|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
14.207.172.117
I read archimago's measurements about Rasberry Pi 3 today here.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2017/01/measurements-raspberry-pi-3-as-usb.html
I'm surprised about his later paragraphs about CRAAP config. He said optimizing OS with CRAAP config like get better sound like this.
Lower clock speed --> less power use --> less CPU noise --> better sound!
Better aligned clock speeds --> less random & periodic jitter --> better sound!
Less power use --> less strain on power supply --> less noise & jitter (cuz it's like that) --> better sound!
He also mentioned about better sound with streaming audio too in this line.
for audio streaming, it's still just as responsive (while sounding better of course!).
I tried to look for measurements between default config and CRAAP config in his website but couldn't find any measurements or scientific explanation to from him. Here's the reasons for his explanation.
And of course it'll sound better due to all the above reasons reducing noise and jitter! (Cuz it's like that...)
Not that I disagree and I know these aren't his comments. But the fact he put it on his website means he agreed to put it on at least. Coming from archimago, I expect showing measurements between using and not using CRAAP configuration like other tests he's been doing so far but I didn't see one this time. What do guys think about CRAAP config for Rasberry Pi 3?
Follow Ups:
Guys. Read the post with *smiley-face decoder on*.
Let me spell it out:
Bit-perfect digital output sent to a good DAC through an interface which can help reduce jitter (asynch USB, ethernet, i2s...) will not result in audible differences.
I don't care if they call it a Pi, microRendu, NUC, Mac, etc.
I chose the CRAAP acronym for a reason. Like many beliefs in the audio world, we can give all kinds of "attribution theories" about noise, jitter, distortion, etc. If some folks like the sound of the CRAAP settings, so be it, I highlighted some possible rationale.
But objectively, other than the Pi 3 running cooler??? Nah. It just sounds great :-).
Abe: I have read your messages and see you as a reasonable man in many ways. Be reasonable about objective measurements like what I post. It's not tech specs and ideal conditions that is important. It's more like do you honestly think the human ear has acuity when it comes to distortion, frequency response, J-test discrimination greater than what I consider as a very good ADC like the Focusrite Forte? My opinion is it doesn't based on various evidence I have found over time.
If you think that using expensive AP gear comparing the microRendu vs. NUC using the same high quality DAC will show audible noise/jitter/distortion... Or using a linear power supply for the Rendu would change the output of a good DAC, then by all means provide the evidence. Show us the work done and the results obtained. Discuss the significance of this finding and whether there is likelihood of audibility.
Until someone does that, you can be as dismissive as you please. But realize that the arguments and claims remain in the subjective realm. I respect to some extent the importance of subjective reality, but when it comes to debate about whether some "physical" property in the world has changed (ie. the potential for the sound waves to be different and I can potentially hear the difference), I'm not particularly interested in debating without actual evidence.
For the record, I have been asking for this evidence for years. Yet to see any manufacturer, professional audiophile writer, hobbyist actually take on and show me objectively that I am wrong.
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
You are measuring with a ruler, where micron tolerances are required - not to mention that you can't figure out what to measure, to correlate with what's perceived by human hearing.
But then, you've been told that many times by many different people, and still continue your pointless, child-play crusade.
Bit-perfect digital output sent to a good DACWhat's a "good DAC"? My experience is that the analog stage is more responsible for the audible results than the digital front end.
Or using a linear power supply for the Rendu would change the output of a good DAC...
A good linear improves the quality of any renderer. I first noticed that with a Touch years ago. Proof? Are you deaf?
I'm not particularly interested in debating without actual evidence.
Which is why most of us will continue to ignore your superficial measurements and *conclusions*.
Yet to see any manufacturer, professional audiophile writer, hobbyist actually take on and show me objectively that I am wrong.
Most are just smiling, shaking their heads and couldn't care less about your blog. Some here, however, have tried to engage you in a helpful way and explain why the resolution of your test gear (and scientific process) are insufficient to provide useful results. Speaking of which, have you updated the control panel for your PI to the latest version and optimized the unit as soundchekk suggested?
BTW, why do you call yourself the Faerie Sorcerer - especially since that character is "continually engaged in deceitful magics"?
Edits: 01/14/17
"Let me spell it out:
Bit-perfect digital output sent to a good DAC through an interface which can help reduce jitter (asynch USB, ethernet, i2s...) will not result in audible differences."
A belief not based on my experience. Reminds me of the political rhetoric that governs this country.
"A belief not based on my experience. Reminds me of the political rhetoric that governs this country."Sorry Mercman. I disagree. And I don't see what your country has anything to do with this (there are things I can say but will refrain due to irrelevance).
My beliefs are based on experience AND objective testing to verify. I have read a few of your reviews. All I can say is like this terse response, I believe there's a distinct lack of detail and coherence in much of what you express.
