What part of “it is impossible to prove a negative” do you not understand ?
The. data. is. transmitted. perfectly. End of story.
It’s been proven over, and over, and over again, you can try it for yourself with a home theater receiver by reading a dts file, you can try it for yourself with an ADI dac by reading their bit perfectness checker file, you can try it for yourself with an MQA dac by reading an MQA file and seeing the magic light light up, and you experiment it for yourself each time you read any file at all: if there were bits missing, it would be audible (or in some cases, not, because you wouldn’t have any sound).
I am so sorry but you are forgetting so many other variables. Just to quote one, ‘Ethernet’. A lot of research is going on, for instance from the guys at Taiko Áudio. By tweeking its parameters on/off they have achieved better SQ. Other is ‘memory playback’ something that Innous has achieved but just with files on disk.
Solid arguments I cannot really argue against. However, I distinctively remember back in the old days (I am 60+), the valve Vs. solid amps arguments. The later do in whole measure much better, but for a lot of people, valve sound is much preferred. (Notice I say “preferred” not better…).
What I try to say, is that measurements do not necessarily say the whole story always. Let’s have an open mind!
Ah, the old argument that a better Ethernet cable will improve SQ - why? Because bits are being lost? Or because of magnetic interference DURING those transmissions, thus adding extra “noise” to the bits?
I currently use Cat 8 shielded Ethernet cables in my network. What else do people expect me to buy? 2k cables?
P.S.: the so-called “extreme” server from Taiko costs almost EUR 30,000 - no wonder they are trying to justify their absurd prices on the basis of arcane parameters.
Totally, lots of people love that warmth. And a measurement will show one is more linear and suggest that is “better” but it’s entirely subjective**.
Ugh, I need to go back to work, this is all too much fun. To be continued.
** Although the research suggests people in blind tests prefer a linear response. Toole et al go so far as having an ~80% accuracy at predicting which speaker will be picked as the best in blind tests based solely on measurements.
Years ago someone posted an audio file in a forum wich had several manipulation in them. On one forum he had posted it without telling where the edits where. On the other forum he explained on forehand on what exact timing what had been done.
The approximate edits where (for as far as I can remember)
1:) file as is.
2:) added quite a lot of jitter
3:) upsampled to 192kHz and back to 44.1.
4:) added a phaseshift
On forum one, nobody and I mean not one person could hear any difference and there was a hefty discussion about it all being fake, especially after finding out about the same experiment on forum two.
On forum two, almost everybody heard a difference and those who didn’t also did in the end (pear pressure?)
Now what was the difference again between forum one and two? On forum one didn’t know when and what was coming. Forum two new exactly what was manipulated and exactly on what time.
By the way. He never revealed if there actually where any edits in the file or that he just told us he had edited it. Nobody will ever know.
It isn’t a theory: in the digital world, unless you change the signal, the signal doesn’t change. If the signal is transmitted in a bit perfect way, then nothing has changed.
In other words, the sequence of 1’s and 0’s that make the sound leave your hard drive (yes, even if you’re using a streaming service) and get to your dac as the identical sequence of 1’s and 0’s. Since from the way you’re framing this, I’m uncertain that this is clear to you, that’s what “bit perfect”, or “lossless transmission” means.
Of course it is possible to improve the sound, but you cannot do it in a bit perfect way, precisely because improving the sound means changing the sequence of 1’s and 0’s.
That is why there are different colours in the Roon. One of them says (the purple one) says “lossless”. Another (the blue one) says “enhanced”.
Could Roon release more “enhancements” ? Yes ! Like a GUI for room-correction (or “Dirac integration” if you like brand names). That is something that everyone here agrees on, but that is not what the original claim was.
Can Roon better transmit losslessly ? Nope, because the transmission is already bit-perfect (or lossless).
Can we tell that the transmission is bit-perfect ? Yeap, see my previous posts. I wouldn’t want you to rely on my word for it: try it for yourself. If a DTS file plays back on your receiver, then the transmission is bit perfect.
Here’s where I’m going to really confuse you, but where you might understand what you didn’t before. A manufacturer who claims that the way that Roon transports files degrades the sound alsosuggests this method.
They also suggest another method: use DoP. Yes, I’ve tried both. You should as well.
The problem myself and others here have is right there: that people are simultaneously claiming that a transmission is bit-perfect, and that they hear differences in said bit-perfect transmission.
Ricardo, I am not talking about the hardware. I know, the price is also extreme… I am talking about the software. There’s a couple of fóruns where this is being discussed. I won’t comments on the Ethernet cables. I have made my choices but I never really compared them with the more common ones. What I can say based on my own experience is that LPS and DC cables have a decisive influence on SQ, as well as Ethernet Switches. It’s night and day! Fiber instead of copper also improves SQ.
Over the years, I’ve tried to have the cleanest signal possible and my actual setup is the following:
Router>Rj45>oM>SFP>
Buffalo2016>SFP>oM>Rj45>Innuos Zen MK3>Rj45>eR>
SFP>oR>USB>RUR>
USB>iR>USB>
DAC.
As you can see I have 2 switches and 2 USB Reclockers. Recently I also connected an cheap Chinese clock (100$) to my eR either great results.
I realise that this is a bit moot, but I’d like to recap what I’ve understood if you don’t mind.
You spent thousands of dollars on equipment to transport, over a few meters, a signal that went through thousands of kilometers of cables and commodity switches.
You claim that those changes are audible, but you’ve probably always accepted that “do the listening” was the right answer from the manufacturers you bought from (who are known for, and are extremely proud of, their outstanding customer support I may add), and never demanded that they provide evidence for their claims (probably because you hear the difference, and you say to yourself that it proves something about how great you, or your gear, are).
But hey… it isn’t about the hardware, it’s about the software, and there are a couple of forums where this is discussed, so they’ve got to be right (since they’re also great and their gear is and they too hear the difference).
Further up I was mentioning Ground Loops and Leakage Current.
If you hear differences, one of those two is almost always the reason.
You remember Mark Levinson?
They had a pre-amp called No 26. That was an excellent device. They did research and found out that there are leakage currents on the board. Therefore, the circuit board was coated with Teflon and the device was released as No 26S. It is exactly the same circuit with the same components. The only difference is the circuit board.
I own a No 26 and a No 26S. The sound differences are on a similar level as the difference of a USB cable compared with Toslink. You can measure these leakage currents. But you need analysis devices, which are precise enough and cost a fortune.
These leakage currents also exist in computers. Depending on what you do they smaller or bigger.
And exactly these leakage currents make you hear differences.
[edit] These leakage currents are only audible in the analog domain. If the separation between digital and analog is not good enough, then leakage current can cross from the digital part to the analog side.
I’d say yes! In any case, I think that I would probably save money and get the approval of my wife with a proper designed Roon machine that would include Ethernet and USB audiophiles cards and individual LPS. That’s a project to consider over the coming months.
And again, this concerns the analogue world, not the digital one.
So my point still stands: in objective terms, there is NOTHING to be done by any software developer (Roon included) to improve SQ AS LONG AS bit-perfection is assured. EVERYTHING else concerns physical implementation of one’s setup.
Always with the proviso, of course, that SQ “improvement” can be understood as anything you like. So if people no longer care about bit perfection, perhaps they DO wish Roon to employ/offer whatever filters they like to make things sound “better” or “louder”.
In that case, we are all back to square zero, where an objective definition of SQ in software will always be impossible to reach.
No restriction at all - but if you go down that path, stop talking about keeping music “unadulterated” or “bit-perfect” - and once this happens, forget about any objective way of gauging SQ in software.
Because when you step away from bit perfect you are per defenition altering the sound which is is only worthwhle for certain situations/rooms/equipment/mood/taste. You can’t just “improve” anything in general by altering the bits, you can “change” it for sure. Use the dsp function for that.
I’m really confused here when people are asking for better sound quality. Do you ask for more manupilation in the form of upsampling/room correction etc or do you think there is something fundamentaly flawed with the way Roon transports data to your DAC? Please explain, I’m trying to understand.
Now in my experiment comparing streaming from Roon and Streaming from LMS, both are bit perfect yet there is a subtle difference. They use the same kit bar the server end which are two seperate computers, rock has direct attached storage Vortexbox access Nas backup of the Rock data. Playback hardware is all the same and pi is set up to use wireless so no possible ground loops or additional noise (other than wifi generated ). Yet there is a difference to me between them.
I plan to see if I can capture this difference somehow to revisit this but for now I leave it alone its not stopping me using Roon and I don’t feel I am missing enough to worry.
The ONLY situation I could understand, as far as bit-perfect SOFTWARE is concerned, is a situation where performance of the software itself is impaired by memory leaks or excessive CPU usage, either due to a system crash or buggy processes - however, even in such a scenario this would just result (as it did today for me in Audirvana) in sound interruptions; not SQ impact per se.
So for those that are still saying they can hear a difference: this is either confirmation bias, or MUST be located elsewhere in your setup. Moreover, one can only isolate the causes of perceived SQ difference (say, between Roon and LMS) if they are using IDENTICAL parts of the puzzle in each case. Otherwise you will always be comparing apples and oranges.
