Question for Sylvia: Splitting AV output

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avd62aFe9j2U1@mid.individual.net...

On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avardcFslfpU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
faithful reproduction.

True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not such a
big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a FAR
more
accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
available.

**Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.

Oh we are in for one of those "I can hear above 22kHz" arguments "but I
don't need to prove it even to myself of course!"
OK, there are higher sampling rate options just for you!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdfiiFg76hU1@mid.individual.net...

On 14/05/2013 10:06 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/05/2013 7:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avardcFslfpU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
'true'
audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
to
the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
faithful reproduction.

True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not
such a
big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a
FAR more
accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
available.

**Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.

I think it can be taken as read in context that the sampling rate (and
number of bits sampled) will be high enough that the will be nothing
left of the quantisation noise that is capable of being heard by the
ear. The ear itself is not an analogue device.

**I take NOTHING as read. Unless the precise specs of the digital system
are specified, there can be no blanket claim that the effects of that
digital system are inaudible.

For instance: There is abundant evidence to prove that a (say) 24/96
digital audio system is preferred by some listeners (in a blind test) over
a 16/44 (CD quality) in a suitably high resolution system, using otherwise
identical material. I would also add that there is considerable evidence
to suggest that many listeners can easily pick the difference between DACs
(Digital to Analogue Converters). In fact, some of the best DACs are
considered to be those manufactured by Philips back in the late 1980s.

Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
only their personal auditory/brain connections.

The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

And can be done so quite well, with performance FAR above any purely analog
system despite your spurious claims.

For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape (15ips,
played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of a
recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is the
mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
distortion, noise etc. over another.
Preferences are like assholes, everybody has one, and those who think theirs
is the only one that counts are the latter.

FWIW: <snip

Bugger all!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avditaFgr92U1@mid.individual.net...

On 14/05/2013 10:41 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

I didn't say that the ear was digital, but the processing by the ear
involves the generation of nerve pulses by hair cells with the frequency
being encoded into which nerves are triggered, and amplitude by the the
pulse rate. What the brain gets is hardly analogue.

Dead right, but then they have no idea what analog is. An "analog" tape
recorder using high frequency bias can be modelled as a sampled system, just
the same as a digital sampled system, but without the binary encoding. Both
use filtering to reconstruct as analog signals in the usual definition of
the word long before they ever reach the speakers, and then the auditory
system changes it all completely once again before it is interpreted by the
brain.
The weakest link of course is the auditory/brain interface, something the
golden ears claim they alone are immune from, as long as they don't ever
have to prove it!

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:avdaofFf8spU2@mid.individual.net...

"Good quality" audio leads are a crock,

That shows how much you know then

Right, poor quality ones are often mechanically unreliable. Of course good
quality ones are not as expensive as the "magic smoke and mirror" ones

Trevor.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 4:06 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avd62aFe9j2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avardcFslfpU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no 'true'
audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation to
the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
faithful reproduction.

True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not such a
big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a FAR
more
accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
available.

**Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.

Oh we are in for one of those "I can hear above 22kHz" arguments "but I
don't need to prove it even to myself of course!"
OK, there are higher sampling rate options just for you!

**_I_ don't claim to be able to hear past 22kHz. I don't doubt that some
can, however. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a medium sized importer of
hi fi equipment. I was asked to pop down to the new warehouse that the
company had leased. I walked in the door and immediately walked back
out. I found something intolerable about the place. I glanced around and
spotted some ultrasonic burglar alarm sensors. I located the power
supply and shut it off. I was then able to complete my job. I returned a
few days later with a micrphone, preamp, CRO and frequency counter. I
switched the system on and off and was able to see, very clearly, a high
level of 25kHz signal throughout much of the warehouse. Given that I had
already measured my own hearing and found that I could not reliably hear
past 19kHz, I was surprised. However, it is a common fallacy to assume
that human hearing 'cuts off' at 20kHz. It does not. It is severely
attenuated.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kms6uc$7pl$1@speranza.aioe.org...

