I have for years bought audio gear based on subjective reviews and lost most of my hair-Amir has probably purchased based on objective measurements and has a full head of hair-coincidence?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Do Audiophile Network Switches Make a Difference (video)?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Only if they were manufactured in the Space Station using the magnetic flux induction reaction process the then cryogenically treated.Wi-Fi cables would probably bee the bees knees
Wifi cables , why not sell specially made audiophile air for your listening room to better propagate these musical signals
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 1,867
- Likes
- 3,777
And on supports of Marsian elves bone every 66,6 mm to keep the digital demons away
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 1,867
- Likes
- 3,777
Once kind of got it completely free (cheap WiFi router with coil whine), returned faster than deliveredWifi cables , why not sell specially made audiophile air for your listening room to better propagate these musical signals
The usual suspects over at SBAF haven't yet discovered his videos I'm certain or there would be vitriol galore in the comments.that is interesting. I figured it would be boiling over already with people arguing the other side or at least feeling sorry for you because you can't hear the difference
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 1,867
- Likes
- 3,777
Old German saying (centuries old to avoid misunderstanding) "Many enemies, much honour"
But seriously, if someone chooses to prefer "marketing lyrics" over technical parameters, it's not my problem.
But seriously, if someone chooses to prefer "marketing lyrics" over technical parameters, it's not my problem.
Last edited:
I think he said "lower", which does itself not sound too different from "more". Further, the processing he uses removes or attenuates some of the beginning of words sometimes. However, I also had some difficulty correctly understanding it at first.
To avoid misunderstandings, using a word where another word with the opposite meaning is phonetically similar should be avoided - particularly taking into account that for many listeners English may not be a native language - mine is German, for instance - and that @amirm also has an accent. In this case, rather than using "lower", "less" could have been used, or instead of "more", "higher" could have been used.
PDavid
New Member
Amir, thank you for posting this video, and for the tremendous educational value it contains. As a student of engineering principles (ongoing these past 50 years) your presentation style and content are extremely effective.
My favorite line (at 21:20) is:
"It is now examining noise levels of -160 to -180, this is crazy! This is like us trying to hear noise on the other side of the planet."
Which, for me, sums up the point of the review: that these fake products claim to improve something that does not need improving, that they address an issue that does not exist.
Chapeau!
My favorite line (at 21:20) is:
"It is now examining noise levels of -160 to -180, this is crazy! This is like us trying to hear noise on the other side of the planet."
Which, for me, sums up the point of the review: that these fake products claim to improve something that does not need improving, that they address an issue that does not exist.
Chapeau!
One thing I have noticed about all three videos so far is that the overall loudness is quite low. According to YouTube's 'Stats for nerds', the loudness of the videos is 13.3 dB, 12.4 dB and 12.8 dB below its standard loudness of -14 LUFS. However, since YouTube only reduces the audio level of content with loudness exceeding its standard, the audio level could probably be increased by more than 10 dB before YouTube would reduce it.
To see how much the audio levels could be increased without the need to introduce adverse effects, I downloaded the audio components from the first and the latest video using https://youtube-converter.online/ and calculated their peaks, RMS levels and crest factor for both stereo left and right and also mid (mono, sum of left and right) and side (difference between left and right) while also plotting their waveforms. The unit used is dBO, where the O stands for overload, referenced to the highest sample value.
First, the first video, which was the review of the Topping D30Pro. The audio seems to be mono and fairly consistent in level and can probably be increased by 12.08 dB without introducing adverse effects. This would put its loudness only 1.22 dB below YouTube's standard.
Similarly for the latest video, which was the investigation of differences from fancy cables. The audio also seems to be mono and fairly consistent in level and can probably be increased by 11.60 dB without introducing adverse effects. This would put its loudness only 1.20 dB below YouTube's standard.
Thus, while the dynamics of the material seem to be about right for YouTube, the level is not. However, it can probably be increased to be so without the need to introduce adverse effects by use of peak normalisation. Given that YouTube uses a lossy data compression codec for the audio, the peak of the audio before compression should probably be normalised to below the highest sample value to avoid exceeding it after being encoded and decoded. How much exactly, I don't know. However, from what I recall, 1 dB may well be enough.
To see how much the audio levels could be increased without the need to introduce adverse effects, I downloaded the audio components from the first and the latest video using https://youtube-converter.online/ and calculated their peaks, RMS levels and crest factor for both stereo left and right and also mid (mono, sum of left and right) and side (difference between left and right) while also plotting their waveforms. The unit used is dBO, where the O stands for overload, referenced to the highest sample value.
First, the first video, which was the review of the Topping D30Pro. The audio seems to be mono and fairly consistent in level and can probably be increased by 12.08 dB without introducing adverse effects. This would put its loudness only 1.22 dB below YouTube's standard.
Similarly for the latest video, which was the investigation of differences from fancy cables. The audio also seems to be mono and fairly consistent in level and can probably be increased by 11.60 dB without introducing adverse effects. This would put its loudness only 1.20 dB below YouTube's standard.
Thus, while the dynamics of the material seem to be about right for YouTube, the level is not. However, it can probably be increased to be so without the need to introduce adverse effects by use of peak normalisation. Given that YouTube uses a lossy data compression codec for the audio, the peak of the audio before compression should probably be normalised to below the highest sample value to avoid exceeding it after being encoded and decoded. How much exactly, I don't know. However, from what I recall, 1 dB may well be enough.
Last edited:
You just go ahead and set that up.
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 1,867
- Likes
- 3,777
And, more turnover at higher prices, more more money from VAT & Co. ...
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 1,867
- Likes
- 3,777
This. At least for the humble amateur (and even some pros), a solution seeking its problem IMHO.
For me, the "DAC world" has also arrived at this point. In my "PC desk setup" I still have the old MF V90 DAC, not bad but nothing special or even modern any more. I can't decide can I hear the difference (at equal volume level) between this and the RME ADI2. I believe to hear a minimal difference with the "SDLD" digital filter of the RME, but would I really, repeatedly, in a "blind test" setup? Probably not, and even less without directly comparing.
If we really want to significantly improve something, being non-pros, I think we should start with the listening room anyway. In large parts of audio hardware, the "curse of good enough" is upon us - or is it a blessing?
Last edited:
OP
I am working on this. I have the levels in Windows quite high and it is telling it it is right below clipping. Where it is getting reduced, I don't yet know. But should be able to figure it out. Thanks for the analysis by the way.
Youtube has forced loudness normalization on -12 LUFS. It’s slowly becoming the new audiophile streaming platform.
Make sure that you’re previewing the videos before you hit publish, this way you can figure out if it’s loud enough and accommodate.
I like that engineers have gone way above and beyond the hearing threshold, so it's not even debatable anymore. Because some people would debate over it. And also digital audio isn't like analog. Distortions and artifacts tend to be bad and unpleasant.
I am working on this. I have the levels in Windows quite high and it is telling it it is right below clipping. Where it is getting reduced, I don't yet know. But should be able to figure it out. Thanks for the analysis by the way.
I've uploaded videos to Youtube for people and noticed the volume is processed. Using the same settings and have one video can be okay and another, even part 2 of the same video, sound too soft.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #160
That's a good suggestion. I will compare the youtube versus local copy and see if there is a difference.
Similar threads
- Locked
