PDA

View Full Version : Design miss in SB3 digital output? or Slimserver problem ?



Pages : [1] 2

omega
2007-07-01, 02:00
Hi, everyone !

I have found a big problem with SB3 / slimerver Audio!

The first audio track thatīs being played after SB3 power on always sounds better ! Or more "High END"

If i select another track / CD or play the same track again (Pressing PLAY on remote)
The Quality of the musik gets much more reduced !!!

Itīs like some high frequencys disappears.
The Music sounds "flatter" or less "Room" like moving from "High END" To "Hi FI"

The reduced frequencys is of course easier to hear on different Audio recordings.

Try This at you own system !

1. Power on your SB3.
2. Select a good recording, start to play. (My sound is now "High END")
3. Select another track on the same album (The sound is now reduced "Hi FI")
4. Select the same recording / track that you started with in step 2. (The sound is still reduced "Hi FI")
5. Press the pause on SB3 remote.
6. Power OFF your SB3.
7. Power on your SB3.
8. Press "Now Playing on SB3"
9. Press Pause, Now the sound is back on "High END again !!!!

Please try this on various music, when your know where to listen you start to hears this "Bugg" easy!

Listen in the "Reverb region" / High frequencys.

You have to A/B listen for a while to start hear this !!

I stream Flac as Wave but if i stream Flac i can hear this to.

I have the Vol setting to "FIXED" in slimserver -> Player setting -> Audio.

There is the same problem on "Wired" or "Wireless"

There is the same problem on Optical & Coax.

I Have only tried this with External DAC.


My friend hear this also om my system.
He also gets the same result on his system.
(External Dac, Quad ESL, etc)

We both have very good "Hi End" Gear / revealing speakers etc. external DAC

Itīs easier to hear on my system because i have a "A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter"

My system:

SB3 (Latest firmware and Slimserver) I am Only playing .Flac files done with EAC /Plextor
Digital Out from SB3 -> Musical Fidelity X-Dac v3 -> Musical Fidelity X-10 V3 Tube Buffer -> Cambridge AZUR 840A Amp.
Speakers: Chario Hyper 2000 Tower Reference + Elac CL 4Pi Plus (A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter)
SB3 Linear power supply.


Best Regards !

/Mats :-)

ezkcdude
2007-07-01, 06:23
Hmmm...Maybe you have the fastest case of listening fatigue ever.

omega
2007-07-01, 07:10
Hi ezkcdude,

This has nothing to do with listening fatigue...
I can go back to the "High End" any time, Pressing the "PAUSE" on the remote, and Power OFF / ON the SB3 as described above.

Doesīs my friend suffer from listening fatigue to ?
He hear the same thing as i do, here on my system and at home at his place..

Have you tried at your own system?

Donīt get me wrong, But i Think not all people will hear this.
difference in hearing, Not so revealing speakers etc.

Make sure you have the "Fixed" volume setting on your SB3.

Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

amcluesent
2007-07-01, 07:50
You claim that an
(X) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:
( ) upsampling
( ) non-oversampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
(X) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) reversing “polarity” of resistors
( ) ultra fast recovery rectifiers
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware
( ) using exotic materials in cabinet
( ) bronze heatsinks
( ) violin lacquer
( ) $500 power cords
(X) a universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:
( ) the placebo effect
(X) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

You will try to defend you idea by:
(X) claiming that your ears are “trained”
(X) claiming immunity to psychological/physiological factors that affect everyone else
( ) name-calling
( ) criticizing spelling/grammar

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:
( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
(X) quantum mechanical effects
( ) resonance
( ) existentialism
( ) nihilism
( ) communism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:
(X) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
(X) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
(X) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
( ) trepanation

darrenyeats
2007-07-01, 08:18
Mats,
It isn't clear from the other posts whether anyone has bothered to listen for what you described.

However, when I listened I couldn't hear this effect personally.

I think you'll find a lot of people here use external DACs with fixed digital output level, no bitrate limiting and no replay gain, Darren
--
Monarchy CLD-M401 transport -> Sony DAS-703ES DAC -> Krell KAV-300i -> PMC AB-1 (DIY room treatment and supports)

omega
2007-07-01, 08:24
Hi amcluesent,

Whay are you pepole not beliving me?

This make me sad.
Have any of you tried the "PAUSE" Power OFF / ON fix?

I came just from my listening room,
I can hear this on almost any track!

My girlfriend hear this to..

And my Friend, so thatīs makes 3 of us now!

PLEASE TRY THIS AT YOUR OWN SYSTEM!!!

Make sure you sit "In the Sweet spot"

I Have my speakers "toed in" to the lisening area.

My SB3 digital out is always on, "Setting"

If anyone reading this live in SWEDEN (Stockholm) or planning visiting.
I can demo this at my place..

My friend and i are going to measure this,

Because itīs som much in the higher frequencys this gets reduced


Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

omega
2007-07-01, 11:54
Hi Again!

I forget one thing,

"Default" i think the SB3 Optical output sounds more clearer / Better than the coaxial.

But i have modded the "Coaxial" output with a digital "isolation transformer" and now the Coaxial output is the best digital output.

You easiest hear "the bugg" from the Optical output if you have a default digital undmodded Coaxial on your SB3.

I have done a/b listening test allt day, there is some thing thatīt is wrong. (The "PAUSE" fix works every time!)

I wounder way the "PAUSE" OFF / ON "PAUSE" thing works?
Mabye something with the digital clocks from SB3 to DAC?

Something with the digital buffer?

Strange, but i realy love the "High end sound" :-)

I Have tried with wave files, The same problem is there to..

Best Regards to all of you!

/Mats :-)

hammer65
2007-07-01, 12:24
Hi, Omega!
Thanks for a nice demo at your home.
I was really sad to discover that a nice product like the SB3 has a bug like the one you described in your thread.
I went home and tried my SB3 and heard the same difference in soundquality when I repeated the track again.
The first track always sound open and spacious. The soundquality is reduced from highend to something like regular hifi when repeating the same track again.
I'm using a separate DA-converter and have a modified squeezebox with a new powersupply and an outputtransformator on the digitalcoaxialoutput (using coax for digital transfer to my DAC).
I tried both with my Quad Electrostatic speakars and with my Stax headphones with the same result. The repeated track is lacking air and transparancy. After turning the unit off and on again the sound is clear and transparant again. You could even hear the difference on mono recordings, strange ????
Hope that someone has a solution to our problem and not only stupid comments like amcluesent.

//Hammer65

seanadams
2007-07-01, 13:45
Hi, Omega and Hammer65!

I find it fascinating that you both share a nearly identical writing style, that you both log in from the same IP subnet, and that hammer65 has chosen just this occasion to chime in with his first post to the forum. Are you twins and/or room mates?

Please do not troll our forum. On the off chance that this is not a troll (it can be quite hard to tell around here) I would suggest that you consider the placebo affect and apply some simple controls for it in your experiments. Good luck.

//Sean

omega
2007-07-01, 22:31
Hi seanadams.

Hammer65 is a friend of mine. (We work at the same Office)

We are not the same physical person,
Do you think we write this becasue itīt fun?

I found out the SB3 bugg, and i demostrated this at my home for Hammer65, then he found out the same problem at home.

Told him about my "Thread" here in the Forum.

My ISP is "Bredbandsbolaget", Itīs one of the biggest ISP here inte sweden, I really dont know if Hammer65 have the same ISP?

Nearly identical writing style, is that identical?
I saw nearly to identical pepople today, they must be the same person ?! :-) Just a bad joke.

We propably share the same bad school English ?
We both are swedes and English is our second language.

But isīt there anyone reading this having the same problems as i and Hammer ?

Have you tried to listen , seanadams ?

There must be more than me and Hammer65 that is pure audiophils?
Running on simmular gear, external DAC etc?

PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!

I think most people reading this donīt even try to listen.
They allready have make up their minds..
No this is not possible..

Later today i will try to Downgrade the SB3 to see if there is a problem in firmware / Slimserver.

Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

seanadams
2007-07-01, 22:55
Have you tried to listen , seanadams ?


Yes, I'm listening right now and I don't hear a problem. I've been listening for years, and so have thousands of others.



PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!
PLEASE give this i try, Itīs not placebo!

Saying it a million times won't make it true. But demonstrating that you can hear it in a test which controls for placebo will. Then we'll talk about a "design miss".

zanash
2007-07-02, 00:07
I'm one of those open minded people that will give things a go before passing comment ....

to set the picture ..I have an unmodded sb3 feeding either an src2496 upsampler or a quad99cdp [as dac]....

I have not heard your fault ..though I can understand the frustration if thats what your hearing. But ..its a big but I get the occasional track that sound either very good or flat for no apparent reason ...play the same track again and it may be the same ,upto the normal quality or super fi ...

interestingly a friend has a digital ic that causes the sb3 to click and pop ...[when connected between cdp and dac the dac works fine...so I'm making the assumption that its the sb3]

Now these sound changes are not huge ...but I have a gut feeling it may not be the sb3 at all but the wireless network or the computer ...but I've insuficient knowledge to confirm this.

vrobin
2007-07-02, 01:24
Could something about wireless and buffering be a source of problem? Is your SB wireless or wired?

AndyC_772
2007-07-02, 02:06
Later today i will try to Downgrade the SB3 to see if there is a problem in firmware / Slimserver.

Oh, Lord, here we go again :) Didn't Sean already post the definitive reply to this one?

omega
2007-07-02, 02:17
Hi again!

I Have tried both wireless and wired, The result is the same.

But if i change the volume from "Fixed" to "Adjustable" in player settings, Then the "PAUSE" Fix donīt work. (We are not able to hear any differance)

But "Fixed" Volume setting sounds way better than "Adjustable" so thatīs not an option for us.

Hammer65 have the same result, and also thinks that "Fixed" sounds way better than "Adjustable"

Do you people hear differance in Streaming Flac as WAVE?

What Digital Output is you people using? (Optical or Coaxial)

Itīs easier to hear from the optical if you have an unmodified Coaxial Output on your SB3

After work i will install an older Firmware / Slimerver just for testing..

I have talked to "Hammer65" today (We work in the same Office)
We are going to measure this! (Pink noise etc)

One more thing mabye itīs easier to hear differance if you try to lower your BAS setting on your amplifier? (I Have not tried this yet)

Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

omega
2007-07-02, 03:05
One more thing..

when you try this "PAUSE" fix..

You have to try on varius Tracks / Different Music.
Itīs easier to hear on some music / Good recordings.

Steel Guitars (Not disted) Live for example.

Listen on recording with a lot of "Room" in it.

Listen for change in "Stereo" depth sonic image, upper high high frequency !

Space and reverbation of instruments.
Like Piano string etc.

Once you her itīs easy to pick up the change from more and more tracks.

/Mats :-)

seanadams
2007-07-02, 06:10
I'm one of those open minded people that will give things a go before passing comment ....

Me too, and I wish Omega were open minded enough to consider the possibility that his mind is involved in the hearing process. I think he should give that theory a go before passing comment.

zanash
2007-07-02, 06:11
My unit is wireless .....

as to the rest I know very little ....

but its odd to have a similar issue ?

omega
2007-07-02, 07:22
Hi Again!

seanadams, you say you canīt hear "The effect"
What Stereo gear did you use during the test? External DAC ? and fixed output in player setting, Stream Flac as Wave etc?
How many tracks did you test ? For how long did you test?, Had you allready make up your mind?

What Speakers etc ? Itīs harder to hear "The effect" trough headphones (I havenīt tried this , but "hammer65" have)

Can you tell me what appens when i press power off on the SB3? (Even if you canīt hear this thing, And think itīs only in my and hammer65 minds.)
I think there is some Digital Synk reset or buffer thing during power OFF?

And when you change track, the digital synkrionsation between SB3 and external dac gets "Out of synk" ?
I think itīt a easy to fix if you know what happens during Power on/oFF, Change track etc.

Me and "Hammer65" are thinking about to measure this through the analogoutputs from our external dacs.
And do a full 3D spektrum analyze on it.

seanadams, do you have measure equipment ?


I have the "Digital Outputs Always at on" Setting in Slimserver / SB3.


I havenīt test the internal Dac i donīt think anyone will be able to hear "The Effect" trough the SB3 Analog outputs.?

If i change the volume from "Fixed" to "Adjustable" in player settings, Then the "PAUSE" Fix donīt work. (We are not able to hear any differance)
But as a wrote earlier the "Fixed" sounds way better than "Adjustable"

Itīs easier to hear on my system because i have a "A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter"

"Hammer65" QUAD ESL and they donīt get so high in frequency. ("The focus on midrange")

This canīt realy be a Placebo thing Both of us can hear this cleary and my girfriend to.

Later in this week my brother is coming Visiting me, ang a will put him in the "Test seat"

Anyone planing visiting Sweden, Stockholm, Me and "hammer65" can do a Demo for you.
I am ready for all "Blid test" there is !

We realy want a fix for this because SB3 is Great, we all LOVE IT !

Best regards to all of you!

/Mats :-)

vrobin
2007-07-02, 07:37
I don't know the truth or placebo part of this thread, but... damn, reading you really scare me! Wether you're a troller, a placebo victim or a real good ear... please, take it easy! :)

aubuti
2007-07-02, 08:09
seanadams, do you have measure equipment ?

LOL! Do you think Sean might have had some measure equipment when he invented the Slimp3 and the SB?

This canīt realy be a Placebo thing Both of us can hear this cleary and my girfriend to.
Looking forward to hearing the results of your blind A/B tests.

FYI, I tried your test, and couldn't hear it the effect you claim. That could be because my audio equipment is only "hi-fi", not "high end".....

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 09:28
Mine's pretty high-end "ish" - couldn't hear it though...

But - I don't have one of these:

"A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter"

But I do have Townsend Supertweeters.

PhilNYC
2007-07-02, 10:59
I tried this and couldn't hear any difference with either my Transporter, SB2, or SB3. My music collection is stored in Apple Lossless, but I convert to WAV in Slimserver before sending to the TP/SB. In all cases, I'm using a wireless connection. Using a Dodson DA-218 DAC with the Transporter, a Bel Canto DAC3 with the SB3, and a Zhaolu DAC2.0 with the SB2. Speakers being used are the Focus Audio FS-888, FS-688, and Acoustic Zen Adagios. Preamps include a Blue Circle BC3000mkII w/GZpz power supply, Bel Canto Pre3, and no preamp (SB2 is hooked directly to the amp). Amps include a Blue Circle BC206 hybrid stereo amp, a pair of Bel Canto ref1000 monoblocks, and a Bel Canto S300 stereo amp.

For some context regarding what I do hear, I hear differences when using an Elpac power supply with my SB2; I hear differences between various interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords; and in certain systems I can hear differences in vibration control devices et al. But I couldn't hear a difference in this particular case.

My two cents...

omega
2007-07-02, 11:27
Hi Phil Leigh,

Do you have "Fixed Volume" Setting And no auto gain settings?
Optical or Coaxial output ?
Stream Wave as Flac?

How long / Many recordings did you test?

What server / Firmware Version ?

"Sweetspot" listening etc?

Just came home from the office,
Tested again, a can clearly hear this..

listened to "Phil Keaggy" "Acoustic Sketches"
I can realy here it so clear on some tracks
(More air) strange but i canīt ignore this.

Anyway later this week i plan to measure, (Hope it is measurable)
This people are going to help me.

http://www.audiolab.se/adl/index.htm

But any way i understand you people, you must think me and "Hammer65" is mad?

I canīt blame you.
You done my test and couldn't hear it though.
Thats make us so frustrating Why is we able to hear it ?

There must be some more people out there hearing this?

"Hammer65" and i both have Tubes in our system maby itīs easier to hear with that ?

I realy donīt know..

"Hammer65" think isīs something with the klocks / Synk.

You know we donīt think this is a placebo thing.
I realy donīt beleive in "mass psychosis."
Mabye itīs the northen light or all the LSD we take here i sweden for keep us happy? :-)

Anyway i feel what way this is leading..
Most peolple donīt care litening to us crazy swedes.

I can live with this bugg,
I am happy to have a workaround for it.
Nowdays iīam quite fast with the remote :-)
Just hit the "Pause" Off / On "Pause"

If i listen to a hole record "the good sound" is there all the time.
So the fix is only needed when jumping between tracks

Feels a littlebit sad because i recommended the SB3 for "Hammer65"

But "Hammer65" bougth a "old" SB2 today.
He are going to give med a call later today,
But i think the "Problem is in the Firmware or slimserver.

We will continue invetigating this,
Post anything we found out.

I planning to get a "TVIX" but im not sure how itīs sound from the digital outputs (Jitter, Buffers etc)

But High end is fun, itīs qute fun but frustrating to running into problems like this one,


/Mats :-)

snarlydwarf
2007-07-02, 11:30
If i listen to a hole record "the good sound" is there all the time.
So the fix is only needed when jumping between tracks


How have you configured ReplayGain?

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 11:41
Omega,
Yes I have digital volume fixed (and analogue volume at 63 - i.e. off!), no auto gain and I stream FLAC (as I can hear NO difference streaming WAV or FLAC). Digital o/op is coax into TACT RCS 2.2x (and then Altmann JISCO+UPCI into MR X-DACv3 - all coax...)

I tried it 4 or 5 times with a couple of revealing albums with nice reverb tails - Dire Straits/Communique and Keb Mo' Peace...

6.3.1+latest firmware.

omega
2007-07-02, 11:53
This is me and "Hammers" Player Audio Settings:

Turn OFF Audio:Outputs always on
Crossfade:None
Crossfade Duration:0
Digital Volume Control:Digital output level is Fixed
Preamp Volume Control:0
Audio Startup time:0
Bitrate limiting:No Limit
Volume Adjustment/Replay Gain:Disable Volume Adjustment.
MP3 Streaming Method:Direct Streaming

And Stream Flac as Wave, External DAC. Power supplys filters good cables etc etc..

/Mats

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 11:57
Omega - try it with Preamp Volume Control = 63 (ie the analogue stages are turned off) - does it still work?

omega
2007-07-02, 12:07
Hi Agian Phil Leigh!

Thanks for giving this a try! :-)

Can you test one more thing?
If you have a Optical cable, Try the Optical Out from SB3
Mabye your "Altmann JISCO+UPCI" is helping you ?
Please try without the "Altmann JISCO+UPCI" over Optical.

Both me and Hammer65 hear the differance in Stream Flac as Wave.
And many more in this forum.
Anyway i hear the bugg with Flac streamed as FLAC.

Do you have the X-PSU also ? (I Have)

Best regards

/Mats the strange Swed ! :-)

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 12:14
Hi Agian Phil Leigh!

Thanks for giving this a try! :-)

Can you test one more thing?
If you have a Optical cable, Try the Optical Out from SB3
Mabye your "Altmann JISCO+UPCI" is helping you ?
Please try without the "Altmann JISCO+UPCI" over Optical.

Both me and Hammer65 hear the differance in Stream Flac as Wave.
And many more in this forum.
Anyway i hear the bugg with Flac streamed as FLAC.

Do you have the X-PSU also ? (I Have)

Best regards

/Mats the strange Swed ! :-)


Mats - I can't try optical at the moment as I don't have a cable. However, can you clarify...do you hear this effect with both "stream flac as wav" and "stream flac as flac"?

I do have the X-PSU.

If I take the Altmann boxes out of the loop I don't like the sound and the effect of taking them out is bigger than the one you describe (I think).

Have you tried setting preamp volume to 63 (off) yet?
Phil

omega
2007-07-02, 12:33
Hi Phil.

I just tried to set the Analog out Volume on 100% (On The remote)
But the same thing,
Way are you thinking about the Analog output ?

My PREAMP VOLUME CONTROL is 0 In slimserver.

""can you clarify...do you hear this effect with both "stream flac as wav" and "stream flac as flac"?""
-Yes i Do and my friend.

I can understand if most people donīt hear this effekt
Itīs very very high up in the "Room area" Freqenzy.

Please try without the altman and Optical or a Combo.
Mabye you then can hear the changes i talking about.

Do you have a Linear supply to your SB3 ?

Itīs offcource not Night and Day but quite annoying.

/Mats :-)

omega
2007-07-02, 12:36
Phil.

I Run on 6.5.2 but i will try to downgrade. (Running out of ideas now)

Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 12:40
Hi Phil.

I just tried to set the Analog out Volume on 100% (On The remote)
But the same thing,
Way are you thinking about the Analog output ?

My PREAMP VOLUME CONTROL is 0 In slimserver.

""can you clarify...do you hear this effect with both "stream flac as wav" and "stream flac as flac"?""
-Yes i Do and my friend.

I can understand if most people donīt hear this effekt
Itīs very very high up in the "Room area" Freqenzy.

Please try without the altman and Optical or a Combo.
Mabye you then can hear the changes i talking about.

Do you have a Linear supply to your SB3 ?

Itīs offcource not Night and Day but quite annoying.

/Mats :-)

Mats - my Townsend Supertweeters can resolve the top end frequencies (even if I can't hear them!)

Yes I have a linear supply on my SB3.
You need to try this with the slim server pre-amp vol control set to 63 (NOT zero)...does it still happen? Setting to 63 effectively mutes the analogue circuits in the SB3 which MAY interact with the digital ones...
Phil

omega
2007-07-02, 12:59
HI igain Phil! :-)

Thank for all your time and chatting with me!

Ok now i understand i will try this 63 setting.
Mabye not this evening, Me and my girfriend live in a flat, And isīs quite late here in sweden for more testing.
I send i report later!

One more Question,
You are running with "Tact" why are you using the X-Dac then?
Is not tac a "Digital" amp ? SB3 digital out ->TACT digital in -> Analog to Speakers.

Are you using the room correction on you Tact?
If is can you disable this during my "Pause" Off/On test?

Please tell me a litte more of you setup.

/Mats :-)

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 13:10
HI igain Phil! :-)

Thank for all your time and chatting with me!

Ok now i understand i will try this 63 setting.
Mabye not this evening, Me and my girfriend live in a flat, And isīs quite late here in sweden for more testing.
I send i report later!

One more Question,
You are running with "Tact" why are you using the X-Dac then?
Is not tac a "Digital" amp ? SB3 digital out ->TACT digital in -> Analog to Speakers.

Are you using the room correction on you Tact?
If is can you disable this during my "Pause" Off/On test?

Please tell me a litte more of you setup.

/Mats :-)
Mats = My TACT has no DAC/ADC - it is purely a digital unit (digital in, digital out). I like the sound of the MF Dac.

If I turn off the TACT room Correction my systems sounds terrible - really bad - compare to it being on.
Phil

omega
2007-07-02, 13:23
ok Phil i understand.

I Have a "good" room with big paintings on the walls to kill nasty room echos etc, and a very big carpet on the floor.
And Camebride Azur 840a amp.
Do you listen in stereo or 5.1 ?

To bad that you cant turn the TACT room correction off.
I think itīs harder for you to hear my bugg, with Room Corr ON.
But if it soundīs bad OFF, i Understand.

