Difference in digital sources

[idc]

My actual thoughts on the matter are that I accept that some can hear a difference and just because I cannot does not mean there cannot be a difference. I am also prepared to accept others testimony as evidence that something is the case, even when science cannot provide the answer. So if What Hifi say there is a difference then I am inclined to accept that even though they cannot provide a 'scientific' reason for the difference. I do that because, from many years of reading What Hifi reviews I find them to be very accurate, not flawless, but still I respect their expertise. With specific regards to USB memory sticks and hard drives, I doubt that I would hear any real difference. But my wife possibly would (as I said has picked out different bit rates with 100% accuracy} notice a difference. But in the scale of hifi, new speakers would make much more of a difference, for example.

With the Big Question What Hifi have risen to the challenge of providing blind testing to show that there is substance to various hifi myths.

 

[Anonymous]

think im going to throw up

 

[Andrew Everard]

Please don't

 

[Anonymous]

idc:
I am also prepared to accept others testimony as evidence that something is the case, even when science cannot provide the answer. So if What Hifi say there is a difference then I am inclined to accept that even though they cannot provide a 'scientific' reason for the difference. I do that because, from many years of reading What Hifi reviews I find them to be very accurate, not flawless, but still I respect their expertise.

We come to this from fundamentally different angles. I think you have just nicely summarized why there is no point in us discussing this any further. ;-)

 

[manicm]

To answer the OP:

[*]Music is ripped to a hard drive

Music accessed through a music server

Music server outputs to a DAC

DAC outputs to an amplifier

'Does it make any difference what music server is used in this example? To put it another way would a sonos / squeezebox / linn ds all sound the same?'

I would still think that there might be differences between Sonos and Squeezebox - if not by much. After all do not some high-end makers still have 2-box CD solutions i.e. Transport and DAC? And different transports do give different results.

In the case of Linn DS - I would strongly hazard against using an external DAC - you'd probably have to spend twice the amount of the DS to get any improvement, and could possibly degrade the sound. And their top 2 DS models do not have digital outputs of any kind.

 

[idc]

storsvante:idc:

I am also prepared to accept others testimony as evidence that something is the case, even when science cannot provide the answer. So if What Hifi say there is a difference then I am inclined to accept that even though they cannot provide a 'scientific' reason for the difference. I do that because, from many years of reading What Hifi reviews I find them to be very accurate, not flawless, but still I respect their expertise.

We come to this from fundamentally different angles. I think you have just nicely summarized why there is no point in us discussing this any further. ;-)

I hope will reconsider, I enjoy a debate and haven't participated in a lively one for a while. Can you clarify that your fundamentally different angle is that you will ony accept the results of a test as designed by yourself? If that is right are you in a position to do such a test? Or do you want someone else to do it for you?

 

[Anonymous]

idc:storsvante:idc:

I am also prepared to accept others testimony as evidence that something is the case, even when science cannot provide the answer. So if What Hifi say there is a difference then I am inclined to accept that even though they cannot provide a 'scientific' reason for the difference. I do that because, from many years of reading What Hifi reviews I find them to be very accurate, not flawless, but still I respect their expertise.

We come to this from fundamentally different angles. I think you have just nicely summarized why there is no point in us discussing this any further. ;-)

I hope will reconsider, I enjoy a debate and haven't participated in a lively one for a while. Can you clarify that your fundamentally different angle is that you will ony accept the results of a test as designed by yourself? If that is right are you in a position to do such a test? Or do you want someone else to do it for you?

You would almost think you're trying to provoke a response here. ;-)

Let me clarify, and quote again from your last post.

idc:

I am also prepared to accept others testimony as evidence that
something is the case, even when science cannot provide the answer.

This is abhorrent to me. The scientific method gave us modern medicine and digital X-ray, supercomputers, and put the man on the moon. Believe me, it can explain USB sticks. To reject all that, and instead chose to 'believe' in someone's vagaries, unfounded statements and subjective opinion (influenced by many many things, as we all are) is completely alien to me. It also means we cannot have a sensible discussion about this because you have already decided what you want to believe. This is what I meant with "fundamentally different angle".

