|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
In Reply to: RE: ASIO Driver for OSX posted by Mercman on September 04, 2014 at 06:24:25
... significantly affect sound quality.At least that's how I read your review. Two thoughts on the subject:
1. Designer is, to put it mildly, not entirely correct, when saying the two approaches - improvements on the computer side and DAC side - are "alternative". Quite the contrary, it all works together - and the fact that their DAC is far from immune to changes on computer side only confirms that.
To say that "DAC makes a bigger difference in the overall sound of the system vs the computer and associated tweaking" is pure, unadulterated nonsense, disseminated by biased and inexperienced listeners. It goes against experience of true, dedicated computer audiophiles in general, and your own experience, expressed in the review, in particular. Unless, of course, it's "state-of-the-art DAC vs. crappy DAC", or better yet, "DAC vs. no DAC", as in music vs. silence.
Incidentally, those listeners (or better put, consumers) simply DO NOT have hands-on experience making meaningful improvements on computer side, which significantly affect sound quality.
2. Your experience with ASIO kind of hints at the trailing state of MAC-based computer palyback, and explains "computer doesn't make significant difference" sentiments, that are prevalent among Apple's faithful. That technology is ubiquitous under Windows, with users utilizing those solutions for years to excellent results - IF it's done right by software developers.
Edits: 09/04/14Follow Ups:
The computer and the DAC form a system. Unfortunately, the computer creates a huge amount of noise. Various tweaks attenuate this noise. The various portions of the DAC also attenuate this noise. What one listens to is the remaining noise and it interacts in detracts from the music in various ways. It's rather simple. One can attenuate the noise at one place, at the other place, or at both places. What matters is that the total attenuation is sufficient so that no residual noise remains to plague the listener.You can argue about what is the most effective way to accomplish this goal. If your specialty is tweaking computers you will probably concentrate there. If you are designing DACs, then you are stuck with whatever computers your customers have and so you will concentrate on your DAC.
This is not a religious question. It's a matter of decibels. This is engineering, not magic. BTW, measuring this noise and characterizing the required amount of attenuation is not something that various dilettantes can do. It requires someone with a fully equipped lab and a lot of patience and dedication. It is not something that a hobbyist tweaker can possibly do with a scope and soldering iron. It's all too easy to fool onself when conducting listening tests, since moving a cable a few inches is likely to change things more than the differences we are talking about.
The problem is that reviewers like to give good reviews, not bad ones. So they evaluate DACs under favorable circumstances. That's all very well and good, but it perpetuates the situation. If they had a standard "bad" transport that was very noisy while still bit perfect and provided a complete review using this transport then DAC manufacturers would be forced to get their act in gear and walk their talk.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 09/04/14
never are......These are experiences. Indeed, (hopefully), the goal of all of this is to enhance the "experience." That's what we do when we listen: garner experiences.
It is a question of beauty.
A reasoned, (scientific), investigation has as its basis: caring, honest questioning, testing, and conclusions. We should not be denigrating experiences as "less scientific" because these types of tests are part of "evidence gathering" and have their validity within the context of the goal: "superior sound."
The act of listening takes a lot of abuse from "pseudo-scientists" who often don't understand the principles of reasoned scientific investigation. Some people here denigrate & cite listening experiences as being arbitrary & being subject to bias. In fact the process of active & attentive listening is a very valid test rivaling many formal measurements, and assumptions about the rated spec of various sub components in every system. In fact our listening ability is capable of distinguishing very subtle queues in the timing & timber of sound waves. An example of this is being able to tell when an instrument is out of tune. More experiences with both live events, and different recorded events on playback systems also build an amalgamation of "what sounds right." Much of our core scientific knowledge comes from questioning, observing, testing: it is the fundamental core of knowledge advancement.
Of course this varies from person to person, but people who pile up more experiences come together in surprising fashion. In short, people who pile up listening experiences across multiple types of systems, come to similar conclusions. And those conclusions are that the computer transport is a very important part of the system. These conclusions are similar to those that have lots of experiences with CD/SACD transports, and also turntables.
What makes Carcass right here is that he has heard a lot of equipment, and he is in a unique position in that his DAC is the same as his disc spinner. This gives him an excellent opportunity to make an assessment as to SQ of different transports. Of course those assessments likely will change again due to other downstream changes. Certainly the affects of different computer transports (as well as adjustments, changes, and yes, some tweaks), will play out differently with AvanteGaarde horns vs Harbeth vs a Sharp boombox (as examples). In other words, context.
Saying that one of the two, Computer Transport or DAC, is the more important of the two: is silly, wrong, and can lead to some erroneous conclusions. (Similar to saying that the amplifier doesn't matter, and that the only thing that causes a system to sound different is the speakers). Likewise, - using statements that sound like facts, or firm conclusions on the basis of one experience, with one system: is again a recipe for grossly erroneous conclusions.
Carcass should be lauded for sound reasoning on the basis of many experiences, AND, his ability in his system to isolate out the transport(s). IN THIS VERY CASE: Carcass RIGHTLY points out the breakdown in logic in the DACs designers. Where they say that the transport is not important while their main emphasis is on the DRIVER from the transport. AND, they neglected an opportunity to build a superior DAC by not including very important elements that go into a great DAC. This was realized by Mercman not by reading schematics, engineering design copy, or measuring: but in listening experiences. From all of their conclusions, ExaSound produced just another middle-of-the-road DAC, from which there are hundreds, and of course, - rendering their theory, - pointless, or at best inconclusive.
Saying that "our ears can't be trusted" is a straw man, as it is much more than our ears. It is our documented, active, and rigorous (and qualitative & quantitative), experiences both with playback equipment AND live music, that help us to improve those experiences.
Cheers,
"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.'"
Edits: 09/05/14
... or at least they should be, to anyone with at least some experience.
I'm certainly not in the same position as reviewers (Steve here, for instance) with regards to access to nice equipment. In fact, my system (pictured below) is pretty modest, by most accounts - and yet, it lets through all the nuances, necessary to distinguish every change on the transport (computer) side. This is something that's perfectly understood by people with experience, like yourself - and will NEVER be understood by naysayers.
It's Catch 22, really:
- they don't hear any differences, because their systems don't allow them to;
- they won't do anything to improve their systems, because they never saw any evidence, and consequently don't believe, that it will change the sound for better.
Brilliant comment
To me it emphasizes the importance of an open mind, and a willingness to try new things.
If one has experiences with high end gear, one is bound to run into a situation where they are going to encounter something "better" that would hopefully lead the person to ask some questions.
Likely though, if someone is shut down in one area, they are shut down in others too....
Some of the same things, (speaking as songwriter/musician), apply to musical instruments and amps. Many musicians will use the same kind of language to describe the differences between Peavy & Mesa Boogie. Funny how very few musicians with experience, will rarely try to say that Peavy and Mesa sound the same.....
1 of the biggest indicators of the closed minded naysayer: is to not talk about specific equipment, a ringing fire alarm.
"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.'"
What do we see atop front edge of amp and the top component?
Those are crystals - and there are more atop other components, inside them, on cables' connectors etc..
Those large ones, atop the amp and CD player, are - if memory serves me - Lazurite.
And what is the benefit of the lazurite?
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
but do understand the EMI/RFI rejection benefits of VPI "Magic Bricks" and Shakti Stones placed atop laminated trannies.
You have a terrific system. Thanks for sharing.
I hope that you didn't gather from my post that I was leveling criticism toward you? I understand that you can only review what's available, and my interpretation of what you wrote should not overshadow that good evaluation.
My frustration of a lack of available digital file transports out there is directed entirely toward manufacturers.
"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.'"
.
'so what' set of comments, which thru your many posts, you are not prepared to do much about in your own system.
How do these comments help anyone except to further 'float' the topic?
"This is a 'so what' set of comments, which thru your many posts, you are not prepared to do much about in your own system."
[Reply containing inappropriate language omitted.]
You have no clue how my system sounds or what I have or have not done to eliminate these issues. Worse, you have no basis whatever to comment on other people's systems because you refuse to post your own system.
[More inappropriate language omitted.]
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
you are posting more and more nonsense.
Anyone who reads my posts as you claim you do will be in no doubt what systems I have and use.
to create your system profile - without having to research the topic.
"Unfortunately, the computer creates a huge amount of noise."
How much is "huge" and how has it been measured?
"If they had a standard "bad" transport that was very noisy while still bit perfect"
Maybe it's hard to find components that are both bit perfect and noisy?
Would it be easier to come up with software or hardware that injects noise into a system so reviewers and engineers can judge how well downstream components deal with the noise?
JE
"'Unfortunately, the computer creates a huge amount of noise.'
How much is "huge" and how has it been measured?"
Huge, as in my wife complained about my computer(s). She picked up the interference on her AM radio. Her radio was running on batteries, so the noise didn't have benefit of any wires at all, no SPDIF, USB, power cords, etc... If you look on the back of computerized devices you will see little stickers with FCC numbers, CE numbers, etc... These are all certifications that these devices emit an "acceptable" level of interference, where acceptable is a political compromise between powerful players, in this case TV broadcasters and FM broadcasters vs. computer manufacturers. AM radio wasn't so politically connected at the time these regulations came into effect a few decades ago. Because of the technical characteristics of audio, there were no standards associated with audio. It has always been the case that audio equipment has been able to defend itself against interference, and it is the responsibility of audio equipment manufacturers to do so. (Following a long line of cheapness, they seldom did.) In the 1950's as a teenage radio ham my transmitter caused interference with nearby record players and I helped solve the resulting problems as a good neighbor, not because I was legally required to do so.
The same situation applies where the interference comes over power wiring and there are filters that can be applied. (Also described in the 1957 edition of the Radio Amateur's Handbook.) The situation also applies to signal wiring (SPDIF or USB). Here the equipment to measure this is available, but it is very expensive and a major investment for boutique manufacturers.
If you pick up an AM radio and set it near your computer (or CD player) you will get an idea of what is going on. You will hear different patterns of noise when the computer is idle and when it is active, e.g. playing music. You will hear these patterns change when using different players or adjusting buffer sizes. All of this interference affects the analog equipment in a DAC and downstream amplifiers to some extent or other, depending on how much rejection the audio equipment has for spurious signals.
"If they had a standard "bad" transport that was very noisy while still bit perfect"
A cheap computer system might do just fine. :-) But a better way of testing would be to take a fairly good transport and pass the output signal through a purpose built box that deliberately adds various amounts, types, and frequency ranges of interfering noise. There are specs for how noisy an input signal is allowed to be and still be a "legal" signal that an SPDIF or USB receiver must accept as "bit perfect". This means there is a limit on how bad the noise can be on the signal wires, otherwise the system won't work without clicks, pops or dropouts. This limit puts a ceiling on how much noise the filtering circuit must be able to reject. The amount of rejection depends on the audio quality level desired. There are serious cost issues here, because the amount of rejection is limited by the number of isolation stages, power supplies, ground isolation, physical shielding, etc...
There are also differences of opinion as to how much residual noise is actually audible. These differences arise for various reasons, but the most controversial reason is probably that some listeners are willfully deaf while some other listeners willfully imagine non-existent differences. Hopefully, there will be few of either camp that will reply to this post. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
What is you feeling regarding using proper materials to reduce interference in our PCs? We are really looking for lower noise than the manufactures have to provide. It is actually not too difficult to do.
regards
Bob
I would move the PC away from the other audio equipment an put it on a separate power circuit or otherwise electrically isolated. I would isolate the DAC from the computer through various devices (such as external USB converter boxes or reclockers) unless the DAC has done this well. This will provide an extra stage of isolation between the noisy computer and the DAC if the DAC lacks this stage internally. Ditto, with providing USB power to the DAC rather than taking it out of the computer.
These are all things for which there are rational explanations of how they work, but of course the people peddling them may have other motives and what you get may not be what you hoped for. There are other approaches as well, which are the equivalent of adding tassels to oriental rugs to "ward off the evil eye". These may also be perceived to work... I have a bunch of oriental rugs and I am not about to start cutting off the tassels to see what happens. Perhaps I am too superstitious. (I have a fair amount of Irish blood.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It is rational to isolate the computer and the dac, but not components within a computer that generate massive noise which affect each other, since those who understand computers don't think this matters
Very 'rational' line of reasoning indeed!
Fences cost money. You can save more money if you fence off the valuable stuff, rather then fencing off your entire yard. You may save enough money to put up several levels of fencing around the valuable stuff, maybe even pay for a moat and a barbed wire fence and guard towers.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
for a computer audio 'expert' who is posting about reasoning and rationality.
