advertisement


A high quality CD Player

To paraphrase, 'they would say that wouldn't they'.
Perhaps the inbuilt clock is so pathetically inaccurate they do need an external clock?
Keith
 
venton said:
Not joking at all. There is a difference between hearing down to -120db, to preferring and hearing a difference between two apparently, according to measurements, similar music.
There are plenty here who say they cannot hear a difference between 320kb lossy and FLAC lossless. Well I most definately can. 100% no doubt about it - on my system anyway.
I would expect the difference between 320kb/flac on a null test would be extremenly quiet. My contention, and my experience is that the extremely small difference is enough to alter my perception of the music. And even if the null test showed no difference, I would argue that the test needs to be made more accurate, perhaps upping the sample rate by a factor of 10 to try to catch minusule differences in transient timings.
Click to expand...

Think about it. You're acknowledging that some equipment can detect (call it measure if you like) much subtler differences than your ears can, yet move on to talk about how your (fragile) perception of the sounds picks up things that that equipment can't.

Are you experiencing cognisant dissonance yet?
 
Whaleblue said:
Think about it. You're acknowledging that some equipment can detect (call it measure if you like) much subtler differences than your ears can, yet move on to talk about how your (fragile) perception of the sounds picks up things that that equipment can't.

Are you experiencing cognisant dissonance yet?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm saying a machine may detect sound below my audible threshold. Has nothing to do with audible frequencies.
 
venton said:
Not at all. I'm saying a machine may detect sound below my audible threshold. Has nothing to do with audible frequencies.
Click to expand...

Yup, as mentioned by hammeredklavier above, there are machines that can detect/measure/differentiate all aspects of sound better than the human ear.
 
Purite Audio said:
To paraphrase, 'they would say that wouldn't they'.
Perhaps the inbuilt clock is so pathetically inaccurate they do need an external clock?
Keith
Click to expand...

And you, as you don't sell Esoteric would say that, wouldn't you?

As you are so keen on specs you can check for yourself how good the Esoteric internal Clocks are. What is pathetic is your implying that they are inaccurate when you MUST know they're not. Especially knowing that the most important feature in a master clock would be precision and not accuracy...
 
radamel said:
And you, as you don't sell Esoteric would say that, wouldn't you?

As you are so keen on specs you can check for yourself how good the Esoteric internal Clocks are. What is pathetic is your implying that they are inaccurate when you MUST know they're not. Especially knowing that the most important feature in a master clock would be precise and not accuracy...
Click to expand...

Could you please clarify for me what in your mind the distinction is between precision and accuracy? know we've been here before; I just can't recall what the argument was.
 
I don't like the way the word "precision" is casually thrown around. Jitter and edge distortion is totally unrelated to absolute frequency accuracy.
Going beyond 50ppm accuracy is only important if you are trying to synchronise to other sources.
Using external sources is inevitably going to have higher jitter than a well designed internal source, the cable and receiver will add phase noise.
Oven controlled oscillators have higher jitter than a well designed room temperature oscillator, higher temperature automatically raises thermal noise and hence jitter
 
Whaleblue said:
Yup, as mentioned by hammeredklavier above, there are machines that can detect/measure/differentiate all aspects of sound better than the human ear.
Click to expand...

Fine, then they would detect differences which are erroneously being dismissed as too small to matter. I am in no position to do a null test on say 320 vs flac. But if it was done, there would be differences. Some humans can detect one molecule on a flat surface, we are inctedible machines. Don't dismiss tiny differences as not important.
 
venton said:
Fine, then they would detect differences which are erroneously being dismissed as too small to matter. I am in no position to do a null test on say 320 vs flac. But if it was done, there would be differences. Some humans can detect one molecule on a flat surface, we are inctedible machines. Don't dismiss tiny differences as not important.
Click to expand...

When did I ever do that? As one of the major fence sitters here it keeps me awake at night.* The interesting debates are all around human hearing/auditory processing thresholds.

My point was merely to refute your assertion, but moreover to highlight the distinct possibility that perception is significant.

It really should be of interest to anyone thinking of spending the sums we do on this hobby.

*not actually.
 
radamel said:
The Master Clock should be as stable and immune from interference as possible. Esoteric say that the best way to do this is by having an external highly stable clock.
Having heard that setup vs using the internal clock I agree. There is a significant improvement in SQ.

Again you are taking the chance to bad mouth equipment that you don't sell.
If you agree with Adamdea you should place a complaint against Esoteric with the ASA. But as I said before, good luck with that Keith.
Click to expand...
I see: another area of your expertise.
 
The most notable upgrade in SQ I have noticed in cd replay was when I was using a Pioneer stable platter player as a transport into my then dac. SQ was already good but I then had the transport modified to clock link it to the dac(ie the clock in the dac became the master). Wow what a difference best cd replay I had heard.
A serial box swapper on the Wam has it now and two years on he still has it:D
 
I would be very interested in a machine which could be sat on a sofa. And it could point out the position in the soundstage of the hihat, trumpet and electric guitar. But it doesn't exist, as soundstage is created in the mind, based in nano precision of transients and gods knows what else. My only point here is that science is presently useless to bandy about as having hifi answers. It is only listening that matters, and we should be happy to trust our ears without being told there is no difference.
 
adamdea said:
Go on tell me what I don't understand. I'm always keen to learn.
Click to expand...

radamel said:
The Master Clock should be as stable and immune from interference as possible. Esoteric say that the best way to do this is by having an external highly stable clock.
Having heard that setup vs using the internal clock I agree. There is a significant improvement in SQ.
Click to expand...

Despite all the theoretical knowledge you think you may have, have you ever actually listened to an Esoteric setup with external Master Clock vs internal Master clock?
 
venton said:
I would be very interested in a machine which could be sat on a sofa. And it could point out the position in the soundstage of the hihat, trumpet and electric guitar. But it doesn't exist, as soundstage is created in the mind, based in nano precision of transients and gods knows what else. My only point here is that science is presently useless to bandy about as having hifi answers. It is only listening that matters, and we should be happy to trust our ears without being told there is no difference.
Click to expand...

Soundstage is well understood, so can be defined in measurable terms.

We've already now agreed that machines can measure better than well enough.

Identifying what noises are HiHat vs. Trumpet is a tough one though.

It would make a great undergraduate project.
 
mattgbell said:
The fact is I’ve had quite a lot of digital sources at one time or another, ranging from simple off-the-shelf desktop PCs, through cheap (Sonos Connect) and expensive (Naim NDX) streamers, to a variety of CDPs (I think the most expensive I had was a Copland: can’t remember the model number). I couldn’t tell you exactly which was here when.

The only one that I’ve actually thought at the time was not optimal was the basic Sonos Connect, and that (I felt) was due to the power supply, though I think it quite unlikely I’d have been able to identify it in a blind ABX.

The most interesting tests I’ve done at home have involved different ways of feeding a Devialet (wireless, optical and coax SPDIF, Ethernet). Some people say the differences between these are crass, e.g. because the wireless feed excludes any noise. I’ve not found that to be the case.
Click to expand...


As you have a one box solution perhaps this won't apply to you. But just out of curiosity, should you have the chance why not listen to a truly good digital source for yourself?
 
p.s. Now off for a guitar lesson.

Sadly, my playing is easily distinguishable from that of my tutors.

It would make for a quick undergraduate project to make a machine to AB correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top