You have a very good Stereo ! :-)
But with the digital room treatment itīs impossible to sort things out, (Longer digital paths) if my problem is in some digital buffer or synk, mabye your Tac sort this things out and you are not having the same problem as i have, because your TAC fix this for you?


/Mats :-)

Phil Leigh
2007-07-02, 13:29
Mats,
I listen to music in 2.1...5.1 is for DVD/HDTV only.
I don't think the TACT is doing anything much - but the Altmann devices may be. If the problem is related to clocks/jitter...that is what the Altmann devices address.
Regards,
Phil

omega
2007-07-02, 13:42
Phil, I liten only in stereo,
Please try, if you have the time without the altman, And with Optical some day.

If you can hear the things i and "Hammer65" do without the altman then we know itīs jitter or clocks.
I donīt know how good the X-DAC v3 is on treating jitter?

My friend "Hammer65" have built his own DAC i think itīs "Crystal" inside. He is very good on the electronics side,

He helped me modd my SB3 Coaxial Output with a "digital isolation transformer"
Before that modd the Coax sounded much worse than the optical

We both work at the same office and talk alot about "high end" etc

I am "only" a computer engineer so iam not that good building stuff like "Hammer65"

/Mats :-)

Pale Blue Ego
2007-07-02, 22:16
Gotta be the acid.

zanash
2007-07-03, 00:34
Is the isolation tranformer internal or external ....

I've built a unit that just plugs into the dig out and the dig ic connects to it ....

Oh by the way the effects i'm hearing are via a dac ! [either a src2496 or the dac section of the quad 99cdp2] So that discounts the ana output stage in my case....

thought the sb3 volume still operates..there for it must be working in the digital domain ?

opaqueice
2007-07-03, 01:00
Why have you not tried a blind test? It would take you 5 minutes - far less time than has been wasted so far discussing this.

omega
2007-07-03, 02:20
-zanash
I have a internal "Digital Isolation" transformer on the SB3. + A Linear Powersuply.

And i have 2 "isolation transformers" for the 230V / 50 HZ + A "Regular" HiFI filter (Noise Harvester)
Here inte sweden we got 223V / 50 HZ i think in the us itīs 110V/60 Hz?

The hole chain must be perfect "from the power in the wall" to the "speakers".

We are talkin about very very fine detials here..

"isolation transformers" for the 230V / 50 HZ is quite expensive, not all people have them.
And without them you gets a lot of dirt from the Power net..
It dosenīt matter how good your stereo is if you donīt have Clean Power.


"isolation transformers" for the 230V / 50 HZ is one of the best uppgrade i ever done!
This makes the hole stereo isolated from the power net.

-opaqueice
My girfriend did a blindtest on me yesterday, yes itīs not in my mind..

"Hammer65" and i are goning to try with a Benchmark Dac or some Jitter Measure device.

We think if we got some lines of code to the slimserver thats do the same thing that happens during power off /On when you jumping between tracks, our problem would be gone.

Fragmentation of the buffer in SB3 ? Jitter ? we realy donīt know.
But some thing happens when you jump between tracks...

If we start a hole album at power on the sound i good all the time. (if we leave it on Track 1,2,3,4, etc)

Best Regards


/Mats :-)

opaqueice
2007-07-03, 08:42
-opaqueice
My girfriend did a blindtest on me yesterday, yes itīs not in my mind..


OK, can you provide a few details? How many trials did you do, and what was your score? Are you certain there were no clues you could use to tell which was which? For example when my SB3 powers on, there is a slight pop from the speakers, so that would need to be avoided (for example by turning down the volume during the power off/on cycle). Presumably the test wasn't double blind, but that's probably OK at this level so long as your girlfriend was careful not to give you any clues, verbal or otherwise.

Mainly, the important thing is to go into the test in good faith, understanding that what you thought you heard might be placebo, and trying your best to eliminate all possible clues so as to make the test fair. If you do that, report a little bit on the details, and the result is positive, people will take this seriously and try to understand why it's happening. Until then, the odds are overwhelming that this is placebo - I say that based both on knowledge of jitter, the SB3, etc., and on extensive experience with audiophiles.

omega
2007-07-04, 02:40
-Phil i I did the 63 preeamp setting.. but the same result.



-opaqueice

Hi,
I selected neil youngs album "Rust never sleeps" the first track "My My, Hay Hay (Out of the Blue)

My girlfriend then played the first track "My My, Hay Hay (Out of the Blue) for 5 times in a row.

She started the track from the beginning each test run, Played the song for about 30 sec then press the "Pause"
Then a very short break, Then she had two options.

1. Just press "Pause" again and continue = The same Sound no "High End Effect"
Or
2. press "Pause" and "power OFF", "power ON, "Now Playning", "Pause" = "High End Effect"


I was not aware of any of her Choices during the test, My eyes was shut.


2 Times she Just pressed "Pause" again and continue = The same Sound no "High End Effect"
3 Times She pressed "Pause" and "power OFF", "power ON, "Now Playning", "Pause" = "High End Effect"

I was 100% right all the time...


About the "Click" sound you mention, My SB3 is always silent, i Have never heard any "Clicks" During power On/Off.
But i have the "Digital Outputs Always on setting" and a External Dac.



My brother was visiting yesterday, he needed som help with a "GPS" and a map program too his Computer,
Anyway i did "Test" Run on him. This was not a "Blind Test"

But i just said:

-Sitt in the "Sweet spoot" and listen to my new Stereo setup, it sounds realy good.

I selected "Hellsongs" album "Lounge" and track "Run to the hills"
Then i played this for a lite time , Then i "Restarded" the track from the beginning and i did the "Pause" and "power OFF", "power ON, "Now Playning", "Pause" = "High End Effect"

I did not tell him anything, (This was just a test for my own).

Then he said:

-Now it even sounds better!
-What did you do ? Removing som kind of filter ?
-The sound is more free now, feels like more Air.

Then i told him about this hole thing, (Placebo etc)
And i played more track from other albums.

He "LOL" about it the hold thing!

He said:
-This is not a placebo thing! The differance is huge!

Later this week another friend will visiting me and pickup som CDīs that i ordered for him.
The group is called "Groundation" a nice reggae band i can highly recommend.
I will do a "Test" Run on him too.

Anyway i have not have the time for much testing this week,
I am planning a "Firmware" and "Slimserver" downgrade, just for testing..

"Hammer65" is doning some testing and will post something later?

But This friday "AUDIO LAB DATA" is coming home to my flat and measure !
I will start with "Pink Noise" Wave and se if we see something.

But the guy a talked with said that a "Spektrum Analyse" maybe not showing anything.
They measure from 20 HZ - 20.000 HZ "Only" and if this is a "Overtone" thing beyond 20.000 HZ..
We will try and see this for a starter.

This kind of measurement cost some money... I will se how far i will take this thing..

/Mats :-)

zanash
2007-07-04, 06:03
Interestingly...with the addition of the linear psu My take on the problem has gone away. Or has been masked by the vast improvement in sound quality following its addition.

This could indicate a slight sagging of the power available, when changing track, hence the poorer sound quality ?

I use a 3kw isolation tranny on my mains which feed every peice of my system...I'll try my small digital isolation tranny and see how things go ..

opaqueice
2007-07-05, 00:43
But This friday "AUDIO LAB DATA" is coming home to my flat and measure !
I will start with "Pink Noise" Wave and se if we see something.

But the guy a talked with said that a "Spektrum Analyse" maybe not showing anything.
They measure from 20 HZ - 20.000 HZ "Only" and if this is a "Overtone" thing beyond 20.000 HZ..
We will try and see this for a starter.


Interesting. I'll try this myself when I get back to my SB (I'm away for another week).

If you want to do a test, why don't you try audiodiffmaker? That's a free, easy-to-use program that takes two audio files and "subtracts" them (it makes a new file which is the difference). You can then listen to the difference file, and if you don't hear anything, or you hear only low-level noise, it means the files were identical to begin with.

If you record the analogue out of your SB or DAC playing a file right after you've turned it on, and again not right after you've turned it on, you can use the program to compare them. If there are any differences they'll show up very clearly. I did this myself to see if there are any differences between FLAC and WAV playback at the analogue outs of my SB (if there are, they're inaudible compared to white noise at about -80dB, which was the best resolution I could get easily).

zanash
2007-07-05, 02:18
great idea but ...in practice I think your ears are more sensitive ...

in my system I thought flac sounded better than wav ...In another system Flac was superior to applelossless on the same track ...flac had more bit and energy ..the apple sounded light weight.

But thats getting of the topic

servies
2007-07-05, 02:31
great idea but ...in practice I think your ears are more sensitive ...

in my system I thought flac sounded better than wav ...In another system Flac was superior to applelossless on the same track ...flac had more bit and energy ..the apple sounded light weight.

But thats getting of the topic
ROFLMAO. Do you know what lossless means?

zanash
2007-07-05, 11:12
I know what it ought to mean ...it should mean that its identical to the original data.... but different processing will cause different sound interpretations ....now I'm no expert on digital recording etc ..but I do have a good ear for music...

the differences were reasonably plain to hear ....now it could well be down to other factors as the flac files were mine and the loss less were someone else's ....

I have no definitive answers....I was hoping that someone hear with more experience could hold a guiding light rather than the response offered .....

Phil Leigh
2007-07-05, 11:20
Omega - If you have slimserver set to "resume after power off" it is much easier to test - all you have to do is power off and then power on - play starts again from where the power went off..

try this and see if you can still hear the problem?
(I can't on my Stax headphones...)

opaqueice
2007-07-06, 02:18
great idea but ...in practice I think your ears are more sensitive ...


Well, in this test you use your ears - you listen to the difference file. You're just making it MUCH easier to hear the differences by removing everything else. If you don't hear anything in the difference file, you've proved conclusively that there were no differences to begin with.

Incidentally I did this with FLAC and WAV, and the difference file (from a recording made at the analogue outs of my SB3) consisted of more or less white noise at around -80dB down from the signal. The test file was a piano and cello concerto. I think the noise was coming from the recording process and the A->D it entails. With better equipment you could get better resolution.

In any case that proves that if there is any difference between FLAC and WAV playback on my SB3 it's much quieter than white noise at -80dB, and I don't care about it.

omega
2007-07-06, 13:14
Hi the "Measure guy" from AUDIO DATA LAB was here today + many other people!!
Many of my friends is very interested in this.
I will get the result of the Measure at Monday.

We run Pinknoise "S_pinknoise_20_-6dBfs.flac" from sweeps.zip downloaded from "Inguz"
Measure from the analog outputs from my DAC (Musical Fidelity X-dAC V3)
We did 4 Measures, 2 "Goodsound" and 2 "Not so good sound"

The measure guy said this is a quite simple measure, And maybe not showing anything.
This "Fenomenia" is maybe some "phase" or overtone thing.?

But soon we know?!

yesterday daniel a friend of mine was visiting me, but he had more difficult hearing "The PAUSE thing"
He said - "maybe?! "Some volume increase" or "something" but iīm not 100%

But Stefan and "Hammer65" were here during the measure.
They both heard the "The Better sound" Easy.

We all also heard "The change" if we played "S_pinknoise_20_-6dBfs.flac" out on the speakers and did the "PAUSE OFF/ON PAUSE" !




-Phil Leigh

Thanks for the tip,
I have tried "resume after power off", but it seems to give the same result but not always?. (I Only run a qick test this evening)
i will try this more later in the weeked.

Can you try installing slimserver version SlimServer_v6.5.2.exe ?
And see if you hear something.

I have downgraded to 6.5.0 but i canīt listen this evening.. (neighbours)
Reporting more about this later.




-opaqueice

I maybe try audiodiffmaker later,
Thanks for the tip !!


Best Regards!


/Mats :-)

audioengr
2007-07-07, 17:52
Has anyone suspected that perhaps the DAC is changing modes when the song is restarted?

I have seen D/A chips react strangely before to computer-generated audio streams. The streams are usually not identical to the typical CD player stream. Sync can be a problem and sometimes the starting frames are hosed etc..

The way to test this is to try another DAC in place of Omega's DAC.

Another test is to stop the track and then power down the DAC and then back-up and then resume.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

seanadams
2007-07-07, 22:00
There is nothing different between a pause and a power off aside from what's shown on the screen. Absolutely NOTHING is actually powered off when you press power. It just shows a clock (or whatever) on the screen instead of now playing. It's all just pictures sent down by the server.

And there is no difference in what is transmitted on the s/pdif. You hit pause, it sends zeroes. You hit power, it sends zeroes. You hit play after pause, it sends the music. You hit play after "power on", and it sends the music in exactly the same way.

I don't see the point in doing measurements if you've already decided in advance that the test will be inconclusive.

If you want to do a proper test, just use a sound card to record the data and you will see it is the same. End of story.

I know there are many people who would like to believe that audio products are made of magic and that there are mysterious phenomena that we don't understand. But even if that were the case, your methodology is a complete joke and you would never discover anything this way. It's pseudoscience, just like astrology. You're just trying to convince yourself that it's real by getting your friends to agree with you and attempting tests that you don't even understand. I don't believe for one second that you actually did a proper double blind test, or that you even understand why it's necessary to use your ears and ONLY your ears for a listening test.

What's the point? Do you just want attention, or do you actually think that you can prove something this way?

JulieL
2007-07-08, 09:31
Have you tried turning the display brightness down to minimum?

jt25741
2007-07-08, 09:41
Have you tried turning the display brightness down to minimum?

I've noticed that even with an external DAC, shutting the display completely off on my stock SB3 has a noticable and positive effect on sound quality to me. For serious listening I usually do this. I would like a setting in slimserver to shut off display after 30 seconds or so...but to allow full brightness whenever browsing or navigating through the menus. But that is another topic.

cliveb
2007-07-08, 10:15
I would like a setting in slimserver to shut off display after 30 seconds or so...but to allow full brightness whenever browsing or navigating through the menus.
Player Settings -> Display -> Brightness. Set "brightness when on" to "4 (brightest)" and the others to "0 (dark)".

To adjust the time after which the display is switched off, go to Player Settings -> Basic Settings -> Screensaver and set "screensaver delay time" to the period you want.

jt25741
2007-07-08, 11:14
Player Settings -> Display -> Brightness. Set "brightness when on" to "4 (brightest)" and the others to "0 (dark)".

To adjust the time after which the display is switched off, go to Player Settings -> Basic Settings -> Screensaver and set "screensaver delay time" to the period you want.

Thanks Clive...this is a great help.

opaqueice
2007-07-09, 05:32
What's the point? Do you just want attention, or do you actually think that you can prove something this way?

I think this is a little overly harsh. He did try a blind test, or says he did, and I think we have to take him at his word. I don't think he's a troll.

omega, if you really think there's a difference and want to track it down, the best way is to test possible causes one at a time. The first thing to do is record the digital stream going to the DAC in the two cases, and make sure it's identical. If it's not it will be very surprising (it will mean something in the SB really is malfunctioning). That's very easy to do with any computer soundcard.

Even if the digital stream is identical it's still possible for the analogue signal coming out of the DAC to be different due to jitter. To test that, audiodiffmaker is by far the most precise tool you can try - it's much better than recording the sound using a mic, or listening with unaided ears. So record the analogue out of the DAC (again, easily done with a computer sound card) and use audiodiffmaker to compare them. I did this for WAV versus FLAC in a total of about 20 minutes (most of which was spent searching for a loopback cable), including installing the software. This test might exaggerate the actual differences (because of noise), but it can't underestimate them.

hammer65
2007-07-09, 06:36
I'm very satisfied with my squeezebox and my music listening life is much easier since I got rid of all of my cdrecords.
The only problem is the issue described in this thread. To obtain highest sound quality I have to restart the unit.
Many of my friends have been at my home for listening tests and almost 90% could hear the difference.
I can't buy Seanadams comment: "There is nothing different between a pause and a power off aside from what's shown on the screen". Why can we hear the difference when nothing happens?Could it be a clock issue or maybe a jitterproblem that affects the soundquality?
We are only interested if someone could find a solution/fix for our problem. We are not talking about placebo affect nor problems with scandinavian ears.
/hammer65

seanadams
2007-07-09, 07:14
I'm very satisfied with my squeezebox and my music listening life is much easier since I got rid of all of my cdrecords.
The only problem is the issue described in this thread. To obtain highest sound quality I have to restart the unit.
Many of my friends have been at my home for listening tests and almost 90% could hear the difference.
I can't buy Seanadams comment: "There is nothing different between a pause and a power off aside from what's shown on the screen". Why can we hear the difference when nothing happens?Could it be a clock issue or maybe a jitterproblem that affects the soundquality?
We are only interested if someone could find a solution/fix for our problem. We are not talking about placebo affect nor problems with scandinavian ears.
/hammer65

Hammer,

I can't fix the alleged problem for you if I don't know what it is. Based on the evidence you have provided and my experience having designed and tested these products, it is my opinion that you are indeed experiencing a placebo affect. Your emphasis on the importance of friends agreeing with you (as opposed to observable evidence) only underscores that. Lots of "young earth creationists" agree with each other - that doesn't make them right. Reality is not something you vote on.

However, I am open minded and happy to investigate any real phenomenon that you can prove. In order to do that you need to either provide real, scientific, controlled listening tests or some very simple measurement data (ie s/pdif recording).

I am not lying to you how the poweroff function works. You can use an ammeter if you don't believe me.

Sean

Phil Leigh
2007-07-09, 07:28
Hammer...
Sean ought to know if there is a difference in operation between power off and pause - after all he did design the thing!.

If you check the "locked" light on your MF DAC you will see that it never even flickers when changing from pause-play-power off, implying that the digital stream is uninterrupted and must simply be changing to zeroes when not playing.


I think that the reason that "resume after power off" works as it does is because all that happens when power is off is that the display turns off...

You really need to try OpaqueIce's suggestion.

By the way, have you measured the RT60 response of your room?

JimC
2007-07-09, 08:35
...I can't buy Seanadams comment: "There is nothing different between a pause and a power off aside from what's shown on the screen". Why can we hear the difference when nothing happens?Could it be a clock issue or maybe a jitterproblem that affects the soundquality?

Hammer, you're new here, so you may not realize that Sean designed the Squeezebox. If he says there's nothing different between pause and power off, then I'm pretty damn sure there's nothing different. He knows exactly what the hardware does. Really.


We are only interested if someone could find a solution/fix for our problem. We are not talking about placebo affect nor problems with scandinavian ears.
/hammer65

What everyone is trying to tell you is that you haven't provided useful data to help solve the problem. You keep working through listening tests with friends, neighbors, and even a measurement guy, when this isn't what will solve the "problem" you are talking about.

If you really want someone to help you, try following their suggestions. The most important one has been mentioned several times now: using a computer soundcard, record the digital output from the Squeezebox for both cases and compare them. If the ones-and-zeroes for the music are different, then the Squeezebox is at fault; if they aren't, the problem is either somewhere else in the chain, or it is a placebo effect. To confirm it isn't in your DAC , try recording the analog output from the DAC (as suggested a couple of times now) and use the audiodiff tool to compare the files. A difference here shows the fault is with the DAC.

Since none of us can actually participate in your "friends and family" testing as we're all a few thousand miles away, the results of that testing are useless to us. The only way anyone is going to be able to help is if you cooperate by attempting the tests suggested.



-=> Jim

omega
2007-07-09, 12:17
Hi !

-JimC

-seanadams


To clear things out.
Both me and "hammer65" are audiophiles that love the squeezebox, we both hear this "effect" and most of our friends to.

We are not the same person.

we both have the same ISP here in Sweden "Bredbandsbolaget"
We work at the same office.

We are 100% serious about this and not some kids playing around and "Trolling" your forum.
If anyone at Logitech want conntact with us we can send our e-mail or telephonenumbers to confirm our existence.

Anyone reading this thread is warm welcome to listen at both my and "Hammer65" Stereo (visiting sweden during vacation etc)
If this thing is a "placebo" or "collective obsessional behavior" then itīs very easy to get "New members here i sweden"
Then 90% of all people that have been home at my and "Hammers65" homes are now "Members" of our little "believer" club.


I am not a brain scientist or a doctor, perhaps this is a "placebo", but none that have been listen at our homes think it is.

I started this thread in this audiophile forum because we needed help from more pepole to track this down.
Itīs to bad that not anyone more hear this thing, This is very frustrating.

I contacted "Audio data lab" for a starter to see if this is measurable during a simple "Pink noise" test.
anyway i talked to the "Measure guy" today, he got strange Measure result, and he wants to do more measures later this week.
We used "S_pinknoise_20_-6dBfs.flac" from sweeps.zip downloaded from "Inguz"
Next measure the "Measure guy" is bringing his own "Sweeps" and "Test tones"

As i wrote earlier we donīt think this showing anything, But why not give it a try?

We then go further with using a computer soundcard, record the digital output from the Squeezebox etc.

But why canīt you guys at Logitec help us out here?
"Hammer65" and i donīt know how to measure jitter etc.

You demand proof before investigate any real phenomenon, this not so easy for two normal squeezebox users...

But we will try to deliver.. I understand your point of view, Realy.

If you are open minded, Please do som Measure on the digital out etc.
I Think itīs easier for logitec to track this down, You have all the mesuring devices and so on.





Best regards!



/Mats :-)

S-Man
2007-07-09, 12:55
I can go back to the "High End" any time, Pressing the "PAUSE" on the remote, and Power OFF / ON the SB3 as described above.


/Mats :-)

Please could you clarify if what you mean by power ON/OFF.

Are you pressing the red button on the remote or are you disconnecting the 5V supply from the SB3?

Phil Leigh
2007-07-09, 13:13
Please could you clarify if what you mean by power ON/OFF.

Are you pressing the red button on the remote or are you disconnecting the 5V supply from the SB3?

I think that from what Mats said before they are pressing the red button...

omega
2007-07-09, 13:24
Hi "S-Man"

Only "ON/OFF" on the remote "Red button" se step 5-9



1. Power on your SB3.
2. Select a good recording, start to play. (My and Hammers sound is now "High END")
3. Select another track on the same album (The sound is now reduced "Hi FI")
4. Select the same recording / track that you started with in step 2. (The sound is still reduced "Hi FI")

5. Press the pause on SB3 remote.
6. Power OFF your SB3. "Red button"
7. Power on your SB3. "Red button"
8. Press "Now Playing on SB3"
9. Press Pause on SB3 remote, Now the sound is back on "High END again"


To clarify some more.

Both "Hammer65" and i run through good external DACs
We have not done this test through the analog outputs on SB3.

We both have custom build linear power supplys

We only play FLAC streamed as WAVE.
But we hear the same thing if Streaming FLAC as FLAC.

We have tried to downgrade to slimerver 6.5.0 but the problem is still there.

we have tried "Wired" and "Wireless" but the problem is still there.

We have tried "Optical" and "Coaxial" digital output and the problem is still there.