Maybe you heard a difference, maybe you just think you heard a difference; neither can be proven and there's no point arguing. But maybe if you did objective measurements with your gear you can show us a difference which would then elevate the level of discourse beyond the subjective and actually promote further exploration into the how and why as well as magnitude. We are looking at *engineered* devices after all!
Permit me to bring up one example; I see you review lots of Synergistic stuff. I tried some Synergistics power cables a few years back as well. Even explored their "tuning" bullets or whatever. Have a look at the power supply they use in my post:
Synergistic Power CablesJust one example of cables that used to cost hundreds and in this case has a cheap Chinese switching power supply "powering" an "Active Shield" (which when I checked had an asking price of $125). Even though I did not measure any sonic impact, does this not raise questions about the cost and value of these things? Does it change your view about the company and perhaps want to enquire further about cost and maybe mechanism of action? Would you ever comment on what's under the hood of these devices you review? Do you think you would "hear" a difference knowing this?
Although I appreciate the marvel of the human mind and auditory system as remarkable, I also accept that we are all biased. Measurements are a way to minimize that bias and the combination of subjective and objective balance IMO is necessary to fully hone in on adjudication of sound quality.
You may not like how I think or maybe even my political leanings if we ever get to chat over a beer... But I do hope I have expressed my views in a reasonably clear fashion.
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Edits: 01/13/17
Hearing something that is not there reminds me much more of 'Religion' rather than politics....
I think once you've dropped hundreds or thousands of dollars on cables, you better get religion or you'll feel pretty foolish if you can't really hear anything.
Cut-Throat
For the expensive cables in my system, I either borrowed a friend's first or purchased them on an evaluation basis.
I really thought one of my review friends was crazy when he told me back in 2000 or so that power cords made an audible difference. At least until he lent me his three sets for a while to listen to in my system. :)
I guess I forgot that I purchase the cables I evaluate before reviewing them.
I agree with you that measurements can be informative and useful in evaluating any component. But the measurements have to be relevant.
Using RMAA and J Test aren't! The former just gives nice tables and graphs. The latter has been abandoned by many. It is a puzzle to me why he spends so much time tabulating data when he doesn't even seem to take on some of the key factors that relate to SQ, like power supplies, usb signal integrity, clocks etc.
It has long been the cae in audio that measurements do not tell the story of sound quality.
nt
Cut-Throat
I agree with you to some extent. We have not seen much evidence correlating sound to what is measured especially in the high quality products we have available to us today. However, we do hear differences.
My only concern with your attempts at measurement is whether they are meaningful in that the test equipment may not be able to detect and display minuscule differences that we can hear. I haven't looked at your blogs lately but in the past most of your measurement charts looked the same. Was this because they were in fact the same, or were these limitations of the test equipment?
...may not be able to detect and display minuscule differences that we can hear.
the word "music" or any discussion whatsoever of an actual listening experience is absent in his latest blog entry?
Music? Who cares about that when you can look at all the graphs and speculate what that means, right? :)
... most of the posts on this forum also rarely mention the word music.
your assertion is not supported by facts. Use the search tool.
I learned as a teenager in the 70s that THD charts are essentially useless.
I said nothing about THD.
I said most posts don't mention the word "music". A quick run through the threads on the first page of this forum clearly show this. And I've been reading a number of sections of this forum for years and things have been pretty consistent -- music simply isn't mentioned near as often as you suggest.
I said nothing about THD.
Apparently, you don't pay attention to the Faerie Sorcerer's measurements either. :)
And I've been reading a number of sections of this forum for years and things have been pretty consistent -music simply isn't mentioned near as often as you suggest.
Given that my observation was limited to his *reviews*, what answer did you make up for yourself?
Others and I just continue to observe that all he's concerned with are superfluous, shallow measurements. Not how any of his tweaks affect music playback.
Julian Hirsch lives again!
The point being, some of us enjoy listening to lots of music.
Others own very little music and prefer playing the same ole stuff over and over again as they tweak, measure, and chart. ;-)
Hi Abe. You might not have seen the more recent measurements... Over the years I have expanded the repertoire to include evaluations of digital filtering, impulse response, as well as pushing the jitter test to double samplerate as well to stress the system and timing errors.Here are a few findings that might help - some items that popped into mind as possibly interesting difference shown/confirmed objectively:
1. Have a look at the PonoPlayer results and compare to Stereophile's published results.
PonoPlayer Measurements- Notice I had no difficulty demonstrating the Ayre impulse response
- Notice the ability to demonstrate the huge amount of aliasing due to Ayre's filtering (and expected by this type of impulse response!)
- Notice the ability to demonstrate the PonoPlayer's high frequency roll-off compared to others.
