What makes the sound be coloured ?

[matt49]

This is worth reading:

www.kenrockwell.com/audio/why-cds-sound-great.htm

Chris

The stuff on Cd is good, but some of the stuff on computer audio is scaremongering.

For those people who use ASYNC USB, clock jitter isn't an issue. And for SPDIF (RCA or optical), modern DACs have such good jitter rejection, that jitter isn't audible.

It is possible that ground loops could be a problem: if they are, there are plenty of products on the market that can isolate the DAC from the PC.

Likewise, unless you have a cranky old PC or are doing video editing on the machine while you listen, fan noise won't be audible.

 

[MajorFubar]

It had to be said Major, because no ones challenged you you are convinced what you're saying is correct - you're one of the worst culprits and you're vocal with it.

I'm not falling into the trap of hijacking the OP's thread just to have another pointless argument with you again. You are either the world's greatest troll like Steve says, or you really do believe all of the things you say. Hopefully it's the former.

 

[Vladimir]

I mean what would be the point of investing in a expensive streamer when using it by bypassing its embeded DAC and working with an external one ?

I think a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Bandwidth - the ability to carry information or should that be how much information that can be carried to the dac thats to be converted.

Bandwidth bottlenecks don't cause degradation in sound quality: if bandwidth isn't up to the job, then the music will simply stop or stutter.

The quality of the laser is critical!

I've already explained to you why this isn't an issue in modern CDPs.

The quality of the circuitry in your device of choice - it matters.

No it doesn't. If it did -- if the 'quality' of the circuit boards etc had a deleterious effect on digital data -- then I would experience odd and random changes to my bank balance. Websites would render in subtly different ways when loaded. (Ever noticed that the colour of the WHF website is always exactly the same?) But these things don't happen. You need to ask yourself why.

Feel free to follow Steve1979.......

I can see that would be an easy way out for you.

As has been said before, you have experience of quite a lot of hi-fi kit, and you often give helpful buying advice to people on this forum. But you profoundly misunderstand how digital music works.

Wow......

Ok, look up some of David @FrankHarvey's post he as given an example of BluRay/DVD as a comparison to music in the past.

A DVD on a dedicated DVD player can look superb operating at 480p...

Place the exact DVD in a BluRay player and suddenly it's grainy, looks washed out looks fuzzy...

Why?

The BluRay laser handles x2 the information of the DVD laser - upto 1080p now 4k.

it's designed to carry more information - the DVD is limited by its spec. You can see it and it's not the disc but the reading 'system'

Get your head around that the same applys to how cd's are read and info carried.

 

[Vladimir]

I think Matt just got a seizure. *help*

 

[cheeseboy]

Place the exact DVD in a BluRay player and suddenly it's grainy, looks washed out looks fuzzy...

Why?

The BluRay laser handles x2 the information of the DVD laser - upto 1080p now 4k.

it's designed to carry more information - the DVD is limited by its spec. You can see it and it's not the disc but the reading 'system'

*lol*

should we tell him that blu rays use different lasers to read dvd's, or just let him carry on making himself look like a complete and total tit?

 

[Vladimir]

Place the exact DVD in a BluRay player and suddenly it's grainy, looks washed out looks fuzzy...

Why?

The BluRay laser handles x2 the information of the DVD laser - upto 1080p now 4k.

it's designed to carry more information - the DVD is limited by its spec. You can see it and it's not the disc but the reading 'system'

*lol*

should we tell him that blu rays use different lasers to read dvd's, or just let him carry on making himself look like a complete and total tit?

That aside, his point is better lasers can read the 16/44.1 more accurately. The cheap ones probably only get 15.87/42.52 on a good day!

 

[MajorFubar]

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Again wow!

You feel the need to take this to a literal level?

Point being one lasers design/spec superiority over another makes a difference......

I mean c'mon!

25yrs ago the capacity to transmit and receive using lasers over a fibre optic network was 140mbits, 20yrs ago it was 565mbits 10yrs ago it was 2.4gbits its now x4 that.

In that time only the terminating kit as changed the fibre network is the same.

The same principles apply......

 

[cheeseboy]

Again wow!

You feel the need to take this to a literal level?

Point being one lasers design/spec superiority over another makes a difference......

I mean c'mon!