/Mats :-)

S-Man
2007-07-09, 13:41
If it's only the red button then the chances of a change in sound are extremely small. Having investigated the power supply to quite an extent I can confirm what Sean Adams said about the current consumption of the SB3.
All the red button does is change the display!

The display uses quite a lot of power - something like 200mA load on the 5V supply. This could have an effect on the sound. The SB3 is quite sensitive to the quality of the 5V supply (and the 12V supply on the analogue side).

I've owned an SB+ and now own 2 SB3s but I can't say I've ever noticed any sound quality differences dependant on button press sequence.

omega
2007-07-09, 13:47
Hi "S-Man"

One more thing..

If we change the volume from "Fixed" to "Adjustable" in player settings, Then the "PAUSE" Fix donīt work. (We are not able to hear any differance)

But "Fixed" Volume setting sounds way better than "Adjustable" so thatīs not an option for us.


/Mats :-)

seanadams
2007-07-09, 13:54
You demand proof before investigate any real phenomenon, this not so easy for two normal squeezebox users...

What would you like me to do? I listened and I can't hear it.

There is nothing more I can do without information from you. So the next step is you need to do some very simple tests which we can reproduce here. The first we're suggesting is to make recordings using a sound card with s/pdif. That should take you about five minutes once you have a suitable sound card at hand.

Forget about jitter. Jitter is simply clock noise, and is easily measurable with appropriate equipment - as easily as we can measure the noise floor of a DAC. It doesn't work the way you think it does. It doesn't change when you press buttons on the remote. I have taken extensive measurements of SB3 and Transporter's jitter characteristics, and under all circumstances it is a perfectly gaussian distribution with no detectable correlation to any type of system activity.

You see, there is nothing I can test for you, because I have already tested the product and what you are describing is not consistent with what I know about it. But I am open to any evidence to the contrary.

Again, the most plausible explanation is placebo, and the more people agree with you, the more likely it is! That's the whole point of it. You believe what you are suggested to believe. It is a well established concept in medicine (and elsewhere), and in audio it works exactly the same way.

If you don't believe me and you want to do your own jitter measurements I am happy to tell you what equipment to buy and tell you how to set it up. It'll run you about $20K. Or if you just want to look for any difference at all, you could use a sound card to make analog recordings of a high frequency sine wave and compare the side bands - this is not difficult, and your measurement guy probably knows how to do this.

Finally, please note that in my discussions with you I have not cited how many people agree with me. It's completely irrelevant. Everything I'm telling you is observable and falsifiable. You don't have to believe me. You can test it yourself. Your statements, however, are not falsifiable because I can not test them - I don't have your ears. A statement which is not falsifiable is not necessarily true. You really need to understand that if you're going to make any progress on this.

Good luck, I have no more ideas for you.

seanadams
2007-07-09, 13:58
But "Fixed" Volume setting sounds way better than "Adjustable" so thatīs not an option for us.


There is no difference between fixed and adjustable (set to 100%). All that happens when you choose fixed is that the volume commands are ignored. Nothing different happens in the device. There is no piece of circuitry that is taken out of the chain or anything like that. It is not like the bypass switch on an equalizer.

Again, if you don't believe me you can verify this by recording the output.

JJZolx
2007-07-09, 14:02
Hi "S-Man"

One more thing..

If we change the volume from "Fixed" to "Adjustable" in player settings, Then the "PAUSE" Fix donīt work. (We are not able to hear any differance)

But "Fixed" Volume setting sounds way better than "Adjustable" so thatīs not an option for us.

/Mats :-)

What happens if you play the same track (preferably a very short one) back to back by queueing up the same song in the playlist several times in a row? Do you still hear a difference?

Can you better charecterize the difference, beyond "more highend"? Better dynamics, better detail, more air, better soundstage? Is there a volume difference?

What are your results if you use the SB3's built-in DAC instead of an external DAC?

omega
2007-07-09, 14:24
-seanadams

you wrote this in this thread:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25907&highlight=fixed+volume

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to ensure 16-bit passthrough with the additional bits being zeroes, choose "fixed digital volume" in player settings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can you please explain some more about this for me?

Many other in this forum claims that "Fixed" sounds better than variable. But is this a "placebo" thing to?

/Mats :-)

seanadams
2007-07-09, 14:47
-seanadams

you wrote this in this thread:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25907&highlight=fixed+volume

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to ensure 16-bit passthrough with the additional bits being zeroes, choose "fixed digital volume" in player settings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Can you please explain some more about this for me?


It just makes it so you (or someone else in the household) can't accidentally change the volume. It is precisely the same thing as if you set it to variable at 100%.

You just have to make sure it's set to 100% when using variable, whereas in fixed you are _prevented_ from choosing a different level. THAT IS ALL THE SETTING DOES!



Many other in this forum claims that "Fixed" sounds better than variable. But is this a "placebo" thing to?


Yes, now you're starting to get it. ;)

ezkcdude
2007-07-09, 16:53
Sean, it must drive you crazy when people essentially think they know more than you do about your own device. To your credit, you've got the patience and self-assuredness to keep this stupid thread open this long.

crooner
2007-07-09, 19:15
Totally agreed. The most useless and absurd thread on this forum ever. There's a similar thread on the TP as well. Crazy times!

seanadams
2007-07-09, 20:28
Sean, it must drive you crazy when people essentially think they know more than you do about your own device. To your credit, you've got the patience and self-assuredness to keep this stupid thread open this long.

It really does. I am frustrated and it makes me not want to come here, but I have seen what happens if nobody challenges this sort of nonsense.

pfarrell
2007-07-09, 20:33
seanadams wrote:
> ezkcdude;213352 Wrote:
>> Sean, it must drive you crazy...
>
> It really does. I am frustrated and it makes me not want to come here,
> but I have seen what happens if nobody challenges this sort of
> nonsense.

Well, I for one, really, *really* appreciate your taking the time to
hang arround the forums. Its one of the things I love about my
SqueezeBoxen and Transporter.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

crooner
2007-07-09, 20:37
And also it's the price to pay for being a recognized audio designer in the 21st century. Jim Bongiorno, Sid Smith, Dick Sequerra, Miles Nestorovic and other illustrious audio legends predated the internet forum craze in their heyday.

Your typical forum was the letters section of the trade magazines of the day. Nothing compared to this!

hammer65
2007-07-10, 02:09
I have been an audiofile for many years and tried a lot of different equipment both transistor/valve amplifiers, dynamic/electrostatic speakers. Some of my friends are constructors of HiFi-equipment and I have lend my ears for many critical listening sessions.
It's very sad that you Seanadams has an negatively attitude to critisism. Isn't it important as a constructor/inventor to be openminded and try to listen to critical voices. Even if our problem sounds rather strange. I have contacted a friend/researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology here in Stockholm for help with the measurement. Maybe this measurement will tell us if everything is placebo or not.

AndyC_772
2007-07-10, 02:41
I don't think it's that Sean has a negative attitude to criticism - quite the opposite, in fact. I think it's just that, given a detailed technical knowledge of how the equipment works, he can't see any reason whatsoever for the behaviour you're claiming. Nor can I. (And thank you Sean, it's nice to see actual science used in a hi-fi discussion for once!)

I'm sure we can all agree that the sound that exists in your room depends on the electrical signal that comes out of the back of your Squeezebox - yes? So, for that sound to change, the electrical signal that comes out of your Squeezebox must also change. Agreed?

Here's the difficulty. Sean has explained that 'switching the Squeezebox off' doesn't really do anything but change what's displayed on the screen. The hardware that drives the SPDIF output continues to do so, it just drives out zeros rather than music. There's no subtle internal change that occurs.

In fact, given that you're using an external DAC, there really are very few variables that the SB could possibly affect even if it were designed to do so.

- it could transmit a different pattern of ones and zeros. This would be a bug, and a dead easy one to spot simply by recording the SPDIF output digitally and comparing before/after.

- the electrical characteristics of the driver could change, giving more or less noise, jitter, overshoot or other recognised degradation of a digital signal. These are defined by the choice of driver, PCB layout and clock source - hardware parameters that are set when the SB is manufactured. Fiddling with the remote won't change those.

I don't think anyone's saying that you don't hear a difference - only that it's virtually impossible for the Squeezebox to actually be behaving differently when it sounds 'good' vs 'not so good' to your ears.

Robin Bowes
2007-07-10, 02:48
hammer65 wrote:

> It's very sad that you Seanadams has an negatively attitude to
> critisism. Isn't it important as a constructor/inventor to be
> openminded and try to listen to critical voices. Even if our problem
> sounds rather strange. I have contacted a friend/researcher at the
> Royal Institute of Technology here in Stockholm for help with the
> measurement. Maybe this measurement will tell us if everything is
> placebo or not.

Sean doesn't have a negative attitude to criticism. He is just getting
frustrated that you still haven't proved that this phenomenon actually
exists even though he has suggested ways you might do that.

It's not for Slim Devices to discount every crackpot
idea/suggestion/fault concerning their products. It's up to those who
put forward the idea/suggestion/fault to demonstrate unequivocally that
it exists and provide a mechanism to reproduce it. If you can do that
then I'll bet dollars to dough nuts that Sean would be the first to take
notice and work on fixing the issue.

R.

darrenyeats
2007-07-10, 03:27
On one hand, I agree we can't go much further without a blind test.


I think it's just that, given a detailed technical knowledge of how the equipment works, he can't see any reason whatsoever for the behaviour you're claiming.

On the other hand, you are shooting down someone's experience based on whether someone "can see a reason" for it or not. Actually that is not a scientific approach either.

So I urge hammer65 to do some significant blind testing so we can move on to a conclusion, or to more productive discussion.
Darren

aubuti
2007-07-10, 03:32
I have been an audiofile for many years and tried a lot of different equipment both transistor/valve amplifiers, dynamic/electrostatic speakers. Some of my friends are constructors of HiFi-equipment and I have lend my ears for many critical listening sessions.
It's very sad that you Seanadams has an negatively attitude to critisism. Isn't it important as a constructor/inventor to be openminded and try to listen to critical voices. Even if our problem sounds rather strange. I have contacted a friend/researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology here in Stockholm for help with the measurement. Maybe this measurement will tell us if everything is placebo or not.
Sean *is* being open minded. He has explained how the SB is designed, what different functions do, and reported on his own measurements and listening tests. He and others in the forum have also patiently explained how to test things yourself.

So far you not only haven't proven anything, but you haven't even presented any serious data, or even given the impression that you are willing to provide data to back up your claim. One supposed blind test with N=5 is it. Why not *do* some of the tests that have been suggested, such as recording and comparing the digital output, post the data here, and then we can discuss the issue. If you can't back up your claims with real data then there is nothing to investigate further.

vrobin
2007-07-10, 05:18
I have been an audiofile for many years and tried a lot of different equipment both transistor/valve amplifiers, dynamic/electrostatic speakers. Some of my friends are constructors of HiFi-equipment and I have lend my ears for many critical listening sessions.
It's very sad that you Seanadams has an negatively attitude to critisism. Isn't it important as a constructor/inventor to be openminded and try to listen to critical voices. Even if our problem sounds rather strange. I have contacted a friend/researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology here in Stockholm for help with the measurement. Maybe this measurement will tell us if everything is placebo or not.

Don't be upset in anything... apart from some little jokes, everybody there had been open minded and respectful. You don't need to contact royal institute and claim your friends all call you golden hear... Just do the little mesurements asked since a few days now and show the results there...

Phil Leigh
2007-07-10, 06:08
Sean - isn't it the case that a difference between the two states is that the SB buffer will stay full during power on/off whereas the buffer will be flushed and then start to refill during the initial moments of playback after a track skip?

I'm just exploring some avenues - My wife and 16-year old daughter claimed to hear a difference (more bass, more "meaty" sound) last night much to my astonishment. I know this isn't very scientific...

JimC
2007-07-10, 09:15
I have been an audiofile for many years and tried a lot of different equipment both transistor/valve amplifiers, dynamic/electrostatic speakers. Some of my friends are constructors of HiFi-equipment and I have lend my ears for many critical listening sessions.

I think Sean has made it clear many times that he designed the SB3 and transporter to faithfully reproduce the audio, without adding anything to the signal that might color the sound. Folks who create amplifiers are very often looking to add/enhance particular dynamics in the audio. Your friends may very well value your ears when it comes to telling them if something sounds "right" to you. That's perfectly fine, but not at all relevant to the discussion of the DIGITAL OUTPUT STAGE on the SB3.

Your claim is that the digital output on the SB3 has a problem. You base this on human perception of the analog output (filtered through your system and speakers). Sean has tested the digital stage and can see no problems. He's basing this on measurement equipment connected directly to the DIGITAL stage. Human beings, no matter how much they may want to believe otherwise, can be influenced in their perceptions. Measurement equipment is designed to isolate external influences and provide an accurate picture.

See the problem? Your claim about the digital stage is based entirely in analog perception, while Sean has verified the digital output using digital test equipment. No one has disputed that YOU, personally, PERCEIVE a problem, or that your friends, neighbors, and measurement guys with royal pedigrees, PERCEIVE a problem. The issue is simply that you haven't given anyone enough data to confirm the problem.

Can you please, please, please try the SCIENTIFIC methods of recording/comparing that have been repeatedly suggested in this thread?


It's very sad that you Seanadams has an negatively attitude to critisism. Isn't it important as a constructor/inventor to be openminded and try to listen to critical voices. Even if our problem sounds rather strange.

Actually, I've found Sean to be very open to input on his products. He's incredibly passionate about them being the best they possibly can be and I've never seen him react negatively to someone who has information that will help him make the product better.


I have contacted a friend/researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology here in Stockholm for help with the measurement. Maybe this measurement will tell us if everything is placebo or not.

Excellent. Can you PLEASE have him perform the tests suggested here? If you come back with a answer that "he hears it too" and haven't run the tests that have been suggested, I'll have to lock this thread as simply a very long, elaborate troll (and then I'll go have the hook surgically removed).

seanadams
2007-07-10, 09:34
Sean - isn't it the case that a difference between the two states is that the SB buffer will stay full during power on/off whereas the buffer will be flushed and then start to refill during the initial moments of playback after a track skip?

That is right, but the point is that these are normal playback controls that take place all the time. Power on/off does nothing special - it just uses those same playback mechanisms to stop/pause/resume the audio and put different pictures on the screen.


I'm just exploring some avenues - My wife and 16-year old daughter claimed to hear a difference (more bass, more "meaty" sound) last night much to my astonishment. I know this isn't very scientific...

I think there is also a lot of misunderstanding with respect to what it's even possible to do accidentally do a digital signal. I can't for example, implement the following:

if (powering_on) {
meat++;
}

For two reasons. #1) The player simply has no notion of a power on vs power off state. It is a thin client. It just puts stuff on the screen and plays what the server tells it to play. and #2) meatiness, assuming that means perhaps bass response or something, it not something that can be applied to a digital signal without some very complex and deliberate processing, the facilities for which do not even EXIST in the firmware. It is just not possible to subtly modify a digital stream in such a way, unless you really really try to. The only things you could accidentally do is change the volume level and add some noise or crackling, and those too would be immediately evident by looking at the data.

By contrast, in the analog world it is quite easy to make all sorts of tweaks to the sound, intentionally or not, and it's even plausible that some powering on behavior like components warming up might affect the sound. Furthermore, some such changes can in fact be subtle and difficult to detect by ear. I imagine Omega et al are old school audiophiles who are carrying all these preconceived expectations with them into the digital world where it simply doesn't work like that.

jeffmeh
2007-07-10, 09:49
I cannot resist....

http://www.ghsn.net/powerpoint/snrs_gif/sld040.htm

Skunk
2007-07-10, 10:06
I imagine Omega et al are old school audiophiles who are carrying all these preconceived expectations with them into the digital world where it simply doesn't work like that.

I remember reading somewhere that skipping back to track one, rather than simply hitting play, improved the sound of some CD players. It was the first thing that came to mind when I read the thread, but I couldn't find any google references.

Never did get around to trying that one out.

Triode
2007-07-10, 10:24
Anyone wanting to understand the slim architecture more and the impact of powering off and on the player could try turning on the d_slimproto_v debugging and looking at the lines which starts "sending". This shows all the control frames sent from the server the player.

You will see that the difference between pausing and unpausing a track and pausing, powering off, powering on and unpausing is minimal - just a few different grfe (graphic i.e. display frames). This is the reason for the arguement that nothing special is happening by powering off...

AndyC_772
2007-07-10, 10:48
I remember reading somewhere that skipping back to track one, rather than simply hitting play, improved the sound of some CD players. It was the first thing that came to mind when I read the thread, but I couldn't find any google references.

Never did get around to trying that one out.

I've read lots of unlikely things about how to make equipment sound better. Some of the more entertaining ones are at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/Free_Techniques/Free_Techniques.html :)

Phil Leigh
2007-07-10, 12:01
That is right, but the point is that these are normal playback controls that take place all the time. Power on/off does nothing special - it just uses those same playback mechanisms to stop/pause/resume the audio and put different pictures on the screen.



I think there is also a lot of misunderstanding with respect to what it's even possible to do accidentally do a digital signal. I can't for example, implement the following:

if (powering_on) {
meat++;
}

For two reasons. #1) The player simply has no notion of a power on vs power off state. It is a thin client. It just puts stuff on the screen and plays what the server tells it to play. and #2) meatiness, assuming that means perhaps bass response or something, it not something that can be applied to a digital signal without some very complex and deliberate processing, the facilities for which do not even EXIST in the firmware. It is just not possible to subtly modify a digital stream in such a way, unless you really really try to. The only things you could accidentally do is change the volume level and add some noise or crackling, and those too would be immediately evident by looking at the data.

By contrast, in the analog world it is quite easy to make all sorts of tweaks to the sound, intentionally or not, and it's even plausible that some powering on behavior like components warming up might affect the sound. Furthermore, some such changes can in fact be subtle and difficult to detect by ear. I imagine Omega et al are old school audiophiles who are carrying all these preconceived expectations with them into the digital world where it simply doesn't work like that.


I'm with you all the way - thanks for the response. It's a shame that the meat++ function can't be implemented - can I file an enhancement request ;o)

Seriously, I know that the digital stream can't be accidentally manipulated in a way that creates analogue phenomena such as dynamics, frequency response changes or improved l/r imaging...

...but I wonder if there is some psycho-acoustic issue here that is nothing to do with the SB. It struck me while I was attempting to test this "effect" that if I hit rapidly pause and then unpause my brain knows exactly what the next bit of music is going to sound like. Whereas, if I skip to another track or even (as I was doing) the beginning of the same track I am forcing my brain to do some odd processing and maybe that is what is creating the perceived "change" in sound.

Just a theory...

I have the same DAC as Omega - and at the weekend I chopped out the unnecessary output muting transistors and damped the crystal and DAC and the improvement was clear to my whole family straight away with no discussion required. Maybe this is a DAC issue (although heaven knows how).
Regards
Phil

funkstar
2007-07-10, 12:46
I cannot resist....

http://www.ghsn.net/powerpoint/snrs_gif/sld040.htm
That, by the way, is genius :)

SoftwireEngineer
2007-07-10, 14:12
I have thought that the Squeezebox sounded better after a restart !!! But I never tried hard to confirm this.

krochat
2007-07-10, 14:34
<snip>
Maybe this is a DAC issue (although heaven knows how).


I like this theory. The TacT RCS is known to get into a "bad input" state where the sound quality is degraded. Cycling through the inputs fixes the problem. How about trying powering the DAC off and on (or maybe cycling the inputs) instead of cycling the SB3 and seeing if that changes the sound?

Kim

Phil Leigh
2007-07-10, 15:05
I like this theory. The TacT RCS is known to get into a "bad input" state where the sound quality is degraded. Cycling through the inputs fixes the problem. How about trying powering the DAC off and on (or maybe cycling the inputs) instead of cycling the SB3 and seeing if that changes the sound?

Kim

I'll try it... but given the way the SB works (ie it doesn't actually cycle at all) I'm not sure.

Bear in mind I have the TACT 2.2x whereas Omega doesn't...
Also I am using the Altmann gear between TACT and DAC.
Just so we all know - I'm totally unconvinced so far but I'm in the midst of tweaking my DAC so I am doing lots of caefull listening.

Skunk
2007-07-10, 15:21
I've read lots of unlikely things about how to make equipment sound better. Some of the more entertaining ones are at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/Free_Techniques/Free_Techniques.html :)

Yeah, to suggest that growing pot in the listening room will improve the sound takes the cake.


Plain piece of Blue paper under any vase of flowers or any pot plant in the listening room.

Bob Bressler
2007-07-10, 16:34
ah, the paper has to be Blue!

JimC
2007-07-10, 20:05
Yeah, to suggest that growing pot in the listening room will improve the sound takes the cake.

Wow, that's a pretty egregious typo there... I believe the original said: "smoking pot in the listen room will improve the sound and make you hungry for cake."

Listener
2007-07-10, 21:59
Sean,

My wife suggested a solution to the problem raised in this thread:

A Placebo Package download. I understand that there might be some engineering effort involved. There will also be some marketing effort to create suitable names for the package. However, I think it will be cost effective in the long run. (And you don't have to re-engineer the Placebo Package for every problem.)

In the meantime, keep doing real engineering.

Bill

Craig
2007-07-11, 06:23
Omega,
you mentioned using an Inguz pink noise source, are you using the Inguz DSP plugin too?

Craig

omega
2007-07-11, 10:49
Hi Craig!

We only used Inguz "pink noise" source during the measure.
I am not using Inguz DSP plugin.

I got the result from the measurement, but this shows "nothing".
This measure not measuring "Phase" etc.

I and "Hammer65" will continue investigate this, And post if we found something.


Best regards!



/Mats :-)

Craig
2007-07-11, 11:11
oh well, there goes my theory!!

Craig

omega
2007-07-11, 13:57
Anyone wanting to understand the slim architecture more and the impact of powering off and on the player could try turning on the d_slimproto_v debugging and looking at the lines which starts "sending". This shows all the control frames sent from the server the player.

You will see that the difference between pausing and unpausing a track and pausing, powering off, powering on and unpausing is minimal - just a few different grfe (graphic i.e. display frames). This is the reason for the arguement that nothing special is happening by powering off...

This "nothing special" "Just a few grfe" "minimal"
could affect things?

omega
2007-07-11, 14:07
I've read lots of unlikely things about how to make equipment sound better. Some of the more entertaining ones are at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/Free_Techniques/Free_Techniques.html :)

Fun reading ! :-)


I found out an other thing, with my Xbox360 if "Restart" my OLD CRT TV it transforms the picture to super 1080P !
Wow you must try this out! :-)

Even my Dog and Cats can realy see this!

seanadams
2007-07-11, 14:24
This "nothing special" "Just a few grfe" "minimal"
could affect things?

Yes, that must be it. Different pictures on the screen.

omega
2007-07-11, 14:27
Anyway from one thing to another..

