Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Windows or Apple for 2014/15?

173.169.122.75
Posted on September 15, 2014 at 19:01:17
chopper87@aol.com
Audiophile

Posts: 942
Joined: September 2, 2001
 Guys,

I have stuck with my 2010 Mac-Mini and my favorite Audirvarna Player software exclusively. There is No doubt in my mind that Audirvarna is a state of the art player and ONLY functions with Apple based setups.

Am I missing a World of potentially better sounding computers and Windows based players? My Auralic Vega DAC offers a very precise "Exact" clock setting that absolutely sets new and higher sonic standards, but this setting has difficulty locking onto Apple based setups. Music drops out and in. Te manufacturer strongly suggests the use of non-Apple computers for this reason. However, back when I used both computer types, the player software available for Aplle computers sounded waaaay better. Now with Audirvarna, I have no reason to think that this has changed.

Am I behind the times? Will a Windows based computer using the most current Player Software compare with or even sonically outperform my Mac-Mini/Audirvarna 2.0 combination?

Thanks a bunch.

Lance A.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?Consider, posted on September 15, 2014 at 23:49:47
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 A relocker with good clocking to see if your problem can be resolved.

Otherwise a fanless PC does not cost that much if you do not use it for other purposes. You can start with free software, then progress with various OS slimming schemes. You can start with W8.1 and progress to the evaluation version of Server2012. There are plenty of guides

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 16, 2014 at 06:33:47
mwheelerk
Audiophile

Posts: 434
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Joined: December 27, 2005
 Obviously that is going to take someone who has done extensive comparisons on Windows based and Mac based media players. As for myself I have been very satisfied with both the performance and progress of the Mac based systems I have used starting with iTunes (stand alone) through Pure Music to Audivrana Plus and now JRiver for Mac 20 my current go to player.

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 16, 2014 at 07:49:48
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 You can get excellent results with either Windows 8.1, Server 2012, or OSX Mavericks. If you want to use the "Exact" clock setting and suffer no drop-outs, you will have to optimize the OS, be it Windows or OSX. Script is available for both OS.

If you like Audirvana Plus 2.01, and I do , stick with OSX.

 

OS specific DAC?, posted on September 16, 2014 at 09:45:11
JeffH
Audiophile

Posts: 4574
Location: Orange County, So Cal
Joined: April 5, 2000
 silly in todays environment. Maybe Auralic has an update/upgrade in the works. Wyred4sound and Empirical have reclockers.

As far as PC vs. Apple is concerned, I haven't noticed a difference personally. The audio shop down the road uses apple for their shows to good effect. I've substituted my pc/jriver into their system and nobody could tell the difference as they both sound great. We both use the Ayre QB9.

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 09:28:06
chopper87@aol.com
Audiophile

Posts: 942
Joined: September 2, 2001
 Steve,

"EXACTLY"! I am living with "drop outs" when using my Auralic Vega in it's MUST USE setting, the EXACT clock setting. Of course this is via my previously mentioned Mac-Mini using the latest (but not modified) OSX.

I really could use a more complete description of what needs to be done to, or with my OSX to eliminate the Drop Out issue with my Vega DAC in it's Exact clock setting.


Thank you a bunch for your help here.

Lance A.

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 10:50:06
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I read the manual. The description of clock circuitry and optimizations didn't make a lot of sense to me. It could be a poorly written manual, or perhaps it could be a design problem in the DAC's phase lock loop circuitry. Another curious thing is the implication that "Exact" mode will improve sound quality when on USB. Assuming the product implements asynchonous USB the only relevant clock is the local DAC clock, i.e. the clock mode should automatically be "exact" when on USB. (I note that with my DAC the choice of clock modes goes away when operating over USB as this is asynchonous.)

Did you try different clock modes over USB? Did they work? Was there a difference in sound quality? Did you try different computer optimizations or the lack thereof to see what the ill effects were?


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 14:31:12
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I have no experience with this DAC, but have looked at what the manufacturer recommends and my friends who own this DAC have done. I agree with you Tony that this tweaking should not be necessary.

A more powerful computer? I need first hand experience with this DAC. Something that is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 14:33:41
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 You could try this script, but read the info carefully. I would also perform a time machine back-up before applying this script if things get permanently corrupted.

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 18:03:07
Bill Way
Audiophile

Posts: 1884
Location: Toms River NJ
Joined: May 28, 2012
Contributor
  Since: December 14, 2012
 Most studios use OSX, but some are Windows shops and both can produce the same results. There is more audio-related software and hardware for Apple, but that doesn't mean it sounds better; it just sells better.

Some years back, Apple positioned itself for the audio and video markets, which helped it become the established brand there. Certainly ease of use, which used to be a big differentiator, helped as well.

WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 18:14:57
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 I've owned six ASYNC DACs over the years and none of them had audio 'drop-outs' on my Mac, even w/o OS 'optimizations'.

Be sure that the DAC is on it's own HighSpeed USB 2.0 bus not shared with other devices. Additionally, do not place it on the USB 3.0 SuperSpeed bus.

Mac System Report will show you the USB Device Tree:
Applications -> Utilities -> System Information


The info that Ayre provides should help and it's linked below. Note that the System Report in the screen shot above from Ayre does not show USB 3.0 SuperSpeed because USB 3.0 was not implemented in most computers when Ayre posted their instructions.



 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 18, 2014 at 18:24:51
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
Another curious thing is the implication that "Exact" mode will improve sound quality when on USB.

Possibly but does it trump a DAC with an atomic clock but lacking "Exact" mode? ;-) This is more ridiculousness in marketing for the audiophile market, IMHO.



 

Clock Issue, posted on September 18, 2014 at 23:13:23
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 the most common issue with ability to lock on securely between dac and source is due to misalignment of clock rates. For best performance good dacs can have a narrow lock range of perhaps 200 ppm or less. If this is exceeded due to poor clock source stability, thermal, or other reasons, then you have interruptions. If your dac performs without issues when set to the 'wide' clocking range, then this will be the issue.

HiFiWorld had tested Mac Mini digital outputs and found that the older models were 'poor' compared to the latest generation.

I am posting in the general sense as I have no idea what your settings and setup are.

 

Windows?, posted on September 19, 2014 at 00:23:04
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008
 In the past Auralic had its own ActiveUSB

ActiveUSBâ„¢
Resorting to the ActiveUSBâ„¢ technology from AURALiC, ARK MX+ overcomes the
transmission limitation from traditional Asynchronous USB which could only adjust +/-
one clock cycle error of data package in isochronous clock. With mass data buffer
technology and multi-stage, high resolution PLL circuit, ARK MX+ could buffer audio
stream as long as 2 seconds, which prevent time-based jitter resulted from the limitation
of computer.

