[Freo-1]

I think that there is disagreement about the digital waveform.  This link provides a different point of view from some posted on this thread. 


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6405


Here is the key point:  "

The important thing to understand about the diagrams above is that the smooth analog waveform above each set of lines/blocks is the same. In reality, a 320 kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD, which is also indistinguishable from a real high-resolution audio file — if you could find one."

While I would like to think that a 24/192 would sound better than a 16/44 file, there has not been any definitive proof that is the case.   It may be possible that a file sourced from 24/192 (of which there are damn few in existence-analog does not count), it still needs to be verified over time via testing. 

[Freo-1]

I thing there are a very few off-the-shelf switching supplies that are really clean.  Most are designed very cheaply.  Likewise, linear supplies have their flaws - most of them regulate too slowly so they are not great for digital sources.

The explanations that Benchmark gives are pretty lame IMO.  Magnetics causing hum etc...

Even if you use a custom optimized switcher, you probably have to follow it with a fast linear regulator to get the best results (this is what I do).  Noise floor will be affected by a switcher usually and sometimes they even put crap on the line voltage.

For the most part, switchers inherently regulate fast and linears inherently have low noise.  You can certainly eliminate these deficiencies for both types of supplies if the designs are optimized.

Steve N.

The Benchmark amp has been a Stereophile Class  A recommended component for years, and the measured specs are outstanding.  I think the facts clearly show that they are onto something.  They purposely use a switched mode power supply in order to get better performance. 

[audioengr]

I think that there is disagreement about the digital waveform.  This link provides a different point of view from some posted on this thread. 


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6405


Here is the key point:  "

The important thing to understand about the diagrams above is that the smooth analog waveform above each set of lines/blocks is the same. In reality, a 320 kbps MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from a CD, which is also indistinguishable from a real high-resolution audio file — if you could find one."

Indistinguishable in 95% of systems, I would agree.  I can easily hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 256K MP3 in my system.

Steve N.

[wushuliu]

Benchmark is a proprietary design. And look what it costs.

[Freo-1]

Indistinguishable in 95% of systems, I would agree.  I can easily hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 256K MP3 in my system.

Steve N.

No argument here.  I can also with both my setups. 


What I think is harder is CD vs. Hi Res.  IF the source is hi-res, then it may be possible.  If it's not, then it's doubtful a difference can be picked up. 


AIX will be conducting testing to see if a difference between CD and hi-res sources can be discerned.

[Freo-1]

Benchmark is a proprietary design. And look what it costs.

Fair enough, but look at what some folks pay for wire, which has zero engineering to back up the cost. 


Benchmark and Devialet are among the best sounding systems I've come across.  Both proprietary, both not cheap, but both well above normal high end performance.  Second hand Devialet amps are actually pretty reasonable, considering you get a full preamp (including phono), DAC, and power amp.  Don't need to spend $ on wire either.

[audioengr]

Fair enough, but look at what some folks pay for wire, which has zero engineering to back up the cost. 

Some cable companies do the engineering, others don't.  I did computer simulations and empirical testing on all of my cables when I built them.  Patented technology for both IC's and speaker cables.  The cost is also due to labor-intensive assembly and parts costs.

Steve N.

[Freo-1]

Some cable companies do the engineering, others don't.  I did computer simulations and empirical testing on all of my cables when I built them.  Patented technology for both IC's and speaker cables.  The cost is also due to labor-intensive assembly and parts costs.

Steve N.

Cables/wires is one area that I doubt will ever come to a consensus.  I've TRIED to believe that cables can make a difference.  My experience is that for analog, a moderate XLR cable is better than any mega dollar RCA.


Spending years with DIY tube audio has honed perceptions regarding what makes differences regarding sound quality.  Parts quality, such as non-inductive resistors, Mundorf Silver/Gold caps, use of high quality tubes, tried and true designs, etc. DO make a difference.  Cables, not so much.  High quality internal wiring helps, but one does not have to spend big $ to get good wire.


I've posted this before, but believe this is as close to the truth regarding cables:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6440

[audioengr]

“If you can’t hear differences between power cords, then be glad because you’re saving a lot of money” or “Your system isn’t good enough — it doesn’t resolve with sufficient clarity — to allow you to detect the very real differences”.

This is actually quite true.  On the other hand it matters which cables you try.  There is a LOT of snake oil by non-professional cable companies out there.

At audio frequencies a 6 ft analog interconnect still acts like a wire. It is not a distributed transmission line. I don’t have to think of reflections. A wavelength of say 100 kHz sine in a 80% velocity cable (pretty typical of modern 75ohm coaxial cables, e.g. Belden 8241F) is 3.7 kilometers. Even a 1000ft cable can’t possibly act like a transmission line, even as we talk ultrasonic. So manufacturers tagging audio cables as some kind of superior transmission line cables should check their facts – unless you are planning to run your analog audio straight across the country!

Analog interconnect cable performance is not about transmission-line effects.  It is about crystal lattice effects in the metallurgy of the conductors, capacitance and dielectric absorption.  This is why analog cables with really low capacitance and low dielelectric absorption sound better.  This is why OCC minimum crystal silver (properly handled and annealed) sounds better than copper.

If this guy believes what he says, then he should immerse his copper cable in liquid nitrogen to break the crystal lattice and then listen to what that cable sounds like.  He will throw the cable in the trash, guaranteed.  The L, R and C of this cable will be unchanged and yet it is ruined.  I have done this.  He is missing an important part of the total analog picture.  I was in the cable business for 15 years and learned a few things.  I am also a EE, but a computer and supercomputer designer for 25 years.

Steve N.

[wushuliu]

The myths are all based on what we want to believe versus science.  Very easy to let our hearing fool us, in fact it's so embarrassing that I rarely admit to being one outside of the community.  Amazing how many variations of high fidelity exist in the minds of audiophiles. 

After 50+ years at this I have several opinions:

1.)  Nearly all of us lack a decent musical background to appreciate what we're hearing.

2.)  Very few have an understanding of how the room affects what we experience.

3.)  Most tweaks are pure snake oil.

4.)  We're largely trophy hunters, constantly seeking the next great prize.

There is very little actual well researched independently peer reviewed studies on most anything related to this hobby. And what there is tends to be proprietary work for companies. And we all know the double standard of if we don't Believe the company then their research is rigged,  but if they confirm our biases then they are bearers of the Truth.

The biggest myth is that there are audio myths that have been conclusively debunked. I'd rather people just be honest and just say IMO or in my experience etc. Because there ain't no audiophile research section at the public library and last I checked Science magazine didn't have TUBES : ARE THEY JUST DISTORTION GENERATORS? on the cover.

Walk up to someone and ask them what the biggest cancer myths are and they'll have an answer ask them what the biggest audio myths are and they'll say they've never heard of that band before.

[wushuliu]

I also think there should just be a thread or forum called PROVE IT where people can just put up their soap boxes and have at it. Would spare the binning and moderation.

[Folsom]

My “myth” posted was never bunked to begin with among anyone that is considered an authority. It does not fit the “IMO” category.

[Steve]

Cables/wires is one area that I doubt will ever come to a consensus.  I've TRIED to believe that cables can make a difference.  My experience is that for analog, a moderate XLR cable is better than any mega dollar RCA.


Spending years with DIY tube audio has honed perceptions regarding what makes differences regarding sound quality.  Parts quality, such as non-inductive resistors, Mundorf Silver/Gold caps, use of high quality tubes, tried and true designs, etc. DO make a difference.  Cables, not so much.  High quality internal wiring helps, but one does not have to spend big $ to get good wire.


I've posted this before, but believe this is as close to the truth regarding cables:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6440

Personally, in my lab, I have found ics make a difference for sure. But then I am in a "lab" type condition.
My test speakers have a small resistor across the full range driver. Been working on them for some 5 1/2 years.

Adjusting this small ohmage resistor by a millionth of an ohm is perceived by others who have been helping me with setting the speakers up, working with the crossover etc. That is how open, lacking in sonic signature the setup is. Nice
little "hobby" for someone retired from engineering research and designing etc.

cheers
steve

[Steve]

The biggest myth is that there are audio myths that have been conclusively debunked. I'd rather people just be honest and just say IMO or in my experience etc. Because there ain't no audiophile research section at the public library and last I checked Science magazine didn't have TUBES : ARE THEY JUST DISTORTION GENERATORS? on the cover.

And of course engineers/designers/manufacturers do not wish to just give away their proprietary knowledge,
scholarship that gives them the edge in sonic quality. I sure would not, at least for free.

My uncle Aaron developed, from scratch, the "combine" that uses a sickle cutter and auger to reap harvest. I saw him build it in the late 50s, early 60s. Had companies "look it over", companies waited 34 years, patents ran out, then copied Araron's design. Aaron never saw a dime, while he told me he spent 60 grand out of his pocket.

cheers
steve

[Wind Chaser]

IMO all myths are a matter of opinion.

[Freo-1]

Personally, in my lab, I have found ics make a difference for sure. But then I am in a "lab" type condition.
My test speakers have a small resistor across the full range driver. Been working on them for some 5 1/2 years.

Adjusting this small ohmage resistor by a millionth of an ohm is perceived by others who have been helping me with setting the speakers up, working with the crossover etc. That is how open, lacking in sonic signature the setup is. Nice
little "hobby" for someone retired from engineering research and designing etc.

cheers
steve

Here is a link regarding balanced (XLR) vs. unbalanced (RCA) cables. 




https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces


This helps explain why big $ RCA IC cables don't make a lot of engineering sense.

[Steve]

Here is a link regarding balanced (XLR) vs. unbalanced (RCA) cables. 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces


This helps explain why big $ RCA IC cables don't make a lot of engineering sense.

I probably should not have mentioned being in a lab condition Freo. Probably gave the wrong impression. My fault. Actually, from listening testing, just changing from gold plated all copper phono plugs to rhodium plated made enough sonic difference that I did not wish to play my CD player. The sound thinned out. Back came the gold plated all copper plugs and all is good again. (I don't have any problem with noise, rfi etc.)

I agree, big expensive ics are not needed. I was also able to create a single ended ic that did not alter the sonics, without breaking the bank.

cheers
steve

[audioengr]

IMO all myths are a matter of opinion.

Each of our realities is only a figment of our imagination too.

[audioengr]

Here is a link regarding balanced (XLR) vs. unbalanced (RCA) cables. 




https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces


This helps explain why big $ RCA IC cables don't make a lot of engineering sense.

Again, Benchmark misses three of the important aspects of balanced here.

Certainly, it is better to have common-mode noise rejection.  My own DAC is much better using balanced versus SE.  However, the devil is in the details.  Most modern balanced outputs are solid-state, not driven from a transformer like in the past and in recording studios.  This causes balanced to not really be balanced because the two outputs are never actually the same amplitude.  It's impossible. 

Secondly, because there is no transformer, there is no galvanic isolation between preamp and power amp.  This is one of the reasons that I sell my Final Drive transformer isolator. Makes systems sound better. Makes it truly balanced again.

Finally, older balanced systems were typically 600 ohms terminated so the impedance of the cable was not as important.  Modern balanced inputs are 50Kohms or higher, so this changes everything.  Balanced cables, like RCA cables must have low capacitance to sound good now.  Dielectric absorption is audible too.

Three of the advantages of balanced have been eliminated, leaving only the CM noise rejection, which has limits.

Steve N.

[avahifi]

This is the reason we developed and always use our ABX Comparator.  It allows us to do double blind level matched comparisons of almost any aspect of audio performance in a mode that eliminates anticipation bias.

When this is done, many myths evaporate, while some are reinforced.  You never can tell just what our results will be when when we just listen with our ears, not our eyes.

One interesting finding is that often we can detect minor differences between different electronic design, but it is much harder to assign better - worse evaluations inasmuch as nothing we have heard really is exactly like live unamplified music. Its kind of a "which is the least worse" question.

The best A-B comparison we ever had was years ago when a gentleman came out to listen to our equipment.  He seemed pretty pleased.  He then ask us if we would play a record of his.  We did.  It was a recording of him playing his violin.  He still seemed pleased.  Then he said he wanted to go out to his car for a minute, and came back in with his violin!  He then proceeded to play a duet with himself.  Now that was a real comparison.  He still liked our equipment enough to make a significant purchase.

Our ABX comparator is still available for sale.  It can handle two sources, two preamps, two power amps, and three sets of speakers at the same time, either with or without subwoofers connected too.

Frank