Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
DarqueKnight wrote: »No, bending items to appear as absolutes is your method, as evident by this statement:
I am also not the one hanging on for dear life to the absolute fantasy that blind audio tests are perfect for every type of audio.
LOL. Keep twisting stuff until it feels comfortable. Oh brother.DarqueKnight wrote: »In that case, there was no need to reference not knowing what to say to artists and recording engineers that use DAWs. It's not like every DAWs produces a masterpiece of stereophonic art.
My response about DAW was to another poster positing that all those capacitors etc in a computer somehow compromised fidelity.
So do you use any computer or other streaming device or are you all discrete analog?DarqueKnight wrote: »Sure. This is from post #445. You were responding to ZLTFUL's comment about image weight and sound stage not being as clearly defined with headphones:
First off it wasn't ZLTFUL, it was HeadRott.DarqueKnight wrote: »There was nothing "uninformed" about ZTFUL's comment. There is no way that a pair of headphones can reproduce a three dimensional sound stage with its accompanying image weight the way that a pair of loudspeakers can. However, since you don't understand stereophonic performance, this concept escapes you.
Talking about being an absolutist. I've never had a stereo pair of speakers put an environmental sound behind my perceived listening position. Take it to head-fi...DarqueKnight wrote: »If you understand why binaural recordings are not optimally reproduced on speakers, it is bizarre that you cannot (or will not) understand why stereo recordings will not be optimally reproduced on headphones.
I understand the difference DK. What I stated more than once is that headphones (and you agree) can be used for critical listening. You are assuming what metrics ZLTFUL is going to be using for evaluation.
My entire point is he can use what ever transducers he currently uses. He could strip of the end of a USB cable for all I care and touch it to the tip of his tongue.DarqueKnight wrote: »It is just common sense that a binaural audio device is not going to be optimal for evaluating the spatial aspects of stereo sound. As far as lower distortion, you are actually just replacing one type of distortion with another when you play stereo music through headphones. Music that is mixed for stereophonic reproduction will exhibit various types of distortion when played back through binaural headphones. That is not to say that the result will not be pleasing, and even preferable, to some people's ears.
You would have to ask ZLTFUL what his criteria is. You're making assumptions.DarqueKnight wrote: »If someone says they hear differences in cables under certain conditions, it does not seem scientifically valid, to me, to test that assertion under different conditions.
Again, a basic principle in science is that a thing should be tested the way it is used. If ZTLFUL listens normally to stereo sound, a test with headphones or monophonic sound will have highly questionable application to stereo sound.
The difference is I've made no assumptions with what devices he is going to ears on evaluate with. ZLTFUL is a control, his speakers or headphone is a control. These are all controls. The Ethernet cable is the variable.
We've already went around the testing. Testing is never 100% native. The application of measurement to a degree is also an application of some form of change.
You believe that you can train your bias's down to 0 or near zero. I just demonstrated in video that someone can have a playback system that they have full control of while someone is changing out cables while music is playing back uninterrupted. -
Absolutely; don't use a computer system and headphones to listen to stereophonic music through Ethernet cables. Use a system that ZLTFUL ususlly listens to stereophonic audio through. Fairly simple.
You obviously either didn't undersand what I said, or you ignored it. Go back and re-read the last paragraph of my reply please.
ZLTFUL is going to use his DAC. You are now making a claim about computer A vs B bitstreaming? I know, I know, it all matters. -
I've played around with Media Monkey. Do you use it with a remote, or wireless kb/mouse?
I also have a $350 1.5 meter Ethernet cable coming for my own evaluation. I'll Let you know how it goes. -
Ray, I wanted to point out that it was my post (not ZLTFUL's) that HM was responding to regarding image weight and soundstage through headphones for accuracy and clarity.Habanero Monk wrote: »First off it wasn't ZLTFUL, it was HeadRott.
Thanks for the correction. Headrott said it first in post #443 then ZLTFUL repeated it in post #446.
Neither Headrott nor ZLTFUL were "uninformed" about the sound staging and image weight reproduction deficiencies of headphones.Habanero Monk wrote: »I've never had a stereo pair of speakers put an environmental sound behind my perceived listening position.