Don't get me wrong - everyone can make observations about the world, and just because they don't understand the underlying reasons doesn't mean they are wrong. But equally, even if the claims can't be explained, they can be verified. If someone tells me that they can hear a difference between 2 USB sticks (or hard drives or whatever) then that goes against what I would expect from my understanding of these things and I would like them to verify their claim in an objective fashion before I believe them.

I hope this made sense.

 

[manicm]

Well just been trawling through the Linn DS forums again regarding perceived sound differences between WAV and FLAC where some owners think WAV sounds better.

Some Linn engineers did not dispute this - not that one necessarily sounds better than the other - and put it down to the fact that FLAC decoding needs more horsepower on the player end, whereas WAV places a heavier burden on the network.

Which also sort of vindicates why I and others think (go search internet) why perhaps AIFF sounds better than ALAC on iTunes. That our ears may not be lying to us after all.

And I will bring up, yet again, why ultimately Wadia insists WAV is that bit better then ALAC for their i170 Transport - that maybe in the decoding jitter or other artefacts are being introduced in the iPod.

 

[The_Lhc]

If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.

 

[amcluesent]

Hmm, I'm worried now. My music server has RAID store, so it's not certain which disk will be read for each sector of data. I could have an 'audiophile' spindle and an 'entry-level' spindle and data would be coming from either, all jumbled up! Eeek! No wonder that £100 directional TOSlink connector didn't improve the sound!

 

[idc]

storsvante:This is abhorrent to me. The scientific method gave us modern medicine and digital X-ray, supercomputers, and put the man on the moon. Believe me, it can explain USB sticks. To reject all that, and instead chose to 'believe' in someone's vagaries, unfounded statements and subjective opinion (influenced by many many things, as we all are) is completely alien to me. It also means we cannot have a sensible discussion about this because you have already decided what you want to believe. This is what I meant with "fundamentally different angle".

When you say science can explain USB sticks, fair enough, but in the world of hifi it struggles to explain why, to some different USB sticks will sound different to others. I am using USB sticks as an example, it could also be HDMI cables and any other componenet which scientifically should not make a difference to the sound. I dont think that Andrew Everard is making vague, unfounded statements. He clearly does a lot of testing and knows his hifi. We can have a sensible discussion, from different view points. I have taken one stand, but I am prepared to have my mind changed and I totally accept your view point. I hope you will to.

storsvante:Don't get me wrong - everyone can make observations about the world, and just because they don't understand the underlying reasons doesn't mean they are wrong. But equally, even if the claims can't be explained, they can be verified. If someone tells me that they can hear a difference between 2 USB sticks (or hard drives or whatever) then that goes against what I would expect from my understanding of these things and I would like them to verify their claim in an objective fashion before I believe them.

I hope this made sense.

So far we have an observation that USB sticks can sound different (this is a example, it also applies to different hard drives etc). We are not sure abut the science part and you are right Andrews claims can and should be verified. That can be done by others trying out their own tests. Meantime I see no reason not to accept Andrews view point. The Big Question with the use of different sources will be one of the tests which will either verify or not Andrews claim. I will keep an open mind. You make a lot of sense.

 

[manicm]

the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.

I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.

I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.

Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?

 

[Anonymous]

amcluesent:
Hmm, I'm worried now. My music server has RAID store, so it's not certain which disk will be read for each sector of data. I could have an 'audiophile' spindle and an 'entry-level' spindle and data would be coming from either, all jumbled up! Eeek! No wonder that £100 directional TOSlink connector didn't improve the sound!

 

[idc]

storsvante:amcluesent:

Hmm, I'm worried now. My music server has RAID store, so it's not certain which disk will be read for each sector of data. I could have an 'audiophile' spindle and an 'entry-level' spindle and data would be coming from either, all jumbled up! Eeek! No wonder that £100 directional TOSlink connector didn't improve the sound!

Amcluesent, its the end product from your server thats important, I dont see what you can do about the internals. Have you compared servers to which, if any sound better? Thats the issue here, What Hifi make comparisons and say they can hear diffferences. Then the sceptics such as yourself and storsvante regularly come onto the forum and say 'but that cannot be as science says so' without any evidence of your own or, crucially, having tried comparisons yourself. Or have you?

 

[The_Lhc]

idc:storsvante:amcluesent:

Hmm, I'm worried now. My music server has RAID store, so it's not certain which disk will be read for each sector of data. I could have an 'audiophile' spindle and an 'entry-level' spindle and data would be coming from either, all jumbled up! Eeek! No wonder that £100 directional TOSlink connector didn't improve the sound!

Amcluesent, its the end product from your server thats important, I dont see what you can do about the internals. Have you compared servers to which, if any sound better? Thats the issue here, What Hifi make comparisons and say they can hear diffferences. Then the sceptics such as yourself and storsvante regularly come onto the forum and say 'but that cannot be as science says so' without any evidence of your own or, crucially, having tried comparisons yourself. Or have you?

Sorry idc it ISN'T the server making the difference, it's the player or streamer, provided the server isn't transcoding before pumping the data out to the streamer of course. Ideally any server should be passive, just providing a shared directory that the streamer can pull the data from. If that's the case then the data arriving at the streamer, any streamer will be identical to any other server. It MUST be, otherwise there are some serious breaches of network protocol happening. Would you expect a server storing images that are being displayed on a remote screen to look different depending on which server they were coming from? Of course not. Or if you were sat at work reading a Word document from a server, would expect that document to have different words in it if you read it from a different server? You've got to stop thinking of the information being sent as music, it isn't. It's data and doesn't becomes music until the streamer or player sends it out out to the amp as an analogue signal.

 

[idc]

Thanks the_lhc, but I went with amcluesent, who I suspect was not being serious, to make a point that sceptics rarely present any serious reasoning themselves, they just like to cast doubt and cause mischief. I would love a sceptic to come onto the forum and start a thread just like this one

http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/304986.aspx

and present reasoned evidence for their case. Neither amcluesant nor storesvant seem likely to do that.

 

[Alec]

idc: I would love a sceptic to come onto the forum and start a thread just like this one

http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/304986.aspx

I concur.

 

[PJPro]

Well gentlemen. Gonna take them up on their challenge?

 

[Anonymous]

idc:
Thanks the_lhc, but I went with amcluesent, who I suspect was not being serious, to make a point that sceptics rarely present any serious reasoning themselves, they just like to cast doubt and cause mischief. I would love a sceptic to come onto the forum and start a thread just like this one

http://community.whathifi.com/forums/t/304986.aspx

and present reasoned evidence for their case. Neither amcluesant nor storesvant seem likely to do that.

idc you seem to have gone from "I will keep an open mind. You make a lot of sense." (end of your response to my last post) to "they just like to cast doubt and cause mischief". What are you asking for here -- that I wrote a detail description of why I don't think USB sticks colour the sound? Would be happy to. Although last time I got into detail I was accused of being tedious...

Is this what you're asking for? If so I'll come back later in the week and do so when I've got a bit more time.

 

[idc]

My responses varied depending on what I was responding to. The first post you refer to, you do make sense. The second with amcluesant appears to me taking the mickey and you added a smiley which suggested you support that.

I and others have been hoping for a reasoned debate on this and other issues, but unfortunately they keep on getting bogged down as the bickering starts. So I will avoid that, ignore others and look forward to next response

.

 

[Anonymous]

dont need a debate all the infos on the net you wouldnt debate gravity would you its debating for debating sake

 

[idc]

We have still got a lot to learn about gravity, plenty of scope for a debate there too.

 

[Andrew Everard]

And then there's global warming vs global dimming, God vs creationism, Strictly vs X-Factor...

 

[Alec]

Andrew Everard:And then there's global warming vs global dimming, God vs creationism, Strictly vs X-Factor...

Interestingly, i believe creationsim is more or less disproved by the existence of simon cowell.

OK, so im being a bit lax with the word "interesting"...