The contradiction perplexes me, also.
-
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!
You want transparency don't you......well DON'T YOU????
- Thread starter Blumlein 88
- Start date
The contradiction perplexes me, also.
OP
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,696
- Likes
- 37,433
- Thread Starter
- #82
Reminds me of the Alan Parsons quote about audiophiles:
“Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment”.
There's a whole lot of truth to that.
captain paranoia
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
- Messages
- 293
- Likes
- 218
The proper engineering answer to this question of 'is a DAC sesnitive to noise on the USB' is to do an objective test.
It's what the standard EMC compliance tests do, only we may want to look a bit harder.
We need to start with a clean supply input, and use a LISN to deliberately inject an interfering source into the input, and see how well the UUT eliminates that interferer from its output.
This test can be done with power input (mains or DC), with USB input (power and signal), and with SPDIF input (yes; deliberately add the dreaded jitter).
The magnitude of the interfering signal ought to be representative of real-world environments.
With known clean inputs, and quantifiable interfering sources, we can then be confident that any unwanted signal appearing at the ouput is caused either by generation within the UUT itself (with no interferer), or by the inability of the UUT to be resistant to interference on its power and signal inputs. We can even start quoting rejection figures...
It's what the standard EMC compliance tests do, only we may want to look a bit harder.
We need to start with a clean supply input, and use a LISN to deliberately inject an interfering source into the input, and see how well the UUT eliminates that interferer from its output.
This test can be done with power input (mains or DC), with USB input (power and signal), and with SPDIF input (yes; deliberately add the dreaded jitter).
The magnitude of the interfering signal ought to be representative of real-world environments.
With known clean inputs, and quantifiable interfering sources, we can then be confident that any unwanted signal appearing at the ouput is caused either by generation within the UUT itself (with no interferer), or by the inability of the UUT to be resistant to interference on its power and signal inputs. We can even start quoting rejection figures...
I've no objection if people like to tinker. I've been known to do it myself once or twice, I suppose. What I object to is claims arising out of "mere" tinkering that are presented as scientific knowledge. It takes more than tinkering to actually establish a scientific theory.
What's more, when an attempt at a theory denies something that is easily established (like how wires conduct, for instance), it is important to understand that a negative result does point out that the would-be theory is flawed.
What's more, when an attempt at a theory denies something that is easily established (like how wires conduct, for instance), it is important to understand that a negative result does point out that the would-be theory is flawed.
Yes, well put there Tim. If you attend a group of audiophiles listening to a song, all you have to do is pick some aspect, comment on it, and see how many people will agree with you (no matter how true your comment about what you hear) as if they don't hear what you hear they are losing credibility among the group. You immediately establish yourself as the most golden of ears in the group too. However, with objectivists, generally this does not establish anything for you, as they are believers in their ears and also the limitations of their ears, so they will not jump on the bandwagon and start agreeing with you to establish their credibility. Now, of course, when a early 20's something says the HF are too screechy, being older audiophiles, it is probably true since older folks have substancially lost HF hearing sensitivity, oh unless it sets off your tenitus! ahahah
OP
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,696
- Likes
- 37,433
- Thread Starter
- #87
I've noticed some groups of audiophile friends will comment that they seem to hear more when listening together than when listening by themselves. Think about that for a minute.
Oh, and I am guilty of being one of those. I know how that feels in your gut. So not making fun of those people. It seems so very real as an experience. Yet it is really a meta-experience your mind cannot separate from actual experience of the world.
I think so too. I wonder if some designers don't purposely make such a thing which is geared towards older ears or ears that are not sensitive to HF. I assume that stuff would sell well. I probably wouldn't like it though.
That's why it's so easy to get very positive results at HiFi show demos.
Switch out a few cables or other tweaks, give some "hints" as to what the resulting changes should reveal, and you'll get a room full of listeners nodding their heads and clapping like trained seals.
If they can't hear it why bother?
That's why it's so easy to get very positive results at HiFi show demos.
Switch out a few cables or other tweaks, give some "hints" as to what the resulting changes should reveal, and you'll get a room full of listeners nodding their heads and clapping like trained seals.
Next time you are at a bus stop, say confidently that you can smell (non-existent) fish. You are highly likely to get some like responses.