I'll be sure to assess the quality of sounds coming from behind me at the next concert I attend.:rolleyes:
As I said, you do not seem to understand the basic concepts of stereophony. Placement of sounds behind the listener is not a part of the two channel stereo performance specification. Two channel stereo is about creating an illusion of a music performance happening in front of you (and to a limited extent, at your sides). If you want to hear sounds behind you, then a multichannel stereo system with 5, 6, 7, or more channels is required. I have never done a binaural/multichannel stereo comparison, but I expect that I would prefer the more natural presentation of a 6 or 7 channel stereo system to headphones.Habanero Monk wrote: »My response about DAW was to another poster positing that all those capacitors etc in a computer somehow compromised fidelity.
Poor quality capacitors in an amp, preamp or CD player can compromise fidelity. The same is possible for a DAW. DAWs don't all sound alike do they?Habanero Monk wrote: »So do you use any computer or other streaming device or are you all discrete analog?
My two channel system is discrete analog. Sometimes I stream music to my home theater system through my Tivo, but only for background music when I am doing something else.Habanero Monk wrote: »What I stated more than once is that headphones (and you agree) can be used for critical listening.
I agreed that headphones can be used for some types of critical listening. They cannot be used to evaluate stereo sound stage and imaging performance, unless the music was specifically mixed for headphone playback, and even with that, there will be significant compromises.Habanero Monk wrote: »ZLTFUL is a control, his speakers or headphone is a control. These are all controls. The Ethernet cable is the variable.
OK. He must have been playing when he said this:Anyway, the layout was agreed to very early on in this discussion. Let's not go changing things up now.My other issue is that by "playing out of RAM" you are pretty much taking the Ethernet cables out of the equation. I would prefer a direct/constant stream from source (NAS) to DAC. My assertion isn't that I can hear a difference between RAM to RAM but that I can hear the difference between which cable a song is being streamed over.You are correct in that there is a certain amount of unavoidable buffering. Even CDPs have internal buffers. That is unavoidable. But to buffer an entire song is the equivalent of removing the ethernet cables from the equation period.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »about the sound staging.... reproduction deficiencies of headphones.
I'll be sure to assess the quality of sounds coming from behind me at the next concert I attend.:rolleyes:
As I said, you do not seem to understand the basic concepts of stereophony. Placement of sounds behind the listener is not a part of the two channel stereo performance specification. Two channel stereo is about creating an illusion of a music performance happening in front of you (and to a limited extent, at your sides). If you want to hear sounds behind you, then a multichannel stereo system with 5, 6, 7, or more channels is required. I have never done a binaural/multichannel stereo comparison, but I expect that I would prefer the more natural presentation of a 6 or 7 channel stereo system to headphones.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
As far as concerts and music from behind, never sang along with the entire crowd? Portions of Pink Floyd "The Wall" was in surround sound when they performed it live. YES also had concerts in surround.
Why do you keep going back to stereo imaging vs binaural / stereo left/right vs headphones? Is there a point that you are going to come to?
You dove into sound stage. I didn't. My experience is that sound stage, that panorama, is indeed wider with stereo. My experience with sound stage with headphones, that environmental object placement with purposefully mastered tracks, is pin pointed to a degree of 360 of them.
One bests the other and vice versa. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either could be used to evaluate cables as the evaluatee deems their best chance at reliable, repeatable discernment is concerned. You are superimposing your hang ups on others here.
Again, I'm bringing cables to test. Not headphones, not speakers, not amps, pre-pros, CDP's etc.
It's also great that you expect you would prefer multi-channel audio over headphones. Good for you. It's your preference. I'm personally looking forward to Dolby Atmos.DarqueKnight wrote: »Poor quality capacitors in an amp, preamp or CD player can compromise fidelity. The same is possible for a DAW. DAWs don't all sound alike do they?
About as much as using various smart phones to record and mix audio on eh?DarqueKnight wrote: »I agreed that headphones can be used for some types of critical listening. They cannot be used to evaluate stereo sound stage and imaging performance, unless the music was specifically mixed for headphone playback, and even with that, there will be significant compromises.