I Have seen on many of my OLD cd from mid 80īs

If i look through the sun or a bright light, on Some CDīs there are many tiny holes in the aluminium surface!

But some CD from the same period is perfect.

Is this Ageing or just a bad pressing?

Someone know?

/Mats :-)

omega
2007-07-11, 14:36
I have thought that the Squeezebox sounded better after a restart !!! But I never tried hard to confirm this.

Why not give it try?

/Mats :-)

cliveb
2007-07-11, 14:39
I Have seen on many of my OLD cd from mid 80īs

If i look through the sun or a bright light, on Some CDīs there are many tiny holes in the aluminium surface!

But some CD from the same period is perfect.

Is this Ageing or just a bad pressing?
Pinholes in the aluminium coating on CDs was pretty common back then. They were there from the start - it's not an ageing thing. I'd guess that perhaps the sputtering technology used wasn't quite perfected at the time.

But they are nothing to worry about. The CD spec requires that a hole up to 0.9mm in diameter can be completely corrected by the CIRC error correction. Tiny pinholes are much smaller than that.

omega
2007-07-11, 14:44
Pinholes in the aluminium coating on CDs was pretty common back then. They were there from the start - it's not an ageing thing. I'd guess that perhaps the sputtering technology used wasn't quite perfected at the time.

But they are nothing to worry about. The CD spec requires that a hole up to 0.9mm in diameter can be completely corrected by the CIRC error correction. Tiny pinholes are much smaller than that.

Thanks for the fast replay !

Regards!

/Mats :-)

omega
2007-07-11, 14:57
Yes, that must be it. Different pictures on the screen.

Hi Seanadams!

Are you up for a bet?

If someone or "Hammer65" and I really founds out and can provide with all the technical facts, that this "thing" realy is something and not "placebo" are you upp for a reward then?

Like.. humm.. a transporter! each..

/Mats :-)

seanadams
2007-07-11, 15:14
Are you up for a bet?


How exactly do you suggest we bet on something if you won't accept simple empirical evidence that you are wrong? Will the winner be whoever can yell I AM RIGHT the loudest? Or whoever can get the most friends to come post on this forum?

No, I am not interested in a bet with you. But if you don't mind, I would like a dime bag of whatever you're smoking.

Cheers.

snarlydwarf
2007-07-11, 16:27
Pinholes in the aluminium coating on CDs was pretty common back then. They were there from the start - it's not an ageing thing. I'd guess that perhaps the sputtering technology used wasn't quite perfected at the time.

Although there is also the phenomena of disc rot which is real and document. (And leaves pin prick sized holes throughout the disc.)

This is supposedly from a manufacturing defect (at least in the admitted case of Philips-DuPont) and has been corrected.

It is certainly possible that other manufacturers had similar issues (and manufacturing defects seem to be the problem with various DVD-and-high-def discs as well).

A CD with advanced discrot will often not play at all: the CD spec is not designed for shotgun-blasting-pinholes, and eventually enough of the reflective layer will be eaten that there is no way to correct the lost data.

But all this is very offtopic.

Ejorne
2007-07-12, 00:20
How exactly do you suggest we bet on something if you won't accept simple empirical evidence that you are wrong?

I think it is hard to prove the things Omega is saying. But i think he could be right. I hear exact the same pfenomenom when playing a original cd versus a cdr.

Simple emperrical evidence can prove i'm wrong about that. But i did passed more than one abx or dbt. There are more people who hear those things on cd versus cdr. And when using the right media (like black surface cdr's) there will be no more or less difference between cd and cdr.

But a one is a one and a zero is a zero. Yeah, right. But a abx is a abx and a dbt is a dbt...

So, i was planning to buy a SB3. But i'll wait about until this thing is cleared up...

omega
2007-07-12, 00:30
How exactly do you suggest we bet on something if you won't accept simple empirical evidence that you are wrong? Will the winner be whoever can yell I AM RIGHT the loudest? Or whoever can get the most friends to come post on this forum?

No, I am not interested in a bet with you. But if you don't mind, I would like a dime bag of whatever you're smoking.

Cheers.

Hi!

Okey, so a bet is not an option, as I understand from your quite rude post. (Quite dishonest of you to imply that I am some kind of drug-addict and not fit to use your product. But I'm obviously mentally fit enough to buy the bl-dy box as long as I don't criticize it.)

Whatever, what I'm suggesting is nothing else but a scientific result. As probably even you know; scientifical tests are repeatable and can be duplicated in identical settings.

Furthermore, a true scientist don't accept the absence of an occurence as proof for its non-existence. I.e. it is not possible to say that "You don't have brother since I've not seen him." or "God doesn't exist since I've not seen Him." or "The squeezebox is without faults since I've not encountered any."


I respect if you don't want to gamble about facts but I believe that you are man enough to obey facts. Aren't you?

/Mats :-)

Bas Horneman
2007-07-12, 02:28
My son and I could not hear a difference. Not that that counts for anything. But I was interested in trying for myself...even after reading seanadams's statements that the only difference between pause and off and then on is the screen.

Omega...


Whatever, what I'm suggesting is nothing else but a scientific result. As probably even you know; scientifical tests are repeatable and can be duplicated in identical settings.

Eagerly awaiting your scientific results.

servies
2007-07-12, 04:35
I got the result from the measurement, but this shows "nothing".
This measure not measuring "Phase" etc.

I and "Hammer65" will continue investigate this, And post if we found something.




Furthermore, a true scientist don't accept the absence of an occurence as proof for its non-existence. I.e. it is not possible to say that "You don't have brother since I've not seen him." or "God doesn't exist since I've not seen Him." or "The squeezebox is without faults since I've not encountered any."

Somewhere there's a discrepancy between what you say in these 2 occasions... But probably being an audioidiot^H^H^H^H^Hphile you don't see it...
A true scientist knows his/her ears are crap.

Robin Bowes
2007-07-12, 04:53
omega wrote:
> seanadams;213834 Wrote:
>> How exactly do you suggest we bet on something if you won't accept
>> simple empirical evidence that you are wrong? Will the winner be
>> whoever can yell I AM RIGHT the loudest? Or whoever can get the most
>> friends to come post on this forum?
>>
>> No, I am not interested in a bet with you. But if you don't mind, I
>> would like a dime bag of whatever you're smoking.
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> Hi!
>
> Okey, so a bet is not an option, as I understand from your quite rude
> post. (Quite dishonest of you to imply that I am some kind of
> drug-addict and not fit to use your product. But I'm obviously mentally
> fit enough to buy the bl-dy box as long as I don't criticize it.)
>
> Whatever, what I'm suggesting is nothing else but a scientific result.
> As probably even you know; scientifical tests are repeatable and can be
> duplicated in identical settings.
>
> Furthermore, a true scientist don't accept the absence of an occurence
> as proof for its non-existence. I.e. it is not possible to say that
> "You don't have brother since I've not seen him." or "God doesn't exist
> since I've not seen Him." or "The squeezebox is without faults since
> I've not encountered any."
>
>
> I respect if you don't want to gamble about facts but I believe that
> you are man enough to obey facts. Aren't you?

If you can produce a scientific, repeatable test that demonstrates this
phenomenon, *I'll* have a bet with you that Sean will be the first to
sit up and take notice and work on fixing it.

But you've not done that yet.

We're all waiting...

R.

ezkcdude
2007-07-12, 05:07
I think it is hard to prove the things Omega is saying. But i think he could be right. I hear exact the same pfenomenom when playing a original cd versus a cdr.



Although you're probably a troll, and/or a friend of omega (first posts showing up in these flame wars are almost always a dead giveaway), I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What does playing a CD vs. CDR on a CD player have anything to do with the SqueezeBox? How could you possibly compare these two situations? CD player != SqueezeBox

AndyC_772
2007-07-12, 05:41
Some of my FLAC files have pinholes in them :(

Ejorne
2007-07-12, 05:44
Although you're probably a troll, and/or a friend of omega (first posts showing up in these flame wars are almost always a dead giveaway), I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What does playing a CD vs. CDR on a CD player have anything to do with the SqueezeBox? How could you possibly compare these two situations? CD player != SqueezeBox

Excuse me for making my first post on this forum so ugly one. But i was mentioned from another forum-topic to this one. I'm from the Netherlands and not a frien of Omega.

I did only post this answer because it did look so familier with the one i did noticed with cd versus cdr. And i think the common of the cd vs cdr and the squeesebox is the same spdif-stream that probbably affects somthing (or something affects the spdif-stream) It was just the phenomenon that was almost axactly the same: a cdr has a less beutifull sound, expecially heard in the higher frequencies than a orginal cd. So does the squeezebox, after skip a song, if i understand it correctly from Omega.

So youre wrong telling me that i am a troll, but i dont blame you... I would probbably think the same in this situation...

servies
2007-07-12, 07:16
Excuse me for making my first post on this forum so ugly one. But i was mentioned from another forum-topic to this one. I'm from the Netherlands and not a frien of Omega.

I did only post this answer because it did look so familier with the one i did noticed with cd versus cdr. And i think the common of the cd vs cdr and the squeesebox is the same spdif-stream that probbably affects somthing (or something affects the spdif-stream) It was just the phenomenon that was almost axactly the same: a cdr has a less beutifull sound, expecially heard in the higher frequencies than a orginal cd. So does the squeezebox, after skip a song, if i understand it correctly from Omega.

So youre wrong telling me that i am a troll, but i dont blame you... I would probbably think the same in this
situation...
Maybe you should create an image of the CD before burning it to CDR in stead of creating mp3's and burning those back to a CDR...
A 1 on a CDR has the same value as a 1 on a CD or do you think that a CD player acts like: "Geez... bummer, a CDR, what a cheapskate. You know what. I'll just decrease the soundquality in the higher frequencies."...

Ejorne
2007-07-12, 07:34
Maybe you should create an image of the CD before burning it to CDR in stead of creating mp3's and burning those back to a CDR...
A 1 on a CDR has the same value as a 1 on a CD or do you think that a CD player acts like: "Geez... bummer, a CDR, what a cheapskate. You know what. I'll just decrease the soundquality in the higher frequencies."...

I don't use mp3 (duh) i create wav's with "exact audio copy" and then burn them to cdr. When ripping it back to the computer the data is identical to that from the original cd. BUT the cdr sounds indeed different than the original. I can prove it by abx and/or dbt.

But i don't want to go further off-topic. This is a topic about the squeezebox and not about cdr. The thing about cdr was just to illustrate the common phenomenon. ...

seanadams
2007-07-12, 07:55
A true scientist knows his/her ears are crap.

On the contrary, the ears are magnificent instruments. The problem is with people who don't know how to do critical listening using ONLY their ears.

Patrick Dixon
2007-07-12, 09:03
On the contrary, the ears are magnificent instruments. The problem is with people who don't know how to do critical listening using ONLY their ears.

It's really difficult - you need your brain as well ;-)

ezkcdude
2007-07-12, 09:06
I don't use mp3 (duh) i create wav's with "exact audio copy" and then burn them to cdr. When ripping it back to the computer the data is identical to that from the original cd. BUT the cdr sounds indeed different than the original. I can prove it by abx and/or dbt.

But i don't want to go further off-topic. This is a topic about the squeezebox and not about cdr. The thing about cdr was just to illustrate the common phenomenon. ...

Ejorne, first let me say I believe you're not a troll. Second, I think this is not really OT, given the nature of this thread. I still do not know, because you have not said, are you listening to the CD and CDR on a CD player, or are you talking about listening to the ripped files on the Squeezebox? If it is the latter, and you have already told us that the data is the same between the CD and CDR, you will not hear a difference through the SqueezeBox. You understand that right?

Ejorne
2007-07-12, 09:21
Ejorne, first let me say I believe you're not a troll. Second, I think this is not really OT, given the nature of this thread. I still do not know, because you have not said, are you listening to the CD and CDR on a CD player, or are you talking about listening to the ripped files on the Squeezebox? If it is the latter, and you have already told us that the data is the same between the CD and CDR, you will not hear a difference through the SqueezeBox. You understand that right?

I do not listen through the squeezebox, because i don't own one yet. I listen through (more) cd player(s). But i know the data on the computer (not beeing time dependent) are exactly the same coming from a oringinal cd or from a cdr. So through a squeezebox they will sound the same. But on the cdr there possible are jitter and other differences. So maybe the spdif stream is different. That's also the reason that i mentioned it in this topic, maybe some spdif difference also are in the squeezebox...

CardinalFang
2007-07-12, 09:31
But i don't want to go further off-topic. This is a topic about the squeezebox and not about cdr. The thing about cdr was just to illustrate the common phenomenon. ...

There is a belief in some audio circles that if you rip a CD using EAC and then burn a CDR with an exact copy, you get in effect a better pressing. In other words, EAC can do a better job of getting the data than a CD player and the resulting CDR is better that the CD because the pits are created in a non mass-production way and to a higher tolerance.

However, it all seems to be based on the old misunderstanding between error correction and error concealment. In other words the CDR sounds different because the data has less errors, but the reality is that the data is the same after it comes out of the CD read buffer because errors are corrected in both cases. You might get a "better" CDR if you were able to extract data from areas where the CD player could only conceal them, but that's a very small minority of cases I would imagine.

As for the original subject, I believe Sean's assertion that the data and process of decoding it is identical in both cases. However, I have personally seen software developers caught out in similar circumstances where they know how something is *supposed* to work, and have found that in reality there are subtleties from system interactions in the real world that cause differences. Not that I'm implying that's the case here since Sean has reviewed his design and the operation on the SB3 prior to posting comments.

ezkcdude
2007-07-12, 09:43
So maybe the spdif stream is different. That's also the reason that i mentioned it in this topic, maybe some spdif difference also are in the squeezebox...

Different from what? Actually, I don't even know if the original poster was using the spdif output. I assumed they were listening to the analog output, so no spdif involved AFAIK.

Patrick Dixon
2007-07-12, 09:57
There is a belief in some audio circles that if you rip a CD using EAC and then burn a CDR with an exact copy, you get in effect a better pressing. In other words, EAC can do a better job of getting the data than a CD player and the resulting CDR is better that the CD because the pits are created in a non mass-production way and to a higher tolerance.

However, it all seems to be based on the old misunderstanding between error correction and error concealment. In other words the CDR sounds different because the data has less errors, but the reality is that the data is the same after it comes out of the CD read buffer because errors are corrected in both cases. You might get a "better" CDR if you were able to extract data from areas where the CD player could only conceal them, but that's a very small minority of cases I would imagine.
I think if there is any difference between a CD and a CDR it's more likely to be because the data got burnt with a more or less stable clock, which then affects the read clock, and hence the DAC clock.

So jitter rather than errors.

CardinalFang
2007-07-12, 10:12
I think if there is any difference between a CD and a CDR it's more likely to be because the data got burnt with a more or less stable clock, which then affects the read clock, and hence the DAC clock.

So jitter rather than errors.

Presumably you mean the original master rather than the copies which are manufactured by another process other than burning.

seanadams
2007-07-12, 10:19
I think if there is any difference between a CD and a CDR it's more likely to be because the data got burnt with a more or less stable clock, which then affects the read clock, and hence the DAC clock.

So jitter rather than errors.

No way. The clock comes from a crystal in the CD player, not the disc.

http://www.prismsound.com/m_r_downloads/cdinvest.pdf

If you don't have time to read the whole paper at least see the conclusion for their idea as to why numerically identical CDs could sound different.

Patrick Dixon
2007-07-12, 10:19
Presumably you mean the original master rather than the copies which are manufactured by another process other than burning.

I meant the CDR got burnt, and the pit spacing is probably very slightly different to the original CD - whether it was stamped or not.

pfarrell
2007-07-12, 10:20
CardinalFang wrote:
> Presumably you mean the original master rather than the copies which
> are manufactured by another process other than burning.

Commercial CDs, and DVDs are pressed, not burned.
They are stamped out much in the spirit of vinyl records.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

CardinalFang
2007-07-12, 10:33
Commercial CDs, and DVDs are pressed, not burned.
They are stamped out much in the spirit of vinyl records.

Not quite, the plastic part is pressed, but the pits are coated by metallising using a plasma. The pits are then covered in plastic, but you are right in that it is a copying process, not a mastering one like making a CDR.

pfarrell
2007-07-12, 10:40
CardinalFang wrote:
> Not quite, the plastic part is pressed, but the pits are coated by
> metallising using a plasma. The pits are then covered in plastic, but
> you are right in that it is a copying process, not a mastering one like
> making a CDR.

I stand corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_manufacturing says:

The discs then pass, one at a time into the metaliser, a small chamber
operating at approximately 10E-3 Torr vacuum. This process is called
'sputtering'. The metaliser contains a metal "target" made of an alloy
of mostly aluminium and some small amounts of other metals. There is a
system of a load-lock (like an airlock so that the process chamber can
maintain high vacuum as the discs are exchanged. When the disc is
rotated into the processing position by the swivel arm in the vacuum
chamber, a small dose of argon gas is injected into the process chamber
and a 700 Volt DC electrical current at up to 20 kW is applied to the
target. This results in a plasma igniting and the aluminium target
evaporates onto the disc (anode - cathode reaction). The metal coats the
information side of the disc (upper surface) and covers the pits. This
metal layer is the reflective surface that can be seen on the reverse of
a CD. This thin layer of metal is unstable and will oxidise if it is not
protected by a lacquer.




--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Patrick Dixon
2007-07-12, 10:46
No way. The clock comes from a crystal in the CD player, not the disc.

http://www.prismsound.com/m_r_downloads/cdinvest.pdf

If you don't have time to read the whole paper at least see the conclusion for their idea as to why numerically identical CDs could sound different.

Thanks for the link.

They seem to be attributing any differences to servo noise being passed through the DAC. So I guess that would make me right on the cause, but wrong on the mechanism?

Interesting their comment about designers not being careful enough with DAC voltage refs. When I was messing around with video ADCs and DACs in the dim and distant past, we were always very respectful of the references!

CardinalFang
2007-07-12, 10:51
This thin layer of metal is unstable and will oxidise if it is not protected by a lacquer.

That just screams for audiophile products that remove the latent voltage potential from the plasma, and a range of pit stabilising green pens. As for the lacquer on my audiophile CDs, I insist on finest Chinese (preferably Ming red) lacquer.

Back on topic, we seem to have eliminated the SB3 as a potential factor in there being a different data stream, but what about the server. Are we sure that it streams exactly the same data in both cases? Just trying to nail this one down as highly unlikely.

opaqueice
2007-07-12, 11:04
Thanks for the link.

They seem to be attributing any differences to servo noise being passed through the DAC. So I guess that would make me right on the cause, but wrong on the mechanism?


Did you notice the most relevant conclusion, which is that there were no statistically significant audible differences, either in the large scale listening tests or in the two expert listeners they tested individually? It's not very interesting to speculate about the causes of an effect that doesn't exist.

As they say:



However, the blind tests, whilst as yet too small in number to
be conclusive, suggest that differences may actually be too
small to be audible, even amongst expert listeners. If so, then
other psychological factors must be responsible for the
assertions by nearly all listeners tested that they can actually
hear a difference.

Patrick Dixon
2007-07-12, 11:25
Did you notice the most relevant conclusion, which is that there were no statistically significant audible differences, either in the large scale listening tests or in the two expert listeners they tested individually?

Yes but they also seem open minded enough to realise that they just may not have devised the right test ... yet.

opaqueice
2007-07-12, 12:17
Yes but they also seem open minded enough to realise that they just may not have devised the right test ... yet.

It could be that they haven't found the right test, yes - although it's interesting that (as usual) the subjects were confident they could tell the difference when in fact they couldn't.

It might also be that essentially all modern digital sources, playing any form of uncompressed 16/44.1 media, are indistinguishable by ear. I wonder how many subjectivists are open-minded enough to admit that possibility.

darrenyeats
2007-07-12, 12:40
It might also be that essentially all modern digital sources, playing any form of uncompressed 16/44.1 media, are indistinguishable by ear. I wonder how many subjectivists are open-minded enough to admit that possibility.

I think that is too much of a sweeping statement, and maybe even intentionally provocative ;-)

A lady friend of my wife, who knows nothing of hifi, could certainly hear a difference between a modern source (SB3) and my rather old CD transport/DAC combo. It was a blind test done last week, and she chose the transport/DAC combo 5 out of 6 times.

The exception was the first track played, and afterwards /she/ pointed out it was the first time she'd heard my system ever and therefore was confusing. But even on that first track she heard a difference, she was just mixed up as to which she preferred.

Last track was Corrina Corrina (Muddy Waters Live) and I asked her to describe the difference - she said the CD transport sounded "more live".

Out of the mouths of babes...
Darren

cliveb
2007-07-12, 12:51
Although there is also the phenomena of disc rot which is real and document. (And leaves pin prick sized holes throughout the disc.)
With all due respect, my understanding is that CD rot (of the PDO type) is completely different. The metallic layer under the lacquer gets attacked and slowly turns a "bronze" colour. This happens from the outside edge inwards. In extreme cases the metallised layer gets eaten away, but again this is from the outside edge inwards. I've never seen any reference to CD rot creating pinholes.[/QUOTE]

omega
2007-07-12, 13:21
Hi !

About this "original cd versus a cdr" Offtopic thing..

If they sound different could it be because of things like:

1. Original Cds have aluminium coating and Cdr have another coating .(Gold or silver?)
Anyway some of them are "Green" some are "silver" some "black" etc..

If its easier for the Cdplayer to read the Cdrs = less error correction, jitter etc.. better sound?
I mean the different Coating maybe reflect the laser light easier ?


2. Different thickness of the plastic disc?
Thinker = more stable when spinning less "wobble" more stable exact reading less error correction, jitter etc.. better sound?




/Mats :-)

snarlydwarf
2007-07-12, 13:50
With all due respect, my understanding is that CD rot (of the PDO type) is completely different. The metallic layer under the lacquer gets attacked and slowly turns a "bronze" colour. This happens from the outside edge inwards. In extreme cases the metallised layer gets eaten away, but again this is from the outside edge inwards. I've never seen any reference to CD rot creating pinholes.

Well then you haven't looked... from the first page of googling for "cd rot":



When the CD is held up to a strong light, light shines through several pin-prick sized holes. This is especially noticeable in older CDs that have a label of black text and a silver finish.



"I was kind of shocked to see a constellation of pinpricks, little points where the light was coming through the aluminum layer," he says.



My friend Dan (also quoted in the article) noted another form of CD deterioration, in which small pinprick holes appear inside the data region, rather than at the disc's edge. Inspecting my collection revealed several CDs with this problem, notably those on the Sire, Warner Bros., and Elektra labels.

It depends in general on the cause of the rot. We'll assume that discs are handled/stored well and just stick with manufacturing defects. In addition to the only admitted case of PDO, there are many other examples of CDRot, which seem to be caused by improper lacquering of the aluminum, or reactive inks in the label itself.

These can start from anywhere and I have seen discs like this myself. (I havent looked at my own discs closely in ages, so don't know if they are rotting... I probably have some with pinholes... would be statistically probable at this point.)

ezkcdude
2007-07-12, 14:05
The fundamental problem with CD (or vinyl or any other format over the past 100 years) is that the playback mechanism was somehow dependent on the physical format. What the SqueezeBox (or generally the PC) does that is revolutionary IMO is separate the data from the physical carrier. Thus, we no longer need to debate pit spacing or green pens for that matter. (Though somehow, the mentality seems to remain.)

AndyC_772
2007-07-12, 14:33
There never really was, though. Reading a CD isn't much different to reading a hard disc - both are digital, ie. yes or no, right or wrong. Why should playing a .WAV file directly off a CD-ROM via SlimServer be any different to playing a regular CD in a CD player?

pfarrell
2007-07-12, 14:41
Reading a CD isn't much different to reading a hard disc - both are digital, ie. yes or no, right or wrong. Why should playing a .WAV file directly off a CD-ROM via SlimServer be any different to playing a regular CD in a CD player?


It depends. An audio CD player reads the music per the RedBook spec. A PC uses CD-EX to Extract the data. It is not the same.
Way back in the 90s, many PC CD-rom drives could not do the extraction (which is essentially reading the digital data as you would read a hard disk sector).

The normal RedBook way to read the music off a disk is very different. The error correction is different, etc. Most of this is due to the very limited capabilities of microcontrollers at the time when the RedBook spec was written.

I believe, that if the spec had been written just five years later, it would have been very different, using more of a digital approach from the start.

ezkcdude
2007-07-12, 16:08
There never really was, though. Reading a CD isn't much different to reading a hard disc - both are digital, ie. yes or no, right or wrong.

So, writing with a pencil and printing with a laser printer are similar because they both involve putting words on paper?

I agree that digital consists of 1's and 0's, but actually writing and reading those 1's and 0's is the "devil in the details", so to speak.

amey01
2007-07-12, 18:18
Those trying to be logical here "yes/no, right/wrong, 1/0" etc. need to realise that their logic is based on science, and 2007 science is NOT complete.

Things happen that 2007 science cannot explain.

I certainly hear differences between reading from hard disk / CD / streaming / optical cables / coax cables, etc. Now, 2007 science says that I should hear no difference, but that is simply no the case.

Who knows, maybe 2008 science will have a measurement for us that explains why music from a hard disk does not sound as good as music from a CD transport. But until then, we have to trust our ears and accept that our lowly, primitave level of knowledge cannot explain everything we hear.

In 2050 we'll be laughing looking back on threads like this - "imagine, they had no idea why they heard those differences"!

This is the same for every recording format - there is something inherently deficient in the recording process. And it is not the capturing of the music. Even my 90% deaf grandmother can walk past a pub and tell if it is live or recorded music playing. Whether it is live or recorded - it is still coming out the same crappy PA speakers - going through the same foul mixing desk and going through the same poor high-efficiency amplifiers. The mics are the same, and so is the cabling used to transfer the sound. But if it is recorded it sounds way off the mark. Again, one day, we might know why.

I remember walking through a shopping centre a few years ago marvelling at how great the trashy little in-ceiling PA speakers were sounding, only to turn the corner and find a live band playing directly into the system. There is very little wrong with our equipment - the problem is with the recordings themselves.

opaqueice
2007-07-12, 18:53
I certainly hear differences between reading from hard disk / CD / streaming / optical cables / coax cables, etc. Now, 2007 science says that I should hear no difference, but that is simply no the case.

You seem to be missing a rather basic point. 2007 science has demonstrated that two identical stimuli, reproduced several times, can and will produce very different perceptions in the same person. So just the contrary, 2007 science predicts that you WILL hear differences even when they're not there - and you do. I've never understood why people have so much trouble with that concept.




This is the same for every recording format - there is something inherently deficient in the recording process. And it is not the capturing of the music. Even my 90% deaf grandmother can walk past a pub and tell if it is live or recorded music playing. Whether it is live or recorded - it is still coming out the same crappy PA speakers - going through the same foul mixing desk and going through the same poor high-efficiency amplifiers. The mics are the same, and so is the cabling used to transfer the sound. But if it is recorded it sounds way off the mark. Again, one day, we might know why.


We do know why, at least more or less. It doesn't have to do with cables or amplifiers or digital sources, which are much much much closer to perfect than anything else in the audio chain. It does have to do with the fact that it's a recording made with localized mics of a non-localized source, played back in stereo in a room very different from the recording venue through very imperfect speakers. All of that measurably and verifiably heavily distorts the sound - there's absolutely no need to resort to any exotic explanations.

tyler_durden
2007-07-12, 21:13
So just the contrary, 2007 science predicts that you WILL hear differences even when they're not there - and you do. I've never understood why people have so much trouble with that concept.

I think that your average, golden-eared audiophile is just like the guy who spends vast sums on wine because he can taste a difference. Both, frequently the same folks, have an innate desire to be better than the great, unwashed masses. Having golden ears is the perfect way to be better than others because no one can disprove your claims. Salesmen keep reinforcing the belief that they are a unique and uniquely deserving species.

Statistics about human behavior include everyone, but since everyone includes the majority of insensitive, average Joes, the statistics mainly apply to them and less so to audiophiles. Therefore, the audiophile is NOT subject to the common effects of suggestion, physiological limitations on hearing acuity, etc.

TD

amey01
2007-07-12, 22:46
You seem to be missing a rather basic point. 2007 science has demonstrated that two identical stimuli, reproduced several times, can and will produce very different perceptions in the same person. So just the contrary, 2007 science predicts that you WILL hear differences even when they're not there - and you do. I've never understood why people have so much trouble with that concept.




We do know why, at least more or less. It doesn't have to do with cables or amplifiers or digital sources, which are much much much closer to perfect than anything else in the audio chain. It does have to do with the fact that it's a recording made with localized mics of a non-localized source, played back in stereo in a room very different from the recording venue through very imperfect speakers. All of that measurably and verifiably heavily distorts the sound - there's absolutely no need to resort to any exotic explanations.


No - precisely the opposite. If you make a recording in a live venue, then play back that recording:

1: At the same venue
2: Through the same sound system
3: Through the same speakers

There will be a clear difference. Of course there will be. Anyone can pick that up.

AndyC_772
2007-07-12, 23:46
So, writing with a pencil and printing with a laser printer are similar because they both involve putting words on paper?

I agree that digital consists of 1's and 0's, but actually writing and reading those 1's and 0's is the "devil in the details", so to speak.

What??

If you're referring to the recording process, then yes, absolutely, both achieve the same result provided they're done accurately enough that the words can be read back again without error. And the reverse is true as well - whether you read a handwritten article or a printed one, the information is exactly, identically the same.

Does this web page, for example, look different whether you downloaded it via wired Ethernet or over wi-fi? Can you tell by looking at this post whether I'm using a wired or a wireless connection right now? The transport medium is completely different in both cases, so what's the effect on the data?


It depends. An audio CD player reads the music per the RedBook spec. A PC uses CD-EX to Extract the data. It is not the same.

Yes, it is. Both are extracting the raw bit stream that's stamped into the disc, performing the same mathematical decoding process on it and ending up with the same PCM audio data.


Way back in the 90s, many PC CD-rom drives could not do the extraction (which is essentially reading the digital data as you would read a hard disk sector).

The normal RedBook way to read the music off a disk is very different. The error correction is different, etc. Most of this is due to the very limited capabilities of microcontrollers at the time when the RedBook spec was written.

So the error correcting codes specified for CD-DA vs CD-ROM are different. So what? The biggest problem was actually the inability to do a random seek to a particular sector of an audio disc because there's no sophisticated index like there is on a CD-ROM - but that's like saying that a book whose pages aren't numbered is different from a book whose pages are. (Maybe the book with page numbering is also printed in a slightly different, clearer font too - but you get my point).


I believe, that if the spec had been written just five years later, it would have been very different, using more of a digital approach from the start.

Huh?

funkstar
2007-07-13, 01:22
I believe, that if the spec had been written just five years later, it would have been very different, using more of a digital approach from the start.
You are probably right Pat. Thats what they did with DVD video and audio disks. They are exactly the same as regular data disks with files on them. If the disk doesn't have 'copy protection', nothing special needs to be done to create perfect copies. No ripping or audio/video extraction required :)

opaqueice
2007-07-13, 04:36
No - precisely the opposite. If you make a recording in a live venue, then play back that recording:

1: At the same venue
2: Through the same sound system
3: Through the same speakers

There will be a clear difference. Of course there will be. Anyone can pick that up.

Opposite of what? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. The components that make the biggest difference (that is, introduce the most distortion into reproduced sound) are mics and speakers. There are two reasons: placement and room effects, and because the drivers are non-linear and unable to accurately reproduce an electric signal (at least by comparison with other components).

I don't know why there's any debate about this - you can measure how much difference amplifiers or digital sources make, and you can measure how much difference speakers and rooms make, and it's not close - not even remotely close.

JimC
2007-07-13, 09:47
I think that your average, golden-eared audiophile is just like the guy who spends vast sums on wine because he can taste a difference.

Interesting observation, epsecially as I tend toward being a bit of an oenophile (though not a true audiophile at all). When I first started wine tasting, I tried very hard to develop my ability to detect "raspberry" vs. "blackberry" in the wine and other subtleties that are perceptual. I also liked to use a lot of the rather pompous vocabulary you find aroudn wine snobs.

Then, when I actually *learned* about wine from a really talented winemaker, I discovered that the perfect vocabulary for wine tasting is this: "I like this wine" or "I don't like this wine". Because, in the end, my tastes are NOT the same as anyone else's so trying to convince them my taste/smell/brain combination is more correct than theirs is equivalent to trying to teach pigs to sing.



-=> Jim

seanadams
2007-07-13, 10:12
Opposite of what? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. The components that make the biggest difference (that is, introduce the most distortion into reproduced sound) are mics and speakers. There are two reasons: placement and room effects, and because the drivers are non-linear and unable to accurately reproduce an electric signal (at least by comparison with other components).

I don't know why there's any debate about this - you can measure how much difference amplifiers or digital sources make, and you can measure how much difference speakers and rooms make, and it's not close - not even remotely close.

I think what he was saying is that using the _same_ speakers and mics that are used to amplify the live music, it sounds different live (through the speakers) than when playing from a recording on the same system (through the speakers). The question I guess is whether our ADCs, DACs, and storage are "perfect" - the speakers, mics, amplifier, and room are irrelevant because they're the same in both cases.

It's plausible, but I don't buy it as such because it seems impossible to control the experiment. I guess one way you might try it is to completely isolate (both acoustically and visually) the performer from the listener so that neither has any idea whether the listener will be hearing him live or recorded. Then play a few bars each way (random choice each time) and see if there's a perceptible difference.

snarlydwarf
2007-07-13, 10:37
I think what he was saying is that using the _same_ speakers and mics that are used to amplify the live music, it sounds different live (through the speakers) than when playing from a recording on the same system (through the speakers). The question I guess is whether our ADCs, DACs, and storage are "perfect" - the speakers, mics, amplifier, and room are irrelevant because they're the same in both cases.

Not quite: it is assuming that the only sound the audience hears is the sound from the PA system, which isn't true at all in a live performance. (And why a lot of recordings put microphones in weird places, to pick up the subtle "live" sounds like fingers touching guitar strings...)



It's plausible, but I don't buy it as such because it seems impossible to control the experiment. I guess one way you might try it is to completely isolate (both acoustically and visually) the performer from the listener so that neither has any idea whether the listener will be hearing him live or recorded. Then play a few bars each way (random choice each time) and see if there's a perceptible difference.

The acoustic isolation aspect is essential... see above. :)

Phil Leigh
2007-07-13, 10:45
I think what he was saying is that using the _same_ speakers and mics that are used to amplify the live music, it sounds different live (through the speakers) than when playing from a recording on the same system (through the speakers). The question I guess is whether our ADCs, DACs, and storage are "perfect" - the speakers, mics, amplifier, and room are irrelevant because they're the same in both cases.

It's plausible, but I don't buy it as such because it seems impossible to control the experiment. I guess one way you might try it is to completely isolate (both acoustically and visually) the performer from the listener so that neither has any idea whether the listener will be hearing him live or recorded. Then play a few bars each way (random choice each time) and see if there's a perceptible difference.


Amey01 makes a reasonable but not particularly helpful observation, since all recording methods are inherently flawed. The purpose of recording music for subsequent reproduction is NOT to capture "accuracy" (since that is impossible because mics aren't ears+brain) but to create a musically/emotionally satisfying performance in a domestic or other replay environment.

By the way, Linn did a well publicised version of Seans test, using (I think) a male guitarist/singer and their top system - during the test, live and "recorded" were segued...it was an impressive test...however the sources have to be really "simple" for this to work even half-way convincingly.

opaqueice
2007-07-13, 11:18
I think what he was saying is that using the _same_ speakers and mics that are used to amplify the live music, it sounds different live (through the speakers) than when playing from a recording on the same system (through the speakers). The question I guess is whether our ADCs, DACs, and storage are "perfect" - the speakers, mics, amplifier, and room are irrelevant because they're the same in both cases.

I guess you could do the following experiment: put a live band singing into mics and playing amplified instruments into a soundproof booth. Digitally record the mics and instrument pickups. As they play, compare the "live" sound (meaning the mics and instrument pickups going straight into some speakers outside the sound booth) to the recorded sound going to those same speakers. So the only difference is that the recorded source went through an ADC and a DAC.

It seems overly complicated though - why not just take any old sound sample, put it through ADC and DAC, and see if it's distinguishable from the original? I've tried that (with crappy equipment) and the differences are pretty small - certainly much, much smaller than the differences from changing the speakers or the room, or from making the recording using a mic rather than the direct signal.

Bob Bressler
2007-07-13, 11:30
Interesting observation, epsecially as I tend toward being a bit of an oenophile (though not a true audiophile at all). When I first started wine tasting, I tried very hard to develop my ability to detect "raspberry" vs. "blackberry" in the wine and other subtleties that are perceptual. I also liked to use a lot of the rather pompous vocabulary you find aroudn wine snobs.

Then, when I actually *learned* about wine from a really talented winemaker, I discovered that the perfect vocabulary for wine tasting is this: "I like this wine" or "I don't like this wine". Because, in the end, my tastes are NOT the same as anyone else's so trying to convince them my taste/smell/brain combination is more correct than theirs is equivalent to trying to teach pigs to sing.

-=> Jim

There are quite a few similarities between the high end wine world and the high end audio world
- some of the best products are made by very small production places that ‘handcraft’ the product
- very small flaws can have unpleasant consequences, whether it is picoseconds of jitter or a few parts per trillion of trichloroanisole (“corked” wine). In addition, some people can identify this flaw – others can’t
- reviewers can sometimes have disproportionately too much influence
- listeners/drinkers can easily be influenced by coloration or style, e.g. strong bass or oakey Chardonnay
- price can influence the purchaser’s perception of the quality
- one person’s flaw might be another’s preference

The real lesson is the same, of course – trust your own ears/palate

Phil Leigh
2007-07-13, 11:32
I guess you could do the following experiment: put a live band singing into mics and playing amplified instruments into a soundproof booth. Digitally record the mics and instrument pickups. As they play, compare the "live" sound (meaning the mics and instrument pickups going straight into some speakers outside the sound booth) to the recorded sound going to those same speakers. So the only difference is that the recorded source went through an ADC and a DAC.

It seems overly complicated though - why not just take any old sound sample, put it through ADC and DAC, and see if it's distinguishable from the original? I've tried that (with crappy equipment) and the differences are pretty small - certainly much, much smaller than the differences from changing the speakers or the room, or from making the recording using a mic rather than the direct signal.

Well, based on my experience in the studio I can tell you that switching a half-way decent ADC+DAC combo into the loop would not make a major difference to the sound. Heresy I know...

ezkcdude
2007-07-13, 12:09
There are quite a few similarities between the high end wine world and the high end audio world
- some of the best products are made by very small production places that ‘handcraft’ the product
- very small flaws can have unpleasant consequences, whether it is picoseconds of jitter or a few parts per trillion of trichloroanisole (“corked” wine). In addition, some people can identify this flaw – others can’t
- reviewers can sometimes have disproportionately too much influence
- listeners/drinkers can easily be influenced by coloration or style, e.g. strong bass or oakey Chardonnay
- price can influence the purchaser’s perception of the quality
- one person’s flaw might be another’s preference

The real lesson is the same, of course – trust your own ears/palate

Leave it to someone from Napa to come up with a wine analogy!

Skunk
2007-07-13, 12:21
Leave it to someone from Napa to come up with a wine analogy!

Actually someone from San Jose came up with it, and Bob just elaborated. Otherwise it would be blatant self-promotion :-)

Elaborating further, comparisons can be made ambiguous because one person may have had Gouda stuck in their teeth, while another had Stilton. Similarly, one persons listening room may be more flat than another's, or their cables could have more/less oxidation, etc. etc..

amey01
2007-07-15, 16:10
I just find this very interesting!

I personally don't think it is the ADC / DAC either - not that I've made any comparisons, but I can only assume because analogue recordings (that have had no ADC / DAC) also sound completely different to the real thing.

My bet (guess) would be that if you played a "live" band through an ADC then DAC and piped them directly into the speakers it would still sound "live".

Clearly - something is going on here that we don't understand.

darrenyeats
2007-07-16, 02:30
I just find this very interesting!
<snip>

My bet (guess) would be that if you played a "live" band through an ADC then DAC and piped them directly into the speakers it would still sound "live".

Clearly - something is going on here that we don't understand.

amey01,
I think you're on to something, but...

If you consider a small rock gig, each guitar might have it's own amp/speaker. In this case, there isn't even a single "live signal" to record. You need to mix it right there before recording, or record to tracks and mix later. Either way, there is no such thing as an objectively correct mix.

But it's worse than that. Live signals, even those recorded with a single pair of microphones, are almost always processed later to sound "better" in a "domestic system".

The ones that aren't are, I would argue, the ones that sound like live performances. Precious, precious few since recording engineers like to "add value". This is the real issue you are hearing.

And if you think about your own bet (guess) above, this must be IMO the logical conclusion.
Darren

Phil Leigh
2007-07-16, 11:21
You might also want to consider the fact that a lot of bands use digital desk these days for their live mix - so you are hearing the sound through adc/dac's anyway... :o)

KalleAnka
2007-07-17, 03:36
Wow, really don’t know how to say it but.. yes i also live in Sweden, and yes I also work in the same
company as omega and hammer65, but no I am not one of them.

For the moment im just surprised about some comments that seanadams (Founder, Slim Devices Logitech Streaming Media Systems)
and JimC (Logitech Director of Product Marketing) has written in this forum (drugs, bad ears, kids, whine and also
that there is a different between a pause and a power off)...... Wow didn’t know that. Thanks a lot! LoL

Serious, I have never been to a forum where the Founder or the Director of a product are so rude and insolent.
Every time when I have hade some problem with products I bought from USA or another country the staff and technicians
have always been so polite and helpful. Every time when I ask a question in a forum like this I have always got some
professional help to solve the problem.
I’m sure that seanadam knows what he talks about (he is the founder of the SB3) but I guess he’s not the only one....
It’s like: I am a doctor (you have all the education I can get) but still.. sorry your kid died on the operation table
because the teacher that educated me 10 years ago and the books I read during my education then said that there was
no problem cutting the wrist.... You always have to be updated you know and now these guys (omega and hammer65) have
discovered that there are some small sound change in SB3.

If I was the founder of a product I have had been glad to get this information.
No one is perfect you know....


Just wondering a little. If the test result is going to show that there is some small changes in SB3 sound
are you going to accept this or are you going to complain about that the test result was "fixed". ;)
Every one know that test results can be fixed so.......


Then also wondering why a Logitech Director of Product Marketing is "chatting" on a forum?!?!
Hmm, nothing better to do or scared that other people will read this and say the same thing as I do? THAT:

I AM NOT GOING TO BY A NEW PRODUCT WITH A TRACE OF LOGITEC..... or like seanadams sad in this forum earlier:

No, I am not interested in a bet with you. But if you don't mind, I would like a dime bag of
whatever you're smoking...........

Hmm, perhaps seanadams was on drugs when he made the SB3 and I really don’t want that my money
shall go into a drug addicts pocket!!!!!!! AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!!!!!!

Im also sure that a lot of friends to us neither will after reading the stuff from JimC and seanadams.


Best Regards

Kalle Anka

Robin Bowes
2007-07-17, 04:03
KalleAnka wrote:

<snip one-sided view of how this thread developed>

Kalle,

I will ignore most of what you've written as it is, quite frankly,
laughable and content such as yours is why this thread was deleted in
the first place.

However, I've said more than once, if you or omega or hammer65 can come
up with a reproducible test case that demonstrates this claimed
phenomenon then I'm 100% sure that Sean will investigate it and come up
with an explanation and fix.

R.

johann
2007-07-17, 04:04
Kalle Anka,

Do you expect anyone registering as Donald Duck to taken seriously?

Mvh,
/Johan
PS It's wine, not whine.

adamslim
2007-07-17, 05:03
I think the point is the attitude shown by Slim Devices and Logitech staff. Someone posts saying they reckon XYZ sounds better or worse, the people in power can respond in one of these ways:

- Oh that's interesting. The areas that affect this have not been changed at all by the factor that you propose, and our measurements indicate that there is no change. Could you try this blind? Is anyone else finding anything like this? It does seem unlikely, so we'd appreciate a bit more data.

- That can't happen. What is the point of coming out with comments like this that have no basis in my understanding of reality and have not been tested to destruction? Please go away you small person resembling genitalia.

It is possible to be open and sceptical, like the first approach, rather than being dismissive like the second. It encourages others to try to test the phenomenon, adding to the dataset, whereas the second approach puts a lot of people off.

Whatever people are hearing, they are unlikely to post here without thinking it might be real. Let's have some healthy scepticism and constructive comments - especially from the Slim staff. There is a lot of voodoo and snake oil in hi-fi, but there is also a lot that is unknown or poorly understood.

Adam

opaqueice
2007-07-17, 05:40
Just wondering a little. If the test result is going to show that there is some small changes in SB3 sound
are you going to accept this or are you going to complain about that the test result was "fixed". ;)
Every one know that test results can be fixed so.......


Well, it might have to do with that fact that a simple, extremely easy to conduct test was suggested to your friends multiple times. The results of that test (which probably would be conclusive) could have been posted on the forum, and would have been rather difficult to "fix" (not that anyone would have suspected that anyway). Instead of simply doing it, the suggestion was repeatedly ignored and the discussion dragged on for page after page.

So again - if you still think there's a difference, use audiodiffmaker and post the results. Free, quick, and easy. If you don't, case closed.

pfarrell
2007-07-17, 05:41
KalleAnka wrote:
> Hmm, perhaps seanadams was on drugs when he made the SB3 and I really
> don’t want that my money
> shall go into a drug addicts pocket!!!!!!! AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE
> BANK!!!!!!

It was a joke. Do they not have jokes in Sweden? (I doubt it, the Sweds
I know are very open and happy people).

It was a putdown, true, but no one else read it literally.

Please lighten up.

And please lock this awful thread. Better, delete it.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

zanash
2007-07-17, 05:53
delete it ...why, that smacks of censorship

is it going somewhere you don't want it too....?

servies
2007-07-17, 07:59
Wow, really don’t know how to say it but.. yes i also live in Sweden, and yes I also work in the same
company as omega and hammer65, but no I am not one of them.
Yeah right... Same writing style... same spelling errors...


Serious, I have never been to a forum where the Founder or the Director of a product are so rude and insolent.
Then why are you coming now? Just because omega and hammer65 ask you to do so?


You always have to be updated you know and now these guys (omega and hammer65) have discovered that there are some small sound change in SB3.
If you had read their postings, you would have noted that the real measurements they made showed that there were no differences, but still they insisted that there were differences...


If I was the founder of a product I have had been glad to get this information.
No one is perfect you know....
What information? There were no measured differences, so what information are you talking about...
No one is perfect indeed... but your 'friends' claim they have perfect ears which is a wellknown defect with audiophiles...


Im also sure that a lot of friends to us neither will after reading the stuff from JimC and seanadams.
The same counts here: I won't buy any services of a company where they hire idiots like you and your 'friends'...



It was a joke. Do they not have jokes in Sweden? (I doubt it, the Swedes I know are very open and happy people).
I know they do have jokes in Sweden but remember you're talking to true audiophiles and when you doubt their ability to hear the difference between a tone of 19998.5 kHz and a tone of 19998.9 kHz they get very upset...

And btw. just lock it. This idiocy has been going on far to long...

tomjtx
2007-07-17, 08:00
I would vote to lock this thread as well, but not delete: it is way too funny :-)

seanadams
2007-07-17, 09:33
I think the point is the attitude shown by Slim Devices and Logitech staff. Someone posts saying they reckon XYZ sounds better or worse, the people in power can respond in one of these ways:

- Oh that's interesting. The areas that affect this have not been changed at all by the factor that you propose, and our measurements indicate that there is no change. Could you try this blind? Is anyone else finding anything like this? It does seem unlikely, so we'd appreciate a bit more data.

- That can't happen. What is the point of coming out with comments like this that have no basis in my understanding of reality and have not been tested to destruction? Please go away you small person resembling genitalia.

It is possible to be open and sceptical, like the first approach, rather than being dismissive like the second. It encourages others to try to test the phenomenon, adding to the dataset, whereas the second approach puts a lot of people off.

Whatever people are hearing, they are unlikely to post here without thinking it might be real. Let's have some healthy scepticism and constructive comments - especially from the Slim staff. There is a lot of voodoo and snake oil in hi-fi, but there is also a lot that is unknown or poorly understood.

Adam

Adam,

You are absolutely right, but you're taking my comments quite out of context. The original post was not a mere inquiry or observation. It was a (very successful) troll. From the beginning Omega/Hammer65/KalleAnka has/have asserted that there is a bug, a "design miss", a "serious problem" etc.

For better of worse, I tend to reply to people's posts in kind. However, if you subtract the trolling accusation (which was completely unrelated to the specifics of the alleged "bugg") my initial response was dry and impartial: "[...]I would suggest that you consider the placebo affect and apply some simple controls for it in your experiments. Good luck."

Is it unreasonable for me to insist on proper testing before I'm willing to explore this kind of claim? I for one prefer not to leap directly into the usual handwaving about jitter, EMI, and other "poorly understood" subjects... at least not until we have a modicum of confidence that the thing exists.

Sean

adamslim
2007-07-17, 13:33
You are absolutely right, but you're taking my comments quite out of context. The original post was not a mere inquiry or observation. It was a (very successful) troll. From the beginning Omega/Hammer65/KalleAnka has/have asserted that there is a bug, a "design miss", a "serious problem" etc.

For better of worse, I tend to reply to people's posts in kind. However, if you subtract the trolling accusation (which was completely unrelated to the specifics of the alleged "bugg") my initial response was dry and impartial: "[...]I would suggest that you consider the placebo affect and apply some simple controls for it in your experiments. Good luck."

Is it unreasonable for me to insist on proper testing before I'm willing to explore this kind of claim? I for one prefer not to leap directly into the usual handwaving about jitter, EMI, and other "poorly understood" subjects... at least not until we have a modicum of confidence that the thing exists.

Out of context? Agreed!

However, I do think that, as CEO of Slim (or whatever nowadays!), you need to rise above how people phrase what they say, for two reasons:
1 - some are foreign and do not express themselves well in English
2 - these are people who have paid money to you. Don't be sycophantic, but do default to validating their position (not necessarily their claim - i.e. see how this would make them unhappy as paying customers if they were right, not that they are actually being reasonable or correct)

And yes, it is clearly unreasonable to expect them to perform extensive testing prior to posting here. Part of the point of a forum is to be able to wave about completely illogical and unsubstantiable opinions - some people like that. Encourage them to do the test in a more controlled fashion. Why not offer people a free Squeezebox if they can find an acoustic flaw that results in a change to SlimServer or the firmware? Rather than denigrate them for not doing rigorous scientific testing, why not bribe them to do so? It'd be cheaper than doing it yourself!

Adam

ganjastone
2007-07-17, 14:05
Dear CEO,

I truely admire your products and have 4 SB and planning on buying a Transporter soon. Being a "heavy" SB user and audiophile I am sure Omega and co. are doing something wrong.

Said that, I totally agree with adamslim and I think your attitude is both insulting your users and even suspicious. I, as a former R&D manager and currently as a Director of a Product, have a lot of interaction with customers. I would never ever think of answering a paying customer or even someone that I suspect is trolling my forums in the same manner you did with Omega (especially not in a public forum, even though I hope this was cinical).

Not only you're not suggesting any help solving his so called problem, you accuse him with different accusations.

You don't even think of running a simple test or asking to have the unit for inspection, instead you suggest he provides "scientific" proof (my words not yours).

Your attitude might even cause me to run a stupid on/off pausing test :)

I btw, am not a troll, but a true real happy SB user from Israel

JimC
2007-07-17, 14:52
Not only you're not suggesting any help solving his so called problem, you accuse him with different accusations.

You don't even think of running a simple test, instead you suggest he provides "scientific" proof (my words not yours).

Actually, Sean's done a great deal of testing, both simple and complex, on the SB3 and the Transporter. He's never once observed the problem Omega spoke of... since it hasn't been seen before, some repeatable, measurable tests were proposed. None of them have been tried yet, or at least no data has been provided from the tests.

Instead of measureable, repeatable data, we got a lot of "all of my friends hear it too!" responses. Interestingly, the results from the measurements Omega had made externally showed no difference. Here's his quote:


Hi Craig!

We only used Inguz "pink noise" source during the measure.
I am not using Inguz DSP plugin.

I got the result from the measurement, but this shows "nothing".
This measure not measuring "Phase" etc.

Early on, Sean suggested a placebo effect as one possible cause, which immediately started to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio on the thread. It shouldn't have, since the placebo effect has been proved over-and-over in a number of disciplines. In fact, even groups of people can suffer from it (a severe form being mass hysteria).

At this point, since no one has provided measurable differences of audio before and after, and the external measurements showed no delta, I think the safe hypothesis is just as Sean orginally proposed: "placebo effect".

If there's repeatable evidence to the contrary, I'm sure Sean would dig into it and try to identify the cause with an eye toward solving the problem.


Your attitude might even cause me to run a stupid on/off pausing test :)

I btw, am not a troll, but a true real happy SB user from Israel

I tried it, too. The results aren't really relevant, since I didn't run the tests blind or double-blind. Let's just say I heard *exactly* what I expected I would hear.


-=> Jim

seanadams
2007-07-17, 15:18
ganjastone,

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that I personally need to strive to set an example for level headed discussion in this forum. However, I respectfully believe that you have misinterpreted my position on this.

I accused Omega of trolling because of the _manner_, not the subject of his post. Wikipedia defines a troll as:

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding

If you think I made the wrong call, then we shall have to agree to disagree, because I stand by that assessment based on the deliberately inflammatory language that Omega has used throughout this thread. If you think that it was wrong of me to merely _say so_, even if it _was_ a deliberate troll, then again I disagree. The S/N ratio in this forum is not going to improve if we all tolerate (and even encourage!) trolling.

As respects the actual claims that were made: please read my posts on pages 6, 7, and 8 where I really did my best to address Omega's claims and to suggest a constructive course of action. You will see that I did in fact suggest some very simple tests that Omega could have easily performed which would have helped to elucidate the problem. _He_ refused. What else can I do? I could not reproduce his problem, I have already tested the product extensively, and I could think of no theory that would support his claim. As several others have pointed out, I would be the first to devote my full attention to solving such a bug. But first we need to identify what we want to fix.

Finally, I believe that a disproportionate share of the dismissive/mean language in this thread is being attributed to me after the fact. I encourage you to re-read ONLY my posts from the beginning of this thread, and to separate the trolling issue from my analysis of his actual claims. I did not question his claims because I thought he was trolling. I questioned them because I believed him to be mistaken.

Sean

crooner
2007-07-17, 18:10
Well said Sean!!!

tgoldstone
2007-07-17, 21:09
As they said in Star Wars episode 4
“I’ve got a very bad feeling about this.”

omega
2007-07-18, 04:07
Hi!

-JIMC
Quote:
"I tried it, too. The results aren't really relevant, since I didn't run the tests blind or double-blind. Let's just say I heard *exactly* what I expected I would hear.



Did you hear "the effect" ?




- JIMC & SEANADAMS

Quote:
"You will see that I did in fact suggest some very simple tests that Omega could have easily performed which would have helped to elucidate the problem. _He_ refused.
"





We are not refusing.. Just havenīt got the time and equipment to do all "easily performed" testing..

Both me and Hammer works full+++ time..
And this testing/Measuring Is occurring on our free time, During the weekends ... If there is time...

Last Sunday, we meet a friend of Hammer and did an analog measurement with an "Oscilloscope" on the digital output (SB3).
"Everything" looked ok, nothing to explain "the effect thing"


My and hammers soundcards don’t have a "Digital in".. Maybe planning baying one.
Then we try programs like "Audio DiffMaker" etc.


Hammer and I are not so good in the "Digital Domain"
We need help from someone who has the "know-how" and the measuring tools for this. (Jitter etc)

We hope to get some help from Hammers friend at the Royal Institute of Technology to track this thing.
He is a researcher and has very limited time.



Anyone reading this thread and having the "know-how" and proper tools, and the time, please help us.





A good test track to hear "the effect"..

Cowboy Junkies "The Trinity Session"
Track one "Mining for Gold"

Listen to the back round "Noise" and "Vocal focus"....


Best

Regards


/Mats :-)

Robin Bowes
2007-07-18, 05:08
Omega,

Can I ask, what external DAC do you have? What about your friends?

R.

omega
2007-07-18, 05:42
-Robin Bowes

My system:

SB3 (Latest firmware and Slimserver) I am Only playing .Flac files done with EAC /Plextor
Digital Out from SB3 -> Musical Fidelity X-Dac v3 -> Musical Fidelity X-10 V3 Tube Buffer -> Cambridge AZUR 840A Amp.
Speakers: Chario Hyper 2000 Tower Reference + Elac CL 4Pi Plus (A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter)
SB3 Linear power supply, Isolation transformers, Filters etc.


Hammers system:

QUAD ESL Speakers,
Custom built Tube amplifier,

Hammer has built his own DAC (I Think itīs a "Crystal/Cirrus Logic's" chip inside ?)

Hammer is planning to set the Dac to "synk on internal clock" instead of SB3 clock. (Or something.. i really donīt know much about this)
To see if we can isolate the problem.


/Mats :-)

Robin Bowes
2007-07-18, 06:09
omega wrote:
> -Robin Bowes
>
> My system:
>
> SB3 (Latest firmware and Slimserver) I am Only playing .Flac files done
> with EAC /Plextor
> Digital Out from SB3 -> Musical Fidelity X-Dac v3 -> Musical Fidelity
> X-10 V3 Tube Buffer -> Cambridge AZUR 840A Amp.
> Speakers: Chario Hyper 2000 Tower Reference + Elac CL 4Pi Plus (A
> universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter)
> SB3 Linear power supply, Isolation transformers, Filters etc.
>
>
> Hammers system:
>
> QUAD ESL Speakers,
> Custom built Tube amplifier,
>
> Hammer has built his own DAC (I Think itīs a "Crystal/Cirrus Logic's"
> chip inside ?)
>
> Hammer is planning to set the Dac to "synk on internal clock" instead
> of SB3 clock. (Or something.. i really donīt know much about this)
> To see if we can isolate the problem.

OK - just wondering if the external DACs are somehow losing sync to the
digital stream.

R.

opaqueice
2007-07-18, 06:55
Hi!
My and hammers soundcards don’t have a "Digital in".. Maybe planning baying one.
Then we try programs like "Audio DiffMaker" etc.


You don't need a digital in. While it would be good to verify that the digital stream out of the SB is the same in both cases, that's not what audiodiffmaker does. It compares two recordings of the analogue output of something, say your DAC. And I'm pretty sure that just about all soundcards have an input - otherwise you couldn't use a microphone, for example.

Phil Leigh
2007-07-18, 10:19
omega wrote:
> -Robin Bowes
>
> My system:
>
> SB3 (Latest firmware and Slimserver) I am Only playing .Flac files done
> with EAC /Plextor
> Digital Out from SB3 -> Musical Fidelity X-Dac v3 -> Musical Fidelity
> X-10 V3 Tube Buffer -> Cambridge AZUR 840A Amp.
> Speakers: Chario Hyper 2000 Tower Reference + Elac CL 4Pi Plus (A
> universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter)
> SB3 Linear power supply, Isolation transformers, Filters etc.
>
>
> Hammers system:
>
> QUAD ESL Speakers,
> Custom built Tube amplifier,
>
> Hammer has built his own DAC (I Think itīs a "Crystal/Cirrus Logic's"
> chip inside ?)
>
> Hammer is planning to set the Dac to "synk on internal clock" instead
> of SB3 clock. (Or something.. i really donīt know much about this)
> To see if we can isolate the problem.

OK - just wondering if the external DACs are somehow losing sync to the
digital stream.

R.

There's a slim (oops!) possibility the DAC's might be the cause - I use the same model DAC and can't hear this effect. But I have other devices between SB and DAC...

vrobin
2007-07-18, 10:28
You're still arguing? This must be some sort of april joke run by the slimdevice community manager to amuse us? Please, tell me it's just not reality ;).

Robin

JimC
2007-07-18, 11:31
Hi!

-JIMC
Quote:
"I tried it, too. The results aren't really relevant, since I didn't run the tests blind or double-blind. Let's just say I heard *exactly* what I expected I would hear.

Did you hear "the effect" ?

I didn't hear a difference, but I didn't expect to, either. The reason my results aren't relevant is that I didn't do it blind/double-blind, so I did not control for personal bias.

My system isn't very high-end at all, so it could possibly have been masked in the "digital out-->analog conversion-->speakers-->room effects" chain but I doubt that.



Last Sunday, we meet a friend of Hammer and did an analog measurement with an "Oscilloscope" on the digital output (SB3).
"Everything" looked ok, nothing to explain "the effect thing"

So if I'm understanding you, the two measurements you have taken have shown no difference in the signal, correct? Will you at least consider the _possibility_ that there's no problem with the output stage and that the effect you are hearing is perceptual?



My and hammers soundcards don’t have a "Digital in".. Maybe planning baying one.
Then we try programs like "Audio DiffMaker" etc.

There were two tests proposed:

1. Using a soundcard with digital-in, record the output from the SB3. This will be tricky to "compare" as you'll have to match starting points, but as long as the file contains the same segment of music, it should be straightforward. You could also post them here for other people to help you reveiw. This test tells about the digital output from the SB3.

2. Using any analog recording mechanism (with reasonable fidelity and dynamic range), record the "good" and the "bad" audio, again using the same section of music. Use AUDIODIFF to compare these. This second test is for THE REST of your system.

In other words, if test 1 shows no difference, but test 2 *does* show a difference, the problem is occurring somewhere in the process of digital-to-analog conversion and/or turning the analog signal into audible frequencies.


Hammer and I are not so good in the "Digital Domain"
We need help from someone who has the "know-how" and the measuring tools for this. (Jitter etc)

We hope to get some help from Hammers friend at the Royal Institute of Technology to track this thing.
He is a researcher and has very limited time.

Well, hopefully he'll be able to find the time. Let us know what he finds, if he is able to help you test.



-=> Jim

omega
2007-07-18, 15:08
Quote:
"So if I'm understanding you, the two measurements you have taken have shown no difference in the signal, correct?"

Yes, the two measurements have shown no "differance"
The "pinknoise" test showed a small differance but this is propably due to the pinknoise and average time?

And itīs hard to see any small differance when working with a analog Oscilloscope... To Compare A/B...
We plan to do more analog measurements later.



Quote:
"Will you at least consider the _possibility_ that there's no problem with the output stage and that the effect you are hearing is perceptual?"

Yes and No...

Yes, there could be a problem with the slimserversoftware or compatibility with our DACS or something else.

No, I donīt think the effect that we are hearing is perceptual,
All people that have listen in my and hammers homes are convince that this is not a placebo thing.



Quote:
"My system isn't very high-end at all, so it could possibly have been masked in the "digital out-->analog conversion-->speakers-->room effects" chain but I doubt that."


Are you running with a external DAC ?
What amplifier, Speakers etc do you have?
You are propably not going to hear any differance through the analog outputs on the SB3.

Both me and Hammer have a very fine tunned system.
If we remove all the "isolation transformers" and "power cleaners" external DAC etc
we propably not going to hear any differance or have much more difficult to distinguish between "good" and "Bad" sound.


/Mats

JimC
2007-07-18, 17:04
Quote:

"Will you at least consider the _possibility_ that there's no problem with the output stage and that the effect you are hearing is perceptual?"

Yes and No...

Yes, there could be a problem with the slimserversoftware or compatibility with our DACS or something else.

No, I donīt think the effect that we are hearing is perceptual,
All people that have listen in my and hammers homes are convince that this is not a placebo thing.

Good grief. All the people are "convinced that this is not a placebo thing" and that makes it NOT a placebo thing? If you haven't tested using blind or double-blind methods, thereby isolating knowledge of the test condition from the test, the results simply cannot exclude the placebo effect.


Both me and Hammer have a very fine tunned system.
If we remove all the "isolation transformers" and "power cleaners" external DAC etc
we propably not going to hear any differance or have much more difficult to distinguish between "good" and "Bad" sound.

Hmmm. Allow me to recap what I've read:

You've _modified_ a Squeezebox such that you claim to hear a difference, and then call it a "design miss" but go on to state that an unmodified SB3 would probably not exhibit the problem.

You can't _measure_ any difference so far but still insist there is a difference.

A bunch of people you asked to listen for a problem believe they heard the problem.

You don't perform your listening tests in a way that would exclude awareness of the test condition.

But there's *no* chance that this is a perceptual problem... it simply has to exist because you heard it.


Okey dokey.

I'm done... I've finally crossed the bridge.


-=> Jim

pfarrell
2007-07-18, 17:10
JimC wrote:
> I'm done... I've finally crossed the bridge.

About time, don't feed the trolls.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

danielu
2007-07-19, 00:59
To Omega & co

First I most tell all, I do not have a SB3 so I not able to hear how it sounds and I not able to verify your clam.
But as I see/read it, you and your friend have both a heavy modified SB3. This it self could be a problem as you not able to conclude that is the SB3 that has the fault. You also report that you think that without a isolation transforms, filters and so on you would have difficulty hearing the difference. Please do this test as a blind test for another person the you self/friend, this should be easy. And report back you discovery.

<Audiophile mode on>
In your setup, how can you be sure that there isn't a part of the system that falls, it could be that it just can't stand to have the same piece of music played twice with out a power off. It could be that the DAC have going in saturation/fault mode or soo

In the pause situation not power off.
The electrons could be jammed in the cables you could try to change them all.


To all please don't take this selection very seriously :-)
I not a believer

Maybe Sean can answer this; during a power off situation are any part/circuits of the SB3 actual power off. I thinking in the non audio part, display control, wireless interface, main cpu and so.
and in what state, are these circuits in a pause situation?
It could be that something could add noise or change the phase in the music signal after a pause in the audio signal.

<audiophile mode off>

All test should be blind tests:

What happens is the first track played last a fraction of a second how it the next track then perceive?

Try during the first good track to power off and on various parts of your soundsystem, DAC, preamp, poweramp. what is the perceive sound like

Do you have the possibility to use another source to your extremal DAC like a cd player? Then try the same test.

What happens if you use a pure tone instead of music? try both a high and low frequency tone

My biggest concern is that you stop/have a break in the music. To my knowledge this alone can be enough for some to report that the heired two sounds (this is in a pure tone test).

I can only suggestion you make a recording of the two situations and publish the result to this forum.


My last comment please accept, that some people can't hear what you hear. if your not sadified with the SB3 buy another product rebuild it like others have. Maybe this product is just not high-end enough for your ears.

regards
Daniel

omega
2007-07-19, 04:21
-JimC
Quote:
"You've _modified_ a Squeezebox such that you claim to hear a difference, and then call it a "design miss" but go on to state that an unmodified SB3 would probably not exhibit the problem."



The only Modifications that i have to my Squeezebox is:

1. A Custom Linear powersupply. (Hammer is still running on the original)
2. A Digital isolation transformer on the Coaxial Digital output on the SB3. (Both me and Hammer have this Modification)

When i discovered the problem or "effect" my SB3 was i original state.. Only the Custom Linear powersupply.
I still hear the same effect through the unmodified Optical output on the SB3...

I only tried the "digital isolation transformer" Modification to se if that fixed the problem...
I was "satisfied" with the optical output in the firstplace.



When i talked about remove the "isolation transformers" & "power cleaners" i ment the AC current 220V/50 HZ feeding my whole Stereo.
Not removing the Digital isolation transformer inside the SB3.
I still hear the same effect through the unmodified Optical output on the SB3...

And is a External DAC a Modification ?

Yes i think i propably not going to hear any differance or have much more difficult to distinguish between "good" and "Bad" sound.
Running through the analog outputs on the SB3 and removing the "isolation transformers" & "power cleaners" (AC current 220V/50 HZ)


And if i remove my Elac CL 4Pi Plus (A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter) "Then my problems will ge gone".

I just tried to get a point in the previous post.
Not all people is running with an External DAC etc and probably and not hearing this effect.

