IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

What matters re: audible differences in sound quality?
sawdin
post Jan 3 2013, 17:23
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 5-February 10
Member No.: 77876



Although I’m sure this information exists in various threads and on other sites, I haven’t found a site/thread that is up-to-date and includes a good overview. Thus, can you either point me to some threads/sites and/or verify if the following information is accurate? Of course, if it is not accurate, please do correct and supply appropriate links. Thanks!

In regards to audible differences in sound quality:


What Matters:
Speakers and Headphones
Room Acoustics (if not using headphones)
Length and shielding of certain types of cables, and whether cables meet required specs for the given task (e.g., does USB cable meet USB specs).
For tube amps and/or pre-amps, different tubes will alter the sound.


What doesn’t matter:
As long as relevant specs are met (e.g., USB cable meets relevant specs for USB 2.0 or 3.0; HDMI cables have appropriate features for specific usage, etc.), there is not any audible difference in SQ between inexpensive cables/speaker wires and 'audiophile' cables.


What Might Matter:
DACS (clock/jitter issues)

Hi-Rez recordings (have heard rumors, but have not been able to verify that the Boston Audio Society’s double-blind tests that resulted in the release of the well-known “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback” paper were faulty because a high resolution master was not actually used. Also see: "24/192 Music Downloads...and why they make no sense"

USB cables should separate the signal ground from power ground and shield the signal and power connections from each other. For example: iFi Micro Gemini USB cable


Cable Length Questions:
I believe it is accepted that maximum cable run is relevant in regards to digital signals. Recommended lengths:
USB max length is 5 meters
Coax (S/PDIF) is 10 meters.
Cat5/6 ethernet is ~50 meters.

However, I am not sure about the following:
*Digital Audio Cables should be at least 1 or 1.5 meters b/c internal "reflections" can develop, which will increase jitter.
[Edit] FWIW, Just spoke with Blue Jeans Cable, and they said if you can 'hear' the jitter, you have bigger problems than cables; thus get what you need, whether 3 feet or 1.5 meters.

*Some claim that USB cables should also be at least 1.5 meters as well, while others claim they should be as short as possible.

TIA...don't want to waste money, though I might purchase Blue Jean Cables instead of Monoprice or C2G with the thought that although they may not sound any different, they are less likely to break, have loose connectors, etc.

This post has been edited by sawdin: Jan 3 2013, 17:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
krabapple
post Jan 3 2013, 18:02
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2286
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (sawdin @ Jan 3 2013, 11:23) *
Hi-Rez recordings (have heard rumors, but have not been able to verify that the Boston Audio Society’s double-blind tests that resulted in the release of the well-known “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback” paper were faulty because a high resolution master was not actually used.



The audition samples included both SACDs/DVD-As sourced from 'high resolution masters' (i.e., purely digital recordings of high sample rate/bit depth) and SACDs/DVD-As that were sourced from analog tapes (which audiophiles seem to consider 'high res' enough when used as sources for their precious vinyl releases... but apparently not good enough this time).

Another important point is that participants, who included self-professed audiophiles and recording professionals, were allowed to use their own 'revealing' audition samples too. This does not seem to have resulted in any better performance.

So I would be skeptical of the wounded-ego caterwauling of 'audiophiles' about this so-called issue.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Jan 3 2013, 18:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sawdin
post Jan 3 2013, 20:55
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 5-February 10
Member No.: 77876



QUOTE (krabapple @ Jan 3 2013, 12:02) *
QUOTE (sawdin @ Jan 3 2013, 11:23) *
Hi-Rez recordings (have heard rumors, but have not been able to verify that the Boston Audio Society’s double-blind tests that resulted in the release of the well-known “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback” paper were faulty because a high resolution master was not actually used.



The audition samples included both SACDs/DVD-As sourced from 'high resolution masters' (i.e., purely digital recordings of high sample rate/bit depth) and SACDs/DVD-As that were sourced from analog tapes (which audiophiles seem to consider 'high res' enough when used as sources for their precious vinyl releases... but apparently not good enough this time).

Another important point is that participants, who included self-professed audiophiles and recording professionals, were allowed to use their own 'revealing' audition samples too. This does not seem to have resulted in any better performance.

So I would be skeptical of the wounded-ego caterwauling of 'audiophiles' about this so-called issue.


Thanks for the reply...what I had read made it sound as if the sample that was supposedly hi-rez was, in fact, not hi-rez. That is quite different than your explanation. Gee, I wonder if the post I read was 'intentionally misleading', lol
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th September 2014 - 17:49