Ok so again, are you coming to a point? Have you even seen a post where I asked WHAT ZLTFUL's critical listening setup is? I don't care. Did you see any post of mine asking him what or how he's going to evaluate? Again I don't care to know. We've agreed as far as the Ethernet cables he's going to be blinded to it.
I used headphones to run my testing rig against. How in the world do you know what criteria I was specifically using to evaluate the tracks I was playing? -
My man!!! so lets bottom line this entire conversation, have you or have you not conducted a Digital wire shootout yourself?Habanero Monk wrote: »Are you being purposefully obtuse?
As far as concerts and music from behind, never sang along with the entire crowd? Portions of Pink Floyd "The Wall" was in surround sound when they performed it live. YES also had concerts in surround.
Why do you keep going back to stereo imaging vs binaural / stereo left/right vs headphones? Is there a point that you are going to come to?
You dove into sound stage. I didn't. My experience is that sound stage, that panorama, is indeed wider with stereo. My experience with sound stage with headphones, that environmental object placement with purposefully mastered tracks, is pin pointed to a degree of 360 of them.
One bests the other and vice versa. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either could be used to evaluate cables as the evaluatee deems their best chance at reliable, repeatable discernment is concerned. You are superimposing your hang ups on others here.
Again, I'm bringing cables to test. Not headphones, not speakers, not amps, pre-pros, CDP's etc.
It's also great that you expect you would prefer multi-channel audio over headphones. Good for you. It's your preference. I'm personally looking forward to Dolby Atmos.
About as much as using various smart phones to record and mix audio on eh?
Ok so again, are you coming to a point? Have you even seen a post where I asked WHAT ZLTFUL's critical listening setup is? I don't care. Did you see any post of mine asking him what or how he's going to evaluate? Again I don't care to know. We've agreed as far as the Ethernet cables he's going to be blinded to it.
I used headphones to run my testing rig against. How in the world do you know what criteria I was specifically using to evaluate the tracks I was playing?
I just gotta know from you to me no matter what was said in all the past posts on this thread.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
if you feel more comfortable PM , you can PM me and we can talk shopDan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
OK. He must have been playing when he said this:
So again what's your point? He's altered terms of this to what he feels is beneficial to him, I've made some tweaks beneficial to me. You certainly can't say there has been zero amount of give on my side. Documenting the process publicly is the transparency portion.
You even said:DarqueKnight wrote: »As long as the test conditions are mutually agreed upon and mutually honored, I don't think motives matter.
I think it's a good experiment topic.
So why start bringing errata up now? -
ZLTFUL:
July 18-20th works for me. Can you get back to me on your computer rig and I can just bring the NIC's, Switch, SSD? That way on Friday I can perform a clean install of Windows 7 (I can also do Win8).
This will have to be setup on a clean OS at the very least. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »As far as concerts and music from behind, never sang along with the entire crowd? Portions of Pink Floyd "The Wall" was in surround sound when they performed it live. YES also had concerts in surround.
I was the one who mentioned multichannel stereo, so it should be obvious that I am aware of multichannel concert recordings.Habanero Monk wrote: »Why do you keep going back to stereo imaging vs binaural / stereo left/right vs headphones? Is there a point that you are going to come to?
Of course there is a point, and I have already stated it several times in this thread.Habanero Monk wrote: »You dove into sound stage. I didn't.
This we can agree on.Habanero Monk wrote: »Ok so again, are you coming to a point? Have you even seen a post where I asked WHAT ZLTFUL's critical listening setup is? I don't care. Did you see any post of mine asking him what or how he's going to evaluate? Again I don't care to know. We've agreed as far as the Ethernet cables he's going to be blinded to it.
My point is very clear to those who understand stereophony. You don't, and you don't care to, so my points escape you.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »My point is very clear to those who understand stereophony. You don't, and you don't care to, so my points escape you.
I understand what stereophony is, I understand the point you are attempting to make. Try to comprehend something though: I don't agree with your conclusion as it relates to soundstage as an absolute domain of a stereo system.
This is called a difference of opinion. Keep trying to square the circle there by all means. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »ZLTFUL:
July 18-20th works for me. Can you get back to me on your computer rig and I can just bring the NIC's, Switch, SSD? That way on Friday I can perform a clean install of Windows 7 (I can also do Win8).