- Notice in the comparison graphs the Dragonfly 1.2 DAC's tendency towards higher IMD than other DACs (a reason why I don't think the Audioquest Dragonfly 1.2 was a particularly spectacular DAC)2. Consider the measurements demonstrating the "Digital Filtering Composite" I've been publishing over the last year. Many thanks to Juergen Reis for his ideas and help. For example, you can see a beautiful example of excellent filtering with newer ESS Sabre DACs - here's an example with Light Harmonic's Geek Out V2:
LH Geek Out V2Compare this with something suboptimal like the 2015 Chromecast Audio:
Chromecast Audio AnalogI have been able to demonstrate limitations of these antialiasing filters even though they're not typically reported elsewhere. Hint: TI/Burr-Brown DACs typically "overload" with strong peaks with their upsampling antialiasing filters. Again, I've had some nice conversations with Jergen who confirmed this in his own internal work (it really is wonderful having an opportunity to discuss stuff like this with the pros grounded in science).
3. Staying with the Chromecast Audio for a moment, even though I can show bit-perfect accuracy, have a look at the TosLink jitter:
Chromecast Audio DigitalIn that same post, look at how the Gigabyte Z170X motherboard's optical output performed. I also accelerated the J-Test to 24/96 (I've never seen anyone do this) to demonstrate how jitter increases even further between the devices. Notice how an asynchronous USB DAC (TEAC UD-501) is relatively immune to jitter compared to S/PDIF.
4. Want to show folks how crappy a computer motherboard DAC could measure? Point them here:
Gigabyte Motherboard DACAtrocious antialiasing filter performance, rolled-off bass, poor noise level with obvious 60Hz hum, poor intermodulation distortion.
5. Want to emulate Ayre's minimum phase filter used in the PonoPlayer, Codex among others now that we understand how filters work? Look here:
Digital Interpolation FiltersSettings you can try with iZotope RX if you have the program. Can you hear the difference?
6. Here's a cable measurement that showed a difference (Crystal Cable):
Crystal Cable MeasurementI was surprisingly able to demonstrate that the cable in my system performed slightly better in terms of noise floor! You'll have to decide whether the cost of admission is worth it...
7. Want a real objective improvement in one's soundroom?
Updated Room Measurements...It was a great pleasure to meet and discuss room measurements and DSP room correction with Mitch Barnett who contributes to Computer Audiophile and wrote the E-book on this. Measurements of my own room with both improvements in time and frequency domain correction demonstrated. Objective measurements are not only to figure out if something works, but to optimize our own listening rooms and what we have.
Abe, these are just 7 off the top of my head over the last couple years or so... IMO there is no magic in this. The beauty of computer audio is that we have the software and hardware tools at our disposal to not just experience, but understand. And I hope ultimately to have wisdom when we claim this or that and be able to assign value to what we buy...
The irony I find is that I started my blog about 4 years ago after disagreements with some of the guys here. Some I see have been banned, others I guess have left. It is due to these disagreements and arguments that have set me on this objective exploration and documenting it on the blog! For that, I thank you guys :-).
Apologies for not visiting as much these days... So much to do, so much to explore. Many nuances to understand grounded in the science. I believe the audiophile hobby has to change over time. I believe it will become more objective because, to me at least, it makes sense. Cheers for 2017.
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Edits: 01/13/17
But I still want to see your measurements about it. That's your signature!
"But I still want to see your measurements about it. That's your signature!"
Sure Windows X. Let's have folks play with the settings and let the listening percolate :-).
I'll put up some numbers and graphs in the next few weeks when the "day job" settles and a I post a few other articles I've been working on (hint: MQA/TIDAL incoming).
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Cool. By the way, I haven't received your key for build Fidelizer Pro license yet.
If Archimago writes
"Don't worry about the science, my friends... It just sounds much better now that I have tweaked the parameters. Bass is deeper. Treble even more trebly. Soundstage goes back a mile with 360° envelopment. Vocalists sound like they have become incarnate. Smooth as Louis XIII cognac. Thick curtains I was literally blind to were lifted. Any prior jitter totally slaughtered. Noise floor as silent as the best anechoic chamber on Earth. Based on my proprietary Value-Added Audiophile Gauge of Ultimate Enjoyment (VAAGUE)™ analysis, this tweak is easily able to elevate your Pi 3 to the sound quality of any US$690 (with switching power supply) streamer out there..."
That is a nice example of satire.
The Well Tempered Computer
Bingo!
-------
Archimago's Musings : A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
"Measurements" from Archimago?I would first question the resolution and accuracy of the test equipment he uses for his measurements, which have been the topic of discussion here a couple times.
Hint: The test equipment specs must be better than the devices under test.
Edits: 01/13/17
nt
Cut-Throat
CRAAP ears or brains?
nt
nt
Cut-Throat
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: