Nuc sound differences

Audio Gear Talk
65

Well, there are thresholds, and the measuring point is so far within that threshold, there can be absolutely no doubt.

It’s a bit like sunrise and sunset times, which are always changing, and thus have a “shape” using your analogy - but at midday it’s alway light, and at midnight it’s always dark.

And even then, if we’re unsure, we have checksums and resends - which is like saying “it’s midday, I just checked, but I think it might be dark - I’ll check again”…. Nope it’s definitely light out there.

I’m sorry, but bits are really just bits. No two ways about it - or rather, exactly two ways about it.

1 Like
66

I can’t prove that aliens exist, but I believe they do. As science and technology allow for faster space travel I hope to be proven correct, but until I’m proven wrong, I leave it open as a possibility.

We have a benchmark for at what point noise/distortion are audible. As in a point at which on average we can actually hear the distortion, however that point point is far above our ability to measure distortion meaning that while most modern dacs measure far better than our ability to hear audible distortion, the distortion exists. To my knowledge we don’t have a tool for measuring things like soundstage width/depth, instrument separation, tonality etc. Why is it impossible to believe that this information gets buried/blurred/obscured/destroyed by the distortion/noise and depending on what causes the distortion/noise the audible effects can be different. I’m not so much talking about your typical even order harmonics in analogue amplification, I’m talking about things we can’t measure (because the technology isn’t there yet ). We dismiss any noise or distortion below the the threshold of being audible as irrelevant, when that’s just an unproven theory. You might not hear static but that doesn’t mean that hasn’t changed what we hear.

Any electrical component in your system has the ability to negatively impact what you hear. Things like galvanic isolation can help limit that. So do I think it’s possible that a different processor could change the sound of 1’s and 0’s? If it has the ability to add noise/distortion to your system then, yes I do. Two devices connected via usb have the ability to transfer noise. Two devices on two separate circuits connected only via WiFi probably won’t pass along much in the way of noise/distortion, but perhaps the WiFi card will add its own problems. We don’t know because we can’t measure it and we’re forced to trust our ears or difficult to execute double blind tests which often include people who don’t understand what they’re listening for. Ask someone formally trained in fine arts to evaluate a Picasso and your response will be very different from someone who has walked through a museum before.

And all of this fails to take the rest of your system into account. Over the last year I’ve moved to wide range speakers without crossovers. That made a difference in perceived imaging and the like. I went a little crazy sound treating my room. That made a difference too. When people tell me that they can’t hear a difference between DAC A and DAC B in their system I tend to believe them, but I don’t think that means the difference doesn’t exist, I assume it’s being masked by something else.

67

A DAC’s function is to convert data to a voltage, and that’s what’s measured: the output voltage. The input data is assumed correct because it came from somewhere that can check, and there’s transport integrity.

68

Such psychoacoustic perceptions are formed by our brains, after decades of subconscious learning as how our personal ear canals, pinnae and head related transfer function help discern sound incident angles and distances by changing amplitude, tonality and arrival times - that ability can be scientifically measured, actually.

And then there are sonic illusions, caused by our brains trying to make sense of it all.

Room acoustics, electroacoustic transducer frequency and time domain behavior, radiation pattern, as well as electrical filter network frequency and time domain behavior, all add their contributions to form a chaotic sound field, strongly influencing our perception.

Any other contributions by transparently measuring electronics (as has been discussed ad nauseam), or even inaudible noise of any provenance, are absolutely dwarfed by orders of magnitude in relation to the above, as to be just that:
inaudible and non-contributing to your perception.

The state of the art in the sciences of acoustics and psychoacoustics are out there in the net, if you would just take the time to investigate, rather than spending on audiophile myth-spreading fora and manufacturer proclamations.

1 Like
69

Nothing I said challenges that. The original question was how can two different computers result in different sounding outcomes. The resulting voltage is influenced by the dacs ability to due its job and the dac is not immune from the electrical interference being sent with data. Admittedly most modern dacs to an amazing job of rejecting noise inherent to USB and so spdif but that’s not the same as eliminating it. It’s not just the 1’s and zero’s that get transferred from the computer to the dac without complete isolation which is at best inconvenient. I’m not saying that I would absolutely hear a difference in my system with my ears, but it doesn’t make the OP some kind of flat earther which has been implied by many. The OP spoke specifically to dynamics I believe. I’m saying the invoking of “it’s science” and “it’s just 1’s and zero’s” does not negate the fact that it’s more complicated than that. Electricity is also “science”. Not everything we hear can be meandered. Our memory is more susceptible to confusion than true measurements, but our ears and brain are more sensitive than the equipment used to make the measurements so it’s a comparison of apples and oranges.

70

I go into all of these things with skepticism, curiosity, and an open mind. When I bought my first grown up DAC, ASR was very fond of the RME ADI-2. It was almost universally well reviewed and I enjoyed it. I tried a handful of others from SMSL, Topping, and ifi. With the exception of the ifi, which wasn’t my thing, the others sounded a lot like the RME. It wasn’t until I tried the Schiit multibit dacs that I appreciated that DACs could sound different and it was ultimately the Denafrips Ares II that got me away from the RME.

I was skeptical that a linear power supply could effect sound until I replaced the power supply on my pi with a relatively inexpensive one I found on Amazon. I had a theory that it shouldn’t make any difference, I tested the theory. I made an informed decision. Upon giving it some thought… it kind of makes sense. Cleaner power in the pi, improved the performance of that directly connected dac.

So do we take that further to the NUC running rock and give it its own LPS? I’ve been talking to the gentleman from small green computer about it. It’s a much more expensive test than the pi and it’s further away from the dac in the signal chain, so I’m less inclined to believe it will make a big difference, but I’m not willing to dismiss it as impossible. Do I go one step further to a galvanic isolates fiber network connection? Again, seems like a stretch in terms of bang for the buck. I think it’s probably not one of the first changes I would make, but I could see how stripping away another source of interference can only be a good thing.

Is it audible? I don’t know. I truly don’t. I know that contaminated electricity is measurable.

So how about instead of ridiculing people for spending their own money on what makes them happy you accept that there’s an element of unknown here. I’m not asking you to be curious too. I’m asking you to be respectful. This is absolutely not settled science and likely never will be given how unique our systems are, from the power supply powering your roon server all the way to your uniquely shaped ears.

71

No, not shape. That is slope in math. Or slew rate in electronics.

AJ

72

I never did intend to make you feel being ridiculed while I was writing about…

The state of the art in the sciences of acoustics and psychoacoustics

… trying to highlight the stark discrepancy in, as you said …

any noise or distortion below the the threshold of being audible

and …

Room acoustics, electroacoustic transducer frequency and time domain behavior, radiation pattern, as well as electrical filter network frequency and time domain behavior

… absolutely dwarfing them by orders of magnitude.

On the one hand, you admit to measurements being more sensitive than our ability to hear them, when you write…

a point at which on average we can actually hear the distortion, however that point point is far above our ability to measure distortion

On the other hand you ask…

Why is it impossible to believe that this information gets buried/blurred/obscured/destroyed by the distortion/noise and depending on what causes the distortion/noise the audible effects can be different

Well that’s because then it would be measurable by the more sensitive measurements, thusly easily verifyable, no?

You may tinker away as you like, and I have no problem with that!
Do whatever makes you happy, spend your money on whatever pleases you!

What I do have a problem with, is when contradictory statements are made with the only substantiation of your belief in them.

73

I don’t feel ridiculed at all. All I really care about is enjoying music and experimentation has made the experience more enjoyable. I’m going to continue to tweak because I think it’s fun and most of the time these tweaks and changes have made my listening experiences more enjoyable. You’re the one that took aim at me for spouting falsehoods. I’m not here to change your mind. I’d just hate for people to stop experimenting because someone told them it didn’t matter. My experience is that sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it didn’t matter until I corrected a different and more glaring problem like room treatments. I’ll absolutely agree that most of this stuff doesn’t matter most of the time, but to say it’s wholly irrelevant regardless of variables… That’s where I take issue. I have no agenda here other than saying that if there’s ever such thing as “the best” or only “one way” to do something then people will stop experimenting and innovation will stop moving forward.

As for your attempt to take my comment about measurements out of context… OK, I’ll play. What you’re suggesting is that the only problem that can be introduced into an audio signal is noise, distortion, garbage… whatever you want to call it. And I agree that the tools used to measure DACs are more sensitive to noise than our ears are, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the low level noise (below the threshold of hearing) can have an audible (above the threshold of hearing) effect on sound that isn’t measurable because our ears and brains are complicated. We have a unique ability to process spatial cues in music with regard to soundstage depth and width. The timbre of instruments, leading edges and tails of notes. It’s my hypothesis that this information is destroyed, obscured, or minimized before distortion is at a level that we can actually hear. I’ve made this hypothesis based on experimentation and I spend my money on what sounds best and it’s not a ton of money. If I purchase something that doesn’t make an audible and positive difference in my system, I have no problem returning it. I built my speakers, my amplifiers were a DIY project and while none of them measure at a state of the art level, they sound very different from my secondary setup, which is a little closer to SOTA. I’m not educated enough in electrical engineering to explain the why. I’m not even saying universally that it’s better. I’m saying it’s different and it’s my preference. The changes that I’ve implemented and have chosen to keep have made what I perceive to be a positive difference in the listening experience. I don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with another person finding something more enjoyable.

So to get back to the original point, from the OP which for some reason you continue to try and derail. If the OP hears a difference in his system from moving from one computer to the next, it’s not fair to infer he’s hearing things just because you can’t explain it or rationalize it in your narrowly focused view of how sound works. For all we know his old computer or his new computer was literally defective and contaminating the power on the circuit and it manifested as sounding “different”. That seems perfectly plausible to me. Good for him. As I mentioned before… I’m not a believer in all of the so called snake oil stuff. I think there’s certainly a point of diminishing returns for a lot of it, and logic prevents me from taking some leaps, but as an experiment in the time between typing out these last two responses I switched from using my Rpi4 endpoint to plugging my DAC straight into my NUC server. Both over USB. There’s absolutely a difference. I’m guessing it’s because the NUC has a lot more going on inside and the included SMPS power supply is inferior to the cheap LPS on the Pi. I’m guessing it’s even measurable. I’m guessing that there’s more electrical noise at the usb input on the NUC than there is on the Pi. But none of that matters because if the Pi sounds better, I’m just going to use it. Maybe I’ll order an LPS for the NUC. Maybe next time I’ve got some extra money to spend I’ll try one of those fiber optic network adapters. In theory… The fiber optic network would have a more measurable effect by reducing noise being passed on to the Pi. Maybe I would hear it, maybe I wouldn’t. If it didn’t make an improvements and they’ve got a solid return policy, I see no reason to try it, out of shear curiosity.

I envy you for being so confident in your beliefs that you’ve got this all figured out, but I hope I never lose my curiosity. If only 1 out of 10 experiments turn out to be positive, it’ll be worth the journey.

1 Like
74

Yes, I feel more confident in trusting scientific findings that aren’t falsified, yet.

Obviously, we do not seem to have any common ground, other than our passion with music, maybe

If interested, click my avatar for system details.

1 Like
75

I’ll be sure to update my system info. Looks like you’ve got a really cool setup and I’ll bet we have a lot of common ground on the DIY side.

I still don’t understand why you think you have a scientific evidence on your side here. Let me stop and say that I’m not trying to be argumentative and I’m genuinely curious. Let me also say, that in fairness, I don’t think any evidence you provide is going to change my opinion based in real world experience, but I honestly want to understand why you’re so convinced that you’re right.

I searched for tools that can measure things like soundstage, imaging, dynamics, and timbre and I haven’t found them. Am I searching incorrectly?

And in the spirit of being fair here, this has been a journey for me, and if I wasn’t open minded to the possibility that I could be wrong, I never would have gotten here.

Like you… I went the measurements route. My 2nd setup is the RME>NAD C298> KEF LS50 Meta. It’s a fairly textbook well measuring setup.

Now seeing your setup, I can honestly agree that the benefits of a lot of what we’re talking about here would be lost on you in your system. Yours is not the kind of system that would reveal these benefits, much like my second system would not reveal them either. It doesn’t make it bad, it makes them different. I didn’t realize it until I tried it.

Well measuring class D amps like my NAD, and your DIY amps are amazing at delivering clean, high power, at an unparelleled efficiency and they’re free of most of the problems that plagued class D amps for the majority of their existence. They’re that good, but there’s a downside that doesn’t show up in the measurements and it’s precisely the details I’ve been eluding to all along. Toss in room correction, and you’ve got one more thing in the way of noticing these changes. I can’t explain it. I can’t measure it, but I can hear it. My main system is far more sensitive to changes. Things like power supplies, which I assumed were a non issue become an issue. Different DAC’s sound a lot more different. I’ve never tried a super expensive power cable, but jumping from the included cables to moderately priced cables made a difference. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, but it made a difference.

Why? Why can I hear the difference in one system and not the other? I think it’s the electronics. The class A circuit in the main setup is far simpler than the Class D circuit in the NAD. The DIY speakers in the main setup don’t have a crossover and there’s no DSP. Even when I use the Roon DSP volume control, it changes the sound of my speakers. It shouldn’t, but it does. I don’t blame Roon, I think that’s just what happens when you add things to the signal chain.

I took this way into the weeds, and I’m sorry for derailing the conversation, but it really was to illustrate a point. The first part of which, is that our systems as a whole have a lot of influence over what we hear and secondly to explain why I’m doubting there are adequate double blind tests to dispute my claims and or support yours as the variables are complex and endless. I also don’t mean to suggest that one is right and one is wrong. On paper, I’m sure your system measures better than my secondary system and I know that my secondary system measures better than my main system. But in my case at least, the measurements don’t correlate to the level of enjoyment.

I’m OK with agreeing to disagree, but I really hope someone else find the back and forth beneficial.

2 Likes