felix_unger wrote:
I guess it depends on what equipment you have. I tested various leads
on my audio system years ago and could hear differences between
leads. I even tried household electrical cable, and that can work
well as a cheap alternative. It also depends on the length, as you
say. You might not notice the/much difference between leads if they
are very short. Even if there's no difference in audio quality there
can be tonal differences, which can decide a users preference. I must
confess however that I missed that you were referring specifically to
audio leads, since the discussion was originally about A/V equipment.
In the case of quality vs cheap video leads the difference is very
noticeable. I can even see the difference between the various grades
of Monster cable that I use. And It comes down a lot to
experimentation also, and compatibilities due to differing
specifications between various brands- assuming you have a mixture
from different makers as many ppl do.

Okay, but others have not heard the difference.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2849/do-expensive-premium-speaker-cables-actually-make-a-difference
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

That's the beauty of uncontrolled tests conducted by themselves with
significant time gaps and all. You can delude yourself into any result you
like, but as long as you are happy, all is fine. When they claim their self
biased *opinion* to the world as fact though, they look like the idiots that
they are.
However there *are* differences in cables of course, using long lengths of
bell wire with giant amps is silly, and some interconnects have significant
inductance or capacitance that can cause problems in some cases. But the
biggest difference is usually the mechanical qualities.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avddauFfnsmU1@mid.individual.net...

The point of gold plating is that gold is a soft metal that doesn't
oxidise, which helps ensure a consistent connection. I've had enough
trouble with poor audio connections to recognise the benefit of that. If
course, better still is a screw clamped connector.

Not necessarily, metal creep under pressure means screw clamps often loosen
over time.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdfn1Fg76hU2@mid.individual.net...

**Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily very
tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver, which can
be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's superior
conductivity is also a bonus.

But needs to be kept clean as the tarnish film that can form is not such a
good conductor.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 4:14 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdfiiFg76hU1@mid.individual.net...
On 14/05/2013 10:06 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 14/05/2013 7:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/05/2013 2:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:avardcFslfpU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:
In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
'true'
audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I would
suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
to
the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task of
faithful reproduction.

True idiots you mean, those that actually have a clue (perhaps not
such a
big percentage admittedly) know that after adding dither and a
reconstruction filter, there is no quantitisation remaining, only a
FAR more
accurate signal than can be obtained by ANY analog recording method
available.

**Unless the sampling rate is specified, you cannot state such a thing.

I think it can be taken as read in context that the sampling rate (and
number of bits sampled) will be high enough that the will be nothing
left of the quantisation noise that is capable of being heard by the
ear. The ear itself is not an analogue device.

**I take NOTHING as read. Unless the precise specs of the digital system
are specified, there can be no blanket claim that the effects of that
digital system are inaudible.

For instance: There is abundant evidence to prove that a (say) 24/96
digital audio system is preferred by some listeners (in a blind test) over
a 16/44 (CD quality) in a suitably high resolution system, using otherwise
identical material. I would also add that there is considerable evidence
to suggest that many listeners can easily pick the difference between DACs
(Digital to Analogue Converters). In fact, some of the best DACs are
considered to be those manufactured by Philips back in the late 1980s.

Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
only their personal auditory/brain connections.

**Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it,
compared to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few
seconds of listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league.
I assumed, as you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

The ear is, most assuredly, not a digital system. And, with any audio
system, the digital signal must be, at some point, converted into an
analogue signal, before being processed by the human ear.

And can be done so quite well, with performance FAR above any purely analog
system despite your spurious claims.

**And again, SOME digital systems are capable of exceptionally fine
performance. It depends on the system.

For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape (15ips,
played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of a
recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is the
mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
distortion, noise etc. over another.

**Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote.

I had access to the same tapes that the vinyl and the CD was made from.
The music was Neil Diamond's Hot August Night. It was recorded on
analogue tape. The tape I used was a second generation master, stored by
EMI in their vaults. It was the same tape used to manufacture CDs.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kmrpmm$42j$1@speranza.aioe.org...

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:

In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
'true' audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I
would suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
to the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task
of faithful reproduction.