You can find this in the ARX MX+ manual.
As there is no reference on their website to this technology anymore, they maybe dropped it.

In case of USB audio dropouts are a matter of a system with a high latency.
The protocol might be async but this of course won’t help if the response of the PC is to slow.

I’m surprised by their recommendation to switch to Win.
I don’t think this as by magic will improve things as there are Win systems with a very high latency.
In the past I had a HP Envy laptop. Plenty of power but the only way to get a decent latency was to disable both the WiFi and the NVDIA display driver.

As faith would have it, I had a Vega on loan at that time.
Indeed even with the ActiveUSB (buffering 2 seconds!) I had dropouts on this laptop using the Exact mode when playing highres.

Buffering for 2 seconds and having dropouts defies my logic and all I know about async USB.

The Well Tempered Computer

 

RE: Windows?, posted on September 19, 2014 at 07:22:43
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Thanks for the link.

It looks like the manual could have used a better quality translation into English. Or maybe the scheme didn't work so well. It's a very hard problem to get right. It's even difficult coming up with a consistent notation and model that takes into account the relevant factors, such as differences in clock frequency, drift over time/temp/voltage/age of clock frequency and phase jitter.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Here's my understanding (based on Wikipedia) of why buffering on DAC side is irrelevant , posted on September 19, 2014 at 09:27:47
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 The buffer in an audio controller is a ring buffer. If an underrun occurs and the audio controller is not stopped, it will either keep repeating the sound contained in the buffer, which may hold a quarter of a second, or replace by silence depending on the implementation. Such effect is commonly referred to as "machinegun" or Max Headroom (character) stuttering effect.

What follows from the above, is that the stream that's buffered by DAC is already screwed up - there are already samples that don't belong there, or samples replaced by silence.

If you read the fragment you posted, they don't claim their technology has anything to do with dropouts problems - rather, it's intended to conquer jitter. Your guess is as good as mine how well that works out, but it is indeed irrelevant.

 

RE: Here's my understanding (based on Wikipedia) of why buffering on DAC side is irrelevant , posted on September 19, 2014 at 10:36:08
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I'm not sure it's completely irrelevant. There is a control loop in either case that keeps the source and the sink in approximate synchronization, such that there are no buffer underruns at either end of the connection. The difference between SPDIF and async USB is which end is in control and how the feedback process works.

With SPDIF the computer is in control and the DAC must adjust. If it does a slow job of adjusting, its buffer will become exhausted. If it does a fast job of adjusting, it will adjust to jitter in the incoming signal, thereby degrading the audio quality. There are two ways to improve the situation: do a better job of predicting the average speed or use a large buffer. (If the buffer is large enough and is preloaded then there will be no need to adjust for an entire playlist, ...)
The best systems use a high order predictor and use rate information and buffer threshold to set strategy. Here the control loop is entirely in the DAC and under control of the DAC designer, the only unknown variable is the rate of the clock at the transport.

With Async USB the DAC is in charge. It controls the rate at which the computer sends data, but not the rate at which the computer sends frames. This means varying the number of samples per frame. There is some leeway for how to do this, but there is going to be a delay between when the requested number of frames is changed and when this takes effect in the returned frames. This requires sufficient buffering in the DAC to accommodate these delays. I suspect the logic to do this is probably implemented in firmware in the DAC and in software in the driver, but I don't know enough about O/S details to know how this is accomplished (e.g. at what interrupt level). This means that O/S latency can come into effect as well. In my experience, only the very best engineers can get these details correct, otherwise things "sort of" work.

There is a limit on the practical amount of buffering that can be used in the pipeline between the player application, driver, USB, USB cable, USB, and DAC proper (the part that gets an I2S stream). Not a matter of cost these days, but a matter of latency for end to end interaction, which depends on the application. A loose application allowing large delay is audiophile playback, where a lot of slop in the buffering just means that start, stop, skip forward, skip backward user interface operations are sluggish. With video playback there has to be audio video sync. For audio production work involving overdubbing or interactive audio (telephony or video conferencing) there is round trip delay and related human factors in perception of echos, etc... and the delay between application and analog audio must be small.

My main point is that this is very complicated and hard to get right. It need not affect overall sound quality. Sound quality will be affected by the size of the buffers, which determines the rate at which buffers have to be processed and the frequency of CPU loading. However, if multiple buffers are used to allow for rare delay circumstances then this won't affect the frequency of buffer loading. So there are actually two dimensions that can be adjusted, buffer size and number of buffers. Both of these may or may not be exposed via configuration windows.

At least in audio applications there are only two computers involved: transport and DAC. It gets far uglier when multiple computers get strung together and multiple clocks and multiple buffers have to be kept working in harmony.





Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

One thing to add is that there are multiple stages of buffering on computer side., posted on September 19, 2014 at 11:41:12
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 In my case, the buffer size on the player side (Otachan ASIO plugin) is exposed, and is adjustable - not to mention that I can go into the program code, and screw it up to my heart's contect. This one, of course, has nothing to do with a particular DAC, and if set too low on a system with high latency, you'll get your stuttering no matter what is going on downstream.

Whereas on the driver side (W4S ASIO driver) it is not exposed, so you're at the mercy of the driver developers, who hopefully did not set that buffer to extremely high size.

 

RE: One thing to add is that there are multiple stages of buffering on computer side., posted on September 19, 2014 at 12:10:45
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 With the USBPAL driver and ASIO interface to HQPlayer I have three parameters, the USB buffers, the ASIO buffers and the HQPlayer buffering. Also, there are two buffer error counters in the driver, one for USB and the other for ASIO. In addition, there is a third counter that can count up and this is buffering related, but it also is said to relate to data errors on the USB. I suspect this relates to the signaling back from the DAC to the driver, but exactly how is not clear.

One thing I have noticed is that if I set the USB buffers to the minimum and overload the computer there will be lots of errors showing up in the counters, but most of these are inaudible. On the other hand, increasing the USB buffers to the maximum results in few errors (even if the computer is grossly overloaded) but when they hit they are highly audible. Best sound comes with a small set of USB buffers and taking care not to overload the computer. The sonic effect of other parameters is less obvious.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Here's my understanding (based on Wikipedia) of why buffering on DAC side is irrelevant , posted on September 19, 2014 at 12:24:04
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008
 Another link, it sheds a bit op light on the buffering (page 2)
The Well Tempered Computer

 

RE: Windows or Apple for 2014/15?, posted on September 19, 2014 at 23:41:11
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,

Nowadays Mac and Win PC's use essentially the same hardware and have been for years. Both PC and Mac motherboards are full of switched mode power-supplies creating noise, so adding external linear PSU's and the relative difficulty or not of doing that are of little consequence.

You can run Windows on a Mac. And while Apple has been moderately successful in stopping people from running OSX on generic computer hardware (hacks exist that do allow this), this success has more to do with the simple fact that no real hacker would be seen dead running OSX, so they simply have no incentive to produce the crack's.

When we look inside the operating systems, we find that both OSX and Windows are horrible cludges of cruft and not very suited to real time audio/video, but by dedicating a machine and stripping it down to the essential either system can do a good job using otherwise stock hardware and OS.

For now Windows has the edge on "Super High Rez" as it allows DSD512 via ASIO, while OSX is stuck on DoP. For 99% of the music this is of no consequence. Not so long ago OSX lagged behind in available playback software, but that gap has mostly closed.

Bottom line, unless you go for a custom compiled Linux kernel optimised for audio (or AV) and so on plus Linux Media Software on a specially modified custom motherboard etc., there is little to choose between Mac/Intel and Win/Intel/AMD.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

"adding external linear PSU's .... is of little consequence" - everyone...., posted on September 20, 2014 at 08:06:14
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... who has actually done that, knows that it is of VERY significant consequence. Switch-mode regulators in MB, and switch-mode picoPSU which feeds MB, notwithstanding.

You are probably missing the fact that CPU is fed from linear regulated PSU directly, without going through switch-mode PSU - and that by itself gives very significant improvement in SQ.

Main advantage of Windows, and computers running Windows, is the ability to modify hardware, and strip down (I prefer the word "optimize") software, to much larger extent.

 

RE: "adding external linear PSU's .... is of little consequence" - everyone...., posted on September 20, 2014 at 10:03:51
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,

> ... who has actually done that, knows that it is of VERY
> significant consequence.

Have you ever tried a proper power line filter instead? They do the job a linear PSU does in this case, but around 100 times as efficient.

Of course, the filter must attenuate significantly at the switching frequency of the main Switched Mode Power Supply.

> Switch-mode regulators in MB, and switch-mode picoPSU which
> feeds MB, notwithstanding.

As I have the same here (though they just nixed for a latest gen Seasonic) I am not exactly ignorant.

> You are probably missing the fact that CPU is fed from linear
> regulated PSU directly, without going through switch-mode
> regulators

No I am not missing that. Mainly I am not missing that because the CPU is not fed directly from the external PSU.

All modern CPU's work with core voltages below 2V, so does all memory (including the flash memory in SSD's). So they are most assuredly fed from Switchers on the motherboard, more, the voltage and current varies a lot with load, so does the switching frequency and duty cycle of the switched mode supplies.

> - and that by itself gives very significant improvement in SQ.

Because this is not the case, it does not.

We may debate WHY there is an apparent improvement in sound quality, but it is important to fully understand the system if we wish to optimise it. Otherwise all is old wife's tales.

> Main advantage of Windows, and computers running Windows, is
> the ability to modify hardware, and strip down (I prefer the
> word "optimize") software, to much larger extent.

Depending on the choice of Mac all this too is possible, to a lesser or greater degree.

And though Mercman deleted his "Exasound does DSD512 on Mac via ASIO" comment, no doubt sooner or later someone who has a vested interest (anyone selling DSD-512 capable DAC's comes to mind - which narrows the field a lot) will fix the Mac/ASIO deficiency. For a fee no doubt, but Mac users are used to and willing to be used as cash cows for the privilege of owning Mac's.

I just re-build my Music & Video's PC for the third time in the same Origen AE Case. The amount of CPU Power, Graphics Power and Memory/Diskspace available I got for 600 Bucks is astonishing.

So are noise levels, despite using a PSU with a FAN, two case fans and a CPU Fan. All fans are fluid bearing (some big "low noise fan" brand), but the key is all Fan's are speed controlled and only the CPU Fan and PSU Fan spin at all if temperatures/CPU load are normal. The Harddrives are louder spinning than the fans at normal.

Of course, running prime at full load makes the unit noisy, as load and temperatures rise, but even 1080P Video has so little loading, it does not matter, non of the case fans ever spin up and the CPU and PSU fan stay at minimum. CPU Power use is normally under 5W playing Music or Video (that includes the GFX Core).

And for what it's worth, using a fairly generic (if big) NEC/Tokin line filter (appx. 10KHz corner frequency) between PC and the rest of the house makes the presence of this PC inaudible enough that I cannot loose sleep. Of course, it also made the difference between linear PSU and an SMPS Brick for my Pico Supply disappear...

As usual YMMV, maybe my system is just not that "High End" to really reveal differences, though it includes a nice 768KHz/DSD512 DAC build into a really good EL84 Tube Amp and linear phase pulse coherent speakers using first order series crossovers with all the usual "High Endy" components and very "high endy" Cables and all that jazz...

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: "adding external linear PSU's .... is of little consequence" - everyone...., posted on September 20, 2014 at 10:31:44
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I will be reviewing the Shunyata Hydra DCP-6 conditioner that is supposed to address these issues with the high frequencies generated by SMPS.

I deleted my comment to you Thorsten as I realized that the exaSound only does DSD256 (I have some DSD128 titles, but very, very little at DSD256 to play).

 

Too many purely theoretical points to respond to. Of course CPU is fed via regulator - ...., posted on September 20, 2014 at 12:02:23
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ...my bad. I meant not via picoPSU, but 12V directly to 4-pin connector.

As for the rest of the post, pertaining to PSU - I'm sorry, but all of this is largely non-experiential. You would need to try doing that first, in a resolving system, and then, when we agree that it indeed makes significant difference, we can talk about WHY it is so.

Namely:

- feed MB via switching PSU versus linear regulated (into picoPSU, without linear ATX PSU craziness), with and without power conditioning;
- feed CPU via switching PSU versus linear regulated, with and without power conditioning.

I have done all of that, with different PSUs and power filters - and result is always the same. EVERYTHING makes a difference, so combination of quality linear PSU with power filter sounds the best - much better than switcher with power filter, which in turn is better than switcher by itself.

Until then, discussing in terms like "Because this is not the case, it does not" is absolutely meaningless. As in, "Because this is the case, it certainly does".

PS: The second part of your post, describing your "Music & Video PC" - this most likely explains why we have so different impressions of what makes a difference, and what doesn't. Don't be offended, but from a "computer optimized for audio playback" perspective, ALL the choices made while building that PC are totally wrong.

 

Sorry, missed this: "nixed for a latest gen Seasonic" - that's a mistake, from my perspective., posted on September 20, 2014 at 14:41:12
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 What I have here is Seasonic Platinum 460W fanless PSU, which was one of the subjects of my experiments - collecting dust, waiting to be sold on eBay.

It's not even funny how large is the difference between MB fed from that one, versus picoPSU fed by linear regulated PS, outputting 12V at 5A. The result is the same, when there's power conditioner in the chain - tried PS Audio and Running Springs I have on hand.

 

RE: Sorry, missed this: "nixed for a latest gen Seasonic" - that's a mistake, from my perspective., posted on September 20, 2014 at 14:45:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Have you tried running off a 12 volt auto battery?



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

No, not me - but I'm aware some people reported very good results doing that. N/T, posted on September 20, 2014 at 15:21:04
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

 

RE: No, not me - but I'm aware some people reported very good results doing that. N/T, posted on September 20, 2014 at 17:00:17
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 The idea was intended as a diagnostic of the coupling path, not a permanent set up. (I personally consider batteries a huge PITA.)

Another test is to run other computers in the neighborhood not otherwise connected to the audio system and see what they do to the sound quality.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

No troll, no snark, just curious, posted on September 20, 2014 at 20:09:36
Jaundiced Ear
 At a guess, how many power supplies have you listened to over the years?

Are you noticing any trends with regard to their quality, that is, as a class are they improving, getting worse, or staying about the same?

JE

 

How can an external mains filter, posted on September 20, 2014 at 22:12:05
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 address the internal issues of switching power supplies inside a computer? The discussion here about such filters is weird.

At best, the filter prevents feedback to other components via the mains, and an ultra isolation mains transformation will do that.

 

No theoretical points..., posted on September 20, 2014 at 22:30:28
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 ...but practice.

Though in my practice there aremaybe some crucial differences.

> As for the rest of the post, pertaining to PSU - I'm sorry, but
> all of this is largely non-experiential.

Actually, it is experimental/empirical. Except I never bothered with a linear ATX Supply. Pico Supply linear (big lab supply) or SMPS + Filter. The second combo wins. By a large margin. Of course the SMPS was modded. The current Seasonic is not though.

> - feed CPU via switching PSU versus linear regulated,

CPU always has switchers. Those switchers do have limited rejection of the main switching PSU's Ripple, which is why it is important to have a clean output from the main SMPS, but there is no need to go linear.

> EVERYTHING makes a difference, so combination of quality linear
> PSU with power filter sounds the best - much better than switcher
> with power filter, which in turn is better than switcher by itself.

Without having tried really serious filters (and they have to be non-audiophile types, as nothing I know in the audiophile world has a low enough corner frequency) you may not know.

Also, saying "SMPS" is near meaningless, as is "Linear PSU. "

The differences in noise kicked back into the mains between different SMPS is as much as 80dB (that is 1:10,000) depending on the filterig employed. Some "Linear supplies" kick more noise (from rectifier ringing) into the mains as a well designed SMPS.

Equally noise levels from SMPS and linear supply outputs vary widely. It is fairly easy to make a SMPS with all noise components at -100dBV (that is 10uV or equivalent to the output noise from a DAC with over 17 Bit ENOB, which even today many struggle at).

By comparison, many commercial grade SMPS are designed for around 100mV peak-peak ripple (if we scale this to compare to the 10uV above this is around -40dBV or 1,000 times worse than a good SMPS) at the switching frequency, which or course is hopeless.

Often if you open up the case of the SMPS you will see empty positions on the Circuit Board that could hold extra filter capacitors and chokes and mains input RFI Filtering but are empty. Filling them up and maxing out the filtering the Circuit Board can hold helps tremendously.

Incidentally, the Seasonic ATX SMPS I picked does not have empty places on the PCB... And it is pretty good for noise on both sides (out and in), if loaded lightly (which it is in my system). It is not as good as the best I can do, but very good.

> PS: The second part of your post, describing your "Music & Video PC"
> - this most likely explains why we have so different impressions of
> what makes a difference, and what doesn't. Don't be offended, but
> from a "computer optimized for audio playback" perspective, ALL
> the choices made while building that PC are totally wrong.

I had prior systems in the same case that where by far more Audio Optimised, including double versions of windows. I cannot say that in my system, using my gear I found much differences from any of these optimisations, not to say there were no changes in SQ, but most were near what I'd call the "noise floor" (in other words I constantly have to worry if I am hearing something or not, even if I test fully sighted).

Stopping the noise from the PC going into the system (that is galvanic isolation of the USB connection and seriously blocking the PC noise getting into the mains are the two ones that have huge impact. Without these almost anything seems to affect SQ dramatically. Once they are in place most stuff is dramatically reduced, to me to a point where I file it under "don't care enough to bother".

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: How can an external mains filter, posted on September 21, 2014 at 03:23:40
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 Yes, I'm referring only to the noise put back into the AC main line.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But, posted on September 21, 2014 at 03:53:14
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 the other guy is saying that a mains filter beats linear supplies???

In reality both should be used. I am now assembling an all linear supply powered thru an isolation transformer. The difficulty is to ensure neat cabling which I think I have solved.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But, posted on September 21, 2014 at 04:03:46
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 "the other guy is saying that a mains filter beats linear supplies???"

I think he is referring to the quality-design of the linear power supply.

How good is the filtering in the design.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 06:10:19
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 He needs to be much clearer in his posts; it's habitual.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 07:17:13
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Thorsten was completely clear in his posts. As he pointed out, it's a matter of containing switching noise, not eliminating it. Even if a linear power supply is used to provide DC to run the motherboard there will still be switchers powering the CPU and RAM because these chips require high current at sub 1 volt for reasons of device physics.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 07:29:31
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Not worth arguing with you when you read what you want to in a post.

Assumptions here are what leads to unnecessary arguments.

2 evils are better than 10!

 

As usual YMMV, maybe my system is just not that "High End" to really reveal differences, posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:28:29
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 This says it all in terms of your convoluted reasoning ie a power filter for the mains is 'many' times better than improving power supply rails to the motherboard.

They are totally different things and mixing them all up just doesn't help understanding.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But, posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:33:46
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "I am now assembling an all linear supply powered thru an isolation transformer"

Ooooo you're using linear rectifiers? Excellent!

Just something to keep in mind. Your isolation transformer may add enough HF impedance to slow things down a bit and that can help a lot.

Regards, Rick

 

Seasonic ATX SMPS , posted on September 21, 2014 at 09:35:10
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I have just junked one; the long and stiff cables make excellent emitters and it is impossible to make up a neat or tidy system.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 10:30:37
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Thorsten's posts and reasoning were completely clear to those who have some understanding of electronics, power supplies, inner workings of computers, and radiated and conducted emissions.

He is also correct in stating...

"...it is important to fully understand the system if we wish to optimise it. Otherwise all is old wife's tales."

Random haphazard tweaks w/o understanding the system may be fun for those who enjoy blindly chasing their tails. Others recognize the limitations of such amateur approaches.


 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 12:03:45
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Answer my question logically and systematically; otherwise you are defaulting to your Apple fan type of postings.

All you seem capable of doing is butting into posts that inmates are unable to respond to.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 12:44:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I believe this is your question. I looked at the entire thread.

"How can an external mains filter address the internal issues of switching power supplies inside a computer?"

What are these "internal issues" and why are they important?

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Internal Issues, posted on September 21, 2014 at 13:06:40
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 power supply pollution and propagation into audio circuitry; a topic that is much discussed here. This is not the same as mains feedback.

 

RE: Internal Issues, posted on September 21, 2014 at 16:58:37
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 What audio circuitry? There is no audio circuitry in a computer unless there's a sound card in it.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Internal Issues, posted on September 21, 2014 at 22:11:59
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 usb performance and signal integrity is part of audio performance.

No more trick responses please.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-Well, posted on September 21, 2014 at 22:19:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I prefer an isolation transformer with measured and stated isolation spectrum than a $2000 filter full of MO components, capacitors and whatnots without any form of performance information.

 

RE: No theoretical points..., posted on September 22, 2014 at 06:40:33
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "Stopping the noise from the PC going into the system (that is galvanic isolation of the USB connection and seriously blocking the PC noise getting into the mains are the two ones that have huge impact. Without these almost anything seems to affect SQ dramatically. Once they are in place most stuff is dramatically reduced, to me to a point where I file it under "don't care enough to bother"."

Nice. Your explanation appears reasoned and the information seems very useful.

 

RE: Internal Issues, posted on September 22, 2014 at 07:04:06
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Are you suggesting that your computer and USB have signal integrity problems? What is your definition of USB "signal integrity"? How would you know if there are problems? Why do you believe that the 12 volt power supply to the computer affects these problems?

Note: these are not trick questions. They are something that you should be able to answer, given that you used the technical term "signal integrity".

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

You figure out the effect of power rail noise and interefernce on , posted on September 22, 2014 at 07:47:34
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 usb audio transfers.

If you can't, then you should not be posting here.

I have better things to do than to go on and on answering questions that should be obvious to you.

Unlike you I don't have errors on my usb audio PC.

 

RE: You figure out the effect of power rail noise and interefernce on , posted on September 22, 2014 at 07:56:15
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 My questions were formulated to allow you to show the depth of your knowledge or the breadth of your ignorance. You have done an admirable job.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Sure he was clear - and totally wrong, in assumption that containing it is all that's needed., posted on September 22, 2014 at 08:39:58
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 FMAK was no less clear, and entirely correct, in his post - and I believe I was, too, from less technical and more empirical perspective.

 

RE: No troll, no snark, just curious, posted on September 22, 2014 at 08:43:59
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,

The first "SMPS" I listened to was actually a mechanical chopper inside an all tube (the solid state, even diode, count in that thing was the same as the winter temperature in Siberia - close enough to absolute zero as not to matter) battlefield radio-set of russian origin. It was meant to remain fully functional after a nuke strike (re. EMP). I am happy I never had to test that one in practice.

Just as I long gave up counting the number of girls, so I did count SMPS's. Of course, not all or even most of them were PC aimed ATX Types.

Past that, I will say that the technology of SMPS's has matured tremendously in recent years and we now have really exciting tech available. I see no longer a reason to insist on "linear", given that modern switched mode tech can be made to be substantially superior, with savings, if not in cost, at least in bulk.

How this tech is used is another story of course.

If you look inside "junk grade" stuff (e.g. most what is sold out of china on e-pay) you might be forgiven thinking we are still in the last millennium , except a lot of the parts that would have been used in the last millennium to reduce noise leakage both ways have been "economised" out, to save costs.

Ignoring the horrible noise levels and build quality, they often also suffer serious electrical safety issues.

If you look into "good quality commodity" stuff, such as you might find with products from Apple, Asus, Dell etc., they do include the new tech, but focus on deploying it for cost/size/weight reduction, so these "commodity" type units perform as good or as bad as ever (say mid 90's), but are lighter, smaller and cheaper, often dramatically so.

Finally you have what one might call "High End" or "Enthusiasts" products. There has been a strong drive towards lower noise (mechanical and electrical) in conjunction with "Overclocking" enthusiasts (no overclocked system brooks bad/noisy/unstable power). So in this group these new developments are used with gusto in the latest products (but the industry is conservative and slower to change to mainstream) and without attempting to be cheaper/lighter/smaller. In fact, in this market "more expensive", "heavier" and "bigger" seems more like it, so benefits of new tech tend to be realised.

However it is worth checking reviews, especially those who have real objective tests of both electrical and acoustical noise and one often finds that "Big Brand Name" products are light on engineering and big on branding/marketing, while often less expensive latest generation products of the latests generations from the major OEM's (of which Seasonic is arguably one) perform well.

Something to think about for all the "SMPS Doubters".

The main controlling element for the output voltage of almost any SMPS out there is a chip called a "431" (many different prefixes and suffixes). People in audio discovered them in the 90's as very simple, low cost and most crucially, low noise and wide bandwidth "Shunt Regulators" (I still use them on occasion, call them "old faithful", you know what you get and it usually is good enough).

At the time they tended to beat the stuffing out of most alternatives for audio (including all sorts of after market super/hyper/mega/brazillion regulators) and I still have no issue powering a DAC Chip or sensitive analogue stage directly of a 431 used as shunt regulator (and getting superb results).

So in principle, ANY SMPS should be able to turn in a similar audio band noise performance as such a shunt regulator and any of the switching noise can be knocked flat using a suitable LC Filters of moderate size and cost (often there is even space for these on the PCB). It just needs some basic, solid engineering.

For fun (or rather for necessity), I recently had to "fix" the design/manufacturing on a bunch of wall warts we got to power a number of test/burn in devices at the factory.

Stock they were hopeless. We could have send them back, buy different ones. But likely we would only have gotten worse or at best more of the same. So I got a junior to open them up and to test and then messed around a little myself. I had to fix a few design mistakes which meant the PSU's were oscillating at 1...2KHz with around 2V Peak-Peak. We hand-cut slots into the PCB's with a dremel to make sure there was enough isolation between mains and the bit that is supposed to be "low voltage".

After we ordered a bunch of the parts the original manufacturer had felt were unimportant and uprated parts for other positions, I then got the junior to fix all the Wallwart's we had on hand.

The resulting SMPS's using appx. mid 90's SMPS Tech, the original circuit boards with slots, original transformers (we did a hi-pot test, they passed ok) and switching IC's are now quiet enough in noise on the output as well as on the input (leaking into the mains) to beat many (but not all) linear supplies. No magic, no special tricks, just plain old fashioned solid engineering from 20 years ago. Took me maybe 30 Minutes to figure what to do, the junior spend around 15 min per wallwart in the bulk rebuild.

So, really there is no reason for any SMPS to be much worse than a "cooking" linear powersupply (say torroidal transformer, bridge rectifier, big cap + 108X Chip regulator and vestigal RFI filtering), if they are, you bought "Junk" grade and not "Enthusiast" grade.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: Sure he was clear - and totally wrong, in assumption that containing it is all that's needed., posted on September 22, 2014 at 08:50:51
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "and totally wrong, in assumption that containing it is all that's needed."

Please explain why you believe that Thorsten was totally wrong.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

How about answering a question, for a change?, posted on September 22, 2014 at 08:53:52
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 It is widely known, among those who have experience building a system using cMP recipe, that disabling Spread Spectrum, if your BIOS allows that, audibly improves sound quality. Regardless of whether it outputs via USB or a sound card.

Why is it so, in your opinion, and do you see any connection between that, and your own question?

 

See my question to you about Spread Spectrum below. , posted on September 22, 2014 at 09:00:35
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Why was he wrong?

I believe that his experience, that it's all that's needed, stems from insufficient resolution of the system, in particular the computer that is so far from being optimized for audio playback, that it masks all the differences introduced by improved power supply.

As I mentioned, my experience - and apparently FMAK's, too - is that both mains filter and quality power supply improve sound quality. Using them in conjunction with each other gives the best result.

 

So, posted on September 22, 2014 at 09:22:41
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 it was trick question despite your denial and a complete waste of my time. (as I suspected)

 

Komputers and Power Supplies, posted on September 22, 2014 at 09:36:24
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Folks,

What a kerfuffle. Really not needed. It's only audio...

I'll not have the time to address individual points raised, I'll try something more general.

Let me first be clear, Audio (including via Computers) is a basic technology, which on a macro level is understood fairly well. As always the devil is in the details, but there is no need for religion and/or for supra-natural things (in most cases anyway, sometimes exorcisms and holy waters may be needed).

It also means that Audio is generally amenable to using the scientific method (in a way it is not in answering "Ultimate" Questions). That means we need to work evidence based.

Now this does not mean that we, at the slightest notion of anything no covered by EE101, jump up and demand to bring in Arny "Audio Whytchfinder General" Krüger.

And for the "Whytchfinder General" to administer a ABX type Blind Test, if necessary by force and should the poor Whytch or Warlock fail the pre-rigged ABX test just burn her/him on the stake or at least ridicule them publicly for all it's worth.

But it does means we look closely and avoid linking observation (If I do A I get B) to a rigid (but usually misleading) theory of "I only can get B if I do A". Indeed, if we actually looked carefully and with understanding we may find that while 1A may give us a 1B result, applying 1C may indeed give us a 100B result.

The key is to really understand how much of what (A, C, D, X) can produce the most "B" with the least inconvenience, cost, weight etc.

My comments were meant in this context.

We must understand first what is going on.

Otherwise we get people blaming "long and stiff cables" for making "excellent emitters" (a freudian slip perhaps revealing N'V of the supposed attributes of the Son's of Ham?), when there is (or should be at any extent) an absence of much of anything to emit (excluding nocturnal emission while having dreams of Son's of Ham with long and stiff... ahhmmm ... cables).

And when given whatever electrical frequency might be available to emit, the cable length is actually woefully short to much of any emitter, never mind that all cables parallel ground and power meaning they make some of the worse possible emitters, if you tried to make a device that emits RF.

Back to the topic though, as much fun as dilettante style psychoanalysis is.

With a computer and a power supply (linear or not) we have three things to concern ourselves with, in terms of where we may do damage.

1) Noise kicked back or conducted back into the mains (and from there into a connected audio system) - this mains may be generated by many sources or indeed noise originating in the Computer itself that is conducted into the mains.

For such noise most linear supplies I have seen advertised offer poor performance. Here using a suitable mains filter will do a job 100 or even 1,000 times better than a linear supply for a fraction of the cost (see above 1C = 100B where 1A = 1B). Of course, perhaps such a filter SHOULD be build into such power supplies. Blame (as usual) the bean-counters.

2) Noise generated within the supply itself and not sufficiently eliminated at the point where the power leaves the supply that can impact on the power-supply in the computer.

For such noise both kinds of supplies can be anything from awful to excellent. It is an engineering challenge but not one that is particularly difficult for either linear or switched mode supplies. Again, beancounters can wreak havoc.

That said, given that computer motherboards tend to include massive amounts of additional power management (read switched regulators, LC filters, local decoupling with usually quite big value cap's) as do most add in cards, the real impact of such noise on the functioning of a computer is questionable, though cannot be completely excluded.

What is more, as long as data is not corrupted (and you will know if it is) and as long as an externally powered asynchronous DAC is used which eliminates source (Computer caused) jitter, it matters, as the Irish say so charmingly "Feck all". This externally powered asynchronous DAC (implying BITPERFECT ASYNCHRONOUS - no ASRC please) does not have to be per se ASYNC USB, though that is easiest and most widely implemented, other schemes are possible.

3) Noise from either mains and/or the power supply itself that is allowed to pass the power supply and is conducted by the PC to DAC/System connection into the audio system.

Such noise can be pernicious and hard to control.

The easiest way is to take a republican (as in the spanish civil war) "No pasarán!" stance (for those who prefer LOTR - Gandalf: "You — shall not — pass!") and simply isolate the PC side from the audio side in ways that make passing such noise either impossible, or at least dramatically reduces the transmission.

Doing so may impose unacceptable limitations.

Then mitigation becomes the second option. Mitigation can be substantial too, but few things beats just simply destroying all bridges the noise may use to escape from the deeps of Moria, oops, from the case of the PC. Ask that demon from LOTR if you want an honest opinion.

So my take remains - block noise from the PC and associated "potentially noisy/dirty" components from getting to anywhere where it could do damage and/or is not wanted (mains, audio system) and make sure the PC has no control over your audio clocks other than stating what sample it would like (via an isolated link).

And quite frankly, I can think of little that would less suited to that kind of job than a linear power supply. And I can think of a lot fairly affordable Gizmo's that address the problem well.

Enough for today.

Hey Lassi, bring us another one of Dublin's finest... Pure Genius.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

You have just received a ticket from the science police!, posted on September 22, 2014 at 09:51:19
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,



"long and stiff cables make excellent emitters"

1) Stiffness has no effect on the Aerial action of a cable.

2) Length must be seen in respect to the wavelength of the suspect signal. For most off mains SMPS 50 - 200KHz is the switching frequency so 6 - 1.5Km - next to which all cables attached to an ATX supply are VERY SHORT. Even if we allow the 50th harmonic of 200KHz we are still talking 30m wavelength. I doubt your ATX supply came with 30m cables.

3) In order to emit an electrical field it is recommended not to run any emitting aerial closely parallel with a ground/earth conductor. In most ATX power supplies ground and power cables are bundled together, if not twisted together (which would be better and less stiff BTW). I doubt the one you had was an exception.

4) In order to emit any signal, regardless of conductor length, presence of not of ground/earth conductors and (cough, cough) stiffness, there has to be a signal of appreciable magnitude to start with.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: See my question to you about Spread Spectrum below. , posted on September 22, 2014 at 10:03:37
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,

> I believe that his experience, that it's all that's needed, stems
> from insufficient resolution of the system, in particular the
> computer that is so far from being optimized for audio playback,
> that it masks all the differences introduced by improved power supply.

Well, first, I believe Tony was asking for the physical/electrical process involved.

Second, before you diss someone's system, should you not at LEAST hear it?

Third, I suspect that your experience and Fred's stem from ignoring EE101 and basic physics and thus not fixing glaring, totally brutal "you are f..ked" level problems and trying to put sticky tape over the stable doors after not only the hoses have bolted but after the stable boys burned them down plus the barn and the Masters house and joined the revolution!

A little sticky tape will fix it. No need to actually understand what is going on.

And as a result finding that that any change (including a fly farting at 20' outside your window) changes the sound of the system, which is of course precisely what I would predict.

Fourth, have fun and ignore the man behind the curtain. It does not actually matter.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

We can skip Sturmbannführer Krüger - and call directly for Heinrich Kramer., posted on September 22, 2014 at 10:04:39
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 A little "Malleus Maleficarum" won't hurt in this forum.

Note: the image below is the artwork of the album "Blood Vaults: The Blazing Gospel of Heinrich Kramer", by German avantgarde black/doom project The Ruins of Beverast.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-Well, posted on September 22, 2014 at 10:08:21
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "I prefer an isolation transformer with measured and stated isolation spectrum than a $2000 filter full of MO components, capacitors and whatnots without any form of performance information."

Agreed. My point, albeit perhaps a weak one, is that rectifiers are a decidedly non-linear element (unless blown...).

"Performance information" is exactly the very thing we need more of, much more. It is a travesty, but an understandable one that so many audiophiles have come to regard specifications as taradiddle. Rather than gripe about folks who DO measure things for us, like JA, we should encourage them to branch out and measure more parameters.

It really matters not that the "audio industry" eschews thinking out-of-band, nobody ELSE does so there is ample gear and expertise available to adequately quantify emissions and susceptibility. On a relative basis it's DIY-able and there are plenty of standards and Labs that can do it more methodically and quantitively for a price.

I know that this is less of a concern for you sophisticated old-Worlders since CE does a better job of controlling emissions than the the FCC. Here in the Wild-West it's mostly caveat emptor...

Rick

 

I do not doubt your AUDIO system's resolution - and am commenting strictly on computer part., posted on September 22, 2014 at 10:10:27
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 As I said, my experience is diametrically opposite - and so is the experience of many people, who built systems using cMP recipe and its varieties.

Going strictly by what you described as your Audio PC, I would not expect the system downstream from it to be truly resolving, because of that bottleneck - that's the extent of my comment about resolution.

 

RE: We can skip Sturmbannführer Krüger - and call directly for Heinrich Kramer., posted on September 22, 2014 at 10:15:30
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,

> Note: the image below is the artowrk of the album "Blood Vaults:
> The Blazing Gospel of Heinrich Kramer"

Charming. I must own, I am still partial to Brueghel and Bosch for a bit of the good old ultra darkness...

"Man wird wach, reibt die Augen und sieht
in einem Bild zwischen Brueghel und Bosch
keinen Menschen, der um Sirenen etwas gibt,
weil Entwarnung nur halb soviel kostet.
Es riecht nach Kristallnacht."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5O1rL0NwE


Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

"Resolution" a typical audiophile ploy, posted on September 22, 2014 at 10:23:48
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You said he was "totally wrong". That can't be, since he has already admitted that his system might lack resolution. Had you left out the word "totally" I would not have replied. :-)

There is a question, though and that concerns the meaning of "resolution". This is a very ambiguous audiophile term. I am immediately suspicious of people who use this term because for me, at least, the purpose of an audio system is to enjoy music or to review and critique recordings. It is easy to increase the ability of a system to "resolve" certain differences in recordings, such as to increase high frequency response making it easier to hear artifacts of poor digital recordings, etc., but such systems will not make music enjoyable. There is also a question of whether a device "resolves" differences in its input that it is supposed to resolve. So, for example, a balanced interconnect does a poor job of "resolving" ground loops. So if one is using such a system it will not be very "resolving" of certain types of power problems, yet it will almost certainly sound better than a similar single ended system. I used these two examples because they are both analog and easier for audiophiles to understand who don't understand digital electronics, computers and software.

So, if a DAC and downstream analog components "resolves" differences in a computer involving tweaking (not DSP) to me this is an indictment of the DAC and/or amplifiers, not an indictment of an untweaked computer. Sure, I tweak my computer software if it consistently makes a difference in what I hear, but if remaining differences were such as to be consistently and significantly audible then I would get another DAC.

In the "What's Best" and "AVS Forum" threads, amir was able to consistently hear differences between different digital formats. His "resolving" system was nothing but a stock laptop with built-in sound card and a pair of headphones. I don't buy the "resolving system" argument at all unless a system is seriously lacking in an essential musical aspect, e.g. audible noise, lack of or uneven bass, unnaturally truncated highs or audible distortion and commonly used playback levels. Such a system must be rejected for poor ability to play music, not for any lack of "resolution".





Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: How about answering a question, for a change?, posted on September 22, 2014 at 11:22:54
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "It is widely known, among those who have experience building a system using cMP recipe, that disabling Spread Spectrum, if your BIOS allows that, audibly improves sound quality. Regardless of whether it outputs via USB or a sound card."

I simply dismiss these reports as useless to me if I try them and don't notice a significant difference. The people who report these differences stop at that point and they do not go on to understand how/why these audible differences arise. In other words, they have the tinkerer mentality, not the scientific mentality. If I make my system sound better, I am not happy at this point. I want to understand why it sounded better. (Long years of experience has shown me that if I don't understand correctly what is going on it won't be long before the system reverts back to poor performance.)

I heard differences when tweaking BIOS settings when I was using a juli@ sound card. These went away when replacing the computer with a newer one and replacing the juli@ with a USB DAC. If I still heard them, I would get another DAC or experiment with various forms of USB isolation. If the USB power wire is continuous from the computer to the DAC I would start there. Also, I suspect that some of those "asynchronous" USB DACs aren't really asynchronous. The problem with software tweaking inside a computer system is that there are so many things to tweak, they all interact, and many of them change out from underneath you without your knowledge if you change something else.

As to the specifics of the spread sprectrum. I know why it was implemented, being familiar with how EMI is measured according to government standards. I don't know why changing this might affect sound quality, as this will depend on a myriad of specific details. It's easiest to see why undervolting and underclocking might improve sound quality due to lower CPU power consumption where there are problems elsewhere in the system. By the same intuitive power consumption metric, it is easy to see why inefficient linear power supplies might make things worse than a well designed switcher.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Besides being "a typical audiophile ploy", resolution is also a qualitative attribute., posted on September 22, 2014 at 11:27:58
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 I fail to see how subjectivism, as you're willing to accept it, is different from what I'm advocating. If I listen to option A and option B, and option B results in sound that is, at the same time, more detailed ("resolving") and less strident (or harsch), expanded in all dimensions - i.e. more enjoyable - what conclusion am I supposed to come to?

I freely admit not being an EE, not having an education in that field, and not being able to have in-depth discussion in technical terms. However, why does that matter - in the sense why would that impact my ability to perceive audible differences?

How about this - what follows is to me pretty much what EE is to you or Thorsten:

Let's say you are a user of some financial analytical software. You're presented with 2 prototypes - and after 15 minutes of playing with each, you are certain that option #2 is more responsive, when running a particular type of analysis. As a user - is THAT all you need to know? Or you absolutely have to be aware of the fact that option #1 is implemented using SQL Server 2012 utilizing Columnstore indexes, and #2 - Netezza with highly optimized data distributions, resulting in maximized co-location?

 

RE: No troll, no snark, just curious, posted on September 22, 2014 at 11:54:03
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 The irony is that your 'super high quality' smps for powering the iUSB Power sounds inferior to any of my linear 9V supplies, with the ALW superegulator sounding best. Even a 7809 or 317 beats it!.

My first one also broke down within 2 hours.

You are free to speculate but you are not free to exaggerate on the basis of empirical findings (you said it) whilst posing it as 'science'.

 

RE: You have just received a ticket from the science police!, posted on September 22, 2014 at 11:58:55
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Stiffness and length mean that the loom is a mess in any computer enclosure.

Emitter is a colourful way of describing inter power rail pickup/modulation and is no more than your own colourful exaggerations as illustrated by the nonsense on the website describing the products that you said you designed.

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-Well, posted on September 22, 2014 at 12:00:40
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 CE was originally meant to control emissions in safety critical environments.

 

I would not expect the system downstream from it to be truly resolving, posted on September 22, 2014 at 12:06:53
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 He said it himself! What I find unacceptable is someone admitting to this, and then boasting that he knew it all on the basis of science.

Signal conditioning and integrity are very basic concepts in electronic measurement and control, and yet some self proclaimed bods steadfastly refuse to accept these are important within a computer.

No point arguing with them as you will see in some of my replies.

 

So many assumptions in your post, posted on September 22, 2014 at 15:34:01
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 that go far beyond "tweaks"

Leaving that term, and those out: that is in no way what Carcass is talking about. It is also very easy to leave out all of computer audio when discussing things like resolution, system synergy, etc.

One just needs to get specific, comparative experiences yield differing results. Compare a NAD CD player to a Moon Eclipse, in the same system and one is going to sound different and way wrong, - (given that it's a decent set of amps & speakers or even headphone amp and cans). We know this by actually going out and having those experiences. Listening to either one of those CDPs, or even a computer audio system transport with DAC through a pair of Avalon speakers with a VAC integrated is going to sound radically different than through a Sharp boombox.

Experienced people, (listeners/analysts), like Kal Rubinson, T-Bone, etc., never, ever, say the kinds of things that "theorists" do. People who have heard 100s of systems, and individual components don't say such things. Most of these "resolving" components and systems rarely sound the same, (but they sometimes do), and differences between components are heard easily without tweaks.

People who attend shows also know these things to be true.

What people prefer in a playback system has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: So many assumptions in your post, posted on September 22, 2014 at 18:05:53
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 My experience is with live acoustic music and the recording and playback of that. It does not extent to the never ending panoply of products being marketed to audiophiles, especially audiophiles who have lots of money and little ability to understand what they hear. My standard is live music. That is the only "state of the art" that is relevant to me. It is not necessary to go to audio shows and listen to dozens of flawed components and poorly set up systems to evaluate what one hears if one has this kind of absolute standard.

I suspect that most case of system synergy are just the fortuitous compensation of errors. If one is working in the dark out of ignorance this may seem to be "magic" but it is probably real. Unfortunately this is not something that the majority of audio salesmen or ex audio salesmen are likely to understand. (The best ones will have an intuitive understanding of the situation and wisely guide their customers.)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Besides being "a typical audiophile ploy", resolution is also a qualitative attribute., posted on September 22, 2014 at 18:24:20
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 The basic issue is that "more details" may be wrong. It may not correspond to what is actually on the recording. This may be hard to appreciate, but less so if one has experience making recordings and playing them back. I do not question that people perceive differences. What I question is when they apply pseudo-technical reasoning to translate these perceptions back to specific causes. (Not generally a problem with you, BTW.)

When I evaluate a piece of software, I try to get a feel for what it is supposed to do, by experimentation or by RTFM. Then, at least in my better moments, I try it out with a few test cases. In many cases, if the software was ill conceived I succeed in crashing it on the spot. However, if it's just a matter of speed (a.k.a. performance) then I know there are may ways to expose or cover up performance difficulties. Decades ago I used to run competitive performance benchmarks, and was familiar with a variety of ways to present one's product "in the most favorable light". Later, I debunked various "scientific" performance analysis that showed that certain technologies (e.g. Ethernet) were inferior to others (e.g. Token ring). In most case, the manipulative techniques were obvious and covered in books such as How to Lie with Statistics.

My concern with databases and database theory was mostly around getting correct results, rather than optimizing performance. Back in those days, computer crashes were the rule rather than the exception, so data integrity was paramont. Hopefully, today the questions have advanced to matters of privacy and security.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: You have just received a ticket from the science police!, posted on September 22, 2014 at 19:43:31
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 If you have money to burn, try using a modular power supply that has lots of smaller conductors in a flexible ribbon cable format. I've got a bunch of Corsair RM1000's powering some equipment and these are have flexible cables that are very easy to work with. BTW, there are lots of ground wires interleaved between the +12 wires. Need lots of wires to handle 83 amps at 12 volts per power supply.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

modular power supply , posted on September 22, 2014 at 21:47:12
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I have - Superflower fanless. There is now another one with all detachable cables.

The problem with these makes is:

They all use stuff wire looms and there is no way to shorten cables except to cut them.

I am making one up based on a Corsair accessory ATX cable but it is quite a job as all wires are orange.

 

We are all so fortunate, posted on September 22, 2014 at 22:13:34
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 That none of your described stereotypes actually exist

"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: How can an external mains filter-But-think?, posted on September 23, 2014 at 22:13:20
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 This is your interpretation of what he said, which is obvious.

What he said was something else, ie that a mains filter is many times more effective than reducing smps noise within the computer.

 

Page processed in 0.052 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]