adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Yes: I'll fall for any old bullshit.
Are CDP Transports the same or similar? - NO!
- Thread starter John Little
- Start date
music fiend
life lusting
If you're lucky enough you might just end up with a CD transport that can truly make a difference.
I would request that you not put words in my mouth. I did not say anyone was delusional.
As I have stated elsewhere, public consensus or majority vote is not the road to Scientific Truth. How many people in Medieval Europe believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and were they right?
Before we propose a hypothesis to explain audible effects, we need to be certain that the effect actually exists. To suss out these effects requires rigourous testing, not anecdotal accounts.
BTW, the jitter number is averaged from a paper by Eric Benjamin and Ben Gannon, AES, 1998.
As I have stated elsewhere, public consensus or majority vote is not the road to Scientific Truth. How many people in Medieval Europe believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and were they right?
Before we propose a hypothesis to explain audible effects, we need to be certain that the effect actually exists. To suss out these effects requires rigourous testing, not anecdotal accounts.
BTW, the jitter number is averaged from a paper by Eric Benjamin and Ben Gannon, AES, 1998.
CoherentSystems
Trade: Coherent Systems
Here we go round the mulberry bush (again)
There are differences between transports for various different reasons.
This forum is acutely aware of psychoacoustics, power supply cleanliness, circuit pathway design, low electrical contamination via rfi and emi ingress.
Data transmission methods, casework, cabling, connecting sockets, clock implementation and preservation of PCM signal from generation to the point of conversion.
Add or subject your bias and hey presto you have an answer that suits the post grad PHD student half through a £20M assignment in to why all CD transports are equal funded by a well know audio company to plain Joe at home who 25 years worth of box swapping who knows his own system rather well.
Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of 'Pink Fish' it all sounds the same
There are differences between transports for various different reasons.
This forum is acutely aware of psychoacoustics, power supply cleanliness, circuit pathway design, low electrical contamination via rfi and emi ingress.
Data transmission methods, casework, cabling, connecting sockets, clock implementation and preservation of PCM signal from generation to the point of conversion.
Add or subject your bias and hey presto you have an answer that suits the post grad PHD student half through a £20M assignment in to why all CD transports are equal funded by a well know audio company to plain Joe at home who 25 years worth of box swapping who knows his own system rather well.
Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of 'Pink Fish' it all sounds the same
Nope, nothing theoretical about the number. The figure I mentioned was averaged from a paper presented at the AES back in 1998. If you have an alternative source for audibility threshold, please post here.
Don't have a chromcast, but have owned and used a dozen odd CD and DVD players over the years. Never heard anything in the sound that could be directly attributed to jitter.
Don't have a chromcast, but have owned and used a dozen odd CD and DVD players over the years. Never heard anything in the sound that could be directly attributed to jitter.
So how else would you prefer for me to say it?
Frankly, I've had it with people on these forums turning up, saying that it's FACT that CD transports all sound the same.
Quite clearly that's utterly at odds with anyone who's thought that the following added value:
- Bought an expensive CD transport
- Added a clock mod such as a trichord of "flea"
- moved to an asychronous USB connection
- Thought that a coax Spdif connection was preferable to a toslink
etc etc
And just to remind you, that's a whole bunch of people on here.
The simple point is that your supposed "fact" is no more than YOUR present understanding and interpretation of technical measures. The aspect that just maybe there's other measurements out there to genuinely quantify a relationship between impact of sound quality and the quality of the CD transport is nothing to do with it.
I wouldn't mind, but at least one of the key proponents on a fellow website who's an absolute objectivist (does that word even exist), happily admits that he's never DBT'd anything as has zero interest in doing so. Meaning that all he's doing is sprouting theory without even an attempt to consider correlation effects.
Back to your point. Let me say this again. If you're saying that CDTs all sound the same, and a number of us (including me) "believe" otherwise, then by default, your insistence that we're wrong clearly implies that we're delusional, as your claim of facts is a step beyond just an opinion.
Of course if you're happy to back off and say that your viewpoint is just a difference of opinion and NOT a fact, then we're good.
Your call?
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Having a completely ordinary auditory perceptual system is not being "delusional." Even not grasping that fact and laying too much faith your mind's ability to diagnose the causes of the outputs of that system isn't really delusional either. Strictly.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
music fiend
life lusting
Look, this needs to stop here. Did you really read my post and understand the points I was making? . I have no interest in getting involved in a flame war. if you are interested in a serious discussion why don't you set up a well controlled blind listening test for yourself and report back here. Then we can discuss the results dispassionately.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
if you are interested in a serious discussion why don't you set up a well controlled blind listening test for yourself and report back here. Then we can discuss the results dispassionately.
This, of course.
Keith
if you are interested in a serious discussion why don't you set up a well controlled blind listening test for yourself and report back here. Then we can discuss the results dispassionately.
Flame war? Hardly, this is never personal.
I'll make this really simple.
If you engage in this with a "I believe this...", that's cool. That's a personal opinion and everyone is entitled to that.
You turn up and claim things as FACTS, then I most vehemently disagree, as clearly it's suggesting that everyone else is wrong, no questions asked.
I assume that you can understand the difference between those two approaches.
As for the test. Sure, very happy to get involved. I did offer the same on the Wigwam forum to Serge, who's the most Objective based hi-fi enthusiast that I've encountered, down to the point that he states that every bit of kit he uses was bought because of stated specifications and not listening tests. Unfortunately Serge declined.
However, I have no objections to running a session. I'm based in south London, Sutton area and have a reasonable system.
When do you fancy doing it? Late Sept?
music fiend
life lusting
What about answering what I asked you earlier on?
music fiend
life lusting
Fine.
Well, flame wars do not necessarily have to be personal.
Having got that out of the way, may I suggest you put your emotional baggage aside and discuss this rationally. What exactly is your understanding of what I am saying?
IOW, which FACTS have got you so worked up?
Now let's get down to brass tacks. What is this proposed session designed to show, and why do you need my presence?
FWIW, I have more than a little experience with blind tests, having done blind tests over the years using an ABX box.
Having got that out of the way, may I suggest you put your emotional baggage aside and discuss this rationally. What exactly is your understanding of what I am saying?
IOW, which FACTS have got you so worked up?
Now let's get down to brass tacks. What is this proposed session designed to show, and why do you need my presence?
FWIW, I have more than a little experience with blind tests, having done blind tests over the years using an ABX box.
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
It's an irreversible, one-way process, Joe, like entropy, only with a less disappointing ending.
I did clock 121 species of birds, but no emus. My favourite was the Great Bowerbird. The male builds a twig bower (i.e. love shack) and makes a pathway to it out of loads of components such as white stones and bits of pink plastic.
The female drops in for a look, and if she likes the bits he's assembled, they make baby bowerbirds. I was trying to think of a parallel with humans, but I honestly don't think there is one.
Well, flame wars do not necessarily have to be personal.
Having got that out of the way, may I suggest you put your emotional baggage aside and discuss this rationally. What exactly is your understanding of what I am saying?
IOW, which FACTS have got you so worked up?
Now let's get down to brass tacks. What is this proposed session designed to show, and why do you need my presence?
FWIW, I have more than a little experience with blind tests, having done blind tests over the years using an ABX box.
Commenting on emotional baggage and then asking for a purely rational discussion? Seriously? If you'd just asked me to discuss it rationally, that would have been significantly less condescending.
As for the facts/comments:
- Post 123, talking about the road to scientific truth, as though the rest of us were trying to claim the world was still flat. Simply unnecessary
- Post 125. The AES paper. I don't care who's written what. It's a statement, quite possibly with it's own internal bias. The simple point being that facts are ONLY what a person chooses to believe.
- Post 106. Suggesting that dealing with jitter is the sole responsibility of the downstream DAC.
Again, my point about the "facts" is the insistence by some that comments like the above quote "facts", rather than opinions. Once it's fallen over the line from an opinion, it's absolutely suggesting that the other person is simply talking out of his ass. It's just NOT polite.
Regarding the DBT, if you remember, that was your suggestion, not mine.
I just accepted the suggestion. Sounds like a good one as it might clear up a few questions here.
Strikes me that we have a difference of opinion on whether or not transports make a difference. So how about a double blind test, with say:
- DAC 1. Something fairly cheap that doesn't make any special claims to be jitter free
- DAC2. Something more serious with a supposedly well executed jitter reduction capability
- Source 1. One of these Cambridge transports
- Source 2. Boggo DVD/BD player
- Source 3. Computer based source
My thoughts being to suggest we cycle through comparisons of the sources with each DAC. Using the different DACs to hopefully show off the ability of a DAC to reject jitter (or not with the cheapo one).
How does that sound? Very happy to receive thoughts on how to enhance and improve?