Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New decade, end of the CD?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNew decade, end of the CD?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 57>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2011 at 06:53
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

I don't know the answer to this so Dean or someone who actually has a clue can answer.

Let's say your $5 cable converts 0.01% of it's 1's to 0's. And Oliver's $5000000 cable converts 0.000001%.

Now, since the last time I was an uber nerd was 1986 let's pretend we're in 8 bit land. A single coding error could convert a byte of data from a 1 to a 129, 65, 33, blah blah.

Since I assume that the errors would occur in a random fashion with relation to the actual signal that our ears our focusing on, the errors would produce something that makes absolutely no sense in relationship to the music.

But with the sampling rates used are 44.1 kbps or some such (correct me if I'm wrong) there would be some random noise occuring that lasts 1/44100 of a second long. If the errors were 1/10000 we'd get 4 errors randomly occurring per second, each at that (to my obviously stupid mind) unfathomable small section of time. 

So Oliver's high tech cable would convert that to once in virtually never. 

What would that actually sound like?

Would it be detectable by the human ear?

Now, I made up the 0.01% error rate. I suspect that is extremely high. What if we had an error every 5 seconds that lasted 1/44100 of second?
The simple answer is yes it would be detectable by the human ear and it would sound horrible. To demonstrate this I have created a little 2 second sample that contains 1 error bit on the left channel only - so this is 2 seconds of 16-bit stereo music at 44.1KHz sampling (16x2x2x44100 = 2822400 bits of data) one bit of which is corrupt, assuming that was the only error in a whole album's worth of music that would give an error rate of 0.000000014%  ...

Free .WAV download: glitch1.wav (sorry cannot embed a .wav player and converting it to mp3 would be silly)
 
Please note: you do not need a top-end ultra-transparent hi-fi system system to hear this, I can hear it on a cruddy laptop using the built-in 1" speaker, (and even with Ms. Wilcox's fingers jammed in my ears).
 
What you will also hear from that demonstration is that the single bit error is completely and utterly non-musical, it has not affected the clarity of the midrange or the penetration of the bass notes or bottom octave power or any of that other nonsensical pseudo-babble that these cable manufacturers are using to describe their digital USB cables - it's a glitch, it makes a "click" noise - and that's what digital errors do and that's what they sound like. If you get lots of those in your digital playback you are going to know about it and you will want to fix it pretty sharpish because it will drive you nuts
 
For digital corruption to affect the audio spectrum of the contained data would require some really serious data processing - first it would have to randomly reconstitute the digital bits into 16-bit stereo words and then randomly apply so rather complex mathematic computations to that data, and then randomly re-encode it back into serial datastream that was an exact match of the Red Book Standard for PCM data - and that really isn't ever going to happen. No - bit errors make "click" noises and that's it.
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:



Now, let's compare the number of crackles on a vinyl record stored at room temperature (varying between 66-75 degree Fahrenheit) over 30+ year since DSOTM came out. or the 45 since my parents original Sergeant Pepper with all the cutouts.

DO YOU GET THE POINT?????
Yep.


Edited by Dean - July 13 2011 at 06:53
What?
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2011 at 06:44
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Oh Dean you and your pseudo-science which doesn't explain the inherent warmth and color difference between cables. It's obvious to anyone with a golden ear that some cables produce a richer, warmer, fresher, quicker, smoother, cleaner, brighter, pristiner, sparklinger, mentolier, lavenderer, oxygenateder, bluer, greener, redder, blacker, yellower, progger, progressiver sound.... All you have to do is listen man! But poor you, you have never heard one of these systems....


Not with a gold ear, a normal ear is sufficient.

You'd ask Dean why your HD650 doesn't work from the output of your Denon and that it does better from your dedicated portable amp.

Dean has never heard a dedicated amp and he was claiming that the HD650 should work well from any integrated amp's output that had the right
specifications related to the HP. You discovered by yourself that it was wrong, now have fun and try your HP on others integrated amp's outputs and compare to your dedicated amp.

The problem is that these theories dont match reality.



Edited by oliverstoned - July 13 2011 at 06:47
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2011 at 06:34
...because you've never heard a working and transparent system on which any tiny change produces a difference, even if your hearing is not what it was when you were 20 years old.

Some explanations about digital cable's technology, on the Transparent website (click on "Performance" and then on each hyperlink):


http://www.transparentcable.com/products/category_intro.php?catID=3&modCAT=1

Edited by oliverstoned - July 13 2011 at 06:34
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 22:57
I cannot answer for Dean, who by the way provides an absolute wealth of knowledge about these things that is welcome and for someone like me who forgot to pay attention in math class fascinating.
 
What I do know, is that for my 57 year old ears, which experienced Sgt. Pepper in its pristine condition on the day it was released, and then endured more extremely loud concerts, back when concerts were loud, than I care to count, I seriously doubt I could even possibly tell the difference between a $5 cable and one costing $300.  Really, when I get out my old vinyl LP's and put on the headphones, I'm not even sure I hear the pops, clicks, and scratches any longer. 
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 21:11
I don't know the answer to this so Dean or someone who actually has a clue can answer.

Let's say your $5 cable converts 0.01% of it's 1's to 0's. And Oliver's $5000000 cable converts 0.000001%.

Now, since the last time I was an uber nerd was 1986 let's pretend we're in 8 bit land. A single coding error could convert a byte of data from a 1 to a 129, 65, 33, blah blah.

Since I assume that the errors would occur in a random fashion with relation to the actual signal that our ears our focusing on, the errors would produce something that makes absolutely no sense in relationship to the music.

But with the sampling rates used are 44.1 kbps or some such (correct me if I'm wrong) there would be some random noise occuring that lasts 1/44100 of a second long. If the errors were 1/10000 we'd get 4 errors randomly occurring per second, each at that (to my obviously stupid mind) unfathomable small section of time. 

So Oliver's high tech cable would convert that to once in virtually never. 

What would that actually sound like?

Would it be detectable by the human ear?



Now, I made up the 0.01% error rate. I suspect that is extremely high. What if we had an error every 5 seconds that lasted 1/44100 of second?


Now, let's compare the number of crackles on a vinyl record stored at room temperature (varying between 66-75 degree Fahrenheit) over 30+ year since DSOTM came out. or the 45 since my parents original Sergeant Pepper with all the cutouts.

DO YOU GET THE POINT?????
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 20:55
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

And try as I might I haven't an explanation why gatefold sleeves for vinyl would sound wider and more expansive than a single sleeve. I guess there are somethings that science will never explain.
 
It was what we were using those fine gatefold sleeves for, in addition to holding the LP, that provided the additional expansiveness.  There's a very solid reason that ITCOTCK sounded much better having been packaged in a gatefold rather than in a single sleeve Wink.  Not to mention that the particular gatefold in this case had a certain roughness to it.  I suppose it would still be relevant today, though decidedly less so than in the late 60's, if anyone actually bought LP's anymore.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 19:28
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 19:25
Alas you are right Teo. I cannot explain why a CD stored in a jewel-case should sound crisper and clearer than the same CD stored in a digipak either. And try as I might I haven't an explanation why gatefold sleeves for vinyl would sound wider and more expansive than a single sleeve. I guess there are somethings that science will never explain.
What?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 19:17
Oh Dean you and your pseudo-science which doesn't explain the inherent warmth and color difference between cables. It's obvious to anyone with a golden ear that some cables produce a richer, warmer, fresher, quicker, smoother, cleaner, brighter, pristiner, sparklinger, mentolier, lavenderer, oxygenateder, bluer, greener, redder, blacker, yellower, progger, progressiver sound.... All you have to do is listen man! But poor you, you have never heard one of these systems....
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 18:37
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Some more explanations about digital cables...


http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/digitalcables_e.html
This is all very interesting (and by that I mean amusing) but S/PDIF cables are not USB cables so even if this article did say something tangible (which it doesn't) then it doesn't help in explaining any reason why an *audiophile* USB cable should ever exist.
 
S/PDIF cables are co-axial with a 75 ohm impedance and carry data as a multiplexed PCM stream at around 2MHz
USB 2.0 cables are twisted pair 17mA loop and carries data as 8-bit serial words in packets at 480MHz
 
So as you can see they are not the same, so whatever pseudo-scientific mantra is used for explaining the audiophile misinformation for one cannot be applied to the other.
 
Let's take a little look at jitter as this is something that gets highlighted by audiophilists as an *explanation* of why digital cables *sound* different. And let's try a slightly different approach to explaining it because it is clear I didn't explain it clearly enough the last time...
 
Jitter is when a transition from a "1" to a "0" (or "0" to a "1") occurs in a digital wave a little later (or earlier) than expected. This is a known phenomena and we (engineers) can see it (on an oscilloscope) and we (engineers) can measure it and we (engineers) can tell you where it comes from and why it is there and all those wonderful things that we (engineers) get paid a lot of money for knowing all about. we (engineers) also know how to deal with it, and we (engineers) do deal with it, because we (engineers) get paid a lot of money for knowing how to deal with it and for coming up with really smart ways of eliminating it or overcoming it - seriously, a lot of money, more money than it costs to buy a magic USB cable from a snake-oil salesman. We (engineers) like that because more than just liking the lot of money they pay us (engineers) we (engineers) like to solve problems like that, that's why we (engineers) got into engineering in the first place. Now, snake-oil sales men don't like solving problems, they like inventing problems so they can sell more snake-oil because they really do like money,
 
Now, if you imagine that a change in data from a "0" to a "1" is like sunrise and a change from a "1" to a "0" is like sunset it would be unwise for us to go looking for the "1" at sunrise because we cannot be sure when it will rise exactly, however we can be sure that it will have risen at noon, so that's when we go looking for it, similarily if we go looking for the "1" at midnight we can be sure it will not be there (and we will call it a "0").
 
All well and good.
 
The catch is knowing when sunrise and sunset are each day so we can work out when noon and midnight are, and that is actually quite simple and uses things like phase discriminators and voltage controlled oscillators and stuff like that to do something called clock-recovery, which is a way of getting the clock out of the data (which is coded into the data stream by exclusive-or'ing the original clock with the data ... a process called Manchester Encoding).
 
Now it stands to reason that if the data has jitter then the clock will also have jitter, but that isn't nearly as important as it sounds because if we look for the "1" at a few minutes before noon or a few minutes after noon, the "1" will be there. Now if we store these "1"s that we found at noon (± a few minutes) and the "0"s we found at midnight (± a few minutes) into a buffer using the "noon/midnight"-clock we recovered from the data stream then any jitter is eliminated because we can read this data out of the buffer using a different, much more stable crystal controlled clock from the DAC converter itself.
 
Now in S/PDIF system this is all done "in real time" and requires special circuitry to make it happen (called a SPDIF FIFO that uses a device called a Dual Port RAM or DPRAM... see, we're so amazingly good at this game we've even given these things special names). In USB audio this isn't done in real time, the digitally encoded audio data is arriving in packets at much faster bit rates than the DAC needs them in, so it also has to buffer them in some pretty normal everyday memory, which again, eliminates all the jitter that occurs in the twisted pair of the USB cable because again, the DAC reads this memory in it's own time using its own nice and ultra stable clock. Simples.
 
(time for another paragraph begining with the word "Now")
 
Now, once the data is stored in the SPDIF FIFO or the USB buffer memory it is a verbatim (ie exact) copy of the digital data that was sent there by the CD player or the PC or whatever sent the SPDIF or USB data - all the jitter has been eliminated, all the missing packets have been recovered and all that crap, so from the DAC point of view this data is the good stuff, indistinguishable from the PCM data that was created in the studio before it was put onto the CD master. Seriously, it's the same - the same bits, words, and everything. So when the DAC converts that PCM digital data back into analogue voltages they are exact replicas of the analogue waveforms that were encoded into digital data in the first place.
 
Now, the choice is yours - you can believe the explanation of the nice audio cable man who would really like you to buy his nice USB cable for $300 (and not the horribly inexpensive one from Belkin for $5) or you can believe the explanation of this not very nice electronics engineer who couldn't give a damn whether you bought the nice USB cable from the nice audio snake-oil salesman cable man or not.


Edited by Dean - July 12 2011 at 19:20
What?
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18059
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:35
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Only if there is a paws button.
 
Ok that made me urinate in my pantalones..........I have to go home now Embarrassed
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:30
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Interesting...not sure those are the songs I'd choose but obviously someone beat me to the idea.
 
I thought lyrics like that first song were gone with the AquaNet.
 
 
Mike Oldfield thru in the software with his tres lunas release approx 2002
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:27
Only if there is a paws button.
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:26
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Some more explanations about digital cables...


http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/digitalcables_e.html


Oh yay!  Another article claiming group delay across the audio band is somehow audibly perceptible!
 
Your avatar can.... So there..nahhh LOL


I can use arctic foxes as network analyzers?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:22

Anyone know where the results of that Digital Cable Shootout are? That introduction article was written in 2002 and they must have finished their listening tests by now. Ermm



Edited by Dean - July 12 2011 at 16:22
What?
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18059
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:06
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Some more explanations about digital cables...


http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/digitalcables_e.html


Oh yay!  Another article claiming group delay across the audio band is somehow audibly perceptible!
 
Your avatar can.... So there..nahhh LOL
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 16:01
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

Some more explanations about digital cables...


http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/digitalcables_e.html


Oh yay!  Another article claiming group delay across the audio band is somehow audibly perceptible!
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 15:41
Some more explanations about digital cables...


http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/digitalcables_e.html

Edited by oliverstoned - July 12 2011 at 15:41
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18059
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:28
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:


"Why is there any sound degradation ? it all depends on signal quality. In USB-audio the computer sends the data to the USB-DAC in datapackets.
If the DAC receives error/missing packets there is only a very small timeframe during what the DAC can tell the computer to re-send the packets.
If this timeframe is passed, the music is played without these packets and this is degrading the soundquality. USB-Audio transfer is a completely different thing as USB-data transfer. If eg. a USB-harddisk receives bad packets, the disk asks the computer to resend until the missing/damaged packets are arrived or if the USB cable is bad
they reducing the transfer-speed.



Ferrite
Ferrite rings/beads have to be avoided, as they affecting the highs. Because they filter in same frequency areas as the transmitted USB-audio data.

USB signal quality
Just because it is a USB-signal, it is not automatically resistant against signal-alteration due to different influences! The trivial argument: that is digital, so 0 or 1, yes or no, there can nothing be wrong, is a statement in general only made by users who have no own experience in developing digital- or data-technology.
The development of best USB-cables requires appropriate measuring equipment, where signal-problems can be detected and on construction level and proper material selection nearly be eliminated.
Even here: the ear is also a development tool.


USB Signal Measurements
If we find the time, we will publish here some screenshots and measurement protocols of USB-signals. Professional USB-developers will explain the results in an understandable manner. We will compare and analyse standard USB-cables with AQVOX USB-cables.


To be honest: for our experience, the sonic differences between USB2.0 cables can be huge when it comes to audiophile standards. The AQVOX USB cable sounds very open, transprent and natural, without any harshness. Our customers can go sure, that the AQVOX highend USB cable is made of the very best materials, provides maximum soundquality and exceeds the USB2.0 design specifications. A good hifi set will reveal the advantages of a good USB connection. The sound improves over the complete frequency bandwidth and in all aspects.
Just try it ! "

Source:

http://www.aqvox.de/cable.html
Oh my, this is embarrassing in the nth degree - I'm amazed and disappointed that anyone can write this stuff, let alone use it to advertise their product. I'm not sure where to begin, or if I should even be wasting my energy attempting or bothering to. I see from the responses so far no one has really been taken in by this, so perhaps I should stfu.
 
However Evil Smile
 
Just one thing (aside from all the glaringly obvious things) that rankles is this statement:
"In USB-audio the computer sends the data to the USB-DAC in datapackets.  If the DAC receives error/missing packets there is only a very small timeframe during what the DAC can tell the computer to re-send the packets."
...when you are talking of USB 2.0 data rates in the order of 480Mbs then yes, you can safely say that small time-frames are involved, but since the digitally encoded audio data stream only requires data at 1.4Mbs then this is all relative and in relative terms one audio packet only requires 1/340th of the total available "bandwidth" (note: this NOT audio bandwidth). That time-frame is small to us mortals, but to the USB interface it is a very long time-frame... so while this advertisement (and let's be sure to understand it is an advertisement and not a technical paper) is making a true statement, it is being very economical with that truth and being horribly misleading in what it is saying.
 
 
But Dean...... If it pushes walls its good right??
 
(sorry my bad......I should have refrained
Embarrassed
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2011 at 13:20
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Whatever an AquaNet is ... Question
 
Favorite hairspray from the 80's.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 57>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.