sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Feb 27, 2020 7:40:40 GMT 10
Unfortunately, Mansr's ego is even greater than his undoubted expertise in many areas, other than actually listening.
Kind Regards Alex Just looking at the Intona USB 3.0 isolator thread on ASR in which mansr is posting & he seems to be just bullishly spoofing as if he knew what he's talking about the internal workings of this Intona. www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/intona-usb-3-0-isolator-review.11700/post-337656The previous Intona USB 2.o device used two FPGAs on each side of an isolation gap bridged by ISO devices. The FPGAs converted bi-directional 480Mbps (high speed) USB serial, packetised signals into slower ULPI parallel signals whose speed can be handled by these isolator chips. Intona probably used this info to create their USB to ULPI interface? cross-hair.co.uk/tech-articles/ULPI%20interface.htmlI expect the USB 3.0 Intona follows the same technique, likely using faster/bigger FPGAs? So, contrary to what mansr says the USB signal DOES reframe the USB signal - it's fundamental to how it works. Hi John The problem is that Plissken and several of the ASR crew are determined to put "snake oil" companies like Uptone , Sonore etc. out of business, possibly to help a competitor ? John Swenson designs for both. There were a couple of very nasty threads in A.S. from Plissken, ably supported by Mansr (and the ASR crew ), who continually demands that Uptone spends valuable time and resources to provide the proof he demands. Small companies like this don't always have the ability to purchase the sophisticated test gear needed to do this , although John Swenson often designs something to do this, but it takes him away from valuable new gear design time. Undoubtedly , the recent blow up in A.S. was in part due to Chris attempting to protect his advertising base,(his income) without trying to stifle Objective debate.
Kind Regards Alex
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Feb 28, 2020 5:50:01 GMT 10
Hi John The problem is that Plissken and several of the ASR crew are determined to put "snake oil" companies like Uptone , Sonore etc. out of business, possibly to help a competitor ? John Swenson designs for both. There were a couple of very nasty threads in A.S. from Plissken, ably supported by Mansr (and the ASR crew ), who continually demands that Uptone spends valuable time and resources to provide the proof he demands. Small companies like this don't always have the ability to purchase the sophisticated test gear needed to do this , although John Swenson often designs something to do this, but it takes him away from valuable new gear design time. Undoubtedly , the recent blow up in A.S. was in part due to Chris attempting to protect his advertising base,(his income) without trying to stifle Objective debate.
Kind Regards Alex
Do you think that competing commercial interests are at the core of the "snake oil" mafia crew? I'm not so sure, I think there's more at stake. I know the whole evangelism is couched as "saving people from themselves" - in other words, a desperate need to try to show their superior knowledge/technical learning, etc. compared to the poor schmucks that spend their money on such "snakeoil devices" (there are some ridiculous audio devices for sale, for sure). I always felt that it was a pitiful lack of self-image/self-worth demonstrated by a lot of these types (they are often EE's who feel un-appreciated in their work or unemployed - so a big chip on both shoulders). I know they try to present themselves as people who have science in their corner but this is really far from the truth as evidenced by their inability to grant even a smidgen of ground in forum discussions, lest their whole edifice comes crashing down. This failure to examine information in an objective manner is at the heart of scientific thinking & failure to do so, far removed from the scientific method. The edifice that they have built up around themselves has two well worn support pillars, measurements & DBTs (almost exclusively ABX) and encompassed in phrases such as "settled science", "your nobel prize", " etc. I often wonder how many of them actually have doubts about their 'beliefs' but it's really an ego thing & a attempt at defence of fragile self-image - is this why they have to continually reinforce their self-image with attacks & antics on forums - there's more at stake for them than simply a technical discussion (it's not a scientific discussion)
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Feb 28, 2020 7:36:48 GMT 10
Hi John The problem is that Plissken and several of the ASR crew are determined to put "snake oil" companies like Uptone , Sonore etc. out of business, possibly to help a competitor ? John Swenson designs for both. There were a couple of very nasty threads in A.S. from Plissken, ably supported by Mansr (and the ASR crew ), who continually demands that Uptone spends valuable time and resources to provide the proof he demands. Small companies like this don't always have the ability to purchase the sophisticated test gear needed to do this , although John Swenson often designs something to do this, but it takes him away from valuable new gear design time. Undoubtedly , the recent blow up in A.S. was in part due to Chris attempting to protect his advertising base,(his income) without trying to stifle Objective debate.
Kind Regards Alex
Do you think that competing commercial interests are at the core of the "snake oil" mafia crew? I'm not so sure, I think there's more at stake. I know the whole evangelism is couched as "saving people from themselves" - in other words, a desperate need to try to show their superior knowledge/technical learning, etc. compared to the poor schmucks that spend their money on such "snakeoil devices" (there are some ridiculous audio devices for sale, for sure). I always felt that it was a pitiful lack of self-image/self-worth demonstrated by a lot of these types (they are often EE's who feel un-appreciated in their work or unemployed - so a big chip on both shoulders). I know they try to present themselves as people who have science in their corner but this is really far from the truth as evidenced by their inability to grant even a smidgen of ground in forum discussions, lest their whole edifice comes crashing down. This failure to examine information in an objective manner is at the heart of scientific thinking & failure to do so, far removed from the scientific method. The edifice that they have built up around themselves has two well worn support pillars, measurements & DBTs (almost exclusively ABX) and encompassed in phrases such as "settled science", "your nobel prize", " etc. I often wonder how many of them actually have doubts about their 'beliefs' but it's really an ego thing & a attempt at defence of fragile self-image - is this why they have to continually reinforce their self-image with attacks & antics on forums - there's more at stake for them than simply a technical discussion (it's not a scientific discussion) Hi John I was wondering about the concerted attacks on Uptone in particular and John Swenson. Perhaps they are attacking them mainly because they have a large customer base in A.S. Forum in particular ? Unfortunately, they only believe in DBTs when the results go the way they expected them to, otherwise they would have accepted the results of Martin Colloms 6 separate DFBT sessions with the Love Over Gold tracks that I provided, which were performed over a period of several months, and not always by the same person. There were 6 separate sessions with 8 repeats in each, of around 3 minutes each, for a total of 48 out of 48, POSITIVE results. Even Eloise from Computer Audiophile became a HFC member to ask Martin how the tests were performed and appeared to be satisfied with his reply to her.
Kind Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Feb 28, 2020 15:26:13 GMT 10
Keyboard warriors with enough knowledge to herd sheep?
Actively discouraging others to even try for themselves is a dangerous attitude hidden under a facade of protecting a gullible public from HiFoo. Yet playing to the same gullibility for self gratification.
When the Uptone Regen first came I must admit to grave dubiousness. On trying one for myself I had to have one!
Not all things can be tried first but for those that can...
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Feb 28, 2020 20:52:08 GMT 10
Hi John I was wondering about the concerted attacks on Uptone in particular and John Swenson. Perhaps they are attacking them mainly because they have a large customer base in A.S. Forum in particular ? Unfortunately, they only believe in DBTs when the results go the way they expected them to, otherwise they would have accepted the results of Martin Colloms 6 separate DFBT sessions with the Love Over Gold tracks that I provided, which were performed over a period of several months, and not always by the same person. There were 6 separate sessions with 8 repeats in each, of around 3 minutes each, for a total of 48 out of 48, POSITIVE results. Even Eloise from Computer Audiophile became a HFC member to ask Martin how the tests were performed and appeared to be satisfied with his reply to her.
Kind Regards Alex
Yes, Alex, there was & still is a target on Uptone's back - I believe it's to do with the product area that Uptone focus on - improving digital signals which result in audible improvements. It strikes at the heart of their belief system that in digital the only consideration are bits - they ignore common mode noise & self noise generated by digital receiver chips - so there is no possibility, in their minds, of audible improvements from any changes to digital signals if the bits haven't been changed. I agree they are the ones most influenced by confirmation bias - look at many objectivists who always do measurements before listening - the measurements invariably guide them to hearing no difference & yes, they are only interested in those results which support their worldview Keyboard warriors with enough knowledge to herd sheep? Actively discouraging others to even try for themselves is a dangerous attitude hidden under a facade of protecting a gullible public from HiFoo. Yet playing to the same gullibility for self gratification.When the Uptone Regen first came I must admit to grave dubiousness. On trying one for myself I had to have one! Not all things can be tried first but for those that can... Yes, this is their hypocrisy in evidence - they are hampering progress in audio to satisfy their own self-interest.
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Feb 29, 2020 9:08:50 GMT 10
Hi John I was wondering about the concerted attacks on Uptone in particular and John Swenson. Perhaps they are attacking them mainly because they have a large customer base in A.S. Forum in particular ? Unfortunately, they only believe in DBTs when the results go the way they expected them to, otherwise they would have accepted the results of Martin Colloms 6 separate DFBT sessions with the Love Over Gold tracks that I provided, which were performed over a period of several months, and not always by the same person. There were 6 separate sessions with 8 repeats in each, of around 3 minutes each, for a total of 48 out of 48, POSITIVE results. Even Eloise from Computer Audiophile became a HFC member to ask Martin how the tests were performed and appeared to be satisfied with his reply to her.
Kind Regards Alex
Yes, Alex, there was & still is a target on Uptone's back - I believe it's to do with the product area that Uptone focus on - improving digital signals which result in audible improvements. It strikes at the heart of their belief system that in digital the only consideration are bits - they ignore common mode noise & self noise generated by digital receiver chips - so there is no possibility, in their minds, of audible improvements from any changes to digital signals if the bits haven't been changed. I agree they are the ones most influenced by confirmation bias - look at many objectivists who always do measurements before listening - the measurements invariably guide them to hearing no difference & yes, they are only interested in those results which support their worldview Keyboard warriors with enough knowledge to herd sheep? Actively discouraging others to even try for themselves is a dangerous attitude hidden under a facade of protecting a gullible public from HiFoo. Yet playing to the same gullibility for self gratification.When the Uptone Regen first came I must admit to grave dubiousness. On trying one for myself I had to have one! Not all things can be tried first but for those that can... Yes, this is their hypocrisy in evidence - they are hampering progress in audio to satisfy their own self-interest. Hi John have found that the improvements that many members reported hearing with the original USB Regen may not have just been due to the Regeneration. Even when just using a 12v Li Ion battery to power it you get a small increase in HF detail which you can sometimes use to advantage when copying a slightly less than optimally focussed series of digital photos to USB memory. This is due to the type and value of the small capacitors used of necessity, with it's internal voltage regulation. In many instances I have been able to obtain identical, or more HF detailed when using ONLY a JLH PSU-add on to power the same USB memory stick by making it's capacitance multiplier section have a lower output impedance at >100KHZ. You have already found that your modified USB Regen with it's additional low noise battery supply resulted in a further worthwhile improvement. However, I am not saying that a USB Regen doesn't do what it is designed to do when driving a typical length USB cable into a DAC etc. Of course, these know-it-alls refuse to accept that the look and sound of an AV file is influenced by the PSU used , because in their parallel universe, Digital is perfect, and totally immune to PSU differences. In fact, by varying the types of the parallel electros in the capacitance multiplier section of a JLH, I am able to make an audio file sound slightly duller, warmer, or even excessively HF detailed. Even changing the 100uF output capacitor in the JLH design to a low ESR type such as a Panasonic FC results in a slightly brighter and more HF detailed Music Video.
Regards Alex
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Feb 29, 2020 9:51:19 GMT 10
John According to the " Experts" , the attached couldn't possibly have worked either . Therefore I must be delusional according to them. In this area, when HDTV Channel 50 changed from .mp2 to .mp4 , they initially started out with too low a bit rate , resulting in an image that was markedly poorer looking than the original mpeg 2 transmissions. I found that with this box that I was able to obtain a picture from the saved to USB memory transmissions on a USB memory stick with a Teac STB which does not compress the files, that the saved video looked way better than the original transmission, and much closer to the original .mpeg2 HDTV transmission. However , over the next few months they gradually increased the bit rate so that this box with a JLH PSU inside it was no longer needed. Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by cj66 on Feb 29, 2020 15:35:48 GMT 10
Alex,
That's a neat little board handling the power injection. Beats my nasty offering!
I assume the resistors on it are in place of inserting them in the cables themselves, allowing easy experimentation and cable switching without fiddly surgery?
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Feb 29, 2020 16:06:14 GMT 10
Alex, That's a neat little board handling the power injection. Beats my nasty offering! I assume the resistors on it are in place of inserting them in the cables themselves, allowing easy experimentation and cable switching without fiddly surgery? Hi Chris
I reused an old Silicon Chip USB Power Injector PCB. I have a much neater looking PCB now, but still using the other lower noise (40uV) PSU PCB www.dropbox.com/s/dmck9b4i22fpajf/IMG_0299.JPG?dl=0
Regards Alex
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Mar 1, 2020 6:27:53 GMT 10
Hi John have found that the improvements that many members reported hearing with the original USB Regen may not have just been due to the Regeneration. Even when just using a 12v Li Ion battery to power it you get a small increase in HF detail which you can sometimes use to advantage when copying a slightly less than optimally focussed series of digital photos to USB memory. This is due to the type and value of the small capacitors used of necessity, with it's internal voltage regulation. In many instances I have been able to obtain identical, or more HF detailed when using ONLY a JLH PSU-add on to power the same USB memory stick by making it's capacitance multiplier section have a lower output impedance at >100KHZ. You have already found that your modified USB Regen with it's additional low noise battery supply resulted in a further worthwhile improvement. However, I am not saying that a USB Regen doesn't do what it is designed to do when driving a typical length USB cable into a DAC etc. Of course, these know-it-alls refuse to accept that the look and sound of an AV file is influenced by the PSU used , because in their parallel universe, Digital is perfect, and totally immune to PSU differences. In fact, by varying the types of the parallel electros in the capacitance multiplier section of a JLH, I am able to make an audio file sound slightly duller, warmer, or even excessively HF detailed. Even changing the 100uF output capacitor in the JLH design to a low ESR type such as a Panasonic FC results in a slightly brighter and more HF detailed Music Video.
Regards Alex Yes, Alex, I asked people reporting their impressions of the Regen to say if they were using it on USB DACs that required the USB 5V as the USB 5V from the Regen was far better than that coming from computers - so this tended to confuse matters. My DACs don't use 5V power & I could still hear an improvement with the original Regen but when the internal power was attended to it gave a far better performance - even though the internal voltage regulators used were SOTA, LT3042, bypassing these led to substantial improvements. Yes, Alex, you're speaking to the converted here & we both know how influential power is in digital audio - just a pity I haven't seen measurements which show what is happening & why the sound changes.
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Mar 1, 2020 7:39:35 GMT 10
This whole area of power & it's audible effect on what is considered to be immune digital signals allied to the USB digital signal reformatting & it's audible improvement, leads one to consider that the form/shape of the signal is of importance even with digital signals.
When people can get their head out of the simplistic notions they were taught in EE101 & delve deeper into the implementation of electrical signals they would find in the more advanced literature that many different factors can lead to common mode noise in systems - slightly different lengths between data lines (D+ D-) in USB, slightly different signal formation between D+ & D- - the same applies to any differential signalling - this factor alone could explain some of (If not all of) the audible improvements from more stable power - it's a secondary effect.
What strikes me is that the descriptions of audible improvements is very similar between different tweaks which leads me to believe that the underlying mechanism is a single factor - I'm betting on the many types of noise on the power channels making their way onto the signal pathways with many possibly audible effects. Anther seemingly unconnected tweak which give some of the same audible results - using heavy strapping to interconnect chassis of audio devices - I'm surmising that this allows power returns (grounds) to follow a low impedance path (heavy strapping) rather than the shields of interconnect cables. Power returns running in cable shields induce noise on the signal lines inside the cable - so called shield current induced noise (SCIN).
It's always surprising how these measurists/objectivist can't get past the fact that they are stuck within a logic trap - their measurements fail to show what we hear. What we hear is 90% in the analogue signal, therefore measurements are not showing all of what is in the analogue signal. They assert that they are comparing input signal to output signal of a device (except speakers) & claiming close enough matching to be declared transparent. What they're not considering is the difference between this scenario & the scenario of our interconnected playback systems. We listen to dynamic, music through our collection of interconnected devices called our 'playback system' - they typically test single devices in isolation with typical simple test signals & typically using the same set of measurements from AP or other signal analysers.
For starters, it would be good to see common mode noise measurements on full interconnected systems. BTW, David, CM noise doesn't just result in hum as I saw you post on AS - depending on the spectral makeup, it can have many audible effects - some are, yes, hum when low frequency, graininess at higher frequencies & then in RF a robbing the music of dynamics - a lifelessness to it.
Apart from all of this what's lacking at the core, in these measurists, is motivation - motivation which comes from an enquiring mind, a quizzical nature, They tend to present themselves on forums as cock-sure & uninterested in the world of the senses (maybe even the world in general?)
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Mar 1, 2020 8:52:11 GMT 10
This whole area of power & it's audible effect on what is considered to be immune digital signals allied to the USB digital signal reformatting & it's audible improvement, leads one to consider that the form/shape of the signal is of importance even with digital signals. When people can get their head out of the simplistic notions they were taught in EE101 & delve deeper into the implementation of electrical signals they would find in the more advanced literature that many different factors can lead to common mode noise in systems - slightly different lengths between data lines (D+ D-) in USB, slightly different signal formation between D+ & D- - the same applies to any differential signalling - this factor alone could explain some of (If not all of) the audible improvements from more stable power - it's a secondary effect. What strikes me is that the descriptions of audible improvements is very similar between different tweaks which leads me to believe that the underlying mechanism is a single factor - I'm betting on the many types of noise on the power channels making their way onto the signal pathways with many possibly audible effects. Anther seemingly unconnected tweak which give some of the same audible results - using heavy strapping to interconnect chassis of audio devices - I'm surmising that this allows power returns (grounds) to follow a low impedance path (heavy strapping) rather than the shields of interconnect cables. Power returns running in cable shields induce noise on the signal lines inside the cable - so called shield current induced noise (SCIN). It's always surprising how these measurists/objectivist can't get past the fact that they are stuck within a logic trap - their measurements fail to show what we hear. What we hear is 90% in the analogue signal, therefore measurements are not showing all of what is in the analogue signal. They assert that they are comparing input signal to output signal of a device (except speakers) & claiming close enough matching to be declared transparent. What they're not considering is the difference between this scenario & the scenario of our interconnected playback systems. We listen to dynamic, music through our collection of interconnected devices called our 'playback system' - they typically test single devices in isolation with typical simple test signals & typically using the same set of measurements from AP or other signal analysers. For starters, it would be good to see common mode noise measurements on full interconnected systems. BTW, David, CM noise doesn't just result in hum as I saw you post on AS - depending on the spectral makeup, it can have many audible effects - some are, yes, hum when low frequency, graininess at higher frequencies & then in RF a robbing the music of dynamics - a lifelessness to it. Apart from all of this what's lacking at the core, in these measurists, is motivation - motivation which comes from an enquiring mind, a quizzical nature, They tend to present themselves on forums as cock-sure & uninterested in the world of the senses (maybe even the world in general?) Hi John Although noise obviously plays a major part here with USB, it still can't explain how it is possible to increase HF detail, which can be used to correct a soft looking Video, and at the same time do the same for the Audio. Neither does it explain how I am able to replace one of the parallel electros in the Capacitance Multiplier section of the JLH, with, for example an Elna for Audio type and obtain an increase in low end warmth, just like the intended use of this type of capacitor with Analogue Audio. Incidentally, when this is done, it also results in a small reduction in overall brightness with the appearance of greater colour saturation.
BTW, last night fas42 (Frank) was able to hear differences between both versions of the Music Video of TOTO-Africa where I had demultiplexed the audio from the " modified " Videos, yet the SHA256 checksums are still identical. He correctly described these differences even though using a Laptop with tiny speakers, directly from the Dropbox player. I don't doubt though, that many will never be able to hear these differences, simply because their brain will not let them. Regards Alex
www.dropbox.com/s/d7gececmbxkn76h/TOTO -Africa (Live) .1.wav?dl=0 www.dropbox.com/s/8qpa8ot0ahjv4gz/TOTO -Africa (Live).wav?dl=0
Original www.dropbox.com/s/8qpa8ot0ahjv4gz/TOTO%20-Africa%20%28Live%29.wav?dl=0
Frank is referring here to the sound of non decoded Dolby-A as per John Dyson's current project
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Mar 1, 2020 10:43:44 GMT 10
Hi John Although noise obviously plays a major part here with USB, it still can't explain how it is possible to increase HF detail, which can be used to correct a soft looking Video, and at the same time do the same for the Audio. Alex, I can't give a definitive 'how this works' explanation (& I don't know the technical details involved in video) but as far as audio is concerned I can have a stab. I'm talking about dynamic noise which is related to the dynamic signal in some way - not necessarily directly to the analogue signal but could be fluctuating with relation to the digital signal handling or packet handling The important characteristic being that it is not random noise, it has patterns, spectrum which eventually intermingle with the analogue signal - sometimes called a modulating noise floor If this noise is present, fluctuating to it's own pattern, it can result in the perception of a time smear to the start of sounds (the most perceptually important stage of any sound) - a less precise timing/indistinct start of sounds. This will have a system-wide effect in perception. Using ASA to analyse this effect suggests to me that perception will find less distinct sound objects & sound streams. I believe this can be expressed by people as more detail or a better handle on the interplay between the players or funnily enough a much more tuneful & powerful bass (the rhythmic aspect to the music is better perceived). Again, I could be just a man with a hammer using ASA to explain everything but it does give me a handle on the many seemingly unrelated tweaks which result in similar perceptual results. I suspect that fluctuating noise in the video frames can result in the same type of indistinctness in video but I don't know Again, I really don't know the capacitance multiplier in depth to be able to guess at the mechanism of how dynamic noise is effected by changing some capacitors
|
|
jkenny
Full Member
Posts: 83
About Me: Audio equipment designer forever in pursuit of more realistic & engaging music reproduction purely because of the extra enjoyment of music created by such reproduction.
http://Ciunas.biz
|
Post by jkenny on Mar 1, 2020 22:34:33 GMT 10
BTW, Alex, I'm not sure if I explained myself properly in my previous post - I was suggesting that signal waveform formation may be of importance in digital signals as it could possibly give rise to different levels/patterns of noise modulation within a device receiving this signal. if purely a digital device, this is of no consequence - if this is a D to A converter then this noise modulation could interfere with the analogue signal itself through various mechanisms. I can see where very stable power supplies could result in better formed waveforms. Different better formed waveforms would still pass any checksum tests once the bits were the still the same. I think I read this before but good to see it posted again on AS audiophilestyle.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=66837I concur very much with that paper & the extract below. It again refer to my previous readings in ASA (maybe a wider definition of ASA than is warranted?) which underlies this concept of top down prediction model Vs low level auditory signal input/reception where expectation & attention are emphasised. But this paper also emphasises what I understand is the core to auditory perception - that it has a specific job to do which is to quickly interpret the world around us to best serve the survival of us, the organism. Al lour senses are directed towards this goal & work in tandem to achieve this - none are that reliable on their own but in tandem they provide a pretty useful model of the exterior world. As I've always said the signals reaching our auditory cortex are lacking enough information to conclude that a decisive, only one soundscape/soundstream matches these nerve signals - it requires further information in the form of confirmation signals from other senses. When it comes to evaluating more abstract things like the playback of a piece of audio through a system that is designed to create an illusion of a believable auditory event, we are even more at sea. As that paper suggests, we need a far longer time to evaluate this scenario. In listening to our playback systems, I believe we build an internal model of it's behaviour & through repeated exposure refine this model & bring parts of it into consciousness. When evaluating a new device in our systems I believe the best way is to live with/listen to the new device over a long period of time (maybe days or weeks depending on exposure time) & then switching back to the previous setup. This often reveals differences that short-term blind listening would not reveal - differences that relate to the more holistic impression of each system - the important stuff for enjoyment of an audio playback system. The core of this is an understanding of what we use as internal auditory models - obviously they are not individual frequency/timings for each sound played back (although that may come into play) but are at a higher, more abstract level which reflects the relationship between frequency & time over a long time period. So when models are compared in this longer term listening methodology (the way a lot of people do), yes a stark difference can sometimes be perceived on the switch-over (a night & day difference reported) yet trying to narrow this difference down to a particular snippet to identify in a blind ABX test. Remember the above longer term listening methodology is absorbing the characteristics of the newly introduced device into some sort of internal auditory model that represents its sound - an abstraction of its qualities, not its exact identifiable frequency/volume/timing differences between this device & the previous device which is what ABX testing is really premised on - even if its defenders have now changed their tack - from short term, eidetic memory as the foundation of ABX listening tests to now saying 'listen anyway you want over any timeframe you want' - revisionism at play.
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Mar 2, 2020 6:58:37 GMT 10
BTW, Alex, I'm not sure if I explained myself properly in my previous post - I was suggesting that signal waveform formation may be of importance in digital signals as it could possibly give rise to different levels/patterns of noise modulation within a device receiving this signal. if purely a digital device, this is of no consequence - if this is a D to A converter then this noise modulation could interfere with the analogue signal itself through various mechanisms. I can see where very stable power supplies could result in better formed waveforms. Different better formed waveforms would still pass any checksum tests once the bits were the still the same. I think I read this before but good to see it posted again on AS audiophilestyle.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=66837I concur very much with that paper & the extract below. It again refer to my previous readings in ASA (maybe a wider definition of ASA than is warranted?) which underlies this concept of top down prediction model Vs low level auditory signal input/reception where expectation & attention are emphasised. But this paper also emphasises what I understand is the core to auditory perception - that it has a specific job to do which is to quickly interpret the world around us to best serve the survival of us, the organism. Al lour senses are directed towards this goal & work in tandem to achieve this - none are that reliable on their own but in tandem they provide a pretty useful model of the exterior world. As I've always said the signals reaching our auditory cortex are lacking enough information to conclude that a decisive, only one soundscape/soundstream matches these nerve signals - it requires further information in the form of confirmation signals from other senses. When it comes to evaluating more abstract things like the playback of a piece of audio through a system that is designed to create an illusion of a believable auditory event, we are even more at sea. As that paper suggests, we need a far longer time to evaluate this scenario. In listening to our playback systems, I believe we build an internal model of it's behaviour & through repeated exposure refine this model & bring parts of it into consciousness. When evaluating a new device in our systems I believe the best way is to live with/listen to the new device over a long period of time (maybe days or weeks depending on exposure time) & then switching back to the previous setup. This often reveals differences that short-term blind listening would not reveal - differences that relate to the more holistic impression of each system - the important stuff for enjoyment of an audio playback system. The core of this is an understanding of what we use as internal auditory models - obviously they are not individual frequency/timings for each sound played back (although that may come into play) but are at a higher, more abstract level which reflects the relationship between frequency & time over a long time period. So when models are compared in this longer term listening methodology (the way a lot of people do), yes a stark difference can sometimes be perceived on the switch-over (a night & day difference reported) yet trying to narrow this difference down to a particular snippet to identify in a blind ABX test. Remember the above longer term listening methodology is absorbing the characteristics of the newly introduced device into some sort of internal auditory model that represents its sound - an abstraction of its qualities, not its exact identifiable frequency/volume/timing differences between this device & the previous device which is what ABX testing is really premised on - even if its defenders have now changed their tack - from short term, eidetic memory as the foundation of ABX listening tests to now saying 'listen anyway you want over any timeframe you want' - revisionism at play. Hi John This may help to explain why the comparison CDs that I sent to both Martin Colloms and Barry still retained the original differences after being burned to disc, even though they were on adjacent tracks. The LG GGW H20L BR writer that was used, was also powered via a JLH PSU add-on which ensured highly stable power to the writer for both +12V and +5V supplies. It could have been very interesting to examine the shape of the pits and lands on the discs using a high quality Electron Microscope. When this writer was first released , I saw a photo like this, which IIRC was posted by Terry O in DIY Audio Incidentally, if anybody wondered about the mediocre SQ of the samples that I posted, although they were demultiplexed from the comparison videos, the original source video was from YouTube using 125kbps .aac audio, although converting this garbage to LPCM does result in a worthwhile improvement despite .aac being Lossy. Kind Regards Alex
|
|