The $10000 Hi-Fi

On 5/3/2015 3:02 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all
> about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people
> with golden-ears?

Yeah, there is a lot of hype in audio and only some of it makes a 
difference many can hear.  My preferences run toward the low end but 
good enough that I'm not complaining about it.  I was looking at 
bluetooth speakers and it seems to be hard to compare them in any 
meaningful way.  They are all in different environments and play 
different music.  Some in the $100 range don't sound too bad, but a bit 
boomy while I think others just give up on the low end.

I currently have a couple of powered Sony speakers which are pretty nice 
and I'm used to them.  I tried adding a bluetooth module from eBay and 
it has some issues and noticeably, but not horribly degrades the audio. 
  I am a bit disappointed and would like to find something better.

Oddly enough when using it with my laptop it has a certain amount of 
digital noise which changes greatly depending on the programs being run. 
  I find that very unexpected.

-- 

Rick

On 5/4/2015 5:23 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:
> On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 3:29:06 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>
>> Ferraris exist to make builders of hot Mustangs, etc., feel good
>> about themselves in a snarky, reverse-snobbish sort of way.
>
> Oh, I don't think that Ferrari pays any attention at all to Mustangs
> and Camaros ... though I understand that they've been looking over
> their shoulder at the latest Corvettes. But otherwise I agree with
> your premise.

Corvettes are nothing to sneeze at.  I just met someone at a party who 
is a recent owner and he had a whole list of reasons why it was a great 
car.  One that caught my attention was the nearly 40 MPG claim for 
highway driving.  I'm *very* impressed with that.  Even if it was only 
35 that's impressive in a muscle car.


>> Like Richard, I have tin ears (too many die grinders and screaming
>> model engines in my youth, with too little ear protection).
>
> Fortunately, I always got to hold the model airplane while my father
> started and adjusted the engine. And I was smart enough to hold it
> from the side opposite the engine exhaust, so the sound pressure
> levels that I experienced were at least somewhat attenuated (as was
> the bath of two-stroke oil).
>
>> This saves me a hell of a lot of money when it's time to buy a
>> sound system -- but it does mean that I can't really exercise my
>> DSP chops on high-end audio.
>
> I do a lot of high-end audio work. It's an interesting field, because
> getting that last little bit of sound quality means knowing where to
> allow things to get a little "loose". Mathematically perfect
> implementations tend to sound as clinical as a hospital operating
> room, while allowing things to be slightly less than perfect, in an
> "organic" sort of way, can sound better.
>
> Or worse.
>
> Or make no difference at all.
>
> Don't ask me for a definition of "organic", either. I don't have
> one.

You and no one else.  It's a "Through the Looking Glass" term meaning 
exactly what the speaker intends it to mean, nothing more and nothing 
less such that in the end it says nothing at all.

-- 

Rick

On Mon, 04 May 2015 17:38:30 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/4/2015 5:23 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:
>> On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 3:29:06 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>
>>> Ferraris exist to make builders of hot Mustangs, etc., feel good
>>> about themselves in a snarky, reverse-snobbish sort of way.
>>
>> Oh, I don't think that Ferrari pays any attention at all to Mustangs
>> and Camaros ... though I understand that they've been looking over
>> their shoulder at the latest Corvettes. But otherwise I agree with
>> your premise.

Yeah, muscle cars are not even remotely on Ferrari's radar, and vice
versa.  They compete with McLaren, Lamborghini, Porsche, etc.

>Corvettes are nothing to sneeze at.  I just met someone at a party who 
>is a recent owner and he had a whole list of reasons why it was a great 
>car.  One that caught my attention was the nearly 40 MPG claim for 
>highway driving.  I'm *very* impressed with that.  Even if it was only 
>35 that's impressive in a muscle car.

Everything eventually winds up at track days or in race groups, and we
get a closer look at stuff there in an environment where things can
really get evaluated.   The new Corvette is the rare car where you can
actually not turn off traction control and get a good launch from a
stop or off a corner.   Usually the fastest way around a track
requires turning off all the nannies (traction control, stability
control, etc.), but some of the new systems are getting very good.

I teach at a teen safety driving program and one of the things we
teach is threshold braking, where you can stop shorter and with more
control than if you just hammer the pedal and let the ABS do it.   The
kids bring their own cars (or their parent's) and we demonstrate all
the exercises for them before they start trying it.   The newer
systems on the high-end cars are just getting very good.   Usually
it's pretty easy to demonstrate that you can stop shorter and less
dramatically (no shaking or shuddering) than if the ABS engages, but
the newer Mercedes and BMW systems are about as good as a skilled
driver.   I can't outbrake some of the new Mercedes ABS systems.   I
don't know how they do it, but whatever they're doing is really,
reallly good.  I wonder how the sensors work and process everything on
the new systems, because they're clearly not like the old stuff.

The new Corvette takes the stops out for the traction control, too.
Usually traction control is just to keep people from doing
counterproductive things in low-traction conditions like snow or mud
or wet pavement, so they're generally not optimized to provide maximum
acceleration for performance (like a drag launch, or coming off a
corner on a road course).  The C7 corvette changes that, as it really
is good at optimizing acceleration for a launch.  The stability
control is apparently getting there, too, and on bumpy streets Tanner
Faust (who once beat Michael Schumacher in the Race of Champions,
i.e., he knows how to wheel a car), was faster in a C7 Corvette with
all the nannies turned on than when they were off in an A/B test for
American Top Gear.   On a road course  track, which is almost always a
very smooth surface, the results may be different, but that's still
enormous progress for those systems in streetable cars.

I haven't seen anybody claim that to be true for even a new Ferrari or
Porsche yet, but I suspect they're getting close.   The integration
and improvement of various sensors and processing and using the
results is getting really good.   Part of me wants to see that stuff
really advance, and part of me wants to still be able to drive a car
better than it can.  ;)

Lots of cool signal processing going on in there somewhere.

>>> Like Richard, I have tin ears (too many die grinders and screaming
>>> model engines in my youth, with too little ear protection).
>>
>> Fortunately, I always got to hold the model airplane while my father
>> started and adjusted the engine. And I was smart enough to hold it
>> from the side opposite the engine exhaust, so the sound pressure
>> levels that I experienced were at least somewhat attenuated (as was
>> the bath of two-stroke oil).
>>
>>> This saves me a hell of a lot of money when it's time to buy a
>>> sound system -- but it does mean that I can't really exercise my
>>> DSP chops on high-end audio.
>>
>> I do a lot of high-end audio work. It's an interesting field, because
>> getting that last little bit of sound quality means knowing where to
>> allow things to get a little "loose". Mathematically perfect
>> implementations tend to sound as clinical as a hospital operating
>> room, while allowing things to be slightly less than perfect, in an
>> "organic" sort of way, can sound better.
>>
>> Or worse.
>>
>> Or make no difference at all.
>>
>> Don't ask me for a definition of "organic", either. I don't have
>> one.
>
>You and no one else.  It's a "Through the Looking Glass" term meaning 
>exactly what the speaker intends it to mean, nothing more and nothing 
>less such that in the end it says nothing at all.

I'm waiting for the day when the variance and distortion of human
hearing can be quantified, i.e., what's the "fidelity" of human
hearing.   I suspect that the natural tolerances in hearing
sensitivity and distortion are worse than what people try to achieve
with sound reproduction, i.e., it's not really helping.   Especially
in normal environments where other noise sources interfere, we just
ignore them, but the interference effect is still there.   

But high-end audio is a good arena to explore the capabilities of
marketing and psychology.   ;)

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com

On Mon, 04 May 2015 22:43:01 GMT, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org
(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

<snip>

>I haven't seen anybody claim that to be true for even a new Ferrari or
>Porsche yet, but I suspect they're getting close.   

My engineering career started back in the early '70s at GM's
Cadillac division.  One epiphany from that was the huge
engineering advantage of high production volumes. I was
surprised to discover that Roll Royce, Lamborghini, etc
bought GM transmissions. But when you are only turning out a
handful of cars per year, you can't afford a huge
engineering staff for just one part of the car.  Even more
important, you can't get decent field data on failure modes
so you can improve your product.

We had a staff of auto mechanics for engineering support.
Since this was Cadillac, many of the guys had prior
experience at luxury car dealerships.  They said the Rolls
Royce reliability was *terrible*, compensated by first-rate
customer service that would quickly send out an enclosed van
to whisk the car to the dealership. (And thereby avoid the
bad publicity of a Rolls stranded by the roadside for all
the world to see.)

But at least Rolls had interiors that looked classy.  Our
upper management always seemed to head in the "cheaper is
better" direction, removing the hand-rubbed walnut and
replacing it with wood-grained contact paper... ugh!   Of
course, this behavior could have been predicted from the way
their bonuses were paid:  The more money they "saved", the
bigger the bonuses.  But that's another rant...

Best regards,



Bob Masta
 
              DAQARTA  v7.60
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
              www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
 Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI 
   FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator    
          Science with your sound card!

N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) writes:
> [...]

Fascinating! Thanks for the "inside look," Bob. 
-- 
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

On Tue, 05 May 2015 12:02:41 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta)
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 May 2015 22:43:01 GMT, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org
>(Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I haven't seen anybody claim that to be true for even a new Ferrari or
>>Porsche yet, but I suspect they're getting close.   
>
>My engineering career started back in the early '70s at GM's
>Cadillac division.  One epiphany from that was the huge
>engineering advantage of high production volumes. I was
>surprised to discover that Roll Royce, Lamborghini, etc
>bought GM transmissions. But when you are only turning out a
>handful of cars per year, you can't afford a huge
>engineering staff for just one part of the car.  Even more
>important, you can't get decent field data on failure modes
>so you can improve your product.

It's interesting that for a lot of the performance technology,
including things like ABS, stability control, active handling, and
performance-optimized traction control, the technology often comes
from ultra-low volume race applications.   Companies that have big
race efforts as part of their core, like Ferrari, McLaren, Porsche,
Honda, Audi, etc., etc., and in this case specifically GM with the
Corvette (and also Cadillac lately), the technology gets developed or
really optimized as part of the racing effort.

The optimizations are very different for race applications, and some
of the systems (like stability control) are counter-productive in a
race application, but things like active handling and performance
traction control were developed to gain advantages in factory race
programs.   Some series, like F1, now ban many of these technologies,
since the fans like to see the drivers compete rather than robocars.  

The dynamic suspension systems on many high-end cars are descendants
of the race technologies, and much of the performance technology on
the C7 Corvette, including the traction control, came straight from
the race program.   GM has made a Big Deal of this in some of their
marketing for the Corvette since they revived their race efforts
several years ago.

Some race series for production-based cars only allow chassis and
technologies that are "homologated", i.e., that appear or will appear
on production cars.   Back in the Ford vs Ferrari days when the GT40
was developed, Ford had to produce a minimum number of street-legal
"homologation" units in order to compete with the car.  Those are
pretty valuable these days.   Similar rules still exist, and it helps
the technology developments flow back down to the consumers in their
street cars.

>We had a staff of auto mechanics for engineering support.
>Since this was Cadillac, many of the guys had prior
>experience at luxury car dealerships.  They said the Rolls
>Royce reliability was *terrible*, compensated by first-rate
>customer service that would quickly send out an enclosed van
>to whisk the car to the dealership. (And thereby avoid the
>bad publicity of a Rolls stranded by the roadside for all
>the world to see.)

And Rolls (Bentley) has a race team again, and they're very
competitive with the Continental despite being way heavier than many
of the other cars.   Fun to watch. 

>But at least Rolls had interiors that looked classy.  Our
>upper management always seemed to head in the "cheaper is
>better" direction, removing the hand-rubbed walnut and
>replacing it with wood-grained contact paper... ugh!   Of
>course, this behavior could have been predicted from the way
>their bonuses were paid:  The more money they "saved", the
>bigger the bonuses.  But that's another rant...

Yup.

>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Bob Masta
> 
>              DAQARTA  v7.60
>   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
>              www.daqarta.com
>Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
> Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI 
>   FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator    
>          Science with your sound card!

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com

[...snip...]

>
>I do a lot of high-end audio work. It's an interesting field, because
>getting that last little bit of sound quality means knowing where to
allow
>things to get a little "loose". Mathematically perfect implementations
tend
>to sound as clinical as a hospital operating room, while allowing things
to
>be slightly less than perfect, in an "organic" sort of way, can sound
>better. 
>
>Or worse. 
>
>Or make no difference at all.
>
>Don't ask me for a definition of "organic", either. I don't have one.

Back in the day, the most important component to sink your money into were
the speakers.  I don't know if that is the case any more, I suspect it is
still true.  So, if you are comparing DACs, you have to have responsive
enough speakers.  The other factor that plays enormous importance in sound
quality is room acoustics.  I don't know a good definition for "organic"
either, but I am comfortable taking about room modalities.

I have musician friends who can't stand listening to digitized music.  My
ears aren't that good.  

I have always thought if you are going to use 1 1/2 times as much storage
space (I do wav files for my recordings), you are better off increasing
the sampling frequency rather than increasing the bit depth from 16 to
24.

Ced
---------------------------------------
Posted through http://www.DSPRelated.com

On Mon, 04 May 2015 17:38:30 -0400, rickman wrote:

> On 5/4/2015 5:23 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:

< snip >

>> Don't ask me for a definition of "organic", either. I don't have one.
> 
> You and no one else.  It's a "Through the Looking Glass" term meaning
> exactly what the speaker intends it to mean, nothing more and nothing
> less such that in the end it says nothing at all.

My slightly less cynical take on this is that the term means "I'm doing 
something loosey-goosey and I don't know what, but I can't deny that it 
works".

So it says _something_, just not anything specific enough to satisfy an 
engineer.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Cedron <103185@dsprelated> wrote:

(snip)
> Back in the day, the most important component to sink your money into were
> the speakers.  I don't know if that is the case any more, I suspect it is
> still true.  So, if you are comparing DACs, you have to have responsive
> enough speakers.  The other factor that plays enormous importance in sound
> quality is room acoustics.  I don't know a good definition for "organic"
> either, but I am comfortable taking about room modalities.

Except that much music is now through ear buds instead of speakers.
It is much easier to make a 'close enough to linear' ear bud than
a 100W loudspeaker.
 
(snip)

> I have always thought if you are going to use 1 1/2 times as much storage
> space (I do wav files for my recordings), you are better off increasing
> the sampling frequency rather than increasing the bit depth from 16 to
> 24.

I do recordings of amateur music, such as high school orchestra
concerts in 24 bit WAV, then convert to 16 bits. That allows me to
turn the record level down a little, to make room for surprising peaks.
(Timpani or cymbals, for example.)

I then select which 16 bits to use, after adding appropriate dither.

Most likely the background level is high enough that it doesn't matter,
but it isn't hard to do 24 bit at 44.1kHz, then convert to 16 bit CDs.
Conveting 48kHz to CD is a lot more work.

-- glen

Cedron <103185@dsprelated> wrote:

> Back in the day, the most important component to sink your
> money into were the speakers.  I don't know if that is the case
> any more, I suspect it is still true.  So, if you are comparing
> DACs, you have to have responsive enough speakers.

Depends on the DAC.  Some of them are so bad (i.e. DAC's in the cheaper
sound chips found in certain phones, CD/DVD drives, laptops, DVD players) 
are so bad that the low quality is audible almost regardless of the rest
of the signal chain.

Steve