Ridicule Audiophiles - Find the cat shit's resonant frequency

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > Ridicule Audiophiles - Find the cat shit's resonant frequency

«‹›274 »

HKR: Jan 13, 2006; there is no universe where duke nukem would not be a trans ally

TheMadMilkman posted:

Very nice! Do you stick with vintage speakers as well, and if so, what are you running?

I'd like to stick with vintage speakers when possible, but the truth is that I think most modern speakers do just as well if not better then the classics, and require none of the work. The only major advantage vintage speakers offer is the chance to get a killer deal.

Right now I'm running a set of B&W DM110s, which will be...completely inappropriate for the Concept. Unfortunately my music budget has run out for the next month or so, but I will being to start looking for a set that can handle the Concept.

# ? Nov 3, 2009 05:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 02:34

proudfoot: Jul 17, 2006; Yak! Look! a Yak!

CEO of Ayre Electronics and his 10,000 dollar Blu-Ray player. (It's based off the $500 Oppo)

Charles Hansen posted:

Well, first of all you have to remember that we don't have to pay $500 for the unit. We buy in quantity, so Oppo gives us the spectacular discounted price of (make sure you are sitting down, please!) $400.

Then to make it an Ayre, we dismantle it completely and recycle everything except the main PCB (with the video decoder, ABT scaler chip, and HDMI transmitter), the transport mechanism, the VFD display, and the remote control handset.

Next we re-build the main PCB. The big switching power supply only provides 5 VDC, then there are little mini-switching power supplies (called DC-DC converters) on the main PCB that turn the 5 VDC into 1.0 VDC, 1.1 VDC, 1.8 VDC, and 3.3 VDC. All of those are removed. There are also USB power switches that allow hot-plugging of USB devices. These are removed as they have another kind of DC-DC converter called a "charge pump".

All of the supplies are replaced with pure linear supplies with analog regulators. The USB power switches are replaced with devices without the charge pumps. Now we have gotten rid of seven noise sources that create high-frequency square waves with harmonics well out into the MHz region. Getting rid of all of that noise creates a visibly cleaner picture.

Next, we replace the low-quality master video clock with a VCXO. This becomes more important later on, as you will see.

Now we start adding things back in. First is our AyreLink communication system. It allows AyreLink equipped components to act as one big system. For example, turning on the player will turn on all of the downstream components as well as automatically select the correct input on the preamp. We also make an external RS-232 to AyreLink converter box for system controllers like Crestrons. The AyreLink system has opto-isolators between each component to avoid unwanted ground loops, which is why we don't use RS-232 inputs on any of our equipment.

Then we add a custom programmed FPGA on the front panel PCB to do some housekeeping. It intercepts the appropriate commands and translates them to operate the AyreLink system. It disables the internal volume control (which operates in the digital domain and degrades the sound) and instead routes the volume changes to an AyreLink equipped preamp. It also allows us to send custom messages to the front panel VFD display. So when the USB audio input is activated, it will report that on the front panel along with the sample rate of the received signal.

There are a bunch of boards added on the audio side. I say "side" because we literally split the player into two parts. There is a separate power transformer that runs all of the audio circuitry, which is separated from the video side by a bank of opto-isolators. So the audio and video "sides" have separate grounds that are completely galvanically isolated. This is the only way to get the best performance from either your audio system or your video system.

All video displays have switching power supplies that dump noise into your system in the absence of such isolation. There are also ground loops that are inevitably formed as there is no such thing as a balanced video connection. All of those problems go away with our isolation system.

The ten-channel audio board is replaced by a two-channel audio board. Everything on this board is top-quality, with discrete, fully balanced, zero-feedback audio circuitry and discrete, zero-feedback power supply regulators. There are improvements in both the parts quality and circuit design that give it even higher performance than the QB-9 USB DAC that was recently rated "Class A+" in Stereophile's recommended components issue. For two-channel disc playback (CD, SACD, DVD-Audio), the performance exceeds our $6,000 audio-only disc player.

We also add the USB audio input that allows you to connect your personal computer and turn your system into a music server. Your entire digital library (except SACD's, thank you very much Sony -- not!) can be stored on a hard drive and played back with the click of a mouse. So this one component can be the only source component that you need. This input is also connected via a bank of opto-isolators, so there is actually a *third* "side" to the system -- the video, the audio, and the computer. The noise from your computer and its switching power supply will not be connected to either your video or audio systems.

We also add a second audio-only HDMI connector. This is fed by the isolated signals on the audio "side" so that it won't contaminate your surround-sound system if you choose to connect one. It also supports the new "Audio Rate Control" (ARC) feature that is part of the HDMI 1.3a specifcation. This is a breakthrough for the surround-sound enthusiast, as HDMI is normally the worst way in the world to send audio data -- the jitter is even worse than the lowly S/PDIF connection.

But with ARC, the surround-sound processor uses a local crystal oscillator to provide a low-jitter clock to the DAC chips. Then there is a buffer that stores the incoming audio data. When the buffer is too full it sends a signal back upstream to the Blu-Ray player telling it to slow down the disc slightly. When the buffer is too empty, it asks the disc to speed up slightly. Now the audio clock is in charge, the way that it should be. (When the unit is running in two-channel mode, the local low-jitter, fixed-frequency crystal oscillator provides the master audio clock.)

With a modern digital display (plasma, LCD, LCOS, DLP, et cetera) jitter on the video signal does not matter. Since there is no conversion to analog, the digital signal values are simply stored in a frame buffer until needed.

Then the whole thing is put into a custom chassis made entirely from anodized aluminum and stainless steel. We want our products to look just as good 50 years from now as they do today. There are other people making Oppo "clones". One of them only replaces the chassis. Another replaces the power supply also. Nobody is rebuilding the complete player and adding the extra features and advanced technology that Ayre is.

As far as the value, it is up to you to determine that. I can't tell you how much an improved picture is worth. I can't tell you how much better sound is worth. I can't tell you how much the features we add are worth. You will have to decide that for yourself.

What I can tell you is that, just like all of our other products, they offer engineering and performance beyond what anyone else is offering, at a fair price that reflects our cost of manufacturing, and that we back up our products with both a strong network of the finest dealers on the planet and an incredible service policy.

Unlike other manufacturers that try to sell you a "new and improved" product every year or two, when we figure out a way to genuinely improve the performance of our existing products, we offer upgrades to current owners at very reasonable prices. Go to the Audio Asylum and check out some comments regarding our recent "MP" upgrades to the C-5xe and CX-7e disc players, for example.

If you want a great Blu-Ray player for an incredible price, buy the Oppo. If you want the best picture and sound quality in the world for your home theater and price is not a concern, check out the Ayre. And no, it will not be available in November, sorry. Early next year will be a better guess.

Source: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1181755

I have absolutely no idea how an "improved power supply" and other analog mods will improve 1080p that is being bit-streamed to a display, or improve upscaled DVDs. Do his improvements make bits flip or something?

proudfoot fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 4, 2009

# ? Nov 4, 2009 18:36

qirex: Feb 15, 2001

proudfoot posted:

I have absolutely no idea how an "improved power supply" and other analog mods will improve 1080p that is being bit-streamed to a display, or improve upscaled DVDs. Do his improvements make bits flip or something?

this

quote:

Then to make it an Ayre, we dismantle it completely and recycle everything except the main PCB (with the video decoder, ABT scaler chip, and HDMI transmitter), the transport mechanism, the VFD display, and the remote control handset.

Almost sends a single tear of pride down my face. "We get rid of everything (except the parts that load and turn the disc, read the data off of it, decode it, scale it if necessary, control the unit, control the display and send the video and audio to the output jacks) and replace it all with incredibly expensive replacement parts!" :xd:

edit: all the people in the thread going "wow, thanks for your detailed response, now I get it" are just icing on the cake.

qirex fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 4, 2009

# ? Nov 4, 2009 18:45

Kreeblah: May 17, 2004; INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE; Taco Defender

qirex posted:

this
Almost sends a single tear of pride down my face. "We get rid of everything (except the parts that load and turn the disc, read the data off of it, decode it, scale it if necessary, control the unit, control the display and send the video and audio to the output jacks) and replace it all with incredibly expensive replacement parts!"

edit: all the people in the thread going "wow, thanks for your detailed response, now I get it" are just icing on the cake.

I love this part:

Some guy posted:

Any chance of posting before and after images?

posted:

This is not the kind of thing that shows up in before and after still shots that are JPEG compressed to post on the internet.

The main differences are in an improved "flow" and "watchability" to the picture. It's simply more relaxing and more involving.

# ? Nov 4, 2009 19:29

proudfoot: Jul 17, 2006; Yak! Look! a Yak!

Still, unlike the other two cloners, Ayre seems to do something. He even admits he buys Oppo's and modifies them.

quote:

The official Lexicon BD30 post:

Short Answer...Built in America...THX certified...Lexicon Quality and Support...Best Video...Fastest transport...Joe Kane likes it...first shipment expected in late October or early November.
What we bring to the table:

� Best video quality available using Anchor Bay�s technology

� Best player response times � Drawer responds <2seconds. For most blu-ray discs (regardless of profile) we can go from OFF to playing the main menu in about 10 seconds.

� Universal media formats � the only other model that has SACD is the $4,500 Denon model.

� Combine with the 7.1 MC-12 firmware update � for a superior sounding Dolby TrueHD & DTS Master Audio solution.

FAQ:

� �What are the differences to the OPPO?�

o When we specified the BD-30 we focused on premium video & audio performance, fast response times, and a mechanical construction that upholds the lexicon tradition of excellence � Some parts are similar to the OPPO due to the fact we purchase subassemblies from the same contract manufacturer. We then ship this subassembly to Indiana and complete the manufacturing in the States. We load in application specific firmware

� �why does the Lexicon cost more?�

o The BD-30 is the highest performance blu-ray player available today and when you see the unit, you�ll realize that the product not only is the highest performance player, but is build to the highest standards in the USA. It is then shipped with Joe Kane�s setup disc and supported with world class customer support.

Source: http://www.smr-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=323

Lexicon is the company which Hansen mentions as "only replaces the chassis". They charge $3.5k for the BD-30. And by "some parts are similar to the OPPO due to the fact we purchase subassemblies from the same contract manufacturer." the Lexicon rep means every single part with the exception of the chassis.

They look suspiciously similar:

Oppo:

Lexicon:

Oppo:

Lexicon:

The other cloner is Theta Digital, who have changed the power supply, and charge merely 3k. A steal compared to the other two players.

I'm kind of sad to see AVSForum fall to prey like the Ayre. I generally considered it a more sane and scientific resource than the various audio boards. They do call out Theta and Lexicon for cloning though.

proudfoot fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 4, 2009

# ? Nov 4, 2009 19:29

Doc Spratley: Mar 4, 2007; Miskatonic U. Alumni

Rebadging happens quite a bit in audio.

Here is the Red Rose M1 Multichannel Audio Video Amplifier

For the first time, a high end purist multichannel amplifier from Mark Levinson and his associates.

As you would expect from Mark Levinson and his associates, the M1 is a no-compromise amplifier for recordings of music, and can be compared with the most expensive separate stereo components for sonic quality.

The M1 costs $5,000.

OR

You can buy the exact same item from the source :ssh:

Dussun (KorSun) D9 Multi-Channel Amplifier

$867

# ? Nov 4, 2009 21:53

proudfoot: Jul 17, 2006; Yak! Look! a Yak!

Yes but when you're dealing with analog, you can claim any small thing makes a change, and be correct - though that change might be nothing noticeable or useful. When you start saying that modifying the power supply improves a digital transport, you venture into the territory of complete bullshit.

# ? Nov 5, 2009 02:58

Rescue Toaster: Mar 13, 2003

Doc Spratley posted:

The M1 costs $5,000.

OR

You can buy the exact same item from the source

Dussun (KorSun) D9 Multi-Channel Amplifier

$867

Do you think Mark Levinson might have paid for design/development of the amp and then the chinese manufacturer gets a deal where they're allowed to sell it on the side under a different name (especially if it's not supposed to be shipped to the USA/Europe)? I definitely see stuff like that all the time. Of course which one came first doesn't chance the fact that it makes the markup really obvious and embarrassing.

# ? Nov 5, 2009 03:46

TheMadMilkman: Dec 10, 2007

Doc Spratley posted:

You can buy the exact same item from the source

Did anybody ever bother to purchase one of each and tear them apart? Levinson stated that the casing was the same but that the circuitry was different. I can't find a single link of anybody actually attempting to figure out if this really was the case.

Not to say that their gear isn't overpriced. Mark Levinson isn't known for being cheap.

# ? Nov 5, 2009 05:21

proudfoot: Jul 17, 2006; Yak! Look! a Yak!

TheMadMilkman posted:

Did anybody ever bother to purchase one of each and tear them apart? Levinson stated that the casing was the same but that the circuitry was different. I can't find a single link of anybody actually attempting to figure out if this really was the case.

Not to say that their gear isn't overpriced. Mark Levinson isn't known for being cheap.

Are you willing to take a 5k device apart and void its warranty? I don't think Mark Levinson sells more than a hundred of those, at any rate.

# ? Nov 5, 2009 06:26

Not an Anthem: Apr 28, 2003; I'm a fucking pain machine and if you even touch my fucking car I WILL FUCKING DESTROY YOU.

TheMadMilkman posted:

Plenty, but how often will the theatre be showing an obscure late-70's German art film?

Buddy of mine worked at a theatre and when it would close he'd throw stuff on the digital projector, he has since started buying actual film reels with buddies, they all go in on really cool movies for the sake of showing us past close.

# ? Nov 5, 2009 17:16

TheMadMilkman: Dec 10, 2007

proudfoot posted:

Are you willing to take a 5k device apart and void its warranty? I don't think Mark Levinson sells more than a hundred of those, at any rate.

The changes ML claims to have made should be visible by simply removing the cover, and the integrated amp that first caused the drama was being sold for $2000. Hell, you wouldn't even have to remove the cover yourself, since early on the screws holding the top in place had a tendency to fall out during shipment.

I could see this one going either way, to be honest. It just bothers me that nobody took the time to figure out the truth, one way or the other.

Not an Anthem posted:

Buddy of mine worked at a theatre and when it would close he'd throw stuff on the digital projector, he has since started buying actual film reels with buddies, they all go in on really cool movies for the sake of showing us past close.

Your friend is awesome.

# ? Nov 6, 2009 07:21

HKR: Jan 13, 2006; there is no universe where duke nukem would not be a trans ally

Ugh, this thread:

quote:

A friend an I were having a discussion about our beloved stereos, when it occurred to us how cheap hard drive space is now. Up until now, I've been ripping all my CD's into the MP4 format at 320kps just for casual listening and iPod use. When I want to have an listening session, however, I dig out the actual CD and drop it into my nice Marantz SACD/CD player.

Well, now I'm thinking that I could just drag and drop the AIFF or WAV files right off of the CD into iTunes or other music program, and plug the computer into the stereo.

What we are wondering is, what is the difference in quality. I have a $500 Marantz SACD player. With a normal CD (not an SACD), would it sound better coming off of the hard drive since there is no laser involved? I'm assuming, or course, that ripping the music onto a hard drive uses better error correction since it doesn't have to do it on the fly while it's playing music, but that's an uneducated guess.

That brings us to the DAC question. Let's suppose that the computer has a digital output that we could plug a DAC into. I'm guessing that it comes down to what is a better DAC- the Marantz or the stand alone one that I plug into the computer.

One more thing to consider would be the application that's reading the files, right? For instance, how well does iTunes read and interpret the information? Would the music sound better coming from a different application?

quote:

Thanks for your reply!

Actually, I'm thinking of not "ripping" the CDs at all. I was going to drag the audio files right off of the discs onto the HHD- keep them in their native formats from the CD itself, which should be AIFF files or WAV.

My reasoning is, then they should sound exactly the same as if I threw the CD into my Marantz. That is, unless a computer application like iTunes does a worse job of reading the file information than the Marantz.

How about this- there are many applications out there that play music files. Do some sound better than others, or do they all use the same audio engine and leave the sound part up to the DAC?

quote:

I'm a little confused about that. Maybe it's a PC vs Mac thing, but when I pop a CD into my Mac, I can see the actual audio files. They always show up as large AIFF files. For instance, I just checked a CD on my friends mac, and track one is a 84.4MB AIFF audio file- that's definitely not a reference file.

A CD can hold up to what, 740MB right? Let's say, for the sake of simple math, that the average CD is holding 700MB of music info. I have about 800 CD's at home, so that's about 560,000 MB's of files, which is 560 gigs. I can run two 1.5 terabyte drives in a raid for under $500 these days.

That's why I want to avoid ripping all together- keep it at REAL cd quality. But, like rmeade mentioned, when you play them off of a high quality CD player the best possible digital experience... ?

