Ethernet System for Audio: putting it all together

[dbastin]

3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Calibrated...   The same SPL between samples.

Fast switching ...  There needs to be little delay between the samples.

 

3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

With sighted listening of small changes with long delays between them, experts in the field of perceptual testing will tell you those results are beyond unreliable

 

3 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

The things we hear are illusions of the mind.  

 

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

If you're just swapping a network, with the same data ... then it (SPL vs frequency) will be the same.

For what its worth ...

 

It seems to me, reducing 'noise' and distortion changes how loud the output is perceived.  So, in my experience (perception) it is more 'comfortable' to increase the volume after noise is reduced.  And by doing so it is possible to hear details that were previously too low level, obscured and/or poorly defined.

 

Also, reducing noise/distortion seems to improve the accuracy of frequency reproduction.  In low frequencies, this can translate into less 'loudness' because the impluse response is more accurate and less bloated.  Simultaneously, the definition can improve giving the impression of more extended low frequencies, and/or increase in the volume of that new perceived extension.  To hear this, I have assembled a very good bass reproduction system, carefully positioned to suit room dimensions, etc.  This improved low end in turn improves frequencies at (as I understand it)  multiples the low frequencies, and changes how they are perceived (volume, definition and freq response).

 

Even though initially I don't touch the volume for a while after making a change, I will eventually change it

II without looking at the dB display to find a new volume that is pleasant to listen too.  And that varies depending on the music ... so easy to do with Devialet remote.

 

All this takes time (lots) and various music material to fully assimilate.  A quick A-B is possibly just the tip of the iceberg, a whiff, and possibly even no perceivable change.  So after a quickish A-B, I suggest changing the volume.

 

If anyone else has experienced this too, chime in.

In conclusion, it might be more valid scientifically but ...

you'd be missing out on the full benefit of many improvements if you were to keep the volume the same. 

 

12 hours ago, MLXXX said:

As for the Ethernet network also being an important part of such exploration (in order to avoid or reduce audible impairment from noise),  the jury is out on that for many audiophiles. 

Following on from above, noise in ethernet seems to colour the sound depending on how a technique or product addresses the noise.  That is important enough to me to explore it.

[davewantsmoore]

4 hours ago, dbastin said:

It seems to me, reducing 'noise' and distortion changes how loud the output is perceived.  So, in my experience (perception) it is more 'comfortable' to increase the volume after noise is reduced.  And by doing so it is possible to hear details that were previously too low level, obscured and/or poorly defined.

It is well known that an increase in SPL often sounds "good", due to a number of factors.

If you test with the SPL calibrated.... then, in your example, one will sound more "comfortable" than the other.

 

4 hours ago, dbastin said:

In low frequencies, this can translate into less 'loudness' because the impluse response is more accurate and less bloated.

?

I'm sure you hear what you hear ... but probably settle down on the "because".  ; )

 

4 hours ago, dbastin said:

A quick A-B is possibly just the tip of the iceberg

You don't need to do a "quick A-B".... if you don't want to.

But, it is well known that not doing a quick A-B will dramatically reduce your ability to discriminate between small changes.

 

4 hours ago, dbastin said:

changing the volume.

Assuming that the overall SPL vs frequency has not changed dramatically between the samples (which is would not.... but you should check) ..... then changing the volume is a no-no, if you are trying to hear the difference between "config A" and "config B".

Changing the volume will alter the perception of the frequency balance.... mainly due to the "Fletcher Munson" effect.

 

4 hours ago, dbastin said:

In conclusion, it might be more valid scientifically but ...

you'd be missing out on the full benefit of many improvements if you were to keep the volume the same. 

You can subjectively set the volume wherever you like.....    but if you have two things that you are comparing, you cannot alter the SPL, because what you will hear is the difference in SPL, not the difference in the two things.

I say "cannot".  You can do whatever you like.... but if you want to find out what actually sounds best (ie. which is better A or B? ... or can I hear X?) ... then you should follow what I'm saying.

[Assisi]

22 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

There's as many ways to go about testing it as their are ways to hook up gear  ......  although to optimise the validity of the test it is good to address the things known about testing subjective perception, with how you setup the system -- and so in the end this is going to really narrow the possibilities somewhat.

I do read with a reasonable degree of curiosity posts such as yours in respect of testing regimes as you outline.  It is not something I am inclined to undertake in my own situation.  To some extent I can appreciate the enthusiasm for testing that some posters such as yourself are inclined to undertake as you suggest.  Overall I am reliant on listening to perceive benefits or disbenefits resulting from any changes that I may make from time to time

 

This forum is littered with many posts of reports of the experiences and opinions of posters about a range of various implementations to which perceived benefits are reported. There is no testing as you propose to support most of those reports.

 

John

[davewantsmoore]

11 minutes ago, Assisi said:

This forum is littered with many posts of reports of the experiences and opinions of posters about a range of various implementations to which perceived benefits are reported.

There is.   Yes.

 

 

[Steff]

FWIW the Hi-Fi Immersion youtube channel has uploaded a bunch of videos "ethernet system comparison":

 

[MLXXX]

On 17/12/2023 at 3:18 PM, MLXXX said:

Just a quick post to mention that I spent 3 hours today at Terry O's place on the Gold Coast, with Cafad (a very pleasant chap!) in attendance as well.

I haven't forgotten about providing further detail on the above!!  I hope to open a separate topic in coming days, where I would provide links to comparative versions of the same short extract of music (as downloaded from a lossless source, as downloaded from YouTube, and as captured with an ADC from one of Terry's systems).  

[MLXXX]

On 23/12/2023 at 8:45 AM, Steff said:

FWIW the Hi-Fi Immersion youtube channel has uploaded a bunch of videos "ethernet system comparison":

Hi Steff, I see that no one else has commented on this post of yours, so I''ll have a go.

It does seem to me an odd premise: to make microphone recordings of high level systems for people to listen to with YouTube.  Given that YouTube necessarily involves use of a lossy codec at only a moderate bitrate, and also that most people would use their own streaming to watch YouTube (rather than downloading it first before watching it), how could it be expected that subtle differences in streaming performance with the equipment being demonstrated would be noticeable?  Only relatively major differences would be noticeable.

 

Are there any differences for your hearing?  If so could you advise which of the videos and where?  Someone could then extract the YouTube audio at relevant points, for careful A B comparison.  There's another thing: to your knowledge were lossless recordings made available as a support for the YouTube presentations?  If so, these would be the sources to use for careful A B comparisons.

 

Have I missed something?  I'm really at a loss to understand how it was expected that the videos would succeed in demonstrating differences for people watching the videos on their own equipment.

[Steff]

@MLXXX I didn't listen to it, I cannot tell minute differences between electronic components, be it DACs or elements even further removed from sound production. I simply posted the videos as a potential opportunity, your criticism of the approach is valid, of course.

I have listened to other of their recordings when they assemble high end systems, and youtube's lossiness notwithdstanding think that channel has the best mic'ing and recording methodology of "audiophile" stuff on youtube.

 

As to SQ differences between electronic components (ethernet in this case): some practical and generally agreed-upon descriptors would be very useful: e.g. where in the Hertz spectrum are the differences perceived, and what characterisics apply - tone, timbre, "soundstage" etc. It becomes difficult to credit discussions of marked SQ improvements brought about by discrete components when - measurements notwithstanding - the language around this remains vague. /2c

 

[MattyW]

Has anyone directly compared the Renolabs with LHY SW8 yet out of interest?