|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.181.190.237
Please go to the Channel D site if interested in their position on this subject.
Follow Ups:
Here is a follow up to Damien's response from Rob Robinson of Channel D:Steve,
With regards to your posted reply:
First of all, disk journaling is not a panacea, especially when kernel panics are involved. It is exactly *because* of journaling that hard drive problems and data loss can occur due to a kernel panic. Here is an example of what happens in the lead-up:
1. Contents of protected memory are altered, and a sequence of events occurs that subsequently corrupts the contents of file(s), often because the virtual memory paging mechanism goes off-kilter.
2. Kernel panic occurs, and the journaling mechanism flushes the corrupted file contents to disk. File is irretrievably lost, because it is now filled with garbage.
Second, the word "sandbox" was used purely as a colloquialism describing the protected memory of *all* versions of OS X; not the buzzword used by Apple for a specific security feature.
We have been developing commercial software for the Mac platform for a very long time, and are after solid, reliable performance in the long run, not risky approaches that may break some time down the road. Regarding the current matter, and begging the question that reliability issues could be successfully addressed: what happens if a manufacturer updates a device driver for a DAC, or Apple updates their USB audio driver in an OS update, etc., and the user installs the update without checking with the application developer first for compatibility? (Good luck getting a reply from Apple asking if an OS update will continue to work with direct mode.) Will there be a new round of kernel panics?
We posted the topic on our website about direct mode because we have been getting some questions about it from users. It seemed that being proactive to alert users to potential problems was in their best interests, and in the best interests of audiophiles who are making their first tentative foray into computer audio. Kernel panics and reliability problems are a sure way to discourage the adoption of computer audio.
Rob
Edits: 06/30/12
Damien sent me this info to reassure users of the Audirvana Beta:
OS X is based on a BSD (flavor of Unix) kernel that brings virtual memory (so called "protected memory") management, along with a preemptive multitasking scheduler.
These two mechanisms ensure applications play along well, and that an application hang, or crash will not impact the rest of the system:
A hang is managed by the scheduler that gives back CPU to other apps when the hung app time is up.
For crash, each application lives in its own address space ("virtual memory") and any attempt to access beyond its allocated domain fails, terminating the application (99% of crashes).
The OS service, inter application communications, … are managed through specific ports/APIs/shared memory mechanisms offered by the kernel.
No application can directly access the kernel space. This is called the user/kernel boundary. It can be crossed on by drivers inside the kernel that offer services to applications. Outside those declared services, no way.
Audirvana Plus uses such official mechanisms, period. No "open heart surgery", evil hacking breaching security mechanisms.
But the kernel lives in a single address space, thus not isolating drivers from the other. This is mainly for performance reasons. (FYI, there have been some microkernel designs with this kind of protection at all levels, but the performance hit what too high). That's why a IOAudioFamily / OSvKernDSPLib failure crashes the kernel, thus the whole system. And note that it is not that bad, some core functions being still alive as it can display the error message on the screen.
On kernel panics impact: OS X makes use of a journaling file system. This is a technology directly derived from the high end databases: the two phases commit.
First phase: you write in the journal what you intend to do, with the roll back information. Second phase: you perform the operation, and finally you erase the journal entry.
This ensures that the hard drive will always be in a consistent state, even if the system crashes (kernel panic, power loss) at the wrong time. In this case, at the next boot, it will find journal entries about incomplete operations, and perform the roll back steps to ensure the hard drive consistency.
A note about sandboxing: this is a new feature first introduced in Lion, and that will get widely used only from Mountain Lion on. Goal is to prevent malicious activity (e.g. viruses, trojans, …).
This is a trick to fool an application by making it believe it is running in a very limited system, with access to only the approved services (see: https://developer.apple.com/devcenter/mac/app-sandbox/ ). E.g. the objective is to avoid an application approved for text editing to play with USB devices.
As your software environment gets really complicated as well as the hardware environment, it becomes impossible to entangle the effects of interactions.
You don't want to know what ground lift is in an audio system, but you are happy to regurgitate the posted note which is full of the jargon used by computer scientists and technicians.
.
Entangle means to complicate or to confuse.
"Impossible to entangle" means it is impossible to complicate the situation or confuse it i.e. he has developed a system that is extremely simple. Is that what you meant to say?
Assuming not; Mercman's system seems no more complicated than most others here. In fact, it is much simpler on the software side if you compare it to those manipulating registers in Windows.
You talk about modifying power supplies for your computers yet you mock Mercman for trying a different cable or tuning bullets?
Analysis below.
.
I think that sums it up very well.
Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
What the hell does that link have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Oh, I forgot. It is the typical off topic diversion tactic that fmak employs when he's confused and lost. I've seen it before and it's easy to spot.
the hell have most of your posts do with audio?
I don't understand your hit and run off-topic tangents that you wander off on. Maybe it's just me but it is puzzling.
"you are happy to regurgitate the posted note which is full of the jargon used by computer scientists and technicians."
Every field has its terminology, which enables efficient conception and communications of ideas. It was clear to me what the posted note meant. It will be less than clear to one not familiar with the how and why of operating systems.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
How does all this help determine the outcome wrt the issue?
It is precisely on point. If you understood Operating System technology this would have been clear. If I thought you did, I wouldn't have bothered to post the link to the MIT course.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So, with your experise, what is your conclusion. Who is right and why?
There is no "right" or "wrong" here. It's a question of probabilities, i.e. the chance of a crash causing data corruption. In Mercman's particular case he made it clear that the crash didn't lose any data and that he had backups anyhow. So he was OK to take the risks. Without two backups then it would have been a bad idea.
Even if the operating system does all the proper journaling, etc., files may still be corrupted data due to a crash, and it can involve interactions between the disk hardware, the disk firmware, the operating system and the computer hardware. The people writing the code to make these things work aren't putting their life on the line, the way that parachute packers were made to do during World War II.
Crashes are one of the reasons why I am not using the Juli@ any more. The 64 bit driver crashes Windows 7 under various circumstances, such as sleep mode and conflicting attempts by ASIO application programs. In addition to much better sound, the Mytek Stereo192-DSD comes with a driver that is not perfect, but it has yet to crash the operating system.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So, how does your perfect understanding of the Jargon (which I bet few here would understand perfectly) help avoid any future risk of a damaging crash?
I have been an advocate of simple and open statements of what audio software does. Your explanation about 'possi-blistic' crashes requiring one party's program to be uninstalled makes the whole thing even more cloudy.
I should think it clear. Don't mess around with programs that muck around in the kernel. Be very circumspect when it comes to drivers. Be very circumspect when it comes to new storage technology, vendors with poor reputation for reliability, etc. And most important, expect that systems will crash and that data will become corrupted and keep multiple backups.
Do not expect COTS software to be reliable. It is not built to NASA standards and we know that even these are not always high enough.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We young guys like to live on the edge.
is a lot better than the jargon filled text that we have been talking about.It is still necessary to attend the MIT course?
Edits: 07/01/12
The software is becoming less complicated with Direct Mode / Integer.
There are two types of complexity. There is complexity in the behavior of individual components and complexity in the interactions between individual components. These can be qualitatively different when it comes to understanding how a system behaves.
Unless something is (or was) broken in the non-integer processing of audio in the MAC operating systems, as it was in some versions of Windows, the behavior of the data format conversions between integer and floating point are of the first type of complexity, that is to say they have no impact in the data stream whatsoever, as a conversion from integer to floating point is completely invertible (for 16 or 24 bit integers). If there is a difference it is in the second type of complexity, which is where timing jitter, power supply noise, etc. comes into play. It is highly likely that any sonic differences between the two modes of audio in MACs come from complex interactions, e.g. relate to rebuffering of audio as happens because the size of integer and floating point samples differ.
Once you get into the realm of complex interactions between components of a large system (and even the most stripped down general purpose operating system today is obscenely complex) all bets are off when it comes to any hope of untangling these interactions, even by "experts". It is possible to design systems from the ground up to have precise characterizations and these systems can be proven in theory and practice to work predictably and reliably. The operating systems we use in computer audio do not fall into this class. This is why messing around in this way is often a fool's errand.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"This is why messing around in this way is often a fool's errand."
But then again, you don't trust your subjective findings. For you, it is a fool's errand.
It's no fool's errand to double and triple check the conclusions of one's senses, especially before spending a lot of money based on questionable sales demonstrations. One uses one's senses, but one must also use logic and reason and work with knowledge obtained from authoritative sources. When dealing with the "authorities" one needs to be very cautious, as many of these people are salesmen, not purveyors of truth.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"When dealing with the "authorities" one needs to be very cautious, as many of these people are salesmen, not purveyors of truth."
A resonable statement.
As your software environment gets really complicated as well as the hardware environment, it becomes impossible to entangle the effects of interactions.
It also becomes impossible to maintain the purity of the music. Surely all of these "effects" lend so much 'flavor' to the music that the original sound signature is lost.
At this point what you have is an augmented sound that suites personal tastes.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
"At this point what you have is an augmented sound that suites personal tastes."
There is no audio playback device or system on this planet that does not have an "augmented sound". Every CD player, turntable, cartridge, has it's own sonic signature as well every DAC in the digital as well as in the analog domain. Same for cables, speakers, preamps, various tube types, etc.
Please let us know what the exact standard is for a component or complete system that does not have an 'augmented sound' and is not designed to accommodate personal taste?
"Please let us know what the exact standard is for a component or complete system that does not have an 'augmented sound' and is not designed to accommodate personal taste?"
Quite simple. Take a cable. Run it between two devices. Listen to the sound. Then plug two of these cables in tandem. (Works with XLR as these cables have one end of each gender.) The goal is for the sound of the two cables configuration to exactly match the one cable configuration. Now if you hear a difference, then it may be due to the extra connectors. In that case, compare a short and long cable, otherwise the same except for length.