This will have to be setup on a clean OS at the very least.
As I already have a Cisco switch on site, no real need for you to bring one. I also have a handful of unmanaged Trendnet and NetGear gigabit switches on hand from 4 to 24 port if you would prefer.
I also have 4 identical GB NICs (Intel EXPI9400PTs) already in my server. The box is i5 2500k based with 16GB of RAM, a Crucial M4 256gb SSD OS driver with 4x2TB data drives (WD Reds). I also have a NAS that can be re-located.
As far as a fresh OS install, do you feel that this is truly necessary? If so, I would prefer not to re-image my own box as I have it running as a Plex server and a CineMar Main Lobby server as well..."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I understand the point you are attempting to make.
You are talking in circles. If you understand my point, why did you keep asking this?:Habanero Monk wrote: »Is there a point that you are going to come to?Habanero Monk wrote: »Ok so again, are you coming to a point?
Were you being purposefully obtuse?Habanero Monk wrote: »Try to comprehend something though: I don't agree with your conclusion as it relates to soundstage as an absolute domain of a stereo system.
Try to comprehend this: I never said, implied, or alluded that sound stage was the absolute domain of a stereo system. A monophonic, binaural, and stereo system will all produce a sound stage. What I said was they require different evaluation methods and tools.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?Habanero Monk wrote: »So why start bringing errata up now?
"Errata" is a list of errors with accompanying corrections. I have not provided such in this thread. Either you have me confused with someone else or you don't know the meaning of the word.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I stated that I think this is a good test as long as the conditions are mutually agreed upon and followed. Obviously this is not the case as ZLTFUL has mentioned several concerns about the test conditions.Habanero Monk wrote: »This is called a difference of opinion.
There's nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I just think that if you are claiming that your opinion is scientifically motivated and scientifically justified, you shouldn't get hot under the collar when asked to cite the scientific principles pertaining to that opinion, nor should you be rattled when others cite the science pertaining to their opinion.Habanero Monk wrote: »Keep trying to square the circle there by all means.
You keep projecting your hangups on others. Isn't your Ethernet cable exercise your attempt to square your circle of disbelief that someone can hear something that you can't?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
As I already have a Cisco switch on site, no real need for you to bring one. I also have a handful of unmanaged Trendnet and NetGear gigabit switches on hand from 4 to 24 port if you would prefer.
I also have 4 identical GB NICs (Intel EXPI9400PTs) already in my server. The box is i5 2500k based with 16GB of RAM, a Crucial M4 256gb SSD OS driver with 4x2TB data drives (WD Reds). I also have a NAS that can be re-located.
As far as a fresh OS install, do you feel that this is truly necessary? If so, I would prefer not to re-image my own box as I have it running as a Plex server and a CineMar Main Lobby server as well...
I need a switch that supports 802.3ad LAG. What model Cisco switch? Is it Web or IOS managed?
I can bring a 120GB SSD to leave your current config alone. Intel's ANS supports the PT adapter it seems:
http://www.intel.com/support/network/sb/CS-034329.htm
Just to reiterate the entire reason I went through the efforts of putting a box together is, I'm just like you, I don't want my media server messed with and I don't believe there is any sound quality to be either gained or lost with EITHER box.
Trying to do the right thing here. I'm more than happy to bring the SSD and a Win7 evaluation DVD. It will take the time it takes to install. Do you care about patching up? That is where the biggest time suck will come from depending on your Internet throughput.
So we are talking your box, fresh OS install on SSD that I will bring. Let me bring my Cisco switch (since you already have one I am assuming you don't have issue from SQ standpoint) that is already tested and configured.
So you are proposing:
Your server with 3 NICs and Belden/BJC/Highend all certified >Cisco Switch 802.3ad LAG>next Ethernet downstream device? Please correct or confirm. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »You are talking in circles. If you understand my point, why did you keep asking this?:
There are two things going on:
I do understand the point you are trying to make. Your point is you think I don't understand stereophony vs binaural. I do. We are having a disagreement about sound-stage presentation. It's just opinions at that point. A point that you seem to grasp in one hand and then dismiss in another. I'm fine with that.
