Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 18 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 733Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #511 of 2920 Old 06-10-2014, 11:31 PM
Member
 
Kees de Visser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

When you say that the reference wasn't hidden, do you mean that DXD 24/352.8 vs. 24/44.1 was unknown, but the live feed was always known?
Correct. The authors are quite honest in discussing potential flaws in the test and encourage others to continue the work.
Quote:
Considering that the experience of professional recording and mastering engineers working with high-resolution audio has not been confirmed and quantified in laboratory tests, we do not have a good validation of the testing methods used in our industry. The current subjective testing methodology does not seem to sufficiently reveal or amplify the features characterizing individual listening experiences. Perhaps this methodology, which is derived from food and fragrance testing, is not as readily effective for investigating subtle auditory sensations and the experience of music? We too would like to encourage more work in this area.
To me it sounds a bit like: audio professionals can hear advantages of hi-res audio, but lab tests fail to confirm audible differences, so the tests must be flawed. Interestingly the idea that there might (!) not be any audible differences seems unacceptable. That in itself merits further investigation IMO, but that would probably require psychology experts.

For those interested, here are the links to the original paper and a JAES reply from the authors on some remarks.
Kees de Visser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #512 of 2920 Old 06-11-2014, 01:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Interesting. Test is between live feed and 24/44.1 and 24/352.8.
Not between CD and Hires.

And the conclusion includes the preference for low bandwith playback of high bandwidth files.

I'll be back later...



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
> digits >
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
>
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
RayDunzl is offline  
post #513 of 2920 Old 06-11-2014, 02:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
That test wasn't the dxd pr show they expected. After all the discrediting of pcm in the dsd versus pcm debate they had to come up with 'dxd' for 24/382.8 instead of simply calling it pcm.

From discussing the audibility of the noise floor in a 16 bit channel under pristine conditions to a paper that shows no audible advantage for an even more absurd sample rate.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #514 of 2920 Old 06-11-2014, 03:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post


Technically, from what I have learned about the theoretical limitations of 16-24 bit and 44.1 and higher sampling rates, a higher bit depth and sample rate does present clear advantages.

I agree. It has never been any kind of a secret that higher sample rates and greater bit depth yields better numbers. Equipment that runs at these sample rates and bit depths has become plentiful and inexpensive. For example I have a M-Audio Microtrack that runs at 24/96 and has most noise and other artifacts that are better than 100 dB down in tests that I have run. That's all fine and good.
Quote:
We are 30+ years down the road from when 16/44 was chosen as "good enough given the present technical limitations". Whether or not a specific ear/brain can appreciate the higher resolutions, or a particular set of equipment can produce them, is another question, which, I think is being explored here along with the findings/ramblings of the interested/esteemed researchers/experts.

There is no way to break new ground for sound quality by exploring this path because it is already well-trod. In retrospect we now know that 44/16 is an overkill format - it is far more than what is required for excellent and even sonically transparent sound quality.
Quote:
If there is a Party Line being followed by Amirm, it would seem to be "Insist on Quality Engineering".

Vast overkill is not quality engineering, especially when other parts of the system are as vastly substandard as they are. A modern audio system is like a car with a 400 hp engine and a rubber band from an office supply store for its drive shaft. The weakest link in every audio system is generally the speakers and the room. While high end audio charlatans have been flogging magic DACs and new high rez formats for over a decade these critical areas the room and the speakers have been languishing.

I'm working on a paper on the history of speakers for audio. Other than the electromagnet instead of a permanent magnet, a cross sectional drawing of a speaker published in 1925 is not that much different from that of a modern speaker.

In fact we've got a pied piper whose own audio system as pictured appears to be vastly substandard by modern standards. Follow at your own risk!
koturban and kbarnes701 like this.
arnyk is offline  
post #515 of 2920 Old 06-11-2014, 04:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees de Visser View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Thank you, Kees. Were levels matched, and was it done double blind?
Levels were matched with the EMMLabs Switchman. According to the online manual it has a channel trim accuracy of 0.25 dB. Perhaps Arny can comment if that's accurate enough.
Yes, the test was double blind, but the (analog) reference wasn't hidden. This is discussed in the paper:
Quote:
We do not know whether their judgment would be the same if they did not know that A was the reference (hidden reference).

0.25 steps are pretty close to the threshold of audibility for level mismatches which is about 0.30 dB. People ask why we set the standard for ABX at 0.1 dB, and that was to leave no doubt. In general 0.1 dB or better level setting accuracy can be achieved by fairly ordinary means.

If the test methodology allowed the identity of one of the alternatives to be apparent to the listeners during the test, then that is probably the far greater fault.

The use of a live analog source may make some people feel better, but experienced recordists know that the greatest violence to live sound during recording happens before the music hits the output terminals of the microphones.

Overall, we've been down this road many times before. Doing a clean listening test is hardly rocket science. A bunch of audio shade tree mechanics from a little midwest audio club showed how to do it over 30 years ago. It has only gotten to be easier to do things right since then. At this point it can take no special hardware at all!

Every once and a while some people carrying the analog/high resolution uber alles banner try to cut some corners in the experimental design or data analysis in the hopes of sliding some false positives past honest critics and pander to high end true believers.
koturban likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #516 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by RayDunzl 
Vast overkill is not quality engineering, especially when other parts of the system are as vastly substandard as they are.
Goooooood morning Arny! No, the "o" letter is not broken on my keyboard. I am just excited to wake up again to another insightful post by Arny.

Arny, this is why you get the big bucks. I am totally unfamiliar with your characterization being that if "Quality Engineering."

Quality engineering in my book is looking at something as another engineer and admiring how well executed it is from design and manufacturing point of view. Inverted, you want to avoid the "red faced syndrome." That is when another engineer points out mistakes in your design that are so bad that your face turns read.

You have seen many examples of this from me. Here it is again in the form of performance of this ~$1000 AVR:



This is an AVR which on its own decided to inject a ton more distortion into the output of the DAC whenever it wants. Any engineer worth his salary would have made this same measurement, noticed this and fixed it.

This is bad engineering. This AVR costs more than twice as much as your Denon AVR I imagine. You would expect for that extra $500 to not have problems like this, yes? It is not like this a $200 AVR where every corner could be cut and the answer would be, "what did you expect for $200?" This is serious amount of money.

Likewise this familiar measurement on how much a device filters incoming jitter:



The top line is all ~$1,000 AVRs. They perform no filtering and some even amplify it! This is not quality engineering.

Now, it is true that often quality comes from "high-end" manufacturers and said gear does cost more money. Here is a comparison of an AVR to my 14 year old Mark Levinson DAC:



I am confident if we found the specs for the DAC in above AVR, it would rival what the Mark Levinson is doing. But they stuck it in a box, wrapped it with their "design" and in the process, degraded the performance.

I know what you are going to say: "if I don't hear it, it can be that bad." Well, that is not an answer to quality engineering. Quality engineering says that you can stand next to your design while your peers review it and be proud. I don't know how you can be proud in this category of performance.

What is the old saying? "Buy cheap, buy again?" I still use that Mark Levinson DAC, day in, day out. I bought quality engineering and hence, didn't need to upgrade.

The car analogy would be to have a car door close with a clunk and not line up with the rest of the panels in the car frame. You can still drive the car to work just as well. But that is a sign of bad engineering when competing products can do it right.

We should not have any resentment against a better performing device if it costs more money. It is a reference for Quality Engineering. If you can afford to buy it and do so, you won't ever feel bad when people bring up this topic. Your device aces such performance aspects as does my Mark Levinson DAC.

Buy a cheap AVR with poor DAC performance as I am showing above and you are always on the defensive. You spend days, weeks, months and maybe even years fighting the notion on forums. Why not put that energy and resources toward buying a quality engineered product and be done with it? What is so wrong in believing in quality engineering?

And why should we defend less than quality engineering? Why would we be advocates of manufacturers instead of ourselves?

Now, if you can't afford or justify spending this kind of money on quality engineering, that is fine. No one is at all pressuring *you* to buy such equipment. The argument is you trying to tell the person who has bought quality engineering he shouldn't have. Well, that is your standard. It is not that person or mine. It is a personal choice to invest in quality engineering. It is no more wrong than you investing in less well-engineered product.

We argue because that doesn't sit well with us. We are competitive males and love to "prove" we are actually smarter than the other guy because we paid less. Well, you paid less, and you got less performance! Yes, it may be performance you don't care about but you did get less of it. Less of quality engineering.

Oh you got me philosophical first thing in the morning.

Thanks again Arny.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #517 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 08:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post



This is an AVR which on its own decided to inject a ton more distortion into the output of the DAC whenever it wants. Any engineer worth his salary would have made this same measurement, noticed this and fixed it.
The above statement ignores relevant facts which I've explained here several times already, but apparently with zero effectiveness.

The source of the jitter is the multiplexing of audio and video that is inherent in the design of a HDMI link. HDMI is basically a serial link and all audio and video undergoes what is known as time division multiplexing. That means that the audio shows up in fits and spurts. It is up to the subsequent circuitry to erase as many artifacts of that fits and spurts process disappear below the threshold of audibility as it needs to. I know of no reliable evidence that there is a design failure here.

The AVR didn't decide to make the jitter, it actually did a pretty heroic job of making the jitter that is inherent in HDMI transmission of audio slip beneath audibility.

Try that on your Otari MX 5050! ;-) I'll bet that there is at least as much measurable jitter in its audio output, probably 100 times or more as much. Yet you tell me how great it sounds.

Last edited by arnyk; 06-12-2014 at 08:45 AM.
arnyk is offline  
post #518 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 10:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 465
A pity you didn't have the opportunity to examine other DAC's and processors, Amir. Would be interesting to see if the relative pecking order remains consistent. Did you bring your findings to Anthem either directly or in the dedicated thread here? I'd be curious to see if they would address it.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #519 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 10:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
The above statement ignores relevant facts which I've explained here several times already, but apparently with zero effectiveness.
Hi Arny. Nobody said we are good students . Others won't admit it but I am happy to say you are so much smarter than me that I can't follow your explanations of engineering or logic at times. If I may say so, this is not one of those occasions . Please see below.

Rats: looks like the new forum software is broken and doesn't let one quote more than one part. So I will highlight the rest of Arny's post in blue:

The source of the jitter is the multiplexing of audio and video that is inherent in the design of a HDMI link. HDMI is basically a serial link and all audio and video undergoes what is known as time division multiplexing. That means that the audio shows up in fits and spurts. It is up to the subsequent circuitry to erase as many artifacts of that fits and spurts process disappear below the threshold of audibility as it needs to. I know of no reliable evidence that there is a design failure here.

I apologize for being direct Arny but this is not remotely correct. Here is a close analogy: when you write a file to disk, the operating system divides it into chunks called blocks. A common block size is 4 Kbytes. That means a 4 Megabyte audio file will have 1000 such blocks scattered throughout the hard disk. Yet when you play that music file, you don't notice that at all. Indeed you can make 50 copies with each one scattered differently and they all play the same.

Likewise when you stream audio over your Ethernet network, it has a maximum segment size of about 1,500 bytes. Anything larger such as the above 4 K blocks must be divided into segments. The Ethernet driver at transmit end does this and sets a flag in each packet, telling the receiver that they are part of a larger packet. The receiver sees the same and assembles them back to the 4 k block (this is all assuming you are not using large segment size). None of this packetization does anything at all to introduce distortions in the output of your music device. It is all upstream, digital in nature, and hence will not impact the analog output of the DAC (there is a remote aspect of this where the noise can bleed into the DAC differently but let's not get into that for now).

So the fact that data over HDMI arrives "in fits and spurts" is not at all cause for distortion in the system DAC. That kind of data is common and no reason whatsoever for it to cause distortions that we see. The cause is different.

The AVR didn't decide to make the jitter, it actually did a pretty heroic job of making the jitter that is inherent in HDMI transmission of audio slip beneath audibility.

Sorry, no. Yes the HDMI interface like any other serial digital interface has jitter. In that regard, it is no different than S/PDIF. In both cases you must extract the clock properly, filter it and drive your DAC.

The reason you see the distortions is due to poor implementations. HDMI requires video to work. It also has built-in handshake for authentication and it performs encryption/decryption. Considerably more electronics turn on when you use HDMI as opposed to audio-only interfaces like S/PDIF. All of those circuits running concurrently will create a very noisy environment. It is the job of the designer to properly isolate the sensitive audio circuits from this type of interference.

Just to show you that distortions and jitter are not a function of HDMI, here is a comparison of Mark Levinson 502 processor compared to the same Anthem AVR:



We see superlative measurements of Mark Levinson 502 as a result of its excellent (quality) engineering. By the way The 502 is an obsolete product and was designed a few years before that AVR. Its distortion products/noise are down to -120 dB. Using the latter as our dynamic range, it is giving us equiv. of 20 bits of resolution. The AVR in comparison is managing 14 to 15 bits. In other words, failing to faithfully reproduce CD's 16-bit audio.

What experience do you have Arny in digital design? I know you are all knowing when it comes to audio. In this case though I am compelled to say that your explanation is completely off the mark. It is like people who think Ethernet streaming will sound worse than your hard disk because the data "goes over twisted pair wires and in chunks" so it is destined to sound bad. This is of course wrong.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"


Last edited by amirm; 06-12-2014 at 10:22 AM.
amirm is offline  
post #520 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 10:47 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post
A pity you didn't have the opportunity to examine other DAC's and processors, Amir. Would be interesting to see if the relative pecking order remains consistent. Did you bring your findings to Anthem either directly or in the dedicated thread here? I'd be curious to see if they would address it.
I did Chu. I have post the measurements of Lexicon and Mark Levinson. I also have Anthem AVM50 and Tact.

The measurements you see were published in my article at Widescreen Review magazine more than a year ago. My contact info is at the end of my articles and I listed the model number and manufacturers of the product. Not one AVR manufacturer has contacted me. Indirectly through back channel, there has been agreement regarding HDMI performance.

BTW, here are more measurements of how well done HDMI implementations exist due to good engineering from other manufacturers. From the presentation by good friend and forum member AES presentation, John Dawson:



Nasty stuff.

Here is the Arcam:



Picture perfect.

As Arny said, we choose to not listen about these problems. This data is out there and is compelling in the message it conveys.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #521 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
.....



We see superlative measurements of Mark Levinson 502 as a result of its excellent (quality) engineering. By the way The 502 is an obsolete product and was designed a few years before that AVR. Its distortion products/noise are down to -120 dB. Using the latter as our dynamic range, it is giving us equiv. of 20 bits of resolution. The AVR in comparison is managing 14 to 15 bits. In other words, failing to faithfully reproduce CD's 16-bit audio.

....

Oh great, now we get a new 'method' of determining the dynamic range.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #522 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randy Bessinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,279
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I did Chu. I have post the measurements of Lexicon and Mark Levinson. I also have Anthem AVM50 and Tact.

The measurements you see were published in my article at Widescreen Review magazine more than a year ago. My contact info is at the end of my articles and I listed the model number and manufacturers of the product. Not one AVR manufacturer has contacted me. Indirectly through back channel, there has been agreement regarding HDMI performance.

BTW, here are more measurements of how well done HDMI implementations exist due to good engineering from other manufacturers. From the presentation by good friend and forum member AES presentation, John Dawson:



Nasty stuff.

Here is the Arcam:



Picture perfect.

As Arny said, we choose to not listen about these problems. This data is out there and is compelling in the message it conveys.
Maybe Pioneer did listen...and gave up. I have read (here in another thread) that Pioneer is getting out of the AV receiver business. Also, heard the are selling their TAD division. Is that correct?
Randy Bessinger is offline  
post #523 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jinjuku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I apologize for being direct Arny but this is not remotely correct. Here is a close analogy: when you write a file to disk, the operating system divides it into chunks called blocks. A common block size is 4 Kbytes. That means a 4 Megabyte audio file will have 1000 such blocks scattered throughout the hard disk.
My understanding is that modern OS's on a spinner will do a reasonable job of keeping the blocks contiguous to avoid head thrashing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Likewise when you stream audio over your Ethernet network, it has a maximum segment size of about 1,500 bytes
I don't think that is accurate. My home network is using frames of 9K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
The Ethernet driver at transmit end does this and sets a flag in each packet, telling the receiver that they are part of a larger packet. The receiver sees the same and assembles them back to the 4 k block (this is all assuming you are not using large segment size). None of this packetization does anything at all to introduce distortions in the output of your music device. It is all upstream, digital in nature, and hence will not impact the analog output of the DAC
Could you pop on over to Polk Audio and let them know that? Monk has layed it all out but maybe another voice will be heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
(there is a remote aspect of this where the noise can bleed into the DAC differently but let's not get into that for now).
Shielded CATx cable is pretty affordable.

An audiophile likes to talk about how much they spent and how good it sounds.

A DIY'er likes to talk about how little they spent and how good it sounds.

Jinjuku is offline  
post #524 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Originally Posted by arnyk
Vast overkill is not quality engineering, especially when other parts of the system are as vastly substandard as they are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Quality engineering in my book is looking at something as another engineer and admiring how well executed it is from design and manufacturing point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Now, it is true that often quality comes from "high-end" manufacturers and said gear does cost more money.
Nonsense. Engineers don’t design things so they can puff out their chests in front of other engineers. They design them so that they can meet certain design goals, including cost. If you sat there and said to your management “yeah, my design cost 25 times more than it needed to, but other engineers are impressed by the overkill!”, they would think of you as anything but a “quality engineer”. It’s no surprise at all that you talk about things from the perspective of the High End (which has MUCH to do with status and “bling”, and NOT engineering as the motivating factor), since it’s obvious that you buy into much of its premises, your attempts at obfuscation notwithstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I know what you are going to say: "if I don't hear it, it can be that bad." Well, that is not an answer to quality engineering. Quality engineering says that you can stand next to your design while your peers review it and be proud.
Yep, that’s your attitude all right: “Who cares about the practical benefit of my design, as long as I can gain High End status and show pictures of myself with trophies”.


Last edited by RobertR; 06-12-2014 at 12:53 PM.
RobertR is offline  
post #525 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
Interesting. Test is between live feed and 24/44.1 and 24/352.8.
Not between CD and Hires.

And the conclusion includes the preference for low bandwith playback of high bandwidth files.


Another conclusion, by an author who cited this paper, was that "the statistics and the type of question that the tester was asked to resolve were not optimal"

Last edited by krabapple; 06-12-2014 at 01:27 PM.
krabapple is offline  
post #526 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 05:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
Nonsense.
Whatcha you mean "nonsense?"



My post had pretty pictures, colorful fonts and lots of words. I demand at least partial credit! How about half-sense?



Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
Engineers don’t design things so they can puff out their chests in front of other engineers.
Once again my post is rewritten and then responded to. I didn't tell you all engineers work that way. I was defining what quality engineering means: "Quality engineering in my book is looking at something as another engineer and admiring how well executed it is from design and manufacturing point of view."

That is a test of quality engineering. It says that an independent engineer would look at that design and say, "looks like a nice design" instead of throwing up on it. Show those graphs to any high-speed and or analog designer and they would shake their heads saying that kind of DAC performance is bad.