If the quantised approximation is close enough, you cannot hear the
difference, and it does have the advantage of perfect copyability and
identical repeat playings.

And an "analog" tape recording is only "quantised" to the magentic particle
size anyway, and "sampled" at the high frequency bias rate!
Not that an audiophool would understand that irony.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kmrqpd$715$1@speranza.aioe.org...

Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve
amplifiers?

They're commonly known as audiophools. What people *prefer* does not
have to bear any relationship to absolute performance, just their
personal notion of it.
Valve amps are preferred by many electric guitarists for their
distortion qualities of course, something you may choose to *produce*
a certain musical "sound", but not a good choice for musical
*reproduction* of that sound, and certainly not when you don't want
that distortion at all.

Some people might prefer valve amps just because they "sound" better, not
because they reproduce better.

Right, "sounds better" is purely an opinion everyone gets to make for
themselves.

There are so many factors that affect the sound that gets in your ears -
the speakers and the acoustics of the room being two huge ones. It may be
that valve amps in combination with other factors produce a result that
those people enjoy listening to the most.

And I have no problem with that, only that they never admit is is purely
their subjective opinion, and find the need to argue some absolute
superiority when there demonstrably is none.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:avdalvFf8spU1@mid.individual.net...

The tonal qualities of valve amps is legendary

Sure is, that's why everyone uses solid state now

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdgedFgbsbU2@mid.individual.net...

On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

**For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make a
statement about the person.

I'd be more charitable than that, they have an *opinion* it sounds better
*to them* and get to spend their money however they want.
Those who simply want to make a statement usually do it with an expensive
car (or a rare one like your example) expensive jewlery, expensive clothes
etc.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ave475Fk6i4U1@mid.individual.net...
<snip>

However, it is a common fallacy to assume that human hearing 'cuts off' at
20kHz. It does not. It is severely attenuated.

As are any remaining HF signals on vinyl and tape. Fortunately we now have
high sample rate digital if you really want to record those ultrasonic
alarms.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 4:47 PM, Trevor wrote:

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:kmrpmm$42j$1@speranza.aioe.org...
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/05/2013 10:29 AM, felix_unger wrote:

In that case you will need good quality audio leads. However no
'true' audiophile would want anything less than digital audio I
would suggest.

True audiophiles recognise that digital is a quantised approximation
to the true waveform, and that only analogue media are up to the task
of faithful reproduction.

If the quantised approximation is close enough, you cannot hear the
difference, and it does have the advantage of perfect copyability and
identical repeat playings.


And an "analog" tape recording is only "quantised" to the magentic particle
size anyway, and "sampled" at the high frequency bias rate!
Not that an audiophool would understand that irony.

**Typical bias frequencies lie about 110kHz for most tape systems. A
frequency which is well in excess of a 16/44 digital system. According
to Nyquist, that tells us a theoretical maximum frequency response in
excess of 50kHz. Well past 16/44 digital.




--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 4:40 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdfn1Fg76hU2@mid.individual.net...
**Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily very
tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver, which can
be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's superior
conductivity is also a bonus.

But needs to be kept clean as the tarnish film that can form is not such a
good conductor.

**Silver easily forms a silver sulphide, which is highly conductive.
Silver oxide does not form easily. In any case, the reason for using
silver lies with it's ability to be thickly and robustly plated on high
current connectors. Something RF engineers have known for decades.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/05/2013 5:00 PM, Trevor wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdgedFgbsbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/05/2013 6:11 PM, felix_unger wrote:
So why then do the most fastidious audiophiles prefer valve amplifiers?

**For the same reason that some drivers prefer Model T Fords. They make a
statement about the person.

I'd be more charitable than that, they have an *opinion* it sounds better
*to them* and get to spend their money however they want.

**I was being a little flippant. The vast majority own such products as
a statement. SOME listeners use such equipment for valid reasons. They
may include:

* The use of loudspeakers that have been 'voiced' to be used with
certain amplifiers.
* The use of loudspeakers whose impedance characteristic is such that
the vast majority of solid state amplifiers cannot deal with it. Like this:
http://www.rageaudio.com.au/modules/gallery/view.php?a=Accustat&image=091027105452_accu.jpg

Those who simply want to make a statement usually do it with an expensive
car (or a rare one like your example) expensive jewlery, expensive clothes
etc.

**Or this:

http://www.audionote.co.jp/en/products/power_amplifier/ongaku.html

That POS costs a cool $250k and sounds about as good as the output stage
in my TV set. Not quite as much power though.

Or this POS:

http://www.sakurasystems.com/products/47amp.html

Same output stage that you can find in a TV set. It'll set you back
several grand.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ave4liFk9ahU1@mid.individual.net...

Everyone gets an opinion which proves nothing about absolute performance,
only their personal auditory/brain connections.

**Of course. Up until a few months ago, I might had disregarded the
opinions as nonsense. When a client dropped a 23 year old Marantz CD
player in for service, I took the time to carefully listen to it, compared
to my late model Harman Kardon. My heart sank, within a few seconds of
listening to the Marantz. The HK was not in the same league. I assumed, as
you do, that the printed specs tell me all I need to know.

Nope, never assume that. I never assume it is easy to audibly compare items
by simply swapping one for the other without carefully controlled test
conditions either.

**And again, SOME digital systems are capable of exceptionally fine
performance. It depends on the system.

Of course. The real benefit for most people is even a cheap CD player will
outperform a turntable costing many mutiples of it's price, and while some
CD's are badly mastered, finding vinyl that is *not* badly manufactured is a
far harder ask :-(

For my part, I took part in some blind tests back in the early 1980s,
using 2nd generation master tapes of live music. We compared tape
(15ips,
played through Otari and Studer machines) to a Sony CDP101 and vinyl,
through a high end turntable. The master tapes were preferred over the
vinyl, which was preferred over the 16/44 digital. Further testing
revealed that the CD was preferred over the vinyl, using certain
contemporary recordings (Elton John's Two Low For Zero).

Which is the usual fallacy of using two completely different versions of
a
recording and pretending they are the same when all you are testing is
the
mastering differences and an individuals preference for one level of FR,
distortion, noise etc. over another.

**Perhaps you failed to read what I wrote.

No, the CD cannot be better than an analog master tape it came from, BUT it
can easily be better than a vinyl copy (or worse if the mastering is bad
enough), AND it can be far better if properly recorded digitally in the
first place.
Your test proved nothing other than your opinion of the different samples
you used for comparison.

I had access to the same tapes that the vinyl and the CD was made from.

Which were all different after mastering for the different mediums as I
said.

The music was Neil Diamond's Hot August Night. It was recorded on analogue
tape. The tape I used was a second generation master, stored by EMI in
their vaults. It was the same tape used to manufacture CDs.

So you don't understand that there are different processes involved in
getting a tape to vinyl or CD? The differences are easily measured, no need
for aural guessing games other than to establish personal preference of the
changes induced.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ave7e2Fkr6qU1@mid.individual.net...

**Typical bias frequencies lie about 110kHz for most tape systems. A
frequency which is well in excess of a 16/44 digital system. According to
Nyquist, that tells us a theoretical maximum frequency response in excess
of 50kHz. Well past 16/44 digital.

The original argument was sampling and quantisation didn't exist in analog
recording, not that the sample rate may be higher, or in fact lower than the
24/192 systems readily availble these days.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:ave7jbFkr6qU2@mid.individual.net...

On 14/05/2013 4:40 PM, Trevor wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:avdfn1Fg76hU2@mid.individual.net...
**Not only unnecessary, but actually bad. Gold plating is necessarily
very
tin and provides a poor choice for speaker connectors. Silver, which can
be plated far more thickly, is a far better choice. It's superior
conductivity is also a bonus.

But needs to be kept clean as the tarnish film that can form is not such
a
good conductor.

**Silver easily forms a silver sulphide, which is highly conductive.
Silver oxide does not form easily. In any case, the reason for using
silver lies with it's ability to be thickly and robustly plated on high
current connectors. Something RF engineers have known for decades.

Exactly, they are far better for RF use than audio, so that's where you
usually find them.

Trevor.