The 2nd:
Make your point already. Speaking of circular arguments you state that 'Critical evaluation is possible on headphones' and then go on about using a stereo system to do the evaluation. All when you have no idea what the person is using as a benchmark.
So which is it? If you concede a 3rd party can use both for critical evaluation of a cable, with the understanding that what an end user is using them for is up to the end user, stop making assumptions and shut up about it already. -
As I already have a Cisco switch on site, no real need for you to bring one. I also have a handful of unmanaged Trendnet and NetGear gigabit switches on hand from 4 to 24 port if you would prefer.
I also have 4 identical GB NICs (Intel EXPI9400PTs) already in my server. The box is i5 2500k based with 16GB of RAM, a Crucial M4 256gb SSD OS driver with 4x2TB data drives (WD Reds). I also have a NAS that can be re-located.
As far as a fresh OS install, do you feel that this is truly necessary? If so, I would prefer not to re-image my own box as I have it running as a Plex server and a CineMar Main Lobby server as well...
I need a switch that supports 802.3ad LAG. What model Cisco switch? Is it Web or IOS managed?
I can bring a 120GB SSD to leave your current config alone. Intel's ANS supports the PT adapter it seems:
http://www.intel.com/support/network/sb/CS-034329.htm
Just to reiterate the entire reason I went through the efforts of putting a box together is, I'm just like you, I don't want my media server messed with and I don't believe there is any sound quality to be either gained or lost with EITHER box.
Trying to do the right thing here. I'm more than happy to bring the SSD and a Win7 evaluation DVD. It will take the time it takes to install. Do you care about patching up? That is where the biggest time suck will come from depending on your Internet throughput.
So we are talking your box, fresh OS install on SSD that I will bring. Let me bring my Cisco switch (since you already have one I am assuming you don't have issue from SQ standpoint) that is already tested and configured.
So you are proposing:
Your server with 3 NICs and Belden/BJC/Highend all certified >Cisco Switch 802.3ad LAG>next Ethernet downstream device? Please correct or confirm.
I'm proposing:
Server>Ethernet>Cisco Port 8 <> Cisco Port 1-3 LAG> Client Computer> Your USB DAC. The three cables are closest to client side and it lets me swap with no drop in playback. That is critical and it's key to the fast switching that I have seen members here rely on when comparing two similar components. -
6509 with the following modules:
2x IDSM-2
2x FWM-1
1x SUP720-3B
1x NAM-1
1x WS-X6148E-GE-45AT
Of course, since I couldn't use the fiber module, there is some magic happening to use our Centurylink DSL (50down/5up) but we had some surplus network gear that was getting excessed anyway so I picked it up dirt cheap at our monthly surplus auction.
A lot of its capabilities/functionality isn't being used but still...
IOS managed."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
6509 with the following modules:
2x IDSM-2
2x FWM-1
1x SUP720-3B
1x NAM-1
1x WS-X6148E-GE-45AT
Of course, since I couldn't use the fiber module, there is some magic happening to use our Centurylink DSL (50down/5up) but we had some surplus network gear that was getting excessed anyway so I picked it up dirt cheap at our monthly surplus auction.
A lot of its capabilities/functionality isn't being used but still...
IOS managed.
Nice switch. For the sake of time do you mind me bringing the Cisco switch I already have configured? I have the IOS document for the 6500's 802.3ad configuration but it is for Switch to Switch and Multi-Mesh trunking. I'd rather not take time bending that procedure for a Server/Switch setup.
Must be nice to have a property surplus department. Everything here is on a service agreement. It goes back to vendor as part of our change management structure
-
While this 'test' keeps getting more and more interesting, it also keeps getting further and further away from a real world scenario of a network based music server system.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
6509 with the following modules:
2x IDSM-2
2x FWM-1
1x SUP720-3B
1x NAM-1
1x WS-X6148E-GE-45AT
Of course, since I couldn't use the fiber module, there is some magic happening to use our Centurylink DSL (50down/5up) but we had some surplus network gear that was getting excessed anyway so I picked it up dirt cheap at our monthly surplus auction.
A lot of its capabilities/functionality isn't being used but still...
IOS managed.
A 6509!? - We ran our entire company off one of those puppies back in 2002 - think it cost around 100K new back then.... -
Habanero Monk wrote: »Nice switch. For the sake of time do you mind me bringing the Cisco switch I already have configured? I have the IOS document for the 6500's 802.3ad configuration but it is for Switch to Switch and Multi-Mesh trunking. I'd rather not take time bending that procedure for a Server/Switch setup.
Must be nice to have a property surplus department. Everything here is on a service agreement. It goes back to vendor as part of our change management structure
I am OK with that.
Federal Government. We don't lease anything. Just buy it and then surplus/excess it when it is EOL."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
A 6509!? - We ran our entire company off one of those puppies back in 2002 - think it cost around 100K new back then....
$58k in this configuration minus the X6148E. The price dropped on them like a rock from about 2005 on til EOL.
Definitely overkill for a home network but then I am working on my certs so...hehe."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I do understand the point you are trying to make. Your point is you think I don't understand stereophony vs binaural. I do. We are having a disagreement about sound-stage presentation. It's just opinions at that point. A point that you seem to grasp in one hand and then dismiss in another. I'm fine with that.
There is opinion and then there is science-validated opinion. My opinion regarding sound stage is that you should use a playback system optimally designed for the specific recording.
When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between your ears, by listening to it on headphones, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between the speakers, by listening to it in mono, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
Humans hear in stereo. There is no way that a binaural or monophonic playback system can render a natural sounding sound stage similar to what humans hear in real life. That does not mean that stereo material played back on a binaural or mono system will sound "bad". It just means the material will not be rendered with the clarity and detail possible with a stereo system.Habanero Monk wrote: »Speaking of circular arguments you state that 'Critical evaluation is possible on headphones' and then go on about using a stereo system to do the evaluation. All when you have no idea what the person is using as a benchmark.
Your "one size fits all" mentality blinds you to many simple truths. Yes you can use headphones for critical evaluation depending on the signal being evaluated. If you use headphones (a binaural playback system) to evaluate a stereo signal, then your results will be compromised because listening to stereo on headphones introduces distortions in detail and sound stage. It should be clear that if you take a sound stage meant to span a number of feet in front of you and squeeze it into a space a few inches wide between your ears, there are going to be some errors in perception and masking of detail.Habanero Monk wrote: »So which is it? If you concede a 3rd party can use both for critical evaluation of a cable, with the understanding that what an end user is using them for is up to the end user, stop making assumptions and shut up about it already.
As I noted above, you did not fully understand my comments. You cherry picked the parts you thought (or wished) were in agreement with you.
Anyone can use any evaluation tool and methodology they desire. However, it is not just "up to the end user" if they want their evaluation results to be scientifically validated and taken seriously.
If you are using stereo program material, then it is better to use a test that uses a stereo playback system. If a person says they can make certain sonic distinctions in cables using stereo program material and a stereo playback system, it does not make sense, from a scientific evaluation standpoint, to test the assertion using stereo program material and a binaural or monophonic playback system.
I provided a recent example of this when I stated that parts of the Philips Golden Ear Challenge were easier (for me) to perform using my computer's stereo speakers rather than headphones.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
While this 'test' keeps getting more and more interesting, it also keeps getting further and further away from a real world scenario of a network based music server system.
I'm thinking ZLTFUL's setup is more representative of a "high end" network based music server system.
If they are going to use a system that is far removed from a "typical" residential music server system, they should state the differences in configuration and performance so that readers will be better able to relate to what they did.
When I read about a high end six figure loudspeaker or six figure CD/SACD playback system, I can relate the performance and construction quality differences to what I currently have if the article is well written with sufficient technical detail about the gear under evaluation and the associated system gear.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
$58k in this configuration minus the X6148E. The price dropped on them like a rock from about 2005 on til EOL.
Definitely overkill for a home network but then I am working on my certs so...hehe.
When I did my CCNP and CCSP I had two 2501's, some, I can't remember the name, Catalyst Switch, and a two PIX. I picked up the entire rig on ebay, did my certs, and then got about 90% of my $$ back out of it. -
While this 'test' keeps getting more and more interesting, it also keeps getting further and further away from a real world scenario of a network based music server system.
How so?
Server (NAS is also a server for those that may wonder) to switch/router to client computer running a media center application (JRirver etc) to USB/TOSLINK/SPDIF/PCIe interfaced sound device to the analog stack.
I'm looking for constructive comments here folks. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »There is opinion and then there is science-validated opinion. My opinion regarding sound stage is that you should use a playback system optimally designed for the specific recording.
When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between your ears, by listening to it on headphones, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
You have to take that up with the person that is doing the evaluation. You are barking at the wrong person here. If you think I made a mistake by using headphones to test out my LAG setup then more power to you. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. I now have it upstairs and swapped out for my normal computer.DarqueKnight wrote: »When you squeeze a 10 foot wide stereo sound stage into the space between the speakers, by listening to it in mono, there is a masking effect on detail, image weight and image placement.
Anyone that wants to participate can use what ever final SPL generating device they want. You'll have to speak with management about that.DarqueKnight wrote: »Humans hear in stereo. There is no way that a binaural or monophonic playback system can render a natural sounding sound stage similar to what humans hear in real life. That does not mean that stereo material played back on a binaural or mono system will sound "bad". It just means the material will not be rendered with the clarity and detail possible with a stereo system.
What happens if they want to use Party Rock Anthem? What then? Make some material suggestions to ZLTFUL then.DarqueKnight wrote: »Your "one size fits all" mentality blinds you to many simple truths. Yes you can use headphones for critical evaluation depending on the signal being evaluated. If you use headphones (a binaural playback system) to evaluate a stereo signal, then your results will be compromised because listening to stereo on headphones introduces distortions in detail and sound stage. It should be clear that if you take a sound stage meant to span a number of feet in front of you and squeeze it into a space a few inches wide between your ears, there are going to be some errors in perception and masking of detail.
I have no idea what they are using as source material. I have no idea of what they are using as SPL generation device. I don't care.
AGAIN. I am bringing some cables. I'm sure ZLTFUL would welcome you to the audition if you could just keep mum.DarqueKnight wrote: »Anyone can use any evaluation tool and methodology they desire. However, it is not just "up to the end user" if they want their evaluation results to be scientifically validated and taken seriously.
Why don't you simply ASK ZLTFUL what he is using for playback?
I'm not doing this to be statistically significant. I am however devising a testing rig that once enough of an N is introduced that the rig remains unquestionable to validity as N approaches a statistically meaningful #.
Scientifically valid huh? So what speakers, amp, DAC would be universally, scientifically, accepted? What I should ask is what do the MEASUREMENTS look like for speakers, amp, DAC look like for them to be scientifically accepted?
Your equipment perhaps? Problem: I can guarantee you if I used your modded SDA's there would be a whole contingent of Audiophilum that would laugh that out of the room. You would take offense rightfully so.DarqueKnight wrote: »If you are using stereo program material, then it is better to use a test that uses a stereo playback system. If a person says they can make certain sonic distinctions in cables using stereo program material and a stereo playback system, it does not make sense, from a scientific evaluation standpoint, to test the assertion using stereo program material and a binaural or monophonic playback system.
I have no idea of what source material will be in use.DarqueKnight wrote: »I provided a recent example of this when I stated that parts of the Philips Golden Ear Challenge were easier (for me) to perform using my computer's stereo speakers rather than headphones.
Hmmm. I did the entire thing on my headphones. I guess that explains why I did sweat the stereo field portion but did pass without error. I finished the challenge in 3 non-consecutive sessions over the period of a week. -
You mean you don't have six figure components in your system? I think less of you now.
I keep telling you guys that I have not gotten serious about audio yet.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I am OK with that.
Federal Government. We don't lease anything. Just buy it and then surplus/excess it when it is EOL.
Ok, forget about the $1600, just hook me up with your surplus department ;-) -
$58k in this configuration minus the X6148E. The price dropped on them like a rock from about 2005 on til EOL.
Definitely overkill for a home network but then I am working on my certs so...hehe.
Nice - I salute your overkill sir....
This discussion has been closed.