-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.
Can you review a Synchro-Mesh S/PDIF re-clocker?
- Thread starter Empirical Audio
- Start date
- Status
It is easier to design Delta-Sigma for sure. There are tradeoffs in either case.
Accuracy is the trade-off with R2R, but some of these companies are coming up with new tricks to minimize this issue.
For Sigma-Delta the trade-off is the oversampling and digital filtering.
In general, most I have read on the forums say that R2R comes closer to an analog sound. I designed both types of DACs. My earlier DAC was a tube output dual PCM1704 based DAC that sounded very analog like, but lacked the ultimate detail. This is a relatively old D/A chip. My latest is a Sigma-Delta with selectable digital filtering and oversampling. It is much better on the detail and still sounds analog-like because of the minimized digital filtering. I think some of the new strategies for gaining accuracy on R2R designs that are built from scratch like the Metrum and Border Patrol are improving on older technologies.
Accuracy is the trade-off with R2R, but some of these companies are coming up with new tricks to minimize this issue.
For Sigma-Delta the trade-off is the oversampling and digital filtering.
In general, most I have read on the forums say that R2R comes closer to an analog sound. I designed both types of DACs. My earlier DAC was a tube output dual PCM1704 based DAC that sounded very analog like, but lacked the ultimate detail. This is a relatively old D/A chip. My latest is a Sigma-Delta with selectable digital filtering and oversampling. It is much better on the detail and still sounds analog-like because of the minimized digital filtering. I think some of the new strategies for gaining accuracy on R2R designs that are built from scratch like the Metrum and Border Patrol are improving on older technologies.
This is very natural part of how our brain works. When you swapped in the iPurifier you were focusing on its effect which in turn would cause your brain to focus more on details. This is the same as someone reporting that after they made some change all of a sudden heard an instrument they did not before. The sound was always there but they did not pay attention to it.
Our hearing system is delivering megabytes of information per second to our brain. Much of this information is thrown away out of necessity. The moment you enter comparison mode of audio gear, the brain changes function and is able to focus more and find new things that were always there but discarded.
Since you brought up video, broadcast monitors have a black and white switch. Push that button and color is gone. It is used all the time to let someone see errors in luminance (black and white) would can be obscured by the prettiness of color. Nothing is changed in video signal when we do that but it aids the brain to better find what we are looking for.
This issue by far the most important way audiophiles go wrong. They swap gear, focus more, head more detail and declare the new gear must be there. In reality nothing is changed but their mindset. This is why blind tests work so well: they take away the knowledge of whether something has or has not changed. That equalizes the playing field with respect to how you brain analyzes sound. The fact that blind tests don't agree with sighted ones, proves this aspect of brain function.
Our hearing system is delivering megabytes of information per second to our brain. Much of this information is thrown away out of necessity. The moment you enter comparison mode of audio gear, the brain changes function and is able to focus more and find new things that were always there but discarded.
Since you brought up video, broadcast monitors have a black and white switch. Push that button and color is gone. It is used all the time to let someone see errors in luminance (black and white) would can be obscured by the prettiness of color. Nothing is changed in video signal when we do that but it aids the brain to better find what we are looking for.
This issue by far the most important way audiophiles go wrong. They swap gear, focus more, head more detail and declare the new gear must be there. In reality nothing is changed but their mindset. This is why blind tests work so well: they take away the knowledge of whether something has or has not changed. That equalizes the playing field with respect to how you brain analyzes sound. The fact that blind tests don't agree with sighted ones, proves this aspect of brain function.
Wrong. I was not expecting anything but better quality audio overall. I was frankly surprised that I heard dialogue that I had previously missed.
How do I know that you are not fudging your measurements or testing some other device? I'll tell you how. I have to TRUST you. It goes both ways.;
How do I know that you are not fudging your measurements or testing some other device? I'll tell you how. I have to TRUST you. It goes both ways.;
Last edited:
I said nothing about expecting better quality. That is another thing that corrupts such tests (e.g. you liking your own products).
This phenomena simple says your brain operates either in passive or attentive mode. When you made the change, your brain switched to the latter, focused more, and heard more. Play the same track of music twice in a row while changing nothing. The second time really focus hard and you will absolutely here more detail even though nothing has changed.
This is how I pass double blind tests for example. I focus ton of energy identifying smallest detail and then hear them if they are there.
There is no escaping this fact. It is just part of being human. You must do the testing blind. There is no other solution. You could even walk into a test thinking the results should be worse and it won't help you when you think the sound is better. It is all misperceptions.
I have proven this to myself countless times.
This phenomena simple says your brain operates either in passive or attentive mode. When you made the change, your brain switched to the latter, focused more, and heard more. Play the same track of music twice in a row while changing nothing. The second time really focus hard and you will absolutely here more detail even though nothing has changed.
This is how I pass double blind tests for example. I focus ton of energy identifying smallest detail and then hear them if they are there.
There is no escaping this fact. It is just part of being human. You must do the testing blind. There is no other solution. You could even walk into a test thinking the results should be worse and it won't help you when you think the sound is better. It is all misperceptions.
I have proven this to myself countless times.
Which one was? The one about noise from cables? Unlike the other three that one actually seems almost possible to me! 
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
HiFi Choice Reviews Kii THREE | Desperate Dealers Forum | 0 | |
| B | Is Audio Science Review going about it all wrong? Or partly wrong? Or all right? | General Audio Discussions | 201 | |
|
Review and Measurements of Empirical Audio Synchro-Mesh | Digital Audio (DACs, Streamers, Servers, Players) | 168 |
Similar threads
-
-
Is Audio Science Review going about it all wrong? Or partly wrong? Or all right?
- Started by beefkabob
- Replies: 201
-
Review and Measurements of Empirical Audio Synchro-Mesh
- Started by amirm
- Replies: 168