I do know this. There have been CDs that had a skip in them when I played them on a Bose Wave radio, but played great in my computer. Hmmmm

quote:

I am using Windows Media Player on my IBM ThinkPad. I purchased an HRT MusicStreamer USB DAC and a 500 GB Seagate external hard drive. I rip my CDs in the WAV Lossless mode. This combination sounds as good as any cdp I have ever heard.

# ? Nov 6, 2009 08:40

qirex: Feb 15, 2001

I think the problem is that audiophiles expect digital audio to be as fiddly as analog and the people who sell them gear are happy to promote that idea. I know I've seen serious discussion about what brand of CD-R sounds better.

# ? Nov 6, 2009 17:33

proudfoot: Jul 17, 2006; Yak! Look! a Yak!

qirex posted:

I think the problem is that audiophiles expect digital audio to be as fiddly as analog and the people who sell them gear are happy to promote that idea. I know I've seen serious discussion about what brand of CD-R sounds better.

Add that to the fact that audio quality is highly subjective, and you have the perfect recipe for snake oil salesmen.

It's just funny when said salesmen try to do the same to digital video.

# ? Nov 7, 2009 11:20

champagne posting: Apr 5, 2006; YOU ARE A BRAIN
IN A BUNKER

proudfoot posted:

Add that to the fact that audio quality is highly subjective, and you have the perfect recipe for snake oil salesmen.

It's just funny when said salesmen try to do the same to digital video.

Haven't we been over this a million times? Audio quality is quite easily meassured, but audiophiles are idiots. It's the uneducated pseudoscience megathread all over again.

# ? Nov 7, 2009 14:29

Willie D: Dec 29, 2006; by Ozma

quote:

I am using Windows Media Player on my IBM ThinkPad. I purchased an HRT MusicStreamer USB DAC and a 500 GB Seagate external hard drive. I rip my CDs in the WAV Lossless mode. This combination sounds as good as any cdp I have ever heard.

What is wrong with this?

# ? Nov 9, 2009 13:41

HKR: Jan 13, 2006; there is no universe where duke nukem would not be a trans ally

willd58 posted:

What is wrong with this?

He is probably a guy who thinks he can tell a difference between flac and wav.

# ? Nov 9, 2009 16:24

Twiin: Nov 11, 2003; King of Suck!

HKR posted:

He is probably a guy who thinks he can tell a difference between flac and wav.

The bits are the same, sure, but the difference in soundstage is unmistakable!

# ? Nov 9, 2009 16:27

madprocess: Sep 23, 2004; by Ozmaugh

HKR posted:

He is probably a guy who thinks he can tell a difference between flac and wav.

Actually he switched from ripping to 320 kbps MP4 to just ripping the straight wav file representation of the CD. It probably sounds slightly better, all lossless stuff does sound slightly better than lossy.

# ? Nov 9, 2009 20:27

HKR: Jan 13, 2006; there is no universe where duke nukem would not be a trans ally

madprocess posted:

Actually he switched from ripping to 320 kbps MP4 to just ripping the straight wav file representation of the CD. It probably sounds slightly better, all lossless stuff does sound slightly better than lossy.

Yes but ripping and using straight wav is really stupid.

# ? Nov 9, 2009 22:30

madprocess: Sep 23, 2004; by Ozmaugh

HKR posted:

Yes but ripping and using straight wav is really stupid.

Eh, hard drive space is cheap and anything will play a WAV. It's not like FLAC is really significantly smaller.

# ? Nov 9, 2009 23:35

HKR: Jan 13, 2006; there is no universe where duke nukem would not be a trans ally

madprocess posted:

Eh, hard drive space is cheap and anything will play a WAV. It's not like FLAC is really significantly smaller.

Unless something has changed, wavs have no real tagging system and would make managing a music collection a nightmare.

# ? Nov 10, 2009 00:06

madprocess: Sep 23, 2004; by Ozmaugh

HKR posted:

Unless something has changed, wavs have no real tagging system and would make managing a music collection a nightmare.

Windows Vista and 7 allow you to apply arbitrary metadata to any file, and you can always go the folder/filename route.

All I'm saying is I don't have a problem with the guy just taking everything as straight WAV.

# ? Nov 10, 2009 04:47

HATE TROLL TIM: Dec 14, 2006

madprocess posted:

It's not like FLAC is really significantly smaller.

FLAC and ALAC are about 50% smaller, on average. That's significant.

# ? Nov 10, 2009 20:21

qirex: Feb 15, 2001

timb posted:

FLAC and ALAC are about 50% smaller, on average. That's significant.

More like 30-40% smaller, it depends on the music. I'm only doing it for the tagging really, it's not like a 200 gig library is that much more manageable than a 300 gig one. I think my ALAC stuff averages around 400 megs per album.

# ? Nov 10, 2009 20:30

madprocess: Sep 23, 2004; by Ozmaugh

qirex posted:

More like 30-40% smaller, it depends on the music. I'm only doing it for the tagging really, it's not like a 200 gig library is that much more manageable than a 300 gig one. I think my ALAC stuff averages around 400 megs per album.

Yeah that's what I'm talking about. If you can already handle FLAC for all you albums, you probably have enough disk space available to just do straight WAV rips.

# ? Nov 10, 2009 21:42

AstroZamboni: Mar 8, 2007; Smoothing the Ice on Europa since 1997!

Being the son of an A/V engineer, I've heard some truly shocking stories of acoustical snake-oil peddlers.

My dad knows his poo poo. He spent his teenage years running pirate radio stations. In his early 20s he was a recording engineer at Sunset Sound in Hollywood. He worked on the design and construction of Studio 3 there and built the original console for studio 2. He engineered with the Doobie Brothers, Stevie Nicks, and many more. He was mentored by Les Paul. Doing live sound he once knocked Tom Waits unconscious for pouring a fifth of scotch into the mixing console. For several years he ran the pro audio division of Fender. Now he designs concert halls, legislative chambers, recording studios and churches both from an A/V equipment standpoint and acoustical architecture.

So when an equipment dealer tried to convince him to buy "sound particle traps" for a recording studio floor and tried to feed him a load of BS about the new physics of sound wave/particle duality, my dad worked to get the rear end in a top hat's business shut down. It was hilarious.

# ? Nov 12, 2009 01:00

Takes No Damage: Nov 20, 2004; The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.; Grimey Drawer

^^^Your dad sounds pretty badass.

MrBling posted:

Does anyone happen to know what the general audiophile consensus is regarding the laser turntable?

http://www.elpj.com/

I guess maybe it isn't expensive enough at a mere $15k and there's probably some vague reason for why regular turntables sound better.

Holy poo poo. I swear I had this idea back when I was in high school or something. I used to think it would be really cool if you could like take some super ultra dpi scan of a record's surface and reproduce the sound from that. Could'a been rich

# ? Nov 12, 2009 09:32

HATE TROLL TIM: Dec 14, 2006

sephiroth669 posted:

Holy poo poo. I swear I had this idea back when I was in high school or something. I used to think it would be really cool if you could like take some super ultra dpi scan of a record's surface and reproduce the sound from that. Could'a been rich

Works okay for old mono recordings.

# ? Nov 12, 2009 12:44

Not an Anthem: Apr 28, 2003; I'm a fucking pain machine and if you even touch my fucking car I WILL FUCKING DESTROY YOU.

timb posted:

Works okay for old mono recordings.

This is loving awesome, and this:

quote:

Doing live sound he once knocked Tom Waits unconscious for pouring a fifth of scotch into the mixing console.
...
So when an equipment dealer tried to convince him to buy "sound particle traps" for a recording studio floor and tried to feed him a load of BS about the new physics of sound wave/particle duality, my dad worked to get the rear end in a top hat's business shut down. It was hilarious.

# ? Nov 12, 2009 14:03

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

McPhearson posted:

A buddy of mine is doing some research at his university comparing the emotional response to music containing infrabass and music without it. He actually got the uni to give him tons of money to do this; he's got some major engineering and physics professors to design the room and system, has someone from the psychology department who specializes in spatial sound, and has full access to the uni's experimental acoustic research studio for all testing.

Basically he got the uni to give him money to see if poo poo you cant hear affects your response to music .

The effects of infrasound have been studied and not only does it have effects on you, tones close to the resonant frequency of the eye can cause you to hallucinate. I've felt the effects of infrasound before, and it's very strange to start feeling anxious due to a soudn you can barely hear, but it's real.

proudfoot posted:

Add that to the fact that audio quality is highly subjective, and you have the perfect recipe for snake oil salesmen.

It's just funny when said salesmen try to do the same to digital video.

I was tol by a PC Richard&Son employee that Monster HDMI cables are better than the Monoprice one I got for $7 because on the cheap ones the terminations aren't the same size and the audio and video don't arrive at the same time. I should have asked him how long it takes electricity to travel that extra quarter of a millimeter, but I just shook my head and walked off.

# ? Nov 13, 2009 22:20

Haquer: Nov 15, 2009; That windswept look...

timb posted:

Works okay for old mono recordings.

That's loving great.

Maybe I'll get all vinyl albums and scan them up...

# ? Nov 16, 2009 03:21

eddiewalker: Apr 28, 2004; Arrrr ye landlubber

"I don't think optical would give you any benefit. Coaxial might, but sound cards aren't really fantastic when it comes to digital"

Let's break this down: -computers- suck at -digital-

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/compass-thread-new-428729/index49.html#post6164407

I tried arguing with a logical explanation, but for some reason he's a highly regarded poster.

# ? Nov 18, 2009 22:55

mr. nobody: Sep 25, 2004; Net contents 12 fluid oz.

eddiewalker posted:

I tried arguing with a logical explanation, but for some reason he's a highly regarded poster.

I propose that popularity in the audiophile world is inversely proportional to the amount of logical thinking you possess or display.

# ? Nov 19, 2009 03:02

HATE TROLL TIM: Dec 14, 2006

eddiewalker posted:

"I don't think optical would give you any benefit. Coaxial might, but sound cards aren't really fantastic when it comes to digital"

Let's break this down: -computers- suck at -digital-

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/compass-thread-new-428729/index49.html#post6164407

I tried arguing with a logical explanation, but for some reason he's a highly regarded poster.

The exact same thing happened to me in the Zero DAC thread over there last year. Apparently there's a significant difference between a $20 TOSLINK cable and a $150 one. God forbid you bring up DBT!

# ? Nov 19, 2009 03:33

Sunesis: Apr 17, 2003; RANPHA IS MAD LOL

>.<

How can they argue it sounds different! The optical and coax would use the SAME DAC, so if it sounds different, then there is something wrong with the bits travelling down the wire! and if the bits are wrong, it wont be "a little bit more bass and treble" it will be ASSHHIIHIHIHMMHMMMAAAAAASSSSSSSHHHHHH OMG TURN IT OFF WHITE NOISE.

This whole idea that a cable is selectively delaying bits and messing the timing up too is nonsense. Yes, A USB device would buffer a few samples and reclock them, but a digital audio stream is digital audio. The issue of clocks comes in when you have MULTIPLE sources talking to one device, hence why a world clock can solve those problems.

AGGHHH! At least its not my money!

# ? Nov 19, 2009 04:15

davepsilon: Oct 12, 2009

eddiewalker posted:

"I don't think optical would give you any benefit. Coaxial might, but sound cards aren't really fantastic when it comes to digital"

Let's break this down: -computers- suck at -digital-.

even better a few lines down

dumbass posted:

...through the optical input, the Compass has very balanced treble and boosted bass. Through the coax input, the Compass' mids take a step forward and the sound becomes thicker and smoother. I listened to the same music from my computer ripped via EAC and played through WASAPI output into the Compass to double check the optical input - yeah, the Compass doesn't sound the same between its digital inputs.

Thicker and smoother - oh yeah!

# ? Nov 19, 2009 04:28

eddiewalker: Apr 28, 2004; Arrrr ye landlubber

jitterjitterjitterjitter.

All I can gather is that they understand SPDIF working like cars down a freeway: in different amounts and at different speeds, and thus retaining timing is a black art.

The idea that its like a freight train moving identically sized cars down a track, all at the same speed doesn't seem that difficult to understand.

# ? Nov 19, 2009 06:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 02:34

Spoondrift: Sep 13, 2007

I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat here, but I'm pretty sure the whole "digital = no chance for imperfection" idea is patently wrong. A DAC is like any other circuit in that it has no inherent understand of bits. Voltages representing bits go in and an analog signal voltage comes out. Imperfections in those voltages going in will change the output.

# ? Nov 19, 2009 19:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > Ridicule Audiophiles - Find the cat shit's resonant frequency

«‹›274 »