What makes the sound be coloured ?

[Infiniteloop]

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? Nope.Was it set to passthrough? Direct. Are both the mac and the dvd player using the same connection, same cable etc? Mac uses USB, DVD player is Optical. Both are digital, so shouldn't be different. 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) Nope - using Audirvana at the setting that strips iTunes of all functions except the Library.

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. - Details??

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.

 

[MajorFubar]

You do pose some very fair questions, IL. It would be very easy to record the digital output from your DVD player through an audio interface to a computer, then compare the resulting file with the rip of the CD on your Mac. Ideally they should be identical if the DVD player is doing its job properly. If they are different, which is what you are implying because you said they sound different when connected to the Davialet 200, then something is somehow manipulating the digital signal. If they are identical, but you're still convinced they sound different connected to the Davialet, then something else peculiar is going on with the way the DVD player and the Davialet are interfacing with each other. Or with how the Davialet is converting the digital signal. But whatever it is, it will have a scientific explanation. Or, you're imagining it.

The key is that we didn't discover digital audio, we invented it, along with the clearly-definied standards and protocols to store it and transmit it between devices. There are no surprises to be found with digital, or vagaries. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading this.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

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?

a lot there is a big difference between the marantz cd6005 + SA8005 .... The 8005 has better loading tray , better display , better power supply , better case work and yes they both use the same onboard dac that's it

 

[Infiniteloop]

You do pose some very fair questions, IL. It would be very easy to record the digital output from your DVD player through an audio interface to a computer, then compare the resulting file with the rip of the CD on your Mac. Ideally they should be identical if the DVD player is doing its job properly. If they are different, which is what you are implying because you said they sound different when connected to the Davialet 200, then something is somehow manipulating the digital signal. If they are identical, but you're still convinced they sound different connected to the Davialet, then something else peculiar is going on with the way the DVD player and the Davialet are interfacing with each other. Or with how the Davialet is converting the digital signal. But whatever it is, it will have a scientific explanation. Or, you're imagining it.

The key is that we didn't discover digital audio or the means to transmit it, we invented it, along with the clearly-definied standards and protocols to store it and transmit it betwen devices. There are no surprises to be found with digital, or vagaries. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading this.

The DAC in the Devialet is treating both signals the same - so should sound the same right? - Well, they don't.

Did we invent 'Jitter', 'Digital clipping' and 'Temporal aliasing' too - and are there clearly defined standards and protocols for it?

If there are no surprises in digital, explain this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_artifact#/media/FileigitalArtifact1228.jpg

And on a daily basis, this website............*biggrin*

I know the explanation will be scientific. I'm just waiting for someone to come up with one.

 

[MajorFubar]

I have already explained how I would go about investigating why your DVD player as a transport sounds worse than your computer through the same DAC, and how I would attempt to eliminate the variables. We (collectively) are well aware of what digital clipping is, and jitter, and temporal aliasing, and what causes all of them. None of it is vague.

Aplogies, I'm not sure what I was supposed to see in the link to the corrupted JPG picture; that was totally lost on me.

 

[Infiniteloop]

I have already explained how I would go about investigating why your DVD player as a transport sounds worse than your computer through the same DAC, and how I would attempt to eliminate the variables. We (collectively) are well aware of what digital clipping is, and jitter, and temporal aliasing, and what causes all of them. None of it is vague.

The point is that we didn't invent them although they affect the 'digital' that we did.

Aplogies, I'm not sure what I was supposed to see in the link to the corrupted JPG picture; that was totally lost on me.

"There are no surprises to be found with digital, or vagaries. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading this."

The point is that it's digital, but imperfect. - Yet it is still a discernible image. - The result, apparently, of garbled processing.

 

[Vladimir]

I have already explained how I would go about investigating why your DVD player as a transport sounds worse than your computer through the same DAC, and how I would attempt to eliminate the variables. We (collectively) are well aware of what digital clipping is, and jitter, and temporal aliasing, and what causes all of them. None of it is vague.

The point is that we didn't invent them although they affect the 'digital' that we did.

Aplogies, I'm not sure what I was supposed to see in the link to the corrupted JPG picture; that was totally lost on me.

"There are no surprises to be found with digital, or vagaries. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading this."

The point is that it's digital, but imperfect. - Yet it is still a discernible image.

Your example is excellent.

When digital fails even with a little glitch, you get that horrible mess. You don't get the colors a tad exagerated in the green or with less contrast.

Same in digital audio. If there is a glitch you get dropouts, pops and clicks. You don't get brighter violins.

 

[Infiniteloop]

I have already explained how I would go about investigating why your DVD player as a transport sounds worse than your computer through the same DAC, and how I would attempt to eliminate the variables. We (collectively) are well aware of what digital clipping is, and jitter, and temporal aliasing, and what causes all of them. None of it is vague.

The point is that we didn't invent them although they affect the 'digital' that we did.

Aplogies, I'm not sure what I was supposed to see in the link to the corrupted JPG picture; that was totally lost on me.

"There are no surprises to be found with digital, or vagaries. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading this."

The point is that it's digital, but imperfect. - Yet it is still a discernible image.

Your example is excellent.

When digital fails even with a little glitch, you get that horrible mess. You don't get the colors a tad exagerated in the green or with less contrast.

Same in digital audio. If there is a glitch you get dropouts, pops and clicks. You don't get brighter violins.

Except that in that image, that's exactly what you're getting. You're not just getting black spaces. You're getting wrong textures, altered colours and images that aren't natural.

 

[MajorFubar]

Except that in that image, that's exactly what you're getting. You're not just getting black spaces. You're getting wrong textures, altered colours and images that aren't natural.

Ah, I can see where you're coming from and why you think it was an appropriate analogy, but with the utmost respect it's not the same. The equivalent in audio in a corrupt file would be glitches and noise (sounds a lot like radio hiss but screechier and harsher).

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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.

It's getting juiced now....

Someone even dug up an old topic.

Anyhoo, matt49 you're a teacher? ...no wonder the world's going to heck.

That said the red book?

Every electrical appliance has its equivalent from light bulbs to fridges.

It does not dictate the engineering of these products just sets standards which have to be adhered to.......

Listen to the Major....

Couple of good post one from the Convenator the other from BlackSabbath - read them....

As is always the way with these things... *ROFL*

 

[cheeseboy]

Anyhoo, matt49 you're a teacher? ...no wonder the world's going to heck.

no need for that at all.

 

[matt49]

It's getting juiced now....

Someone even dug up an old topic.

Anyhoo, matt49 you're a teacher? ...no wonder the world's going to heck.

That said the red book?

Every electrical appliance has its equivalent from light bulbs to fridges.

It does not dictate the engineering of these products just sets standards which have to be adhered to.......

Listen to the Major....

Couple of good post one from the Convenator the other from BlackSabbath - read them....

As is always the way with these things... *ROFL*

The Red Book specifies the design parameters of the laser and the protocols for error correction: any competent design meeting these specifications should pick up all the data on the disk. If it doesn't, the result will be as I described above: not loss of clarity, space, detail etc, but gaps in the music which will either be masked by interpolated data or be heard as jumps.

Chris (Covenanter) has helpfully spelt out what differences there are under the hood of the two Marantz models. Assuming there's an audible difference between the two (and please note: Chris states that his perception may be due to expectation bias), it's most likely the result of the power supply or the analog stage of the DAC. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the digital pick-up and processing, which is what we're talking about here.

I've already pointed out on several occasions that the electronics in a digital system can inject noise into the signal path. Aside from this, you have still failed to produce a single reason why one properly designed digital source should sound different from another. Instead you seem to be dependent on other people's posts (David, Chris, BlackSabbath) to do the work for you.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

this is way i said in the past that the 8005 cd player did not sound the same as the cd6005 but everyone just took the piss and said they both use the same dac but i could not say why there is a sound diffreance but there is so must come down whats inside

 

[Thompsonuxb]

this is way i said in the past that the 8005 cd player did not sound the same as the cd6005 but everyone just took the piss and said they both use the same dac but i could not say why there is a sound diffreance but there is so must come down whats inside

As I've said these people are wrapped up in the idea of these 1's and 0's.

What they cannot comprehend is the digital 'data' is just a representation of analog 'data' (in this case music).

The goal to convert that digital data back to analog (which is what you hear via your speakers) losing as little as possible from the original analog 'data' in the process.

A DAC will not add what's not there it just converts - it's transparent, but better engineering more sophisticated electronics will 'lose less' in this process or get closer to the original source material.

Ie the better the player the better sound.

As Chris said you'll see it in how the machines measure.

A sum of its parts.

 

[Vladimir]

We are talking hardware here, but also on software level (algorithms) can affect how well something is encoded/decoded/converted/sampled. Someone bothered to make a list of hw these compare. Youtube video comparing the plugins on that list.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Anyhoo, matt49 you're a teacher? ...no wonder the world's going to heck.

no need for that at all.

You're right.

Matt49 I apologise I did not mean that in a derogatory sense.

I often forget that tone is often lost in text. Just typed as I would say if we were in a friendly social environment face to face.

Hope you accept.

Sorry.

 

[iQ Speakers]

Over the next couple of days I will be experimenting with different discrete Op Amps in the input stage of our Hypex amps. I guess what we are aiming to do is colour the sound make it warmer, riicher and slightly different. I will be trying the V5 from Burson in Australia and the Sparkos Labs ones from the states. The Sparkos Labs one runs in full Class A they both cost around $130 a pair!

 

[Vladimir]

I think I read somewhere (Audiokarma forum IIRC) most low power SS devices like op-amps run basically in Class A since there is no issue dissipating the small amounts of heat at signal level. Probably not all of them do, so some list this as a feature in their spec sheet. Wether it changes something sound wise it probably depends on the whole circuit, but Class A operation does have better linearity for that component.

 

[iQ Speakers]

These obviously have a much greater heat disipation potential and run much higher class A current than any monolithic chip, there is all room for multiple capacitors!

 

[Vladimir]

I once bought a set of small heatsinks (milled copper, originally used for Raspberry Pi) online that came with sticky heatpads and really worked well on a headphone amplifier chip. It used to have the PCB as only cooling solution and the bloody thing went to almost 90 C degrees with music playing, 60 while idling. After an hour of playing music I felt like some bass notes were a tad distorted. After adding the heatsinks I measured with the thermal probe (on my DMM) and the temp droped by 10 degrees. There was no room for a bigger sink otherwise I could have gone much lower in temp. I felt like the loose bass was improved but mind you this wasn't a proper DBT. Just knowing I 'improved' something made me feel better.

 

[matt49]

Anyhoo, matt49 you're a teacher? ...no wonder the world's going to heck.

no need for that at all.

You're right.

Matt49 I apologise I did not mean that in a derogatory sense.

I often forget that tone is often lost in text. Just typed as I would say if we were in a friendly social environment face to face.

Hope you accept.

Sorry.

That is gracious of you, and of course I accept the apology. I had in any case assumed it was said in jest.