25yrs ago the capacity over a fibre optic network was 140mbits, 20yrs ago it was 565mbits 10yrs ago it was 2.4gbits its now x4 that.

In that time only the terminating kit as changed the fibre network is the same.

The same principles apply......

 

[Infiniteloop]

I ditched my CD player (Roksan Caspian M2) a couple of years ago now and went the Mac Mini/Audirvana route into a Devialet 200. All was fine for a while, and then I got curious. Not having a CD player, I hooked up a fairly decent DVD player from the Optical digital out, again to the Devialet 200, inserted a disc I know sounds great, (Brothers in Arms) and hit the play button.

The sound quality was awful, not slightly worse, but truly awful. Hugely compressed, thin, no soundstage and lifeless - Why?

If all digital is the same, will someone please explain why there is this huge difference. - Oh and please don't insult my intelligence with cries of 'Expectation bias'. - Even Mrs Loop thought the SQ was bad - and she really couldn't care less!

I'd recommend you try it for yourselves and see if you can hear a difference.

 

[masterblaster]

1. Room acoustics

2. Loudspeaker voicing

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Again wow!

You feel the need to take this to a literal level?

Point being one lasers design/spec superiority over another makes a difference......

I mean c'mon!

25yrs ago the capacity over a fibre optic network was 140mbits, 20yrs ago it was 565mbits 10yrs ago it was 2.4gbits its now x4 that.

In that time only the terminating kit as changed the fibre network is the same.

The same principles apply......

Ain't that the truth Cheeseboy.

Dual laser using the same circuitry. Read me again or not......

The pictures have started and one from the Major too, who had no intention to further derail the thread......

I ain't wrong.

 

[cheeseboy]

I ain't wrong.

*lol*

best quote of the year by a country mile I think.

 

[cheeseboy]

The sound quality was awful, not slightly worse, but truly awful. Hugely compressed, thin, no soundstage and lifeless - Why?

could be a number of factors. Is there any processing going on with the dvd player? Was it set to passthrough? Are both the mac and the dvd player using the same connection, same cable etc? Maybe your mac is actually eq'ing the output without you realising (I don't want answers to these questions btw, I'm merely giving some options as to why it may have sounded different)

If all digital is the same, will someone please explain why there is this huge difference. - Oh and please don't insult my intelligence with cries of 'Expectation bias'. - Even Mrs Loop thought the SQ was bad - and she really couldn't care less!

Firstly, it's going to be next to impossible to explain why it happened as you were the only one there, only you know about your set up etc, Also, unless you actually conducted some form of proper testing you cannot rule out expectation bias and placebo. I'm sorry, but you just can't. *I'm not saying that it was that, just that you cannot rule it out as you did not do anything to rule it out*. Again, just for those that are hard of understanding, I'm not saying it was that. Actually it's more insulting to think that you can overcome these things without taking any steps to do so.

Also as a side note, using the missus to try and prove something is just bollocks 101, sorry, it doesn't add anything and is trotted out so often by hifi peeps it's become it's own parody and cliche.

I'd recommend you try it for yourselves and see if you can hear a difference.

I have and didn't.

just to re-add, in case some of those that didn't catch it - I'm not saying it was expectation bias. There, i think i've probably covered it, but no doubt somebody will still selectively miss quote me and claim I did.

 

[Vladimir]

 

[matt49]

Wow......

Ok, look up some of David @FrankHarvey's post he as given an example of BluRay/DVD as a comparison to music in the past.

A DVD on a dedicated DVD player can look superb operating at 480p...

Place the exact DVD in a BluRay player and suddenly it's grainy, looks washed out looks fuzzy...

Why?

The BluRay laser handles x2 the information of the DVD laser - upto 1080p now 4k.

it's designed to carry more information - the DVD is limited by its spec. You can see it and it's not the disc but the reading 'system'

Get your head around that the same applys to how cd's are read and info carried.

There is no meaningful comparison between the issue of DVD/Bluray and audio CDs. All audio CDs work (or should work) to the same 'red book' spec. The lasers in CDPs don't differ sonically in terms of their resolving power. Sure, a poorly functioning laser may fail to read a disk well. But that won't result in the kind of degradation of sound you're talking about: it will only result in dropouts which have to be interpolated by the CDP's software. The nature of these dropouts will be random: a poorly performing laser won't do something like failing to read a particular frequency band.

The basic fact about the CD spec is that it's perfectly adequate to reproduce the full audible frequency spectrum. You cannot get an improved frequency response by using a higher spec laser.

 

[matt49]

25yrs ago the capacity to transmit and receive using lasers over a fibre optic network was 140mbits, 20yrs ago it was 565mbits 10yrs ago it was 2.4gbits its now x4 that.

Again, the bandwidth limitation on audio CD, as designed by Sony and Philips in the 1970s, was and still is perfectly adequate to carry the full audible frequency range. Increasing the bandwidth of the equipment does not give any improvement in the sound of audio CDs.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

How can I be out gunned?

The point is a given source is the sum of its parts.

It's not a 'chip' or any other singular piece regardless it being a digital or analog device.....

Its not hard.....

 

[Thompsonuxb]

25yrs ago the capacity to transmit and receive using lasers over a fibre optic network was 140mbits, 20yrs ago it was 565mbits 10yrs ago it was 2.4gbits its now x4 that.

Again, the bandwidth limitation on audio CD, as designed by Sony and Philips in the 1970s, was and still is perfectly adequate to carry the full audible frequency range. Increasing the bandwidth of the equipment does not give any improvement in the sound of audio CDs.

And that's the thing.

Its not so much about increasing its about losing less.

The funny thing is you read opinions they talk of hearing more, space, detail, clarity etc.

What's the difference between a Marantz cd6005 and the SA8005 when you take the top off?

 

[matt49]

Its not so much about increasing its about losing less.

The funny thing is you read opinions they talk of hearing more, space, detail, clarity etc.

But the fact is that any red book spec CDP that's operating properly (or for that matter a hard disk sending digital audio to a DAC) is fully capable of providing bit-perfect jitter-free data to the DAC. The only way a digital source can lose data is by failing to read properly. In that case we're dealing with corruption of the data, and corruption of data results in the loss of chunks of music. When that happens, all the music within the chunk will be lost, not just a specific frequency band.

In other words, it's impossible for corruption of data to produce effects such as less "space, detail, clarity etc." Effects of the "space, detail, clarity etc." kind can only be the result of changes to the system's frequency response, probably the loss of some higher frequencies. And as we've already seen, corruption of data cannot cause effects of this kind.

If people are really hearing changes in "space, detail, clarity etc.", it must be due to a different cause, possibly interference or electro-mechanical noise of some kind.

 

[MajorFubar]

Guys we've been here many times before what makes you think this will be any less futile. He's just reeling you in. Be a free fish and swim away from the bait.

 

[Covenanter]

25yrs ago the capacity to transmit and receive using lasers over a fibre optic network was 140mbits, 20yrs ago it was 565mbits 10yrs ago it was 2.4gbits its now x4 that.

Again, the bandwidth limitation on audio CD, as designed by Sony and Philips in the 1970s, was and still is perfectly adequate to carry the full audible frequency range. Increasing the bandwidth of the equipment does not give any improvement in the sound of audio CDs.

And that's the thing.

Its not so much about increasing its about losing less.

The funny thing is you read opinions they talk of hearing more, space, detail, clarity etc.

What's the difference between a Marantz cd6005 and the SA8005 when you take the top off?

Well putting to one side the SA8005's DAC mode inputs and its ability to play SACDs, it has a different CD mechanism, a different transformer, a slightly wider dynamic range, slightly lower THD and slightly better channel separation. Oh and it's 1.4kg heavier.

Whether you can hear these differences would have to be tested. On audition I believed I could hear the difference between the SA8005 and the CD6004 and I know that I now listen with pleasure to some CDs that I didn't play very often before. It might all be expectation bias of course.

Chris

 

[matt49]

Guys we've been here many times before what makes you think this will be any less futile. He's just reeling you in. Be a free fish and swim away from the bait.

Sorry, Major, but 25 years in the teaching business have made it impossible for me to resist the lure of pushing back the boundaries of ignorance. It's what they call a déformation professionnelle[/i].[/i]

 

[steve_1979]

No doubt Steve1979 will be along in a moment to tell us all to ignore you.

Wouldn't dream of it. I'm enjoying the show too much for that.