Why does my CD player sound better than my streamer

[cheeseboy]

Agreed.

So many threads are derailed by this basic miss-understanding. Enthusiasts try different components, dacs and in paricularly cables and report their findings, this in itself is fine, but the fall out from it is not.

Reporting such impressions as 'facts' will often get called but this brings a response from the poster to the effect that the 'differences' are so obvious that anyone who doesn't hear them must be 'deaf'.

What is really not understood is that most 'sceptics' hear the differences too, but having been 'round the hi-fi block' a few more times, they have a better idea of what is actually going on. Cables may well make a difference in some cases but if the difference is 'huge', 'night and day' or whatever, you can be fairly sure that it is illusory.

Pointing this out, whether politely or otherwise, does tend to raise some hackles but it is hard to let some things go when you know that many people read the threads for advice (far more than actually post) and may find themselves heading very much in the wrong direction.

What can be even more pernicious is the seemingly open minded and logical suggestion to 'listen for yourself' and 'make your own mind up' when such suggestions simply lead the unsuspecting into the arms of the 'foo' and 'snake-oil' salesmen.

couldn't agree more

 

[matt49]

The issue here is that I have, over the years, tested these effects and know them to be all in the mind (my mind that is), but despite being 100% sure that there is no difference, I still hear what I hear.

This is the main crux of most of these threads I feel. It tends to end up being those that for whatever reason refuse to accept there is no real word difference because they hear it. Yet, at the same time would happily accept visual illusions as just that - ie an illusion, but one that fools the mind in to interperating something differently. Kind of odd really that somebody can accept visual illusions, but not auditory ones.

Agreed.

So many threads are derailed by this basic miss-understanding. Enthusiasts try different components, dacs and in paricularly cables and report their findings, this in itself is fine, but the fall out from it is not.

Reporting such impressions as 'facts' will often get called but this brings a response from the poster to the effect that the 'differences' are so obvious that anyone who doesn't hear them must be 'deaf'.

What is really not understood is that most 'sceptics' hear the differences too, but having been 'round the hi-fi block' a few more times, they have a better idea of what is actually going on. Cables may well make a difference in some cases but if the difference is 'huge', 'night and day' or whatever, you can be fairly sure that it is illusory.

Pointing this out, whether politely or otherwise, does tend to raise some hackles but it is hard to let some things go when you know that many people read the threads for advice (far more than actually post) and may find themselves heading very much in the wrong direction.

What can be even more pernicious is the seemingly open minded and logical suggestion to 'listen for yourself' and 'make your own mind up' when such suggestions simply lead the unsuspecting into the arms of the 'foo' and 'snake-oil' salesmen.

There’s always the option of just ignoring it all. I mean no-one’s obliged to join in a moral crusade to rid the world of snake-oil salesmen. And there are more productive ways to spend one’s time.

 

[cheeseboy]

There’s always the option of just ignoring it all. I mean no-one’s obliged to join in a moral crusade to rid the world of snake-oil salesmen. And there are more productive ways to spend one’s time.

true, but the reverse also applies I guess given we already have a lot of magazines and websites that help perpetuate myths etc...

 

[Vladimir]

It is a problem because:

1) I don't want to pay for placebo.

2) I don't like it when people think I'm a gulible idiot with expensive cables, gramophones and valve amps, simply because they read 'Audiophile' under my CV interests. Boy I sure did learn my lesson not to say I'm an audiophile in pro shops.

3) I like to discuss about audio engineering and acoustics as part of this hobby and learn things. I dislike being told off by ignorant shopping snobs based on how much my gear is priced.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Pompous know it all? No, not me. There's loads of things I don't know and I'm still learning. But some things are just obvious twaddle. However, and it's a very big however, internet forums are not often the best platform for exchanging thoughts and ideas without misinterpretation. (And, as you say, without unintentionally coming across as a pompous know it all. Or a blithering idiot.)

So let's start from scratch. I too have a Mac Mini that I use as a music server (among other uses). I too also have all my CDs stored as lossless rips on a NAS. Are you seriously suggesting that when I play music on my Mac, the audio files are going to sound different depending on if I'm streaming them from the NAS via my WiFi network / homeplug network, or if I'm streaming the same files from a storage device directy connected to my Mac via a USB cable? If not then fair enough.