In the case of a DAC it's a bit harder. However, one can do bypass tests by listening to the analog signal input to an ADC and comparing it with the analog signal out of the DAC. They should sound the same. If not, then either the equipment or the digital format is not transparent. There are two problems with this simple bypass test. First, it won't detect some kinds of clock jitter because the two clocks are running in real time and are synchronized. Thus the ADC and the DAC could have cancelling distortion. Second, there can be other cancelling distortions, e.g. offsetting errors in frequency response. But here there is an absolute standard of how things are supposed to sound, the only difficulty is attributing any errors to specific components.
For a complete system, the system has to be complete. This means the recording portion of the record - playback system must be present as well as the playback portion. Many pro audio items are designed with the intention of being sonically transparent. Others are designed to add "color". Usually, the product marketing literature makes it clear what the design philosophy is. Consumers of pro-audio equipment are, in general, much more knowledgeable when it comes to audio technology for various reasons. Probably the most important one is that they make recordings as well as listen to them and hence have a handle on the entire process of recorded sound.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
My point is, there is no standard for how a component, software, or an entire system should sound, whether on the recording end or the playback end.
It is ALL dependent on someone's interpretation . What might be accurate to you may not be accurate to me. So in the end, it is ALL entirely subjective and up to individual preference and taste.
Some comparisons are dependent on interpretation. That's is the case, for example when dealing with preferences between different sounding systems. However, if one is dealing with issues of difference, this need not be the case. If one person out of 100 can reliably hear differences between two systems then one must admit that these systems sound different. That the other 99 people hear nothing is irrelevant, they may be deaf, untrained, lazy, etc. Note that if one is to use statistical arguments to say that some people heard a difference, one must deal with the "file drawer" problem, e.g. if 100 deaf people were to guess whether they heard differences then one would expect roughly 5% to "hear statistically significant differences" and this would be an obviously bogus use of statistics. Proper experimental design can deal with this statistical problem but finding these low level effects will still require an extensive, and hence expensive, study.In the event that a test demonstrated that no one out of a large sample was able to hear a difference between a straight wire and a combination of an ADC followed by a DAC then one could include that on this occasion, in this system, the test subjects were unable to demonstrate they could hear a difference. There would be no need for any interpretation to reach such a conclusion. One could still argue how this conclusion might be extended, of course. Furthermore, it might be that brand A's combination of ADC and DAC was transparent, brand B's combination of ADC and DAC was transparent, but when the output of a brand A ADC was fed into the input of a brand B DAC the resulting system was not transparent. Without additional tests or measurement it would not be possible to say which brand was "correct". (This is not an academic issue, by the way.)
IMO, audiophiles who do not have experience making and playing back live recordings of acoustic music are simply unqualified to comment on these matters. They are only participating in half of the true hobby.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 07/01/12
Tony,
"IMO, audiophiles who do not have experience making and playing back live recordings of acoustic music are simply unqualified to comment on these matters. They are only participating in half of the true hobby."
True... To a point... but must one also rely on memory for the comparison?
Unless you have the live source in the same room.
regards
Bob
The important sonic differences use long term memory.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
That's all very nice but completely impractical with regard to my original comment.
"Please let us know what the exact standard is for a component or complete system that does not have an 'augmented sound' and is not designed to accommodate personal taste?"
The constant bickering here over what computer or OS 'sounds best' is mostly mental masturbation for those who get off on such things. Just as it is for amps, preamps, speakers, cd players, etc., there is no 'best', no 'standard'.
Since there is no standard, it boils down to personal preference. Otherwise, we would all be building our systems with the same gear.
I should have typed 'Disentangle'. But I guess you knew what I meant.
.
There is no "purity of the music" in the absolute sense. You manipulate the variables in your system just like the rest of us do. Bemoaning "the original sound signature is lost" is a bit silly given that everything you do affects it. With so many variable in the playback chain you and I have no idea what the original sound signature was.
If whatever he did makes it sound better to him then to hell with the original sound signature, whatever that is.
.
.
What are you specifically talking about? An Apple Thunderbolt Cable vs a Synergistic Research Thunderbolt cable? So the Apple cable has no particular sonic flavor? You could have fooled me!Software with a simpler processing path is more colored?
Edits: 06/30/12
It seems to me that you are adding more and more colour by adding more and more devices and software.
I need a drive and a wire to connect it to the computer. I need software to play the music files. Just what am I adding Fred? I don't understand what you are referring to.
How about all these 'aids' to 'improve' SQ; Enigma Bullets and all.
The Enigma tuning devices make only slight differences to the sound. An example: Black Diamond Racing Cones.
An individual places 3 cones under his dac and prefers the sound. He can select the type 4 cone or the type 3 cone. The 4 is more detailed, the 3 warmer. He can mix 3s and 4s. But in the end, the general sound is the same regardless of what type of BDR cone he uses.
I have a set and determined that I did not like the 'tuning' effect.