Or as you wrote in the previous post:
"My system isn't very high-end at all, so it could possibly have been masked in the "digital out-->analog conversion-->speakers-->room effects" chain but I doubt that. "




Quote:
Good grief. All the people are "convinced that this is not a placebo thing" and that makes it NOT a placebo thing? If you haven't tested using blind or double-blind methods, thereby isolating knowledge of the test condition from the test, the results simply cannot exclude the placebo effect.



My girfriend did a blindtest on me, i know this doesnīt prof a thing... It have to be "blind/double-blind"
But you asked me to consider the possibility that the effect we are hearing is perceptual?

I still believe "Sigmund Freud" has nothing to do with this...



Quote:
"You can't measure any difference so far but still insist there is a difference."



Hammer and i Will try more measure later...


I know this arguing is not leading anywhere, itīs just makes all of us involved angry,
I really donīt want to fight.
You guys at logitech have your belief, Me and Hammer & Co have ours.


Anyone reading this thread and having the "know-how" and proper tools, and the time, please help us.


Best Regards!


/Mats :-)

opaqueice
2007-07-19, 05:38
Anyone reading this thread and having the "know-how" and proper tools, and the time, please help us.

For the tenth time, it's really really easy! I'm almost positive your soundcard has a line-in, and if it doesn't, borrow any laptop from some time in the last decade and use that. Then all you need is a cable that takes 2 RCA plugs into a coaxial, like this:

http://www.connexions-oem.com/mini-rca.gif

Then use the cable to plug your DAC into the line-in of the computer, record a song (for example using Audacity, which is free and downloadable), restart the SB, make a new recording, and use audiodiffmaker to compare.

Ejorne
2007-07-19, 08:00
For the tenth time, it's really really easy! I'm almost positive your soundcard has a line-in, and if it doesn't, borrow any laptop from some time in the last decade and use that. Then all you need is a cable that takes 2 RCA plugs into a coaxial, like this:

http://www.connexions-oem.com/mini-rca.gif

Then use the cable to plug your DAC into the line-in of the computer, record a song (for example using Audacity, which is free and downloadable), restart the SB, make a new recording, and use audiodiffmaker to compare.

I think tests like that will not result in showing a difference. But i dont think that should say that the difference is not there and therefor must be in the mind.

Because the difference between that cd and cdr looks like so much simulair to this effect. And, as far as i know, there is also not a technical explanation in difference between cd and cdr. Technicians also say (and honnestly believe) that there IS no difference and all the diffrence should be in the persons head... But with cd an cdr i can prove the difference in blind testing, over and over again... But the technicians still believe it is in my head...

But, escuse me for bringing this cd versus cdr back in this topic... It's (probably) not connected to this problem... but as i say again, those test will probably not result in differences, but... still it can be there. We must know more about audio in technical way aand/or in human-body way...

opaqueice
2007-07-19, 10:26
This test takes two analogue audio signals and subtracts them. The resulting file is an upper bound on any difference - in other words any real difference between the two files will be smaller than the result. You can then listen to the differences without anything masking them. You can turn up the volume, look at the waveform, etc.

It's an EXTREMELY sensitive test - much more so than human hearing in an A/B comparison. For example phase differences will show up very clearly in the difference file even when they were totally inaudible in the original sound. If a negative result on this test doesn't convince you, nothing will and there's no point in doing ANY test. It's also far easier to do than a proper blind test.

It's off topic, but you claim to have done blind tests for CDs versus CDRs - can you describe the test setup and results in detail?

ganjastone
2007-07-19, 10:42
Dear Omega & co

I posted my dissatifaction with the way seanadams and JimC are responding you on this thread. I still stand behind that, paying customers (even annoying one) deserve better attitude.

But I must tell mr. Omega and co., you are truely annoying. with the time you spent doing silly audio tests and the time you spent bloating this thread, if you are so sure there is a "bugg" you could have performed just one of the tests seanadams instructed you to do, and bring your "proof" here instead of wasting so many people's time with your wierd experiences with SB.

Please, post something when you do a serious test, otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time, and make a used to be good Audiophile forum a big pile of junk with now over 21 pages.

PS - To SlimDevices forum manager, can't you move this thread from "Audiophiles" forum to "bugg" forum?

EFP
2007-07-19, 12:01
PS - To SlimDevices forum manager, can't you move this thread from "Audiophiles" forum to "bugg" forum?


Bugs require reproducible cases.
I think this thread lies exactly where it belongs.

Phil Leigh
2007-07-19, 12:38
Bugs require reproducible cases.
I think this thread lies exactly where it belongs.

Well said.
...and before anyone else chimes in, I'm with Mr. Opaqueice on this one. If audiodiffmaker shows no real difference then there is no real difference. Period.

konut
2007-07-19, 12:47
I've been following this thread. Some ideas. Omega, could you try using the web interface to start/pause/stop your SB3 instead of the remote? Purhaps there is an IR code anomaly with your other equipment. In the same vein, if you have any fluorescent lights in your listening room, turn them off. Thats all I got.

adamslim
2007-07-19, 12:57
Well said.
...and before anyone else chimes in, I'm with Mr. Opaqueice on this one. If audiodiffmaker shows no real difference then there is no real difference. Period.

I hate agreeing with Opaqueice. Ok then I won't :)

Sorry but I have not seen anything that proves that audiodiffmaker (or any similar measurement-differencer system) is better than the human ear. Plus I do not accept that a system that is designed to find such differences has any relevance to listening to music.

That notwithstanding, I do think that Omega needs to refine his point somewhat. I don't feel that it has been well explained, and it has been presented aggressively.

Sorry to disagree with everyone. I guess that is a reasonable definition of trolling, but this is a thread for which the mere act of posting can only be considered an act of a troll. Ho hum.

ganjastone
2007-07-19, 13:38
It's been 22 pages of a thread.

Omega is not going to provide here any useful info, except for bad google marketing for SlimDevices and a bit of a rude reputation to some SlimDevices personel.

If Omega had something solid in hand, he would already publish it. SlimDevices, or anyone else on the forum with the equipment needed to perform a test, can test it (with Omega flawed FLAC) and publish the results.

I at least, would then have no doubt nothing is 'bugg'. Otherwise this will never end.

opaqueice
2007-07-19, 13:41
I hate agreeing with Opaqueice. Ok then I won't :)

Good. Agreement is boring :-).



Sorry but I have not seen anything that proves that audiodiffmaker (or any similar measurement-differencer system) is better than the human ear.

Hmm, good point. I wonder - do you also find it easier to discern differences with the volume on your amp turned all the way down? Or maybe you listen to your CDs by holding them very close to your ears? After all, the ear is a magical device that's far more accurate than any electronic gear, right? So why not remove the CD player and amp and speakers - they just get in the way.

Look - audiodiffmaker is like turning up the volume on the differences and turning down everything else. Once it does that for you, you can USE YOUR EARS to listen to the difference file - and guess what, the differences are easier to hear, just like it's easier to hear louder sounds than softer (at least for normal human beings with non-magical ears), or to hear a quiet sound when there's no loud one to obscure it. And if you want proof it reveals differences that the ear can't hear, that's very easy. Just take two identical files and run one through a filter that distorts phase. Totally inaudible (except in extreme cases), but the difference file will reveal it easily.

nicketynick
2007-07-19, 13:44
And if i remove my Elac CL 4Pi Plus (A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter) "Then my problems will ge gone".



Maybe there's something wrong with those tweeters? Perhaps the ribbon freezes up (or some other hi-jinx related to the cross-over levels and/or sensitivity) when you do the 'pause' thing? Since they're operating up to 50 kHz, they might be very sensitive to 'base-line' conditions (butterfly in Tokyo effect).

servies
2007-07-19, 13:48
I hate agreeing with Opaqueice. Ok then I won't :)

Sorry but I have not seen anything that proves that audiodiffmaker (or any similar measurement-differencer system) is better than the human ear.
Geeez.... I'm going to tell you something that must be very unpleasant to a 'true' audiophile: Your ears are crap and with crap I mean really crap. I mean as crap as crap can be and if your ears aren't that crappy than it's the grey matter between them that's colouring every sound with it's expectations and experience from the past! And that makes your hearing even more crappy...
So face it: your hearing is crap!


Plus I do not accept that a system that is designed to find such differences has any relevance to listening to music.
It's extremely relevant in this case: If there is no difference, then there is NO difference!
The problem with a lot of 'true' audiophiles is that they just need a justification for the large amounts of money they spend on their equipment and that justification is their supposed superb hearing while in reality probably 99.999999999999% of the 'true' audiophiles have as crappy hearing as everyone else... maybe even worse...

Did I already mention your hearing is crappy?

Phil Leigh
2007-07-19, 14:10
Geeez.... I'm going to tell you something that must be very unpleasant to a 'true' audiophile: Your ears are crap and with crap I mean really crap. I mean as crap as crap can be and if your ears aren't that crappy than it's the grey matter between them that's colouring every sound with it's expectations and experience from the past! And that makes your hearing even more crappy...
So face it: your hearing is crap!


It's extremely relevant in this case: If there is no difference, then there is NO difference!
The problem with a lot of 'true' audiophiles is that they just need a justification for the large amounts of money they spend on their equipment and that justification is their supposed superb hearing while in reality probably 99.999999999999% of the 'true' audiophiles have as crappy hearing as everyone else... maybe even worse...

Did I already mention your hearing is crappy?

Yes yes and double yes. Ears+brain=completly unreliable (ie subjective) judge of anything. Comparing numbers=totally reliable.

The only magical thing about our ears is that they can't reliably do anything.

tomjtx
2007-07-19, 14:47
NOW, this thread is getting interesting :-)

adamslim
2007-07-19, 15:23
Yada yada... :)
Did I already mention your hearing is crappy?

I agree, and am quite sure that you are right. However, my ears are what I listen to music with, so that is how I evaluate products related to listening to music. This seems reasonable to me.

I often get to a point in an A/B listening session where everything sounds the same, at which time I grab a coffee and chill for a while. If there are differences I can normally hear them, often quickly but sometimes less so, and if, over a few sessions, I really can't tell the difference then I don't get fussed about it, buy the cheap or pretty one.

Conversely, with difference testing there is all sorts of analysis you have to do to prove the audibility of differences, and all you do is prove the testing equipment rather than the music experience. If you find any difference, it gives you no indication of what is best, and if you don't find a difference, the equipment might not be as sensitive as your ears. Pointless.

If you must be pedantic, it's the brain that sucks, not the ears. The ears are astonishingly good at picking up sound (although they are not linear). The brain is astonishingly good at doing whatever it thinks it probably should, so it doesn't need to think!

And yes, this thread does deserve to be taken out of its zone... :)

omega
2007-07-20, 11:15
-opaqueice

Hi!

I have installed Audacity & audiodiffmaker today and started some testing.

My Laptop only have a Mono-Mic in, so a tested on my "Slimserver PC"

I wanted to learn & Test Audacity and audiodiffmaker before i began testing on the SB3 & DAC.

I connected my NAD CD player to the line in on the Soundcard.
Started testing with a Music Audio CD.

But i always get a audible "difference wave" (A-B) how matter i do.


I have tripple checked all settings Line in levels etc, and i start recording as careful i can be.
(Same start point pressing "rec" in the programs and "Play" on the CD player.

But i end up with the "same" diff file how matter i do.

I tried to record both from audiodiffmaker and Audacity but the same result.

The diff file is almost quiet but i can hear the track/song very very very weak.
(I can follow & recognize the song easy)

And i pickup "much" interference from the PC, Fan noise etc.

I tried the SB3 analog output for a test run but there is the same "strange" diff file there to.

I think i need som better soundcard that is 100% quiet and have a S/PDIF in for this test?

But why this diff file ? i shall be quiet? i donīt change anything during the A and B recordings.

And this test must be quiet "during tuning", otherwise itīs useless to go on with this.

Do you have some tips regarding this?


Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

ezkcdude
2007-07-20, 11:29
-opaqueice

Hi!

I have installed Audacity & audiodiffmaker today and started some testing.

My Laptop only have a Mono-Mic in, so a tested on my "Slimserver PC"

I wanted to learn & Test Audacity and audiodiffmaker before i began testing on the SB3 & DAC.

I connected my NAD CD player to the line in on the Soundcard.
Started testing with a Music Audio CD.

But i always get a audible "difference wave" (A-B) how matter i do.


I have tripple checked all settings Line in levels etc, and i start recording as careful i can be.
(Same start point pressing "rec" in the programs and "Play" on the CD player.

But i end up with the "same" diff file how matter i do.

I tried to record both from audiodiffmaker and Audacity but the same result.

The diff file is almost quiet but i can hear the track/song very very very weak.
(I can follow & recognize the song easy)

And i pickup "much" interference from the PC, Fan noise etc.

I tried the SB3 analog output for a test run but there is the same "strange" diff file there to.

I think i need som better soundcard that is 100% quiet and have a S/PDIF in for this test?

But why this diff file ? i shall be quiet? i donīt change anything during the A and B recordings.

And this test must be quiet "during tuning", otherwise itīs useless to go on with this.

Do you have some tips regarding this?


Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

Omega (Mats), I would not start with music. Instead, I suggest using a standard 1 kHz wav file (either from the CD player or Squeezebox). Using this "fixed" frequency, you may be able to hear some pattern (harmonics, etc) in the diff file. With music, I'm afraid the signal is too complicated to hear a real difference.

opaqueice
2007-07-20, 11:33
But i always get a audible "difference wave" (A-B) how matter i do.

Hmmm... I tried this with three different recording techniques - into my laptop's line-in, into my windows desktop's line-in, and using a Tascam USB microphone interface I have. None of those recordings exhibited the problem you're having - in all cases there was some noise in the difference file, but it was quiet, had a pretty white spectrum, and just sounded like static (except for the Tascam which was introducing some high-frequency crap for some reason).

You might try the laptop - even if it's mono you can just record one channel. Not ideal, but might be quieter (for me the laptop made the least noisy recording).

You do have the option in audiodiffmaker checked that time-aligns the recordings before taking the difference, right? Also just as a test, try taking the difference of two identical files (like two copies of the same recording) and make sure you get silence.

opaqueice
2007-07-20, 11:35
Omega (Mats), I would not start with music. Instead, I suggest using a standard 1 kHz wav file (either from the CD player or Squeezebox). Using this "fixed" frequency, you may be able to hear some pattern (harmonics, etc) in the diff file. With music, I'm afraid the signal is too complicated to hear a real difference.

Why not use music?

If I understood his post, he IS hearing a difference even when both files are recordings of the same track from his CD player. So there's something wrong with either audiodiffmaker, the recording process, or his CD player. That has to get sorted out first.

The selection I used in my recordings was music - it was a piano and cello concerto - and the difference file was just very low level white noise.

omega
2007-07-20, 12:58
-opaqueice

Hi Again!

Quote:
"You might try the laptop - even if it's mono you can just record one channel."

Not good i have only "mic in" the signal gets distroted how matter i set signal level.


Quote:
"Also just as a test, try taking the difference of two identical files (like two copies of the same recording) and make sure you get silence."

Works ok :-) "silence" ! so audiodiffmaker is working ok!


Quote:
"You do have the option in audiodiffmaker checked that time-aligns the recordings before taking the difference, right?"

I run with "Default" time-aligns settings.

"Difference Extraction"
Time Aligment

Delay Capacity = 15 %
Delay resolution = 20n [SEC]

GAIN all settings Default..


Is there some other settings?


I Think there's something wrong with the recording process, I end up with the same using SB3 Or CD player.
Both canīt be broken.


Best Regards!


/Mats :-)

clickhand
2007-07-20, 13:06
wow...reading through this thread makes me glad I'm not an "audiophile" !

seanadams
2007-07-20, 13:14
I Think there's something wrong with the recording process, I end up with the same using SB3 Or CD player.

Unfortunately if the laptop _only_ accepts MIC in, and there is no option to change it to line in, then you are going to get extremely bad distortion from overdriving the input.

This is a decent product that you can use to get line in to a laptop:

http://www.xitel.com/USA/prod_inportdl.htm

omega
2007-07-20, 13:28
-seanadams

Thanks for the tip & Web Link.


I will talk to "Hammer" he also have a "laptop" and "Desktop"
We can try his computers and see how things sounds.


I know you propably canīt talk about this but...
When is "SB4" planned for release?
Is there planned a "NAS" version or a HD (SATA or IDE) version ?

Best Regards!

/Mats :-)

bosco
2007-07-27, 17:13
I haven't read the whole thread, but there is a really easy way to test the digital outputs.

Do you have a receiver that can decode Dolby Digital (AC3) or DTS?

Go here: http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/mall/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2446&Artikel=740607 and download/unzip a DTS or AC3 file. Play it on your Squeezebox (volume must be 100). The files are compressed, and if your receiver does not get a perfect signal you will hear nothing at all or just static.

Works fine here btw. Good luck.

Ejorne
2007-07-28, 17:07
I haven't read the whole thread, but there is a really easy way to test the digital outputs.

Do you have a receiver that can decode Dolby Digital (AC3) or DTS?

Go here: http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/mall/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2446&Artikel=740607 and download/unzip a DTS or AC3 file. Play it on your Squeezebox (volume must be 100). The files are compressed, and if your receiver does not get a perfect signal you will hear nothing at all or just static.

Works fine here btw. Good luck.

Why should a devices which is capable of pass-through dts and/or ac3 be perfect?

Does it say something about the amount of jitter from that signal?

bosco
2007-07-29, 01:38
AC3 and DTS are compressed buffered formats. Jitter has no part whatsoever in that equation (hint, buffered). Think about it, if you change even one byte in a compressed zip-file and then try to uncompress it. What happens?

And the term pass-through doesn't really apply here either I think. The files I linked to are in WAV-containers, you can burn them as regular Red Book CDs (of course without a decoder you'll just hear static).

bosco
2007-07-29, 02:14
The idea was that if Omega could hear the same differences with these AC3/DTS tracks then we would have proven that the differences came from the power of suggestion.

brjann
2007-07-29, 06:25
Hi all!

First of all I think this a wonderfully interesting thread, and hope I will not be deleted. Reading it I've thought about a few things that I'd like to comment, excuse the length, but here are my 10 cents...

Here is an interesting link:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179

I think this gives us a pretty good idea about flame wars start. In 80% of the cases, we think that the readers will correctly interpret the tone in our text-based messages, in 50% of the cases they actually, in 90% of the cases believing to be correct. I personally think that both Sean and Mats have been pretty civil throughout the thread, and completely disagree with those claiming that the SD-staff have in any way been exceptionally rude. But, I could of course be misjudging their intended tone...

Moving on to the placebo effect. I does seem that Mats hasn't quite understood what that is. The placebo effect in this case is not in any way an effect of fooling yourself that you hear something that you actually don't. It's simply a phenomenon of how the brain processes incoming information, what information is "picked up", and what information is discarded (actually dimensional, not dichotomous). This way of functioning is totally necessery for the brain to be able to distinguish between relevant and non-relevant stimuli. For instance, if you are having a conversation with a friend, while others are talking beside you, you and your friend will actually "not hear" what the others are talking about, that is give their verbal sounds verbal meaning. In this case you would say that the sounds of your friends voice is "clearer" than the sounds of the others speaking. This is a "placebo effect", but no one would say that you are making it up, because you actually can't retell what the others are saying.

Another thing with the brain is that is constantly seeking information about that indicates that something "important" is happening. That's basic survival instinct, things that are important should be attended to so that they can be dealt with properly. As things become more important they are also more hightlighted so that attention is more readily focused on them and decisions about what to do can be made quicker. This means that stimuli (like sounds) that _could_ be of the important type, are detected and highlighted so that we can act. If you're expecting a phone call from a girl you would like to date (important!) and listening to music on a high volume, you will constantly be hearing the phone ringing, because sounds in the music that resemble the signal of your phone will be interpreted as such. It's impossible for us to consciously separate real from fake ringing tones, the meaning of the sounds that the brain adds is the only source of information we have!

The thing about humans is that we're able to add "importance" to almost any stimuli. If it is important that my new stereo sounds well, any information that can be indicative if this or the opposite will be highlighted and perceived as more audible. So, expecting the sound to be different when you use two different methods of pausing the SB will infact produce different perceptions, your brain will highlight different properties of the sound.

To test if Mats experience is a result of selective processing or not, no fancy testing equipment is required. As has been pointed out, he simply has to prove in a blind test that he can more often than chance will accurately say what method of pausing was used. The blind test that Mats performed wasn't that good for a number of reasons (e.g. too small n, dependence between trials), but it's simple to produce one that is.

I suggest the following protocol:
* Mats is blindfolded, and preferrebly listens to the music with headphones.
* A neutral person roles a die, if the result is odd (1,3,5), method 1 us used to pause, otherwise (2,4,6), method 2 is used.
* It is important that Mats won't be able to draw conclusions from the time of the pause, therefore the neutral person should press the "play" button at a fixed number of second since pausing the music.
* 30 trials are made, and for each trial the number on the die is noted, the method used, and whether Mats correctly identifies the method.

Then post these data on the forum, and a simple chi-2 test will reveal to what degree we can be certain if the sound differs or not. Note that being right in only 70% of 30 cases indicates a 97% chance that Mats is correct, so 100% identification is not necessary.

I don't think it's unfair to expect Mats to perform this blind trial after all this fuzz, since it is easy and would demand considerably less effort than contacting people with fancy testing equipment.

/Brjánn

omega
2007-07-31, 13:51
Hi !

I have just bought a Behringer SRC 2496
http://www.behringer.com/SRC2496/index.cfm?lang=eng

I plan to connect this like this:
SB3 Optical out Sp/dif 16/44 -> SRC2496 "use internal clock not SP/dif" & AES/EBU 44/16 -> DAC (Musical fidelity X-Dac v3)

I post my listening tests later.

-Bosco

Quote:
"Do you have a receiver that can decode Dolby Digital (AC3) or DTS?"

No i donīt have a DTS receiver.

-Brjann

You have a good point there, A real super blindtest is fair regarding this.
I will talk to "Hammer" and see when we can do this.
Even if i allready have done a quick blindtest before...


Anyway both me and hammer are soon leaving sweden for a couple of weeks during vacation.
So all this measuring and testing is "put on hold" for a while.

We both have been quite bissy lately so there havenīt been any test and measures lately.

Regards

/Mats :-)

Patrick Dixon
2007-08-01, 00:56
To test if Mats experience is a result of selective processing or not, no fancy testing equipment is required. As has been pointed out, he simply has to prove in a blind test that he can more often than chance will accurately say what method of pausing was used.
Good post.

However, I think that identifying the source/method is an unnecessary and overcomplicated step. You simply need to repeatedly be able to detect a difference when there is one, and no difference when there isn't.

Identifying which is which is not required to prove that the two cases are different, and trying to do it introduces a whole new set of perceptive errors into the experiment.

Once you have established a difference, you can then set about trying to identify what that difference is, and whether one case is an improvement on the other.

brjann
2007-08-01, 05:00
Yes, I guess that telling if this method differs from the previous one or not is better. We're really getting into depth of signal detection here, I guess you should even have a calibration run...

ceejay
2007-08-01, 08:03
Good post.

However, I think that identifying the source/method is an unnecessary and overcomplicated step. You simply need to repeatedly be able to detect a difference when there is one, and no difference when there isn't.

Identifying which is which is not required to prove that the two cases are different, and trying to do it introduces a whole new set of perceptive errors into the experiment.

Once you have established a difference, you can then set about trying to identify what that difference is, and whether one case is an improvement on the other.


Well, I guess what this means in practice is that if OP did a proper blind test and wrongly identified the source 80-90% of the time, that would demonstrate an audible difference: though it would beg an interesting additional question as to why he preferred option A while sighted and option B while blind...

Ceejay

schatzy
2007-08-02, 05:08
Let me start by saying that I am new to the forums here. I have found lots of very helpful people post to these forums in all categories, and have made my purchase of two SB3 much more pleasant and easy to deal with. And thanks to all of you.

There is one thing that disturbs me though, and that is the negative attitude of some of the posts in this thread. (And I have read all of them). I will not name names but i think most of you will recognize who you are.

Now let me put in my 10 cents here. (ok maybe 25 cents with the length of this post)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

au·dio·phile
Function: noun:
a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

high fidelity
Function: noun
the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original

With the above stated I do not know of any test that can be administered to any one or multiple individuals that will prove if they are an audiophile or not an audiophile.

All of the individuals that have contributed to this thread are correct. At least in their own mind an that is the only thing that counts.

Being and audiophile can only be self proclaimed. Two of my neighbors are self proclaimed audiophiles as I am myself. One of my neighbors has over $300,000.00 (three hundred thousand dollars) worth of equipment in his home. The other has about $1000.00. I personally have about $4500.00 worth of equipment. Can I hear the difference between the three systems? I will answer that with a resounding YES. Can both my neighbors hear the difference? Again a resounding YES.

The only requirement with being a self proclaimed audiophile is that you “LOVE” music.

All the tests in the world that use electronics equipment to judge the “True Sound” of a audio system are there for the unknowing individual. I mean that an amplifier can boast about it’s low THD or its Power Output, or a test can show there is no difference in the digital signals, but the reality of the matter is that every one of us that listen to it will hear it differently.

I have worked for some of the best known audio equipment manufacturers. I have been in some of the best recording studios in the United States. All of them great experiences.

The real test of an audio system is for it to sound as close to the original source material as it can. If that means the recording was done on The Esplinade in Boston, MA, USA, then I had better hear some of the crowd and street noise in the recording. If it was done in the studio then it had better sound just as it did when I was actually there listening to it being recorded.

I know of know system that is perfect in reproducing that sound exactly. But I can say this. I have listened to a recording from a time when I was present for the recording on my system and both my neighbors systems. None of them sound truly like standing there in the studio. You may ask which one sounds best? It may be obvious that it sounds closer to the original on the very expensive system. But what really matters is that we all enjoyed the music, the conversation about that time in my life and had a great time listening to music.

My neighbors and my self can afford what we have. Yes, two of us are a little envious of the one with the very expensive equipment, but if I had that kind of money I probably would spend it on other things any way.

We should all rethink sometimes before we speak or type. If Omega thinks there is a difference between the first track played and the second played and that it makes a difference turning if off and then back on that is his opinion and no one should or has the right to tell him he is wrong. That is how his ears hear it. Maybe mine do not but that does not make omega wrong.

One more comment before I go. With the advent of the iPod and other portable music players we have a generation of new music lovers that may never know what it is like to listen to music on a system with “Audiophile Quality”. And I know most of them will never know what it is like to stand in the studio with the likes of Buddy Guy, Mariah Carey , Sting, Muddy Waters, or many others. But my feeling is if they enjoy what they are listening to great for them. We should all be glad that music is a part of our lives because there are parts of this world we live in where humans do not get to listen to music only the cries of the poor and starving.

Best wishes to all and

“ENJOY THE MUSIC”

Schatzy

brjann
2007-08-02, 05:21
You are of course right, if Mats perceives a difference, he does infact perceive a difference.

But the title of the thread is "Design miss in SB3 digital output?", so there is a claim that others should also be able to hear the difference, and that it might even be a result of some technical error. To make this claim you will have to be able to prove that there is infact a physical difference in frequency and amplitude of soundwaves travelling from the speakers, which could be easily done with a blind-test.

/Brjánn

Mark Lanctot
2007-08-02, 08:07
schatzy - that's a very good post and yes, it all comes down to personal preferences.

But what should be filtered out is the placebo effect. I'm starting to notice that no one on this forum will admit to being affected by the placebo effect. This can't be possible, that's how our brains fundamentally work - expectations can skew results and reinforce themselves. If you believe something is better, your brain will subconsciously change your perception of it until you actually perceive it is better. And it can be passed on to others too - once omega suggested this to his friends they were looking for a difference and they found it (if you're looking for a difference you'll always find one even if there isn't a difference). Subsequent listening tests reinforced this belief. (This is how Q-Ray bracelets are sold.)

omega has also admitted that he finds WAV sounds better than FLAC and that wired sounds better than wireless. Both of these assertions have very weak physical explanations but very strong psychological explanations based on expactation (we expect WAV must be better than FLAC because FLAC is 'compressed' and wired must be better than wireless because it's solid, it's physical, we can touch it and has better bandwidth.) This is not to say that omega is crazy or that he isn't hearing this, he is, but his expectations might be overriding reality. This isn't necessarily negative, we're all individuals and some inherently and subconsciously place more emphasis on expectation. Expectation is so real and some of us can be so dramatically affected by it that seemingly non-sensical devices to improve sound (stones, exotic woods, raising cables off the floor, special lacquers, even foil strips or dots) can really alter the perceived sound for certain individuals, and the only physical explanation for it is that it alters their expectations. If it does alter the perceived sound, then it's money well-spent for those people. Who are we to judge? However, if those individuals insisted that others would hear the same effects they would have to prove it in a way that would ensure their expectations aren't skewing the results.

The SB designer himself cannot see a physical explanation for what omega is hearing. omega is surely hearing it, and in fact his brain is reinforcing this each time he hears it - the SB will probably never sound quite right to him now.

In order to fix it though, Sean Adams must find what is wrong, and he can't find an electronic explanation for it. So it won't/can't be fixed because nothing has been discovered to be inherently wrong with every Squeezebox out there. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and the burden of proof is on omega.

Sean and many people here have an immense interest in making the SB sound as good as it can and if a physical defect were to be be found they would be right on it. But a physical defect hasn't been found yet.

I'm pleased and slightly surprised that omega is taking this very well and still being civil, but it's also apparent that omega can't admit that maybe it could be placebo. His problem would be fixed if he could prove that it was not. It's great that he's still interested in proving this, because this is the only way to get others to fix it - to show that his expectations are not influencing his reality and that the problem can be readily and repeatedly perceived by anyone.

opaqueice
2007-08-02, 10:23
We should all rethink sometimes before we speak or type. If Omega thinks there is a difference between the first track played and the second played and that it makes a difference turning if off and then back on that is his opinion and no one should or has the right to tell him he is wrong. That is how his ears hear it. Maybe mine do not but that does not make omega wrong.


Did you read his original post?



I have found a big problem with SB3 / slimerver Audio!

<snip>

We both have very good "Hi End" Gear / revealing speakers etc. external DAC

Itīs easier to hear on my system because i have a "A universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter"


He's not saying "I hear this, isn't that nice, let's all be happy." He's saying "I hear this because I have a good system and it means there is a major flaw in the SB or SS."

If you're going to make a claim like that, you'd better be prepared for considerable skepticism and questioning. And no, it's simply not true that no one has the "right" to tell him he's right or wrong. Of course they do... and in fact he's the one telling everyone else there's a problem, and that if they don't hear it it's probably because their system isn't good enough.

truckfighters
2007-08-02, 12:17
hi there,

just found this thread, read almost the 10 first pages and came to the 2 last - the issue still not solved.

a whole wile ago I was posting a similar issue I had with the SB3.

that was exactly the same thing omega is hearing. the sound is changing and is not "high-end" anymore. it sounds like digitally distorted.

I don't know when and whay it happened, but it really did. Also this came up when friends were here visiting my place and my seriously listened to music.

since I can remember how things should sound, I quite fast heard the change.

so what I always did to bring everything back to normal was simply to unplug the power source of the SB3 and replug it.

then the sound was restored to "high-end".

I postet this in the end of 2006 and also sean adams replied to it. but we found no solution.

I have a transporter now and no issue here.

I could believe it has something to that we phase, neutral and ground here in germany (may be in sweden also)?

we can plug our devices like we want into the wall sockets. and I also claim that there are sonical diffences by replugging mains 180° of transporter and my amp. but this is not an unknown fact here in germany. a lot of people are aware of the issue and there are even devices out there to detect the correct phase of the mains plug.

cheers

omega
2007-08-02, 12:55
Hi truckfighters

Quote:
"I could believe it has something to that we phase, neutral and ground here in germany (may be in sweden also)?"
"we can plug our devices like we want into the wall sockets. and I also claim that there are sonical diffences by replugging mains 180° of transporter and my amp. but this is not an unknown fact here in germany. a lot of people are aware of the issue and there are even devices out there to detect the correct phase of the mains plug."


Yes itīs same here in Sweden regarding this, I Know about this and all my Gear is in "right Phase".

Strange that this thing works!
First when i heard about it a didnt believe it, But then i tried and...

I donīt know about US but UK canīt do the 180°


I will try to replugging power to my SB3 and see.


Thanks for the Tips !


Best Regards!


/Mats :-)

SoftwireEngineer
2007-08-02, 13:21
hi there,

...
a whole wile ago I was posting a similar issue I had with the SB3.

that was exactly the same thing omega is hearing. the sound is changing and is not "high-end" anymore. it sounds like digitally distorted.

I don't know when and whay it happened, but it really did. Also this came up when friends were here visiting my place and my seriously listened to music.

since I can remember how things should sound, I quite fast heard the change.

so what I always did to bring everything back to normal was simply to unplug the power source of the SB3 and replug it.

then the sound was restored to "high-end".
...


This happened to me a few times atleast. I had to reboot the SB3 to take care of a really 'muddy' sound.
Also, I upgraded to a dual-core CPU on the PC running Slimserver and reripped most of my collection. Now the sound seems better. (Actually, I did not expect any change at all. I was just bored/upset that I had to rerip because of a crash) Not sure, because of the reripping with different EAC settings or because of a better wi-fi connection with the new faster CPU.

schatzy
2007-08-02, 17:25
Hello again,

I am not one to normal name names but in this case Opaqueice, it is attitudes like yours that prompted me to write in the first
place.

Omega could have 100 or even 1000 or more people listen to his system and have the same experience that he has had. Then I or anyone else on this forum could find another 100 or 1000 or more people that do not hear it when listening to Omegas system.

You can not and do not have the right to tell these people that do not hear it that they are wrong. They just do not have the ear that can hear it. If we gave them all hearing tests we may find out why they do not hear it but in that case no one can tell them they are wrong because they just do not hear it.

<quote>He's not saying "I hear this, isn't that nice, let's all be happy." </quote>

Also Opaqueice, no where in my last post did i say that Omega should just "be happy". I in fact think that he should be posting here to say "I hear a problem".

I believe that Omega does hear a difference. I have not noticed and have connected my computer and SB3 to a friends system. This system consists of mostly Mark Levinson equipment. Now you will probably say that Mark Levinson equipment is trash, but there are a lot of people out there that would argue with you. I will not because you have your opinion and i have mine. Neither of us is wrong as far as i am concerned.

What should be happening here is trying to figure out a way to solve the problem and not all the bickering from people like you saying he is wrong. No one is wrong here. Some people may hear it and others may not. That does not mean they are wrong.

Omega, Have you tried a plain old fashion isolation transformer, not any of the so called power conditioners to try and eliminate any mains interference.

Also mentioned here is a mystery surrounding the phase of the mains and why it seems to sound better if all of the equipment is connected in the same phase. Yes here in the US we can not normally change the phase of the mains for each piece of equipment as one side of the power is always connected to ground.
In Europe ground is separate from both the voltage lines.

Question to sean adams, has all the audio (hi-fi) equipment in your testing lab been connected to 220-240 volts with a truly independent ground (i.e. maybe no ground at all connected), is there a difference of the kind that Omega is stating he hears. Can you reverse the plug on the SB3 (changing the phase) and then is there a difference. How about if the amplifier mains phase is reversed. ????

I do not remember reading if this has been tried. If it has great if it has not can it be tried so that just one more possible cause can be eliminated.

I ask the above question because when i worked for Cello Ltd. (search the web if you have not heard of them) we had problems with some transformers not preforming well on mains power that was not grounded (neutral) on one side. This ended up being a problem with one small lot of transformer and the way they were wound.

Unfortunately Cello Ltd no longer exists but many of us that worked there very much enjoyed the experience and the quality of the sound reproduction that it produced.

I surely hope that through good and non combative discussion that this problem can be solved. Even if it take 124 pages of posts to this thread.

Lastly i apologize in advance if i have offended anyone.

Scahtzy

opaqueice
2007-08-02, 20:09
Hello again,

I am not one to normal name names but in this case Opaqueice, it is attitudes like yours that prompted me to write in the first
place.

Omega could have 100 or even 1000 or more people listen to his system and have the same experience that he has had. Then I or anyone else on this forum could find another 100 or 1000 or more people that do not hear it when listening to Omegas system.

You can not and do not have the right to tell these people that do not hear it that they are wrong. They just do not have the ear that can hear it. If we gave them all hearing tests we may find out why they do not hear it but in that case no one can tell them they are wrong because they just do not hear it.


For someone that claims to have read this thread you don't seem to have followed it very well. I didn't say anywhere that omega is wrong, whatever that means. I certainly never questioned whether or not he was hearing something - on the contrary, I defended him against some posts suggesting he was trolling. I simply suggested a simple and effective test which would help isolate where the effect is coming from.

The issue here, which seems to have escaped you entirely, was whether (as omega claimed) there is a problem with the SB or with SS or whether it's placebo. It's not very difficult to answer that, and until it's answered it's a waste of time speculating about what might be wrong with the SB. Most of this thread has been spent trying (and failing) to get omega or one of his friends to do a proper test to determine that.

omega
2007-08-04, 11:55
In the late 80īs One Hifi magazine here in sweden did a listening test on Digtal transports (CD players) to a External DAC.

The CD players sounded much difference from each other,
They fought this difference was because of the transports reading capabilities, more stable CD mechanism etc.

Then they measured the "Digital stream" from the Cdplayers to see witch CDplayer was the "best reader"
But during the measure all CD players had identical bitstream, all was Equal good !

This made the testers really confused, Why did they sound different ?

They couldnt explain why there was a difference.


Jitter...




Note, i am not claming the SB3 to have high jitter or anything regaring this litte story.



I think there is a more to learn in the future regarding "digital audio".
we maybe not have discovered all the things affecting the Sound.

When the CD was new in the 80īs it was "perfect sound forever"



-Mark Lanctot

This thing about streaming "flac as Wave".

I donīt think Wave "sounds better" than Flac, They are bit identical.

But i think streaming "flac as Wave" sounds better than streaming "FLAC as FLAC".

My only guess regaring this is:

1.The Slimservers Flac Codec is better "Unpaking" the Flacfiles?

2.The CPU in the SB3 gets more stressed "Unpaking" flac vs Wave, and more increased load causing extra EMI & Jitter?


And the "Wireless vs Wire".

I think this has something with RF affect the digital signal on the SB3?


-schatzy

I have 2 old fashion isolation transformers for my Stereo.
One isolation transformer for the Amp and one isolation transformer for the other (DAC, SB3, ETC)


-truckfighters

I have tried the "replugging mains 180°" to the SB3, but i canīt hear any difference.
But i think the "replugging mains 180°" only works with analog equipment,
All my equipment have "the right phase" according to my taste.


I have had my new Ultramatch Pro SRC2496 connected a few days, And "isīs a keeper" !! :-)

Now the sound is even better ! Wow ! :-)


The SRC2496 is connected like this:
SB3 Optical out Sp/dif 16/44 -> SRC2496 "use internal clock not SP/dif" & AES/EBU 44/16 -> DAC (Musical fidelity X-Dac v3)

I have tried difference settings on the SRC2496 like upsampling, 20-Bit, 24-Bit, use SP/dif clock etc.
But I think leaving the signal "untouched" 16/44 and "Only" reclock (use internal clock) and send AES/EBU instead of Sp/dif. sounds best.


And the "Pause, power on/Off, Pause" still works...


Best regards!


/Mats :-)

ermine
2007-08-05, 07:19
If Omega thinks there is a difference between the first track played and the second played and that it makes a difference turning if off and then back on that is his opinion and no one should or has the right to tell him he is wrong. That is how his ears hear it. Maybe mine do not but that does not make omega wrong.


Your atomized world of universal relativity is all fine and dandy. We each hear with our own ears, in our own rooms, though our own minds etc. Unfortunately that sort of philosophy doesn't help us all get together to fix something, because if there is a fault to fix it must be reproducible and observable by more than Omega.

The reason why he is taking some flack is because - read the title - he claimed this second playing effect was a DESIGN MISS (implied = FAULT) in the slim devices product. It might be, but if it is a design fault, then it is repeatable for different observers. Different observers were unable to repeat it. Omega might still have a sample fault, in which case it will be repeatable - but for him. It will be independently observable, hopefully on test gear, but for his particular box only. Or, perhaps, because his buddy observed it too, for the Swedish version of slimserver, or the SB running on Swedish mains, whatever. It the very least it must be independently observable outside his subjective perception. That means other people must observe it in a controlled setting (= not warmed up by Omega as in "here, this thing sounds much better the second time than the first, don'tcha agree?"), or measurement should indicate a difference. The particular program advocated for measurement is junk IMO - the Audio Critic guy seems to be just as bad as the hard nut subjectivists, just in the other way IMO - but I can only say that after I have tried the program and found the results non-reproducible, compared to the advertised operation.

The only people who have been able to reproduce this 'design miss' are Omega and his buddies AFAICS - and there is enough unusual behaviour associated with one of those buddies that there is a strong suspicion they are one and the same person. Omega may have a point - perhaps there is something screwy about how his SB works on his server. But he hasn't gone about trying to get independent confirmation of his results, simply raised the stridency of his claims. Dragging in logically unrelated red herrings like how people failed to realise jitter was an issue in the early days of CD etc doesn't actually strengthen his case. How are Slim Devices meant to fix his problem if a) it hasn't been confirmed to be a problem outside his signal path, and b) neither test equipment nor other independent listeners can reproduce his results? He has not in any way proven that this is a problem for other SB users. And he hasn't gone about getting independent confirmation that it is a problem with his (or even th Swedish) SB in a particularly organized way that could be used to chase it down. The fault he claims to have clearly is not one that affects other SB users outside his circle of friends in a significant way.

johann
2007-08-05, 07:40
ermine,

Now you made me feel ashame to be Swedish. ;)

Patrick Dixon
2007-08-05, 08:03
ermine,

Now you made me feel ashame to be Swedish. ;)

What, is Sven-Goran Eriksson not enough? ;-)

johann
2007-08-05, 08:25
What, is Sven-Goran Eriksson not enough? ;-)

Think about this for a while: Which country was he coaching that was not forced to chose him. ;)

ermine
2007-08-05, 08:46
ermine,

Now you made me feel ashame to be Swedish. ;)

I don't know, you have beautiful girls and some decent mobile phones by S E- you guys don't have such a hard time. I didn't like the prices in your bars though :)

Seriously, though, there is a precedent for the slimserver possibly having a problem with a Swedish configuration. We already know that some aspects of slimserver have problems with accented characters eg this thread. This is why Agnetha Faltskog needed editing from the EAC rip before the cue sheet would show up to let her appear. It's not totally crazy to wonder whether some key server variable is being missed by a similar parsing routine, which could mean an error peculiar to the Swedish version of Slimserver, which could be a reason why other observers cannot reproduce the 'fault' - because there's no fault to reproduce.

Omega still needs to come up with independent corroboration of his observations though. F'rinstance if he can record losslessly the SPDIF out of his SB then audiodiffmaker should work 100% to confirm or repudiate whether the recovered bitstream is the same. He could sniff the network traffic with wireshark, though I would guess hooking the data off by following the stream would be harder. Some hard evidence would be good. Getting more mates or even the whole company he works for to come round and agree with his claim is less useful...

pfarrell
2007-08-05, 09:25
ermine wrote:
> I don't know, you have beautiful girls and some decent mobile phones by
> S E- you guys don't have such a hard time. I didn't like the prices in
> your bars though :)

Isn't that a galaxy wide law, in bars with lots of pretty women, the
prices are too high :-)

johann
2007-08-05, 09:26
I don't know, you have beautiful girls and some decent mobile phones by S E- you guys don't have such a hard time.

Not really, except fot this:


I didn't like the prices in your bars though :)



Seriously, though, there is a precedent for the slimserver possibly having a problem with a Swedish configuration. We already know that some aspects of slimserver have problems with accented characters eg this thread. This is why Agnetha Faltskog needed editing from the EAC rip before the cue sheet would show up to let her appear. It's not totally crazy to wonder whether some key server variable is being missed by a similar parsing routine, which could mean an error peculiar to the Swedish version of Slimserver, which could be a reason why other observers cannot reproduce the 'fault' - because there's no fault to reproduce.

Possible but I seriously doubt that. Personally, I run english versions of virtually all software including SlimServer and OS so I can't test for this.

I find it weird that some SW still can't be 8-bit clean for characters, it used to be a problem back in the 80s and early 90s when you needed to use separate libs to use 8-bit char sets. That really should be a problems of the past.

That said, it would of course be possible that some mismatch between characters could cause a pointer errror some where causing really weird errors but those kind of programming errors and/or bugs in libs, etc. almost never causes and reproducable misbehauvious, instead they cause the software to crash at random times and places in the SW.

Patrick Dixon
2007-08-05, 12:37
Think about this for a while: Which country was he coaching that was not forced to chose him. ;)

Yes you're quite right. It makes me ashamed to be English that we have an FA that would choose S-G E as the coach of our national team ;-)

Still it could have been worse, they could have chosen Steve McLaren ... oh hang on ...

johann
2007-08-05, 14:05
Yes you're quite right. It makes me ashamed to be English that we have an FA that would choose S-G E as the coach of our national team ;-)

Still it could have been worse, they could have chosen Steve McLaren ... oh hang on ...

And look at the consequenses...

With such a last name he'd be better of in racing. :)

Ejorne
2007-08-31, 02:28
topic-kick:



Anyway both me and hammer are soon leaving sweden for a couple of weeks during vacation.
So all this measuring and testing is "put on hold" for a while.


Back from vacation meanwhile? I am curious about the continuation of your findings/testings...