Took the plunge, Asher--this better be worth it.

[DRoseDARs]

[Asher]

The problem with Agathon's argument is heard