This is an example of a independent variable effecting a dependent variable. If one seeks purity one would use isolation devices that do not warm up or make the sound more detailed. Instead use something that lets the properties of the component come through more clearly.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
> > > How about all these 'aids' to 'improve' SQ; Enigma Bullets and all.Surely some added seasoning...MSG perhaps.
Merc., your cooking with MSG...all that flavor you enjoy is artificially enhanced.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Edits: 06/30/12
What is the "purity" of the system that you elude to? If you can tell me this, you deserve the Nobel Prize.
Let's look at an example. Take you new Wadia DAC and place it in an oak platform. Now place it on a glass shelf. Change again to an MDF platform. Or place it on a stand made of bricks. In each case the DAC will sould slightly different.
Where can I find the purity?
Not with big bottles and silver I/Vs
What is the "purity" of the system that you elude to? If you can tell me this, you deserve the Nobel Prize.
Let's look at an example. Take you new Wadia DAC and place it in an oak platform. Now place it on a glass shelf. Change again to an MDF platform. Or place it on a stand made of bricks. In each case the DAC will sould slightly different.
Where can I find the purity?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You make a good point about finding purity. However its not as black-n-white as you propose. Purity is gained by leaving things in their natural setting as much as possible.
In the case of a Dac or component you might gain purity by systematically removing external effects. So if I use wood, glass, stone etc to tune the sound then its not for purity. However if my purpose is to remove external influences on the Dac then the motive is purity. Is your purpose to tune or to remove? Keep in mind that many times removing does not produce the better sound.
Times when removing does not produce a better sound we often 'tune' then if tuning does not work we replace.
Please make sure you spell Dynobot with all caps....:-)
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
"Purity is gained by leaving things in their natural setting as much as possible."
I guess I wasn't making myself clear. You have to place your dac on something. Whatever you place it on or suspend it from the ceiling will have a particular sound. The natural setting for you will not be the same for others.
Well the best way to do it would be to suspend it so that no external vibrations effect the sound. Then use that as my control. Next try to use a platform that sounds the same as 'nothing' ie use the material that effects the sound the least.
In your case do you play a file that resides on your computer which was loaded into memory as your control?
I do the same thing for USB cables. I rig up something that pretty much eliminates the cable from the equation, now I know what 'no' cable sounds like. Then I try to stick as close to that sound as possible. Others go for cables that attenuate the sound, that is, the sound is better than 'no' cable. This is where the MSG comes in.
Now are you going to give me my Nobel Prize?
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
..
Well the best way to do it would be to suspend it so that no external vibrations effect the sound
It will still vibrate because it is subjected to sound waves. That's how your ears work, they vibrate because the air is moving. What you seek to do is impossible. The cables used to suspend it would also vibrate as well as whatever it was sitting on. You can't completely isolate a component from the room unless you remove it from the room, and then you have to deal with the effects of long cables.
How do you rig up something that eliminates the USB cable from the equation? If you have done this I second the Nobel nomination.
Edits: 06/30/12
"How do you rig up something that eliminates the USB cable from the equation? If you have done this I second the Nobel nomination."
There are small USB A-B connectors which can do this. YMMV...
regards
Bob
I guess you win the Nobel Prize!
btw, there are other ways to do it too.
But some people are set in 'contrarian' mode and will disagree with everything.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
I don't see how a USB adapter eliminates the cable from the equation.Many claim that different cables sound different. How does putting an A-B adapter on the end of the cable eliminate whatever effect it has on the signal?
In your case how did you accomplish this?
I do the same thing for USB cables. I rig up something that pretty much eliminates the cable from the equation, now I know what 'no' cable sounds like.
That is not contrarian. That is genuine interest in how an experiment can be devised that eliminates cable variances from the equation.
.
.
Edits: 07/01/12
Hi,
If you look at the adapter, it is A to B. You just put it between the devices. Kind of a pain.
Bob
.
Thanks for the response. We may be discussing 2 different things
What I was asking is how one can eliminate the effects of the cable as was claimed here by another inmate
I do the same thing for USB cables. I rig up something that pretty much eliminates the cable from the equation, now I know what 'no' cable sounds like.
I'm thinking an adapter can't do that. I was trying to find out what was "rigged up." However, when I ask for further explanation I seem to only get smart ass comments, though not from you. I appreciate your input to the discussion.
.
.
I hear you. I really do not know how one can eliminate a cable either, and still use a cable sort of?? Hard wire??? Does that still count as a cable, sort of a cable??? Maybe send a telegram??? Well that would still be considered a cable...;) Oh well...
regards
Bob
He still doesn't get it.
Somehow, someway he has to disagree.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
The questions posed were civil and extremely reasonable. I am very interested in how you devised a way to eliminate cables from the equation. If you don't want to discuss that is your choice.
I saw your blast about the T-amps before you deleted it. Perhaps you came to your senses and realize I made no comments about they sounded, and evidently checked the spec sheets and realize the claim of 150W of pure power is bogus.
I'll put you on my Fmak list. If you wish to discuss something in a civilized way without the intent that somebody must be a winner and the other party must be crushed then that would be great. If you just want to throw darts I'm not interested.
BTW I do realize I have been guilty of snarky comments and a winner take all attitude in the past. No more. I am the new and improved BWB interested only in furthering the state of the art in home audio reproduction. I encourage you to join me.
.
.
> > > It will still vibrate because it is subjected to sound waves.
How much sound would it take to move or vibrate a Dac? Realistically the effect of sound waves on most components [besides turn tables and tubes] is negligible as best.
It would take massive amounts of kinetic energy or a sustained frequency tuned to the exact resonant frequency of a component to vibrate it while being suspended by a wire.
Your dreaming.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Consider that a DAC contains a clock and the clock contains a piece of quartz that movies, i.e. it vibrates. According to the laws of physics the timing of the clock will be affected by external vibration. And this external vibration will modulate the audio output by the DAC, as can be deduced from what DACs do or by looking into the inner workings of a particular DAC. It is possible to measure these effects. A good experimental physicist armed with a governmental budget would be able to do this and produce quantifiable measurements of how much vibration effects the output of a DAC. Come to think of it a clever hobbyist could probably do the same at the cost of a week's work and a few thousands of dollars worth of apparatus.
However, even if there is no effect on the output of a DAC (e.g. because the critical parts such as the quartz crystal have been thoroughly isolated from vibration) changing the mounting of the DAC in the listening room may still affect the sound. The most obvious way is that the new shelf changed the room acoustics. Another possibility is the disturbance of cable connections during the process of changing the shelf. I'm sure that any potential Nobel laureate could come up with a half a dozen other reasons. A good experimental design would need to consider all of these possibilities and rule them out.
Those damn "bullet" resistors may also be affecting the sound, because their power supplies consume different amounts of power according to their resistive load and these power supplies may pollute the power wiring in the room. This can change the sound in a way that some listeners my mistake for more "resolving". Indeed the sound may be more resolving, but what is being resolved may be the defects in the audiophile's gear and not any sounds produced by a musician.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
'According to the laws of physics the timing of the clock will be affected by external vibration. And this external vibration will modulate the audio output by the DAC'
This is not a law of Physics. Clock timing may be affected by external vibration, but the order of the effect will be determined entirely by environmental and or physical variables. Black and white statements like this do not help to define cause or effect.
"Those damn "bullet" resistors may also be affecting the sound, because their power supplies consume different amounts of power according to their resistive load and these power supplies may pollute the power wiring in the room. This can change the sound in a way that some listeners my mistake for more "resolving". Indeed the sound may be more resolving, but what is being resolved may be the defects in the audiophile's gear and not any sounds produced by a musician."
Changing the Enigma bullets will not make the sound more resolving. These are very fine tuning devices. The sound might be a little brighter or a little warmer, but that's about it.
So, why bother; just fine tune the cable or whatever.
I tend to agree with you. I am not a big fan of tuning devices and prefer that the cable designer make the ultimate decision. But having used two Synergistic products with the Enigma tuning devices, I can appreciate their limited application.
'The sound might be a little brighter or a little warmer, but that's about it.'
So, you have revised your earlier conclusions. That's reasonable.
My conclusions on the Tranquility Base and Thunderbolt Active SE cable always indicated that the Enigma tuning devices played a minor role Fred.
.
People spend huge sums of money on various platforms to alter the way vibrations affect their equipment. How do you think the vibration gets there?
It is a well known fact that through the air is one way. Ignoring that path puts you in the dreaming category.
When something rattles on my desk while music is playing your position is the vibration travels from the speaker cabinet through the carpet it sits on through 30 feet of poured concrete floor back up through the carpet through the legs of my desk and eventually to make the rattle?
Or maybe it is sound waves traveling through the air?
.
How do you think the vibration gets there?
It is a well known fact that through the air is one way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vibration can be split up into portions, some via air, some via external mechanical vibrations and yet another is self induced vibration. Transformers are a very big source of self induced vibration. Platforms etc serve to change and dampen the resonant frequency of the component from all three sources. If you actually spend some time on this subject DOING instead of talking you might have known this.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
bother with the gibberish
.
on gibberish.
.
Your obfuscation about transformers and the rest not withstanding, I see you finally agree with me.
First you said vibration through the air was pretty much impossible.
Realistically the effect of sound waves on most components [besides turn tables and tubes] is negligible as best.
I gave you an example of something rattling on my desk because of sound waves and you change your tune without acknowledging I was right.
Vibration can be split up into portions, some via air, some via external mechanical vibrations and yet another is self induced vibration....
Since the desk is not vibrating and the object isn't self inducing any vibration then you must agree it came through the air.
You therefore must agree that the same object would rattle suspended on a wire.
I'm glad we got that settled.
.
Instead of acknowledging you were wrong you try to twist words.
Of course the effects of air vibrations are practically zero on a component suspended by a wire.
Again....It would take massive amounts of energy or a sustained frequency tuned to the exact resonant frequency of a component to vibrate it by sound waves alone.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
Denying the effects of airborne vibrations despite tons of evidence to the contrary shows you either are completely misinformed,
you are arguing just for the fun of it, or you
in any case it is as you say,,,, hopeless
good day
.
Denying the effects of airborne vibrations despite tons of evidence to the contrary shows you either are completely misinformed,
I guess I need to repeat myself.....note the BOLD type.
Vibration can be split up into portions, some via air, some via external mechanical vibrations and yet another is self induced vibration.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
I thought you said earlier that sound waves through the air would not affect a component other than a turntable/cartridge.
I think it affects all components. Linn used to and may still encourage their dealers to have only the loudspeakers they were demonstrating in the room. They believed that sympathetic vibrations from other speakers affected the sound. I have a high respect for the folks at Linn so I'm going with true until proven otherwise.
.
> > > I have a high respect for the folks at Linn so I'm going with true until proven otherwise.Too bad you cling so hard to the words of others instead of the knowledge gained via personal experience.
Perhaps in the future Linn will explain the whole truth about all sources of vibration and you will accept reality.
BTW, one of the largest sources of vibration is right through your A/C plugs. What do you think about that???? Sounds crazy huh...
> > > They believed that sympathetic vibrations from other speakers affected the sound.Sympathetic vibrations = other speakers woofers in the room will turn into "passive radiators". Okay sure but still you will need some serious db to make one loudspeaker effect another’s 'active' driver.
Either way, its best to test and find out these 'truths' rather than just accepting it as the gospel.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Edits: 07/01/12
.
I try to be nice and see if you can clarify your position since it appears at least to me that you are on both sides of this. In one post you list airborne vibration as part of the equation and in another you say it can be ignored. You take it as an opportunity to hurl another putdown.
Linn has been in business since 1973. That's at least 39 years of experience in high end audio. I don't "cling" to what they say. I listen to them and try to incorporate their experience and expertise into my well of knowledge. I don't agree with everything they say but it would be idiotic to ignore that much experience.
.
.
I don't "cling" to what they say.
I listen to them and try to incorporate their experience and expertise into my well of knowledge.
-----------------------
If you incorporate their experience into your 'well' of knowledge without any first hand experience and oppose all other view points then you are clinging to what they say....are you not???
At least spend some time and fill your well of knowledge with first hand experiences. You might be suprised to find out not everything anyone says no matter how long they have been around is the gospel.
For example our resident engineer who believes everything has roots in jitter thinks that 1.5m is the ideal length for all digital cables, even usb. However Texas Instruments did a study and found that jitter via USB increases with cable length...even the length of the trace on motherboards. Instead of swallowing what either said whole-sale I tried for myself....low and behold TI was right. So much so that my 4" length of usb cable sounded better than both $300 converters and expensive cables I had. Of course I sold both and kept the $5 cable. Knowledge gained through first hand experience can not be beat.
Perhaps I should have just listened to TI since they have been in business for a longer period of time.
In audio nothing is as black and white as it might appear to be...shades of grey abound do to the many variables. Therefore its not about sides.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
without any first hand experience and oppose all other view points
At least spend some time and fill your well of knowledge with first hand experiences.
I have absolutely no idea how you came to those conclusions.
I have been dabbling in this hobby for over 40 years and have quite a bit of first hand experience.
I said I incorporate their knowledge. I said nothing about not using my experience and said nothing about opposing all other view points. It appears you have resorted to a straw man.
Since you are taking these huge leaps from what I say to these outrageous conclusions I see no point in continuing the discussion.
good day
.
I said I incorporate their knowledge. I said nothing about not using my experience and said nothing about opposing all other view points. It appears you have resorted to a straw man.
------------------------------------------
You said, and I Quote: "I listen to them and try to incorporate their experience and expertise into my well of knowledge. "
You incorporate THEIR experience and expertise...into...your well of knowledge. You said nothing of actually applying their experience. In fact anyone who knows English will conclude that a "Well Of Knowledge" exists in the mind.
No straw-man here....just you and your own words.
So what experiments have you done on this subject? I shared mine, tell me, based on your own first hand experience how were you able to conclude that vibrations via air effect components?
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
I said "the end" which means I will no longer participate in this pointless debate.
.
Continue to taunt me if you feel the need..
.
"Now are you going to give me my Nobel Prize?"
Aagain, you miss the point. Whatever you do is YOUR natural or pure event. But it is not the same for others. There is no standard to follow.
You get no prize.
Sure its called Experimental Design where you isolate and remove all the effects of independent and extraneous variables on the dependent variable.
There are plenty of standards, you just choose not to use them because you like the effects of your independent variables [bullets etc].
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
Where can I find a list of these standards?
.
> > > Where can I find a list of these standards?
Ask and Ye Shall Receive!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Experimental Design
Experimental designs are often touted as the most "rigorous" of all research designs or, as the "gold standard" against which all other designs are judged. In one sense, they probably are. If you can implement an experimental design well (and that is a big "if" indeed), then the experiment is probably the strongest design with respect to internal validity. Why? Recall that internal validity is at the center of all causal or cause-effect inferences. When you want to determine whether some program or treatment causes some outcome or outcomes to occur, then you are interested in having strong internal validity. Essentially, you want to assess the proposition:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can easily follow experimental standards to identify and eliminate effects caused by independent variables.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
You post this If you can implement an experimental design well (and that is a big "if" indeed), and then dismiss me by saying it is easy to do.
You lost me, it is a "big if" but it is easy?
Give it up, there are no meaningful standards in audio testing and you know it. Arguing there are is silly.
.
.
> > > You post this If you can implement an experimental design well (and that is a big "if" indeed), and then dismiss me by saying it is easy to do.
It is easy to do IF you've done it before. However instead of trying to focus in on 'one' word in order to distract why not stay on topic?
The point is anyone can use experimental design to isolate and remove the effects of one thing upon another thing.
I take it you made it though one sentence of the site I linked too and gave up....
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
It is not a distraction, it is a fact. It IS extremely difficult to design an experiment that affects a single independent variable. Your pie in the sky notion that you can do so, that you can design experiments that eliminate all variables from USB cables, that you can design experiments that eliminate the effects of vibration on components to find its pure sonic signature, is delusional.
Unless you can detail how one of these experiments works there is no point in this discussion.
.
"It is not a distraction, it is a fact. It IS extremely difficult to design an experiment that affects a single independent variable"
Take care that the best does not become the enemy of the good. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It is not a distraction, it is a fact. It IS extremely difficult to design an experiment that affects a single independent variable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps this is why its so difficult for you. First you need to understand the relationship between variables.
The affects are on the DEPENDENDT variable
-not the-
Independent variable.
The independent variable has an effect ON the dependent variable. In experiments the independent variable is tightly controlled as to maintain consistency and reliability of the experiment.
Why not just educate yourself first by reading the link I posted.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.First, read up on the difference between effect and affect.
The affects are on the DEPENDENDT variable is wrong.
Second, I can just see you patting yourself on the back and giggling with glee at what you see as my blunder, but I meant exactly what I said. It IS extremely difficult to design an experiment that affects a single independent variable.
In an ideal experiment you change a single thing (a single independent variable) and see what effect it has on the dependent variable. However, it is extremely difficult to change just one thing. To deny that is to deny the entire body of modern scientific research.
I'm through with this as you clearly fancy yourself someone grounded in scientific principles who just as clearly has no idea how it all works.
.
Edits: 06/30/12 06/30/12
.
It sounds like we're getting 2 different stories. This update saying it can't happen an Rob at PM saying it can.
How did Damien explain your HD corruption? unrelated?
I don't know enough to decide who is right but Rob has never steered me wrong. Guess I'll just stick with what I have and not worry about it.
>
There was no HD corruption. I just could not use the G-Tech RAID Thunderbolt with the beta. My other Thunderbolt drive, the Promise Pegasus, has no issues with the beta.I respect both Rob and Damien. I'll let inmates make their own decisions as to what is the truth.
Edits: 06/29/12
virtual memory, Direct mode etc.
People using Linux already enjoy these features right off the bat....its normal.
The more Linux-like Apple becomes the better it sounds...
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
To quote Pure Music
"On a popular computer audio oriented website, a thread describing a "direct mode" feature added to another third party player product has grown in only about three weeks since that product was released to at least 13 pages of reports generated involving kernel panics, improperly functioning sound and the like."
Nice direct attack on Audirvana+
They might very well be right, I have no technical knowledge to judge but it does sound a little "defensive" when one of the best alternative to PM is actually testing a beta with direct mode... The fact that it is a beta should indicate that the program is nowhere near final and bugs should be expected.
Now if A+ cant get those fixed then kudos to PM for seeing the trap but isn't it a little early for throwing stones?
Time will tell but this reminds me too much of all the papers a few years back on why computer audio was wrong, and then why USB was wrong for audio (I should have kept one such incendiary article by Simaudio... It would be fun to post it next to their USB enabled sources now just to name one of the companies who tried to vilify what they did not offer). This feels oddly similar but again time will tell.
Today I connected a new G-Tech RAID Thunderbolt drive that contained my music library. It played once. I turned it off and tried it again. It caused a kernal panic. Reinstalling the software and preferences did not fix the issue. I sent the log file to Damien.
Edits: 06/29/12
Sorry you had this problem. I hope you have backups.
There are problems with some RAID systems, involving combinations of software crashes, hardware failures, etc. I would not suggest using RAID for an audio library without a thorough investigation. And I would not count the RAID capability in my backup count. I have three copies of my library, the on-line one in my PC, an off-line version off site, and a third copy on a NAS that I only use for backups and is powered down during the daytime. The NAS has a RAID capability and a careful reading of the company forum showed that those users who were competent at system management didn't have data reliability problems. Every month I do a complete surface scan of every drive in the RAID array and examine the SMART statistics to see if a disk is becoming unreliable. IMO, no one should be using a RAID system unless they understand what I am talking about.
RAID systems are like twin-engine aircraft. They give better data reliability in theory, but in practice there are lots of new chances for cockpit error. Typically what happens is that one drive goes bad, and the RAID system starts its recovery and rebuild process. With large disks this means many hours (days) worth of heavy disk activity, which puts lots of stress on the remaining disk drives. In many cases this results in another drive failing and some RAID systems then trash all the data. At this point if there is no backup one may be forced to pay huge fees to a data recovery company. If one looks at their price lists, one will see that recovering data from a RAID array is quite expensive. In the past there have been problem with some RAID hardware enclosures whereby mechanical difficulties resulted in drives dropping on/off line and provoking these problems. There were also timing problems with some green drives and firmware problems with some drives (e.g. certain models of Seagate 1.5 TB drives) and these drives would work fine in regular PC applications, but trash all the data if used in a RAID array. It is important to ensure that the specific drives used in a RAID array have been verified and tested as working in that system. This may not be a problem when buying a new system that comes packaged with drives, but it will definitely be a concern on any upgrading.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The only reason I purchased this drive was for 8TB of capacity. Sure, I could use 2 4TB drives, but this is what I wanted. The drive is run in RAID 0. This is the backup drive for my Pegasus.
I do understand why others would take an alternate route.
long does it take you to listen and or sieve thru 8TB of music files?
Yes, that makes sense. Actually that's why I have a RAID NAS, so that I could have 4.5 TB of capacity a few years ago when the largest drives were only 1.5 TB. It was getting to be a PITA partitioning and repartitioning my files. As soon as I am convinced that the 3 or 4 TB drives are reliable and the price comes down I plan on doing a swap of all of my drives in my audio workstation and NAS and rotate the old drives into off-line storage duty or possibly the junk yard.
Note that Raid 0 means that you lose twice as much data each time a disk drive does fail. Not a big problem with redundant backups, however.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Another thing to consider. If the Pegasus craps out, I can just pop in the G-Tech for music. If both die, a minor inconvenience as I have the orignal files on other drives. If the house burns down, a highly possible scenario here in San Diego, I'll have bigger issues than my music collection to worry about.
The only true usefulness of a RAID system involves situations where downtime due to the failure of a single drive would result in more than just inconvenience. These are situations for businesses, hospitals and similar entities with mission-critical operations that must function 24/7.
A home music server hardly qualifies.
The problem is that a RAID, as used in home situations, leaves a number of areas unprotected. Failure of the controller circuit can delete data on all the drives. Hacking or viruses can affect both sets of data. Operator error can delete or modify data. Operating system or program bugs can affect data. A power surge or loss would affect all the drives in a similar manner.
In short, a RAID only guards against the mechanical or electrical failure of a single drive. It assumes all the other parts are working perfectly and that you have sufficient IT knowledge to manage the system appropriately. Most home users lack that ability, regardless of what their ego tells them.
RAIDs are a lot of extra complication and work for virtually no extra security in the home environment. It is a far better use of time and money to just keep extra copies, including one off-premises.
.
I would not consider pointing out that a program can
trash the hard drive (directory corruption), requiring a reinstall of the OS and complete recovery (all data on the hard drive lost). Or, even worse can trash individual files
as an attack. I see it as a public service.
Comparing this warning to the naysayers in the early days of computer audio is...... I'm searching for a word...... ridiculous. You really think saying computer audio is inferior to a CD player is oddly familiar to warning us our hard drives may be trashed?
People are asking him why he isn't using this mode. He is explaining why. I for one am very glad he did it. I bet the people who trashed their drives wish they would have known this before they tried it.
.
.
I can see your point but the same information can be shared without a direct reference to their competitor's beta software.
If the sharing was nothing but a public service announcement, no reference to others was needed so I can't shake off the impression that the article is oddly self serving rather than the disinterested warning you think it is.
When it comes to A+ it is a beta; nobody who is not ready to face smaller or greater technical issues should ever install a beta. In my case, it is running on a secondary computer, not on my main music server for that very reason and yes, it is far from ready and it may never be - that's what betas are for.
That's interesting. After using PM for almost two years I made the move two weeks ago to Audivrana Plus specifically because I felt the return of Direct Mode/ Integer Mode sounded better and I slightly preferred the interface. I primarily use mine as a music server but there is an occasion where I will open mail or surf the web. Mostly music is not playing when I do this nor do I have Audivrana (or PM before) when I am ripping CDs. I have had no kernel panics but have experienced some 'blips' with A+. I am not especially technically savvy in these things but I think the points made by PM are pause for thought.
For those of you that are more technically knowledgeable of this issues is this a concern for you?
Thanks
Amen Halleluya to every word in that!
Good thing the cyber warriors at the NSA aren't particularly interested in attacking audiophiles. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: