applies at least at some level, to much of the electronics industry at some level. Even Apple does not see value in setting up their own manufacturing lines.
That is much different from the model you are using with Foxconn where Foxconn sells it for rebadging. This is not contract manufacturing it is ODM (original design manufacturing). It does apply to some televisions, usually lower end models like Magnavox, RCA, etc., and perhaps some low-mid end models in other manufacturers, like Philips, but not to most of what you buy from say Samsung, LG, Panasonic.
I am not aware of any streamers in the audiophile world that would fall into the ODM category. That would be low end offshore DACs. |
If you were a PhD with said qualifications, you would know the X has nothing to do with identification, it is to test reliability. If you can't match A or B to X, then you can't tell the two apart and you hence have no preference as you don't as actually prefer either. Given the light discussion around ab(x) testing, as a scientist with phd
training in human data collection and cognitive functioning, I object
to the (x) part of the judgment task.
Identification should not
be the goal. We listen to equipment to decide which we prefer... which
is better. That should be the decision when doing (blind) ab testing. |
Again, you obviously don’t understand ABX testing which is NOT about absolute identification, i.e. picking out the 98 Bordeaux from the 96 and the 99, it’s about having 3 bottles, two 98, and one 96 and being able to tell the two 98 are the same. If you can’t tell a 96 and 98 apart then you don’t actually prefer one over the other. ABx increases the statistical reliability of an AB test. ABx testing IS a preference test essentially as it requires no absolute identification.
|
Your example is an absolute identification test. As noted this is not applicable to the discussion. You seem to be missing the point. If you have AB and X. And have a definite "preference" for A, then when x=A, that preference should replicate. You try wine A and B side by side. You claim you prefer A to B. Now I give you wine X. Do you claim you prefer it to wine B? If so, it must be A right? What if it is actually B? That means your "preference" was random.
They have studies with patients who have zero long term memory.
Every day they fail an X test by failing to identify people with whom
they've interacted with repeatedly.
I suspect if you instructed people to base their identification
judgments in an abx solely on preference they'd do significantly better.
Actually what results in better ability is training in the characteristics of differences. The natural tendency is to rely on "preference", which is very fickle. Nonetheless, they form adaptive preferences for these individuals based
on whether those past interactions have been positive or negative. Which would require learned neural patterns. This is not related to directly to ABx and more related to why blind testing is necessary to ensure the learned neural patterns for looks are removed from sonic decisions. However as applied to ABx, those learned neural patterns should trigger the same for A and for A=x, as opposed to B. It is also why training improves ABx as you develop additional neural pathways for characteristic detection which is what preference is. |
And it is quite clear that you will continue to misunderstand and misstate the processes involved in an ABX audio test, even though you admitted you really don't know what happens. But, nice to state, effectively that "we'll" never know because "you" don't run an audio testing laboratory. I am sure no one who does this style of test has any experience in testing human perception ....
It's rather "interesting" that "memory" or pathways, or whatever, are good enough to "remember" well enough to know if they prefer A or B, but not well enough to remember if they prefer C more than A, or C more than B. That is what you are stating even if you think you are not.
You whole argument is based on assuming a process that you admittedly don't know, and then assuming it must not be the one you feel it should be or would be more successful. That is bad science.
As a counterpoint, people who are not "audiophiles" have been shown, several times, to be more adept at detecting minor differences when they are trained, i.e. taught what the differences are likely to be, and given examples. They create the appropriate pathways for detection of differences. To be clear, more adept than "audiophiles". Based on communication of audiophiles when they compare cables, certainly on here, I would say that preference is exactly the method they use, or at least claim to.
Here is the thing. When comparing two of anything in audio, like in AB or ABX testing, the descriptors are invariably related to preference. More natural. Improved soundstage. Pinpoint imaging. Tighter bass. Sweet mids. These are comparative descriptors, not unary descriptors. That indicates preference.
Let's not forget that while double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard, there is no more success achieved in AB testing either, which as per the used descriptors, are preference related.
|
Thank you cal3713, I do remember that paper ages ago. I will point directly to the conclusion: Our main conclusion, however, is that it is not necessary to invoke any advantage for hedonic judgments to explain our earlier results. These, and the new results here, are just particular instances of the advantage in statistical power that Ennis(1990) shows forced-choice methods to have over triangular tests. More consistent judgments are a consequence not of greater sensitivity to hedonic differences but to the statistical properties of the decision rules followed in different tasks. I believe I noted above that ABX was statistically more robust. |
And there is it folks, can't win an argument based on facts, or truth, so must resort to an insult and labelling.
Not everyone shares your measurementalist’s belief that ABX is the "gold standard"
Hate to break it to you "cleeds", but ABX has absolutely nothing to do with measurement. I think that is why it is so threatening, because it is not measurement based. It is based on one thing, and one thing only, human listening. Your ears and brain. No scopes, no meters, no Audio Precision equipment, just some stereo equipment and your ears. What's funny is in another thread, you used as an argument, Wireworld coming up with a "Patented" device to improve their ability to do double blind testing. Cake and eat it too? Do please try to be consistent. Lot's of people have lots of "beliefs". Lots of people don't have the educational or practical experience either. Does not change the lack of evidence that ABX works and hence is the "gold standard" or as close as we have to one. |
Its audio not rocket science. If you want bit perfect you can have bit perfect and you can do it very inexpensively.
|