I don't know why this concept is foreign to you. Think of whatever profession you are in and whether you can judge the work of others in the same field. I am sure you can tell bad work from good. Same here. We have examples of excellent engineering and not so good engineering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
They design them so that they can meet certain design goals, including cost. If you sat there and said to your management “yeah, my design cost 25 times more than it needed to, but other engineers are impressed by the overkill!”, they would think of you as anything but a “quality engineer”.
You can't mix a hypothetical with specific numbers like "25." There is no such multiplier implied in quality engineering. Good attention to component and PCB layout alone would eliminate a lot of the distortions that you see and cost nothing if it is done day one.

A better PLL will cost more money but we are talking about tens of dollars. That doesn't make the AVR cost 25X more to manufacture. In a $1,000 AVR I expect it to be this good and have the budget for additional electronics. Heck, charge me $1,100 and give me proper performance. If there is a market at $1,000 there is one at $1,100.

That money is not spent because there is little awareness of the poor performance there. And folks like yourself do their best to protect the manufacturer. Why you are not an advocate of good performance and that of the consumer is beyond me. Why would you get up in the morning and try to cover up for failings of a device? There is no good in that. Just isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
It’s no surprise at all that you talk about things from the perspective of the High End (which has MUCH to do with status and “bling”, and NOT engineering as the motivating factor), since it’s obvious that you buy into much of its premises, your attempts at obfuscation notwithstanding. Yep, that’s your attitude all right: “Who cares about the practical benefit of my design, as long as I can gain High End status and show pictures of myself with trophies”.
Look, I understand your angst about high-end companies and their customers. I do . You have said it in every response to me so I suspect so does everyone else. Repeating it over and over again is not constructive, nor adds any knowledge or data to the topic at hand.

I am discussing engineering topics at both theory and practical levels. I am sharing data and measurements to back them. Such outbursts have no place in such a discussion. You either have differing data, or can show there is a benefit to bad performance. I suspect you have neither. In which case, please don't keep posting the same thing over and over again. Your message is heard and understood. It is not material to this part of the forum where we discuss "theory."

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #527 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 06:00 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Whatcha you mean "nonsense?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k&feature=kp


My post had pretty pictures, colorful fonts and lots of words. I demand at least partial credit! How about half-sense?




Once again my post is rewritten and then responded to. I didn't tell you all engineers work that way. I was defining what quality engineering means: "Quality engineering in my book is looking at something as another engineer and admiring how well executed it is from design and manufacturing point of view."

That is a test of quality engineering. It says that an independent engineer would look at that design and say, "looks like a nice design" instead of throwing up on it. Show those graphs to any high-speed and or analog designer and they would shake their heads saying that kind of DAC performance is bad.

I don't know why this concept is foreign to you. Think of whatever profession you are in and whether you can judge the work of others in the same field. I am sure you can tell bad work from good. Same here. We have examples of excellent engineering and not so good engineering.


You can't mix a hypothetical with specific numbers like "25." There is no such multiplier implied in quality engineering. Good attention to component and PCB layout alone would eliminate a lot of the distortions that you see and cost nothing if it is done day one.

A better PLL will cost more money but we are talking about tens of dollars. That doesn't make the AVR cost 25X more to manufacture. In a $1,000 AVR I expect it to be this good and have the budget for additional electronics. Heck, charge me $1,100 and give me proper performance. If there is a market at $1,000 there is one at $1,100.

That money is not spent because there is little awareness of the poor performance there. And folks like yourself do their best to protect the manufacturer. Why you are not an advocate of good performance and that of the consumer is beyond me. Why would you get up in the morning and try to cover up for failings of a device? There is no good in that. Just isn't.



Look, I understand your angst about high-end companies and their customers. I do . You have said it in every response to me so I suspect so does everyone else. Repeating it over and over again is not constructive, nor adds any knowledge or data to the topic at hand.

I am discussing engineering topics at both theory and practical levels. I am sharing data and measurements to back them. Such outbursts have no place in such a discussion. You either have differing data, or can show there is a benefit to bad performance. I suspect you have neither. In which case, please don't keep posting the same thing over and over again. Your message is heard and understood. It is not material to this part of the forum where we discuss "theory."
Since you have yet to prove this level of jitter can be heard, using your arbitrary example, an engineer leaving 100 bucks on the table for something Inaudible is not admirable by engineering standards.
koturban is online now  
post #528 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 06:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,117
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 302
Quote:
Why you are not an advocate of good performance and that of the consumer is beyond me.
It's simple. We're not trying to hoodwink customers.

Quote:
I am discussing engineering topics at both theory and practical levels.
You are twisting facts to serve your commercial interests. And you aren't fooling anyone.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #529 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 06:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Since you have yet to prove this level of jitter can be heard, using your arbitrary example, an engineer leaving 100 bucks on the table for something Inaudible is not admirable by engineering standards.
Watch this and see me in the morning:


Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #530 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 06:58 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Watch this and see me in the morning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgIBG8q1Gjc
Your obfuscation and deflection continues.

Forcing a business to compromise its bottom line to feed some intellectual fetish is not "quality engineering".
koturban is online now  
post #531 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 07:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
At the risk of creating more unrest , here is the Audio Engineering Society report on HIGH RESOLUTION AUDIO: http://www.aes.org/technical/trends/report2012.pdf
Co-chairs:
Vicky Melchior and Josh Reiss, Chairs

HDMI, the point-to-point connector required for BR and HD video, has excellent bandwidth and an Ethernet data link (HDMI 1.4), but lacks an audio clock. HDMI receivers must derive audio word clock from the video pixel clock, commonly resulting in very high jitter that affects quality and can be audible. Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #532 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 07:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Forcing a business to compromise its bottom line to feed some intellectual fetish is not "quality engineering".
Ah, so your interest is protecting the company's bottom line at the expense of product performance? Why do you guys never address why you are doing this? This is a consumer forum where we discuss how system performance can be increased. It is not an industry forum to figure out how many corners to cut to increase the bottom line.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #533 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 07:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

That is a test of quality engineering. It says that an independent engineer would look at that design and say, "looks like a nice design" instead of throwing up on it.
Engineers don't decide something is a good design by just "looking" at it. They test it to see if it meets the design goals. In this case, the test is to see how it sounds. Of course, you waved away the whole question of whether it makes an audible difference, thus revealing your priorities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Good attention to component and PCB layout alone would eliminate a lot of the distortions that you see and cost nothing if it is done day one.

A better PLL will cost more money but we are talking about tens of dollars. That doesn't make the AVR cost 25X more to manufacture. In a $1,000 AVR I expect it to be this good and have the budget for additional electronics. Heck, charge me $1,100 and give me proper performance. If there is a market at $1,000 there is one at $1,100.
Interesting to see you change your tune. Before, you were airily dismissing cost considerations, now you're acknowledging they matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Why you are not an advocate of good performance and that of the consumer is beyond me.
I'm an advocate of not spending a lot of money on things that make no audible difference, something you keep dismissing/avoiding.
Randy Bessinger likes this.

Last edited by RobertR; 06-12-2014 at 07:15 PM.
RobertR is offline  
post #534 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 07:40 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Ah, so your interest is protecting the company's bottom line at the expense of product performance? Why do you guys never address why you are doing this? This is a consumer forum where we discuss how system performance can be increased. It is not an industry forum to figure out how many corners to cut to increase the bottom line.
The only way a manufacturer could market your idea of "increased performance" is to make glossy pictures of your plots and include them in each audio component they sell to justify the higher cost and decreased features.

It's the only way they'll be able to know, because they sure can't hear it.
koturban is online now  
post #535 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 08:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
Engineers don't decide something is a good design by just "looking" at it. They test it to see if it meets the design goals. In this case, the test is to see how it sounds.
That would be the test. Problem is, you don't have that data to share with us, right? You bought your equipment having no idea whatsoever how it "sounded" in such tests. You blindly bought the gear on faith.

Now you have to deal with how your faith is in conflict with real engineering measurements that are *industry standard* to ascertain the performance of the specific component we are talking about. I have data. You have an argument for which you have no data. That is the net of it, right?

My testing shows that these AVRs perform little to no filtering of incoming jitter in audio band. Do you know what that translates in your listening test? It means the performance of the device is *source* and cable specific. Imagine you are Pioneer. What source would you test with? The one you have? How many devices would they test with?

Now compare that to a better designed product that does filter incoming jitter. Now the performance of the device is not at the whims of the input.

See, there is a reason we don't follow your logic in real life.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #536 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
That would be the test.
And where are YOUR listening tests showing an audible difference in jitter? You have none. Instead, you try to snow everyone with impressive looking graphs.
RobertR is offline  
post #537 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 08:45 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
The only way a manufacturer could market your idea of "increased performance" is to make glossy pictures of your plots and include them in each audio component they sell to justify the higher cost and decreased features.
You again worry about the manufacturer than us the consumers. Let me know when you decide to be an advocate of consumers.

Take a look at this magazine review results:



The measurement on the left is the same lousy HDMI performance you have seen. Now get this: the one on the right is exactly the same AVR!!! What is the difference? The "PQLS" mode is turned on. What is PQLS? Instead of the AVR attempting to extract clock timing from its HDMI input and drive its DAC, it instead creates its own clock and tells the source to follow it. Since the clock is now independent, it is much cleaner and the results are reflected in much better performance of the DAC. So much for Arny's argument that HDMI forces these distortions on us!

You are telling us the manufacture doesn't know how to promote such features. Well, Pioneer begs to differ: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PU...vers/VSX-23TXH

As HDMI® has become the new high-definition cable connection of choice, HDMI is susceptible to digital transmission errors known as “jitter.” Jitter is caused by timing errors in the digital bit-stream between two connected components and can cause audibly noticeable problems sonically expressed by a lack of detail, depth, imaging, and ultimately a natural sound-field. The VSX-23TXH is the entry point for Pioneer’s exclusive PQLS-Multi technology that can solve these problems when coupled with a PQLS-Multi equipped Pioneer Blu-Ray Disc® player (BDP-23FD). By using the 2-way HDMI CEC communication capabilities of the HDMI spec, Pioneer Elite PQLS components “talk to each other” and “speed synchronize” the digital clocks between them using the receiver’s Precision Quartz Lock System (PQLS) to buffer and synchronize the digital audio signals, effectively removing the effects of jitter for a clear, pristine, natural sounding digital transfer. PQLS-Multi removes the effects of jitter with 2-channel CD playback and now from multi-channel DVD and Blu-Ray Disc soundtracks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
It's the only way they'll be able to know, because they sure can't hear it.
Sure can't? What listening tests are you drawing from to say that? And how is it that you know more than the high resolution technical group at Audio Engineering Society? They said this as I post above:

HDMI, the point-to-point connector required for BR and HD video, has excellent bandwidth and an Ethernet data link (HDMI 1.4), but lacks an audio clock. HDMI receivers must derive audio word clock from the video pixel clock, commonly resulting in very high jitter that affects quality and can be audible. Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon.

I know some of the people in that committee. Why not post your case here and I will forward to them so that they can correct their stance. How much time do you need to write it?

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #538 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 08:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
And where are YOUR listening tests showing an audible difference in jitter? You have none. Instead, you try to snow everyone with impressive looking graphs.
You said your manufacturer has used listening tests to verify the performance of your audio gear. Do you agree that no such test was performed by them?

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #539 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 09:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Amir, by having the source and destination targets talk to each other as Pioneer states, aren't they in effect creating a de facto "one box" solution similar if you will to a one box CDP where the DAC acts as the general?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #540 of 2920 Old 06-12-2014, 09:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,082
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post
Amir, by having the source and destination targets talk to each other as Pioneer states, aren't they in effect creating a de facto "one box" solution similar if you will to a one box CDP where the DAC acts as the general?
That's right. The feature actually exists in HDMI and is called ARC (not to be confused with Audio Return Channel). But it is hardly implemented and when it is there, it is stated as only work with the manufacturer's own gear. If it were broadly available this conversation would be moot .

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
Closed Thread Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off