Edits: 09/10/14
I think that I recall someone using it here, inside the case.....
Speculating, - (obviously), - something to try after pulling power supplies, and/or engaging a "better" USB bus, perhaps.
Cheers,
"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.'"
I've used it in my old pc. Seemed to run faster but i wasn't using it much for audio. video did improve: better colors n black level.
scientific explanations, (spacecraft use), regarding that.
When I was checking out the Zanden CD player a few years ago, the owner pulled the case, and ton of it flew out as if it was spring loaded. Thought that it was OTT
Cheers
"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.'"
Yes, there is allot of good info on the Jplay forum.
regards
Bob
"Huge, as in my wife complained about my computer(s)."
So your claim has never been quantified? How about we turn the microscope to my "PC" system. The one Bob_C called a "Yugo," though I prefer to think of it as a "Miata." Let's agree about two things with regards to the Xonar Essence sound cards: One, they are not "next to" or "near" PCs, they are positioned inside PCs, about as toxic an environment as you can get. Two, at roughly US$200 they are modestly priced, indeed, one could say trivially priced, according to the standards of high end audio. At less than the cost of a meter of "audiophile" Ethernet cable, surely they must have negligible noise rejection.
We often bemoan the inability of the average audiophile to measure their gear. Normally, the conversation stops there. However, in this case, JA at Stereophile has thoughtfully measured the Xonar Essence sound card, while it was inside of a PC! I've linked to this before, but I'll do it again. My question is, looking at JA's measurements, where is the distortion and noise I'm supposed to be worried about?
"If they had a standard "bad" transport that was very noisy while still bit perfect"
Now wait a minute. I was quoting you, and now you are quoting you back to me as if it was something I said?
"A cheap computer system might do just fine. :-)" Or perhaps not? If the measured noise of a sound card inside of a PC is still more than -100dB down how meaningful of a tool might it be?
"There are also differences of opinion as to how much residual noise is actually audible." There sure are! I keep touting the Audio Diffmaker as an example of how hard it is to hear brass bands way down in the mix, much less noise, but no one in this forum seems to have the courage to even listen to it, instead insisting that they can hear, and be annoyed by, noise more than -100dB down. Since I freely admit to not being worried about noise at those levels I guess you would put me in the "willfully deaf" category.
JE
Of course all the noise that I discussed has been quantified. That should be obvious from my post. If noise couldn't be quantified there wouldn't be national standards for legal amounts and there wouldn't be specifications for acceptable waveforms in standards documents for interfaces such as SPDIF and USB.
I won't comment on quotes that are done without understanding or with the possible intent to confuse.
I am interested in engineering standards and perceptual excellence. "Standards" based on pricing relate to business and marketing, which are generally subjects that (no longer) interest me, except where an inferior product is grossly over priced. (As appears to be the case with some audiophile USB cables that don't meet USB specifications, but unfortunately the test gear needed to verify this is extremely expensive and the manufacturer who has the necessary data is, understandably, keeping mum.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The problem is that reviewers like to give good reviews, not bad ones. So they evaluate DACs under favorable circumstances. That's all very well and good, but it perpetuates the situation. If they had a standard "bad" transport that was very noisy while still bit perfect and provided a complete review using this transport then DAC manufacturers would be forced to get their act in gear and walk their talk. "
A good point Tony.
Thanks
You are a gentleman as well as a scholar. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You and I know that tweaking the OS can improve the sound for Windows and OSX. Using the ASIO driver is another improvement.
The review switches between the views of the designer and Merman's findings. It is difficult to interpolate between the two.
I agree that both the hardware and software sides are important, which is why I have been commenting on Mercman's attempts to add more and more hardware and gadgets to 'improve' his system.
"The review switches between the views of the designer and Merman's findings. It is difficult to interpolate between the two."
Mercman's review was perfectly clear. He had a separate section where he discussed the designer's comments.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
As for gadgets, the article discusses the use of Rollerballs and Tranquility Base. All fun stuff Uncle Fred.
"The review switches between the views of the designer and Merman's findings. It is difficult to interpolate between the two."
Yes there is a lot to digest here. But take your time; I spent a good deal of effort organizing all of this so I wouldn't confuse my readers.
"Merman's findings." Ethel??? I enjoyed the article, thanks Steve. :)
.
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: