I think we got down this path when Ethan said we essentially don't need much bandwidth for a digital audio stream. The data shows that there is a big difference in jitter induced by the cable. So on face value, that stance is hard to hold. I think he used the test of "if I get audio, all is well" and we know that is not the proper stance to take as DAC output does get modulated by jitter and we can't say no amount of it is important above reliable data transmission.Was there any other purpose in this interesting discussion? I could not see it.
Synergy?
- Thread starter Ethan Winer
- Start date
Amir and I have had this conversation. He is very well-trained to hear digital artifacts, knows what to listen for, knows what kind of content will reveal them, etc. He has my heartfelt sympathy. I want to train myself to hear the nuance of the music, I want to hear the difference between a Gibson and a Martin, between a heavy pick and a thin one. I want to be able to reasonably guess how old Joni Mitchell was when she recorded something by the texture of her luxuriously eroding voice. Digital artifacts? I'm glad I have no need to train myself to hear them. But...when Amir doubts that he would hear a particular digital distortion, I rest easy, all but certain that I would not. Really audible and obvious? I would have to hear that, but this much I know: Audiophiles and music lovers, myself included, are an enthusiastic bunch. We are prone to hyperbole. Differences that vanish when the lights go out are night and day, are obvious, are the difference between mere reproduction and real music....with full knowledge of what's playing. Like so many things, it happens every day on the internet.
Tim
Likewise, I guess I am blessed that I don't hear those differences
. I know nothing about music in that regard. I remember asking a musician friend long time ago what the difference between a maser playing a piano and someone else: "is that they play the wrong note?" She almost slapped me for being so ignorant . In general, I think the training has allowed me to be more successful at what I enjoy doing which is understand equipment capabilities that lead to fidelity differences. It is the hobby within the hobby for many of us to be able to do that so other than suffering at times when I say, listen to a Bluetooth headset my wife just got, it is not a bad virtue .Tim,
I kinda expected that was going to be your position now because your religion is specifications & you believe in the numbers (even if those numbers bear no relationship to your system!!)
Let me help you work out a way that you could blind test a device in your system, once you can hear the switch being thrown? It's easy, the person controlling the switch sometimes puts in an RF attenuator & sometimes doesn't - it's not that difficult, I reckon!
I kinda expected that was going to be your position now because your religion is specifications & you believe in the numbers (even if those numbers bear no relationship to your system!!)
Let me help you work out a way that you could blind test a device in your system, once you can hear the switch being thrown? It's easy, the person controlling the switch sometimes puts in an RF attenuator & sometimes doesn't - it's not that difficult, I reckon!
Last edited:
Likewise, I guess I am blessed that I don't hear those differences
If you're only suffering when listening to bluetooth headsets, you're fine. I suffer sometimes listening to internet radio. I was under the impression you were hearing digital artifacts at 320kbps. That would be pretty bothersome, IMV.
Tim
Well if you found it interesting, is that not enough for you?Was there any other purpose in this interesting discussion? I could not see it.
I did apologise for dragging this thread down a side alley already but it did come from a discussion about synergy & that I understood it to mean optimal interaction between 2 devices & I gave the RCA Vs BNC SPDIF connectors as an example of something that works Vs optimal working.
I hope that the digital audio designers are working hard on that Amir,
because I believe that jitter in most digital products is in the hundreds, even the thousands of picoseconds!
...And when you have that 'horrific' amount of jitter, it ain't good at all for the sync, the synergy, the SOUND! :b ...It just doesn't 'jell' properly in our ears, in our musical souls.
Yeah, 'audio synergy' = 'musical jell' ... at the end.
And 'jitter' goes against synergy.
Last edited:
I know you didn't say that & I didn't quote you as saying that - I said that your stance, based on the figures, was that it was an "inconsequential difference". I didn't know that you had done lots of blind listening tests along these lines. I would be interested in hearing about them sometime.
I'm not sure what this means but I'm relating my & others experiences, both sighted & blind, to the results of certain differences in the system that seem to be purely related to the amount of jitter reduction in the system. Theoretical discussions are sometimes of interest but if there is some way to bypass them & go straight to practical tests then it's crazy to get bogged down in theory - I'm suggesting to anyone to try these RF attenuators & report their findings.So when I hear the differences when measured in much narrower circumstances is readily audible and obvious, my antenna goes up, way up!
Well all I'm suggesting is that you try RF attenuators & then let's talk about what is audible & what isn't
Agreed, jitter may not explain all of this but let's not put a barrier up of having to prove everything theoretically before daring to test it!
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure these are exactly the kind of details most serious listeners are listening for, and just the kind of distinctions full-on subjective reviewers love to use as examples.
Are you sure you're not a subjectivist?
But what does it do to these people truly? ...NOTHING, that's what! :b
...At the end it's the message, the true synergy. ...The ability to make sense of it all.
... The euphoria, the ecstasy, the musical transcendence, the well-being feeling ....
I'm pretty sure these are exactly the kind of details most serious listeners are listening for, and just the kind of distinctions full-on subjective reviewers love to use as examples.
Are you sure you're not a subjectivist?
I'm sure I am a subjectivist. I can embrace Darwin and Faith at once. Never saw the conflict. I can believe in the efficacy of good measurements, in their audible correlation to sound; I can happily wrap my head around the inaudibility of the inaudible and still get completely lost in the joy of the music. Just as, I'm sure, capital A Audiophiles can believe that the tiniest details and distortions, the immeasurable pain and power of their recordings (and more, even more than the recordings!), is laid bare by the awesome resolving power of their systems and still manage to enjoy the music.
Though that must be a bit more difficult.
Tim
Though that must be a bit more difficult.
Tim
Only if the are obsessive types. In my experience when analytic listening is over, the musical performance is just listened to. It's only when the reverie of listening is disturbed by unnatural sounds or distortions that the mind is snapped back into analytic listening!
Sure, getting better reproduction is all targeted towards the goal of a more realistic illusion of the performance. When the goal becomes the equipment itself a wrong turning has been taken.
But we are up against the recording process of today & "performance" would be a wrong term to use. Others will have better knowledge about modern recording techniques but I believe that it is unusual to do it like the Buddy Holly cut of "True Love Ways" with the Ray Ellis orchestra. This is a real performance that gives goosebumps - seems to be a single take with no overdubs,editing,etc.?
I haven't a clue how that Buddy Holly record was made, but I can assure you that passionate, present, goosebump-inspiring performances can be made "live" in one take, and they can be made with the singer or soloist overdubbing their part in the studio over a pre-recorded rhythm section. It depends on the performer, it depends on the process. Can suck all the life out of a performace in studio? Sure. You can murder passion and spontenaety on stage too. I remember seeing The Eagles in their prime. The performance was perfect. Sounded just like the records....over-thought, over-produced.
It's all in the execution. It's all in the performance. We'd all have a lot less to argue about if we remembered where the art is.
Tim
I'm pretty sure these are exactly the kind of details most serious listeners are
listening for, and just the kind of distinctions full-on subjective reviewers love to use as examples.
Are you sure you're not a subjectivist?
Well, happily I do not want to carry serious listening!
I have to say I do not care about this type of detail. My listening is mostly driven by the performance. I do not care if it is a Stradivarius or a Guarneri, a Steinway or Bösendorfer. But I want to feel the energy of the performers, their complicity, the beauty of a voice, the power of a finale in a great auditorium and the intimacy of a chamber performance. I want to be able to feel the performance of Claudio Arrau, feel all these subjective thinks such as the rhythm, the music growing from a black silence, the grandiosity due to the back reflections, the emotion carried in a very pure treble, the drama in the end of the Rigoletto, the beauty of the voices in Monteverdi. And, sorry, but I do not believe that training me to listen to recording artifacts or defects, or evaluate frequency response effects by listening will increase my listening pleasure.
Exceptionally I can not resist to serious listening activities - I love to look for the horseflies in Gregorio Paniagua "La Folia" recording to test the resolution of a system!
What a small world. Did you know Claudio Arrau's son, Chris, works in my company? http://www.madronadigital.com/about/About.html. Go half way down the page.
Similar threads
