Why are digital streaming equipment manufacturers refusing to answer me?
I have performed double blind tests with the most highly regarded brands of streamers and some hifi switches. None have made any difference to my system on files saved locally. I have asked the following question to the makers of such systems and almost all have responded with marketing nonsense. My system uses fiber optic cables. These go all the way to the dac (MSB). Thus no emi or rfi is arriving at the dac. On top of this, MSB allows me to check if I receive bit perfection files or not. I do. So I claim that: if your dac receives a bit perfect signal and it is connected via fiber optic, anything prior to the conversion to fiber optic (streamers, switches, their power supplies, cables etc) make absolutely no difference. Your signal can’t be improved by any of these expensive pieces of equipment. If anyone can help explain why this is incorrect I would greatly appreciate it. Dac makers mostly agree, makers of streamers have told me scientific things such as “our other customers can hear the difference” (after extensive double blind testing has resulted to no difference being perceived) and my favorite “bit perfect doesn’t exist, when you hear our equipment tou forget about electronics and love the music”!
yyzsantabarbara from what I can tell this would be a good choice and a less expensive way to get bit perfect signals. If the dac is equiped for it the cost is minimal and one can run very long fiber optic cables. If the dac can’t I have read of people buy converters back to usb right before the dac and again get great results with a very short usb cable in the end. M.
Jdt1, why are a b tests becoming irrelevant? Any of us who have read o toole’s book consider his work to be seminal in helping understand real differences but is there something more recent that suggests a b tests if properly conducted include bias? Thank you.
Some clarifications 1) the fiber optic cable is what carries the signal. This provides even greater isolation than a cat cable, in fact as far as I know perfect isolation 2) the double blind tests included four people not just myself including a dealer who had to admit the lack of any difference
Someone referred to blanket statements not being helpful. I am not making any such statements. I am making a hypothesis, I test it, and I ask the community here to help with additional knowledge. My thanks to those who have responded on the topic.
i have no affiliation or specific knowledge of thyname, or most other folks who post here
but when i think someone is trolling (not thyname, but someone thyname is pointing out):
-- i click their username and then check ’details’... one can then see when they joined, how many posts they have started or responded to since joining -- one can also see if they posted info on their own system, and/or pictures of their listening room -- finally, one can click ’marketplace feedback’ on the profile page ... and see what their track record is trading on the a-gon main equipment site - how many transactions over time, how many buys and sells, comments/feedback etc etc -- this is most important, a measure of the member's history, 'realness' and reputation not as a poster, but as a real person buying and selling equipment, with their real identity revealed to those they transact with
trolls often have
-- a very recent join date -- a very large number of posts since joining (then you click on those posts, they are argumentative or instigating in nature...) -- no info on their system -- no track record whatsoever on the marketplace
Audio2design, You're right - that's probably what he was talking about, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. He says "My system uses fiber optic cables. These go all the way to the dac", hoping that optical connection, shielding DAC from electrical noise, makes incoming music always the same. It is not why it is the same. Streamed music doesn't come in real time. It is just plain data that is pre-buffered. As long as it is the same data in the same format everything depends on the hardware that creates S/Pdif stream/timing (and I assumed he uses different hardware for different providers). What makes different streaming providers sound the same is the fact that they send data only. Asking them why it sounds the same (with the same hardware and the DAC) is like asking different bookstores why the same book looks the same.
It should sound the same, assuming same internet provider and hardware, same data, same data format, same streaming hardware, same DAC etc. "Should", because there might be something else that I'm forgetting.
I looked at Toshiba Toslink drivers. There are some, perhaps older generation, that go only to about 5 Mbit/s, but they have newer drivers that go over 100Mbit/s. Such Toslink devices should suffer less from the system noise. Jitter induced by slow transition time and noise at the receiver's (DAC) end would be reduced as well.
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.
@welcher This is a nice explanation of file data transfer. How about streaming, such as TIDAL, TV sound, etc.. You cannot go back and retransmit so there must be some occasional loss or imperfections. For music I assume it is not as catastrophic as it is for data files.
Your statement on fibre not making any difference in sound quality is challenged by products like the Sonore Optical Rendu. Their claim to fame is that the fibre cannot transmit any analog noise that exists in some level with Ethernet (maybe also USB). Thus without fibre, analog noise can get into the DAC.
@milalis I was going to buy a Sonore Optical Rendu today but changed my mind and will get a DAC with built-in streaming for occasionally used bedroom instead (Black Friday sales). I am of the opinion that streaming with fibre levels the playing field. Using a noisy computer is also not a problem with fibre in the streaming chain. My current streaming, a microRendu, is more than good enough. So today, a second DAC will get me more short term joy but going fibre in the main rig is the long term plan for that final streaming solution.
I can provide some clarification on what you are hearing. My experience comes from developing communications and signal processing software. Including developing custom Ethernet drivers for signal processing.
The following discussion is for the analog transmission of a digital signal (PCM/DSD). Specifically Ethernet cables and switches. Note it does not apply to the analog transmission of analog signals (ie interconnects and speaker cables.)
An Ethernet frame is transmitted as a series of pulses. The transmitting Ethernet transceiver will generate a pulse for each bit in the frame. The receiving Ethernet transceiver will transform each pulse into a 1 or zero bit. The bits will be accumulated into a frame and the checksum validated. If there was an error in generating the correct bit value from a pulse then the Ethernet transceiver will request a frame transmission. If there are no errors the the frame, its contents will be copied into some form of buffer data structure. Processing on those buffers will be initiated by an interrupt or polling algorithm. At this point in time you have an exact replica of the original transmitted signal. The well tempered computer dot com web site has a graphic depicting a pulse signal. It does not depict the aberrations in rise time introduced by clocks/crystals. If any of the pulse problems (overshoot, ringing, droop or undershoot) caused by EFI/EMI or clocking errors result in a bit error then the frame will be re-transmitted.
So you are correct that well designed Ethernet cables and switches do not effect the quality of the sound. If the receiving device (DAC/streamer) allow electrical noise from the Ethernet cable to affect the sound then you have a poorly designed DAC/Streamer. Also one should not confuse Toslink with Ethernet fiber optic cables they are completely different animals. Note that an electrical signal on an Ethernet cable will travel about 1/100th the speed of an optical signal on a fiber optic cable. Fiber optic cables are used primarily for speed and system security. They will not make a difference in the sound quality.
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.
Glupson my man. My username is all there to see. Since 2004 or thereabouts. With all trading history here. And my actual gear under “system”. Let me know what else I can do for you.
A fake account (for like at least five times that I know of, maybe more) like our genius here goes something like this:
1) Create an account here. Post your hatred towards members, get kicked out (and rightly so)
2) Use another email address to sign up under a different username, as the original one was already taken. Post same venom. Get kicked out again.
3) Use another email address to sign up under a different username, as the original one was already taken. Post same venom. Get kicked out again.
4) Use another email address to sign up under a different username, as the original one was already taken. Post same venom. Get kicked out again.
5) Use another email address to sign up under a different username, as the original one was already taken. Post same venom. Get kicked out again.
6) Use another email address to sign up under a different username, as the original one was already taken. Post same venom. Get kicked out again.
7) Use another email address to sign up under a different username, as the original one was already taken. Post same venom. Get kicked out again.
"...after they banned all your previous fake accounts,"
How does one make a fake account here? Are electroslacker and mapman real names? (nothing personal, those are just two most recent ones above so I picked them)
So I claim that: if your dac receives a bit perfect signal and it is connected via fiber optic, anything prior to the conversion to fiber optic (streamers, switches, their power supplies, cables etc) make absolutely no difference.
It is simply not true. Fiber optics transmitters are slow - about 10x slower than coax drivers. System electrical noise makes those light transitions noisy (jagged), that in effect results on receiving end as a variation in the moment of level recognition (threshold) - a timing jitter. This jitter translates pretty much to noise added to music. That's why most often coax works better than Toslink. You might not hear the difference because your DAC has very good jitter rejection, because your system has limited resolution, or simply because your hearing is not that good (mine is getting worse). Whatever the reason is - blanket statements are never useful.
If someone answers the question to your satisfaction, they are probably just humoring you. So I would not lose any sleep over this unless what you are using does not sound good.
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?
If there is a keyboard warrior, that’s you @audio2design You that keep coming over and over, and over after they banned all your previous fake accounts, AtDavid, Dannad, Roberttid and many more. Get a life dude
Congratulations Douglas_schroeder on having the courage to go on record with the facts to back up what we all (who can hear) have known for years.
Consequently, after conducting my own exploration, I am content to spend less time thinking about ABX, and more time building better audio systems through very active, hands on methods.
Beautiful. Lotta work to get to where we all knew you should be. But you did it, and you got there. All that counts. May others learn from your experience. Don't hold your breath. But would sure be nice.
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.
I had a similar experience when conducting ABX testing with amps (with all other pieces of electronics, I was able to select the proper item -cables and components - far better than 50% of the time). The only component that was not discernible in level matched ABX was the amp, which was shocking to me! The most bizarre aspect was that it was not possible to score well in ABX even when the amps being compared were SS vs. tubed!
These results were written up by myself for Dagogo.com, as I reviewed the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator. It was a fascinating experience, and I'm glad I took the time to explore it. Van Alstine agreed with my results, even with the aspect of the difficulty of distinguishing between amps in ABX.
However, and this is critical, the similarity between amps was only when conducting ABX. Apart from that particular condition, or when reverting to normal usage in an audio system, the differences reasserted themselves. Therefore, I concluded that: 1. ABX is not necessary to establish differences between gear, 2. It does not represent real world conditions of listening, and has quite limited applicability to it, and finally, 3. That we have phenomenal ability/sensitivity to perceive minute gradations sonically, but poor short term acoustic memory. It took a LOT of concentration in a custom room with very low noise floor to conduct the ABX testing with accuracy.
Consequently, after conducting my own exploration, I am content to spend less time thinking about ABX, and more time building better audio systems through very active, hands on methods.
Finally, I have done comparisons as well with DACs that were said to not yield differences of upstream components due to them being "bit perfect", etc. However, I did not find that to be the case. Whether they would be similar to amps, or not, in ABX testing, I do not know. :)
Its incorrect because its wrong. Your whole premise is false. Its not anyone's responsibility to explain to you why they hear something. Maybe its nothing more than they have learned to hear something you have not. Did you ever think of that?
Not that it matters. Again, no one owes you any explanation. Not only wires, I can tell the difference between lots of things- wire on the floor vs elevated, wire going one way vs another, warmed up vs cold, on springs vs cones, on and on. And on.
But anyway, I can tell you why nobody replies. It was clear to me in the first 6 words: "I have performed double-blind tests". Because here's the thing. And I know this is hard to believe but think about it a minute you just might get it. When the difference between two things is so readily apparent you hear it immediately, why would you then put yourself through all the incredible time and effort to perform even one double-blind test? To prove to yourself what you yourself already know you heard? Why?
You know the answer: you only do the test when you can't hear any difference in the first place.
That is why double-blind testing is so illogical. They ones who can hear will never do it. And the ones who can't never will hear a difference anyway. All double-blind testing can do is activate another audio canard, the expectation bias.
I really do hope that one day you somehow develop listening skills and are able to hear differences between things like this. Seriously. I do. But until then, and for as long as you stay on this unproductive course: You go, girl!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
