|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 30, 2018 19:59:53 GMT -5
Questions without answers... Everyone's getting riled again... Sooner or later, we'll figure out what the thing does (or not)... And in the meantime, I'm just enjoying the more vivid presentation of my music. Sometimes, ya just gotta say "Don't worry, be happy." It's Friday night, the rack redo is mostly redone. Now it's time again to hook it all up and just sit back - and yes, there's a smile on my face! I hope your Friday's just as good! Cheers - Boom  |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Nov 30, 2018 20:10:15 GMT -5
Questions without answers... Everyone's getting riled again... Sooner or later, we'll figure out what the thing does (or not)... And in the meantime, I'm just enjoying the more vivid presentation of my music. Sometimes, ya just gotta say "Don't worry, be happy." It's Friday night, the rack redo is mostly redone. Now it's time again to hook it all up and just sit back - and yes, there's a smile on my face! I hope your Friday's just as good! Cheers - Boom Hakuna matata☺ |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 30, 2018 21:52:56 GMT -5
There is no conceivable way in which delivering music via Ethernet packets could "make it better". That's sort of like suggesting that you could make a painting better by running it through a shredder and then reassembling the pieces. At best, if the process works perfectly, which it usually does, you could hope to do no noticeable harm. (Unless you like impressionist paintings... then who knows?  ) Ethernet does provide some degree of isolation. However, since the Rendu is the "computer", and the Ethernet link isn't between it and the DAC, that doesn't make much sense either.
Providing a different and better clock to the DAC could conceivably make an audible improvement.
A lot of that would depend on several factors - including how good your clock was, how accurately it's delivered to the DAC, and how able the DAC is to take advantage of the improvement. It's quite possible that SOME other systems might mess up the bits in various ways. However, where and how that can happen depends on a lot of specific details. For example, when I send a file to a USB hard drive, the integrity of the file is verified. Likewise, when you transfer a file over an Ethernet connection normally, several levels of verification are involved. HOWEVER, if you're using a protocol like DLNA, it's hard to tell how well they're handling that part of the deal. And, generally, unless something is terribly wrong, the computer will deliver all the bits to the DAC over an asynchronous USB connection without losing any.
(And, generally, if something is terribly wrong, the result will be obvious dropouts.)
If anything, it seems most likely to me that the galvanic isolation on their output actually performs very well, and sometimes helps. Perhaps delivering data in packets via ethernet makes for better music. Packets and a better word clock making delivery more accurate without having to resend as often which slows the process down and adds jitter to the equation. - I am 99.44% sure that all of us who are saying these devices sound better understand quite well all the possible reasons why they might sound better and the reasons why they maybe should not...yet you keep on pointing out a lot of reasons why they shouldn't and are finally speculating about why they might. When you actually do know why they do, come back and enlighten us. Until then, there are a lot of Lounge members who have them, love them, wouldn't accept less, and don't really care about "why" they sound better. And, there are many of us hoping Emotiva figures it out and offers a typical Emotiva-value option. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by frisco on Nov 30, 2018 22:27:56 GMT -5
Are we absolutely sure that the mr is not doing processing in the digital domain. I know that software like audirvana allows for processing options before the transition to analgoue. Is it possible that some similar processing of the wav files occurs in the mr.
All I know is that the mr sounds different and usually better whether it’s hooked up to my network by Ethernet or directly to my iMac by Ethernet. And, I’ve noted the same thing as others—better note definition, without sounding etched like a Sabre dac.
Well I’ll I just bought an ultra rendu, time to give it a test.
|
|
|
|
Post by frisco on Nov 30, 2018 22:28:37 GMT -5
Are we absolutely sure that the mr is not doing processing in the digital domain. I know that software like audirvana allows for processing options before the transition to analgoue. Is it possible that some similar processing of the wav files occurs in the mr.
All I know is that the mr sounds different and usually better whether it’s hooked up to my network by Ethernet or directly to my iMac by Ethernet. And, I’ve noted the same thing as others—better note definition, without sounding etched like a Sabre dac.
Well I just bought an ultra rendu, time to give it a test.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 1, 2018 1:15:43 GMT -5
Are we absolutely sure that the mr is not doing processing in the digital domain. I know that software like audirvana allows for processing options before the transition to analgoue. Is it possible that some similar processing of the wav files occurs in the mr. All I know is that the mr sounds different and usually better whether it’s hooked up to my network by Ethernet or directly to my iMac by Ethernet. And, I’ve noted the same thing as others—better note definition, without sounding etched like a Sabre dac. Well I just bought an ultra rendu, time to give it a test. Well ?!?! |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,090
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 1, 2018 8:58:50 GMT -5
Are we absolutely sure that the mr is not doing processing in the digital domain. I know that software like audirvana allows for processing options before the transition to analgoue. Is it possible that some similar processing of the wav files occurs in the mr. All I know is that the mr sounds different and usually better whether it’s hooked up to my network by Ethernet or directly to my iMac by Ethernet. And, I’ve noted the same thing as others—better note definition, without sounding etched like a Sabre dac. Well I just bought an ultra rendu, time to give it a test. I look forward to what you think about the ultrarendu. Re. whether it (& the MR) is doing processing in the digital chain or not, not having seen the code they use - who knows. But, whatever their secret sauce it, I love it. Mark |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 1, 2018 9:50:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 1, 2018 10:25:20 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that Roon Bridges don't do any sort of Audio Signal Processing. The Roon Bridge's job is to serve as a TCP/IP Network Endpoint (typically Ethernet) for the Roon Core to send Audio Data in order to bridge over to a different Transport Technology (USB, S/PDIF, i2s, etc.) or the actual DAC itself if it's Roon Ready. The only processing that I'm aware of that the Roon system performs is done in the Roon Core to do Volume Control (if Roon doesn't have access to the DAC's Volume Control) and translation to Audio Formats supported by the DAC if the Digital Audio Asset format isn't supported by the DAC (for instance, DSD to PCM).
That said, if the Roon Bridge wasn't especially good and didn't know how to do, say, DSD in any manner (either DSD over PCM or "Native DSD"), then I presume the Roon Core would be forced to translate DSD Assets into PCM (which very well could introduce a sonic difference). Or maybe if the Roon Bridge were truly bad and couldn't support High Frequency PCM the Roon Core might have to translate that into a Lower Frequency PCM. But if either of the above were true, you'd see it in the Roon Controller's Signal Path Display UI element.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Dec 1, 2018 12:20:12 GMT -5
I did enjoy the panel discussion on the linked video... Especially the colorful mix of accents... I even learned a new word from the post itself : "measurebators." The only minor thing I will change about the whole experience is place one adjective in front of that new word :"anal retentive," as, paired with "measurebators," they would seem to refer to an experience that could seriously constipate any music listening sensibilities  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Dec 1, 2018 12:27:31 GMT -5
I am glad to at least have an understanding that "correlation" does not determine "causation."  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 1, 2018 12:41:56 GMT -5
If I got nothing else from that link, the term "measurebaters" deserves a shining star in the vocabulary of audiophiles! I'm still reading the rest of the thread, but that alone made my day! ROTFLMAO |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 1, 2018 12:59:25 GMT -5
From the link above: Which is a standard form of a bad argument. Points 1 & 2 may well be correct, but point 3 leaps from an argument which is related to points 1 & 2, to an unrelated and unsupported conclusion. Unless of course you define "correct" as "the thing the user prefers" ... which is a very non-standard and deceptive use of that word's definitions. I.e. - It appears that current metrics for measuring Audio Systems are not capturing all aspects of the Human Auditory Experience.
- Different people have different preferences (quite possibly unrelated to accurate audio reproduction).
- Even if metrics are developed to cover the entire Human Auditory Experience, and Audio Systems are developed which accurately reproduce the original Audio Event, some people will prefer less accurate Audio Systems.
Is a better way of stating what's being argued. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 1, 2018 13:02:19 GMT -5
^^^ What Casey said!
|
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on Dec 1, 2018 13:11:36 GMT -5
Might mR have purchased George Cardas 'Golden Ratio' under license Or perhaps his 'Golden Trapagon' |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 1, 2018 14:56:40 GMT -5
From the link above: Which is a standard form of a bad argument. Points 1 & 2 may well be correct, but point 3 leaps from an argument which is related to points 1 & 2, to an unrelated and unsupported conclusion. Unless of course you define "correct" as "the thing the user prefers" ... which is a very non-standard and deceptive use of that word's definitions. I.e. - It appears that current metrics for measuring Audio Systems are not capturing all aspects of the Human Auditory Experience.
- Different people have different preferences (quite possibly unrelated to accurate audio reproduction).
- Even if metrics are developed to cover the entire Human Auditory Experience, and Audio Systems are developed which accurately reproduce the original Audio Event, some people will prefer less accurate Audio Systems.
Is a better way of stating what's being argued. Casey And thus you restate the point. The bottom line is that since we are humans, what may or may not be defined as "correct" or "accurate" or "adequate" or to form a "standard" or a "measure" is moot when the question concerns individual perception and preference. Thus, there is no escape from subjectivity, and subjectivity simply cannot be codified nor defined nor turned into a standard. The question "who determines what is "correct?"" is the key, and the proper answer is "each of us, for ourselves." |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 1, 2018 15:13:43 GMT -5
As someone who's worked as both an electronics and an acoustical engineer, I'd argue that we do indeed understand "all aspects of the Human Auditory Experience" as they relate to electronics and to sound energy in air. What we don't fully understand, and what we may never fully understand, and what is outside the ability of any engineer or scientist to completely consider, is brain science and how human PERCEPTION systems function. Which is why the exact same signal reproduced by the exact same tools under the exact same conditions can have different impacts on different people. IT IS NOT just about the science of sound. It is about human perception.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 1, 2018 15:20:08 GMT -5
When we approach stereo sound. it being recorded from two (relative) point sources without height. When in reality that is not music in real life. Music is not two point sources, it's from an infinite number of sources with infinite reflections, and it contains height information. Then they bounce around in our ear canals and vibrate our ear drum and bones in a specific way to create the sound we hear. Plus it happens in acoustic venue that is usually different to the venue it is being reproduced in.
Right there makes recorded music vastly different from reality. So our real perspective should be - is the accurate reproduction of an imperfect capture a good way to go about things? I say yes. But also have no evidence towards this actually being a good way to approach it.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 1, 2018 15:20:59 GMT -5
As someone who's worked as both an electronics and an acoustical engineer, I'd argue that we do indeed understand "all aspects of the Human Auditory Experience" as they relate to electronics and to sound energy in air. What we don't fully understand, and what we may never fully understand, and what is outside the ability of any engineer or scientist to completely consider, is brain science and how human PERCEPTION systems function. Which is why the exact same signal reproduced by the exact same tools under the exact same conditions can have different impacts on different people. IT IS NOT just about the science of sound. It is about human perception. Could you hazard a guess as to why or some things that might affect this? |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 1, 2018 15:28:30 GMT -5
As someone who's worked as both an electronics and an acoustical engineer, I'd argue that we do indeed understand "all aspects of the Human Auditory Experience" as they relate to electronics and to sound energy in air. What we don't fully understand, and what we may never fully understand, and what is outside the ability of any engineer or scientist to completely consider, is brain science and how human PERCEPTION systems function. Which is why the exact same signal reproduced by the exact same tools under the exact same conditions can have different impacts on different people. IT IS NOT just about the science of sound. It is about human perception. Could you hazard a guess as to why or some things that might affect this? I cannot begin to pretend I know how brain chemistry works, and I have only a layman's understanding of psychology. "Why" is simply "because we are humans, not machines." |
|
)