There is definitely a difference, to my ears. Over WiFi, the sound image is 'smeared', or 'softer'. - I ran the comparison again last night, and it is definitely there. Small, I grant you, - but is there.

I know all about 'bits are bits' and 'it cannot possibly be there'......blah, blah, blah, - except that I can hear the difference, - and for critical listening, particularly to solo vocals or instruments, I much prefer the USB delivery.

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

 

[cheeseboy]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Serious quesion, why is it insulting to suggest that it could be a placebo effect? The placebo effect is real and does cause people to hear differences (amongst other things), why should this be any different?

 

[Craig M.]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Are you aware that intelligence has nothing to do with whether or not 'you're imagining it'?

If you had a problem with data transmission over wifi, don't you think you'd get drop-outs rather than the data stream being altered in such a way that only the 'sound image' is changed? If files were able to be changed in this way, what would that mean for transferring any files over wifi?

 

[davedotco]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Are you aware that intelligence has nothing to do with whether or not 'you're imagining it'?

If you had a problem with data transmission over wifi, don't you think you'd get drop-outs rather than the data stream being altered in such a way that only the 'sound image' is changed? If files were able to be changed in this way, what would that mean for transferring any files over wifi?

This is very much the crux of these types of issues, if you fail to appreciate the scientific explanation as to why changes in sound quality are impossible in this scenario, then you are ignorant, if you say the differences do not exist then you are deaf, or, even worse, the owner of a poor system.

Like infiniteloop, I hear a difference, but this is in sighted tests and not level matched, so I know they are flawed.

Some people seem to think that, if you know about expectation bias, placebo effect and the rest, you can put them out of your mind and make valid judgement, but this is nonsense. You simply can not control these effects, as a few minutes watching the Horizon program's McGurk effect video will prove.

I have taken part in enough third party conducted blind tests to know just how easily fooled our senses can be, and once again urge anyone given the chance to take part in one to do so.

 

[matt49]

Some people seem to think that, if you know about expectation bias, placebo effect and the rest, you can put them out of your mind and make valid judgement, but this is nonsense. You simply can not control these effects, as a few minutes watching the Horizon program's McGurk effect video will prove.

On the contrary, you can reduce the McGurk effect dramatically if you want to: just speak Chinese.

 

[davedotco]

Some people seem to think that, if you know about expectation bias, placebo effect and the rest, you can put them out of your mind and make valid judgement, but this is nonsense. You simply can not control these effects, as a few minutes watching the Horizon program's McGurk effect video will prove.

On the contrary, you can reduce the McGurk effect dramatically if you want to: just speak Chinese.

One of the ladies who lives next door to me is thai, will that work?

 

[MajorFubar]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Without meaning to insult your intelligence in any way whatsoever (because placebo is not linked to intelligence), you *are* imagining it, and deep down you must know that to be true, because the consequence of it being at all factual would have huge impacts on every single IT system across the planet that transfers any kind of conceivable file-type across the billions of WANs and LANs that exist globally. You already seem to have had the lecture about bits being bits etc etc so no point my repeating it here. But it would be better for you to you accept it's a placebo-effect you're perfectly happy to live with. It doesn't make you a weaker man.

 

[matt49]

Some people seem to think that, if you know about expectation bias, placebo effect and the rest, you can put them out of your mind and make valid judgement, but this is nonsense. You simply can not control these effects, as a few minutes watching the Horizon program's McGurk effect video will prove.

On the contrary, you can reduce the McGurk effect dramatically if you want to: just speak Chinese.

One of the ladies who lives next door to me is thai, will that work?

Yes, assuming you're prepared to learn Thai, you should experience less McGurk effect when talking to her. Alternatively if you want to up your McGurk effect, live in Australia.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Without meaning to insult your intelligence in any way whatsoever (because placebo is not linked to intelligence), you *are* imagining it, and deep down you must know that to be true, because the consequence of it being at all factual would have huge impacts on every single IT system across the planet that transfers any kind of conceivable file-type across the billions of WANs and LANs that exist globally. You already seem to have had the lecture about bits being bits etc etc so no point my repeating it here. But it would be better for you to you accept it's a placebo-effect you're perfectly happy to live with. It doesn't make you a weaker man.

Clearly, I'm wasting my time.

But I will leave you with this to ponder:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-hugo-tt-preampdacheadphone-amp

Perhaps you can explain why "Chord's Rob Watts encourages users to connect with the USB input if possible."?

After all, aren't all digital inputs the same?

 

[MajorFubar]

Clearly, I'm wasting my time.

No, probably I am, because there's nothing I'm ever going to be able to say that will convince you that what you're suggesting is proposterous. You only have to look at the wider impact of what the consequence would be.

Computers, digital audio, bits, bytes, WANs and LANs and all the associated technologies and protocols to make them work weren't discovered like electricity, lightwaves, soundwaves and magnetism (with the slight possibility that there just might be something about them we don't yet know), they are entirely man made, and as such we know exactly how they work. If you can't see why what you're suggesting is absurd, you're going to just have to believe (though you won't) that it just is totally, utterly and absolutely impossible for an audio file to sound different on your computer depending on whether it's being streamed from a NAS over your LAN or from USB storage.

But I will leave you with this to ponder:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-hugo-tt-preampdacheadphone-amp

Perhaps you can explain why "Chord's Rob Watts encourages users to connect with the USB input if possible."?

After all, aren't all digital inputs the same?

No, that's not even remotely the same thing. He's advising people to connect his DAC via USB to probably take advantage of the asynchronous clock. It has nothing whatsoever to do with USB vs network storage. Now I've never personally been able to hear a difference between an optical connection to a DAC and a cabled one via USB, but I can buy into why USB is generally considered preferrable when connecting a DAC to a computer, and so I too would always recommend it.

 

[Covenanter]

Clearly, I'm wasting my time.

No, probably I am, because there's nothing I'm ever going to be able to say that will convince you that what you're suggesting is proposterous. You only have to look at the wider impact of what the consequence would be.

Computers, digital audio, bits, bytes, WANs and LANs and all the associated technologies and protocols to make them work weren't discovered like electricity, lightwaves, soundwaves and magnetism (with the slight possibility that there just might be something about them we don't yet know), they are entirely man made, and as such we know exactly how they work. If you can't see why what you're suggesting is absurd, you're going to just have to believe (though you won't) that it just is totally, utterly and absolutely impossible for an audio file to sound different on your computer depending on whether it's being streamed from a NAS over your LAN or from USB storage.

But I will leave you with this to ponder:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-hugo-tt-preampdacheadphone-amp

Perhaps you can explain why "Chord's Rob Watts encourages users to connect with the USB input if possible."?

After all, aren't all digital inputs the same?

No, that's not even remotely the same thing. He's advising people to connect his DAC via USB to probably take advantage of the asynchronous clock. It has nothing whatsoever to do with USB vs network storage. Now I've never personally been able to hear a difference between an optical connection to a DAC and a cabled one via USB, but I can buy into why USB is generally considered preferrable when connecting a DAC to a computer, and so I too would always recommend it.

+1

Chris

 

[Infiniteloop]

Clearly, I'm wasting my time.

No, probably I am, because there's nothing I'm ever going to be able to say that will convince you that what you're suggesting is proposterous. You only have to look at the wider impact of what the consequence would be.

Computers, digital audio, bits, bytes, WANs and LANs and all the associated technologies and protocols to make them work weren't discovered like electricity, lightwaves, soundwaves and magnetism (with the slight possibility that there just might be something about them we don't yet know), they are entirely man made, and as such we know exactly how they work. If you can't see why what you're suggesting is absurd, you're going to just have to believe (though you won't) that it just is totally, utterly and absolutely impossible for an audio file to sound different on your computer depending on whether it's being streamed from a NAS over your LAN or from USB storage.

But I will leave you with this to ponder:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-hugo-tt-preampdacheadphone-amp

Perhaps you can explain why "Chord's Rob Watts encourages users to connect with the USB input if possible."?

After all, aren't all digital inputs the same?

No, that's not even remotely the same thing. He's advising people to connect his DAC via USB to probably take advantage of the asynchronous clock. It has nothing whatsoever to do with USB vs network storage. Now I've never personally been able to hear a difference between an optical connection to a DAC and a cabled one via USB, but I can buy into why USB is generally considered preferrable when connecting a DAC to a computer, and so I too would always recommend it.

Except that isn't what I have been saying.

I've been saying that I can hear a difference between streaming over wifi and USB. - And that I prefer USB. - Seems like maybe you've explained why I prefer USB and that yes, there is a difference.

Thank You.

Anyway, I'm bored with this.

 

[MajorFubar]

Except that isn't what I have been saying.

I've been saying that I can hear a difference between streaming over wifi and USB. - And that I prefer USB. - Seems like maybe you've explained why I prefer USB and that yes, there is a difference.

Thank You.

Anyway, I'm bored with this.

Well I did ask you a page ago to please clarify what you were suggesting in case we'd all got the wrong end of the stick? You didn't at the time correct me and say that you weren't talking about network storage accessed by WiFi and USB storage.

 

[SteveR750]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Without meaning to insult your intelligence in any way whatsoever (because placebo is not linked to intelligence), you *are* imagining it, and deep down you must know that to be true, because the consequence of it being at all factual would have huge impacts on every single IT system across the planet that transfers any kind of conceivable file-type across the billions of WANs and LANs that exist globally. You already seem to have had the lecture about bits being bits etc etc so no point my repeating it here. But it would be better for you to you accept it's a placebo-effect you're perfectly happy to live with. It doesn't make you a weaker man.

Clearly, I'm wasting my time.

But I will leave you with this to ponder:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-hugo-tt-preampdacheadphone-amp

Perhaps you can explain why "Chord's Rob Watts encourages users to connect with the USB input if possible."?

After all, aren't all digital inputs the same?

That's got nothing to do with the interconnect, it's all about the way the data is sent from the source and read by the DAC which is hugely important. Async USB vs Optical vs S/PDIF is a valid discussion, as they depend on how well it is implemented and executed.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Suggestions as to why this is, other than 'you're imagining it' (please don't insult my intelligence) would be welcome.

Without meaning to insult your intelligence in any way whatsoever (because placebo is not linked to intelligence), you *are* imagining it, and deep down you must know that to be true, because the consequence of it being at all factual would have huge impacts on every single IT system across the planet that transfers any kind of conceivable file-type across the billions of WANs and LANs that exist globally. You already seem to have had the lecture about bits being bits etc etc so no point my repeating it here. But it would be better for you to you accept it's a placebo-effect you're perfectly happy to live with. It doesn't make you a weaker man.

Clearly, I'm wasting my time.

But I will leave you with this to ponder:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-hugo-tt-preampdacheadphone-amp

Perhaps you can explain why "Chord's Rob Watts encourages users to connect with the USB input if possible."?

After all, aren't all digital inputs the same?

That's got nothing to do with the interconnect, it's all about the way the data is sent from the source and read by the DAC which is hugely important. Async USB vs Optical vs S/PDIF is a valid discussion, as they depend on how well it is implemented and executed.

...... And is obviously why I can hear a difference between WiFi and USB streaming (Even though what I'm told to believe is that it's just a Placebo).

Thank You.

 

[SteveR750]

...... And is obviously why I can hear a difference between WiFi and USB streaming (Even though what I'm told to believe is that it's just a Placebo).

Thank You.

Are you comparing NAS over wi fi ->what device? -> DAC versus PC via USB -> DAC?

If I've got it right (sorry not read though the entire thread) There's more than one USB data transfer method, possibly a proprietry driver, a media player that may or may not bypass windows resampler or k mixer. All of these things could have an effect, so it's not surprising you might hear differences.

If you'r simply comparing the SQ of your PC streaming from a NAS compared to the hard drive, everything else being equal then it's difficult to see how any different analogue sound effects can be generated. If your wi fi isn't up to the data transmission speed it will simply drop out, not sound worse. It's rather like streaming spotify off the web. If your ISP speed cannot cope the music just stops, rebuffers and carries on, but always at whatever quality (bit rate) you set it at, that cannot change.

 

[unsleepable]

No, that's not even remotely the same thing. He's advising people to connect his DAC via USB to probably take advantage of the asynchronous clock. It has nothing whatsoever to do with USB vs network storage. Now I've never personally been able to hear a difference between an optical connection to a DAC and a cabled one via USB, but I can buy into why USB is generally considered preferrable when connecting a DAC to a computer, and so I too would always recommend it.

This depends largely on the device. For instance, with the regular Hugo it's exactly the other way around—optical is preferred to USB because the USB implementation does not seem to be very good, even being asynchronous and all. Also said by the designed himself (that optical is preferred, not that USB is not very good, of course). And there are many well-known examples of gear that have this same problem.

Following this thread, it seems to me that what we all maybe agree on is that digital inputs should all sound the same. But there are cases in which they don't. Hi-fi vendors don't make wi-fi or USB controllers. Even those that use PGPAs instead of off-the-shelf DAC chipsets, don't make the PGPAs themselves—they just program them. So implementation of digital hi-fi gear pretty much consists of assembling together a number of ready-made, sensitive chips, with more or less success.

It is equally easy for me to believe that there are quality differences among the digital inputs of a particular device, as that those differences are only subjectively perceived by the listener. I guess it would take more than one listener to discern one from the other—but I would at least not discard the former just on the premise that "bits are bits." I also think that digital inputs should all sound the same, and if they don't, that there is something flawed in the system.

 

[cheeseboy]

For instance, with the regular Hugo it's exactly the other way around—optical is preferred to USB because the USB implementation does not seem to be very good, even being asynchronous and all. Also said by the designed himself (that optical is preferred, not that USB is not very good, of course).

cables and all that jazz aside, I think what's worrying about this is the fact that they openly admit the USB implementation on a very expensive bit of kit isn't up to scratch. That's not good enough. If they can't get it up to scractch for that price, they should either not include it, or make sure it does work properly. IMHO of course

 

[unsleepable]

cables and all that jazz aside, I think what's worrying about this is the fact that they openly admit the USB implementation on a very expensive bit of kit isn't up to scratch. That's not good enough. If they can't get it up to scractch for that price, they should either not include it, or make sure it does work properly. IMHO of course

Couldn't agree more.

In their defence, at least they are open about it. Other vendors suffer from the same problem and still claim that the USB implementation in their gear is top-notch—e.g., Nad, Mytek. In my opinion, Naim made a very smart move by licensing the required technology for their USB implementation from another company with more experience on the subject.

The fact remains that sometimes, and not so seldomly, digital inputs differ.

 

[SteveR750]

cables and all that jazz aside, I think what's worrying about this is the fact that they openly admit the USB implementation on a very expensive bit of kit isn't up to scratch. That's not good enough. If they can't get it up to scractch for that price, they should either not include it, or make sure it does work properly. IMHO of course

Couldn't agree more.

In their defence, at least they are open about it. Other vendors suffer from the same problem and still claim that the USB implementation in their gear is top-notch—e.g., Nad, Mytek. In my opinion, Naim made a very smart move by licensing the required technology for their USB implementation from another company with more experience on the subject.

The fact remains that sometimes, and not so seldomly, digital inputs differ.

I found the same when I loaned the Qute. From memory, there wasn't a Chord USB 2 driver, so it was relying on reclocking the data prior to being processed in the DAC. I guess they just didn't spend a lot of time trying to perfect this, in my limited experience, the best SQ for a DAC has been obtained by using a proprietry driver for USB 2 mode, so the PC clock is completely redundant. I've got the dacmagic XS, which I use in two different notebooks. In both, the default plug and play USB 1 mode sounds better than the onboard Realtek soundcards, but install the Cambridge ASIO driver and it's so much better again, plus you can stream up to 192k sample rates as opposed to 96 in USB 1 mode; if that's important to you.

 

[steve_1979]

For instance, with the regular Hugo it's exactly the other way around—optical is preferred to USB because the USB implementation does not seem to be very good, even being asynchronous and all. Also said by the designed himself (that optical is preferred, not that USB is not very good, of course).

cables and all that jazz aside, I think what's worrying about this is the fact that they openly admit the USB implementation on a very expensive bit of kit isn't up to scratch. That's not good enough. If they can't get it up to scractch for that price, they should either not include it, or make sure it does work properly. IMHO of course

This is only a guess as I know nothing about the Hugo.

But could it just be a case that they prefer optical because it has the advantage of electrically isolating the unit from the source (which is usually a computer if USB is being used). This means it's less likely to get damaged if something goes wrong with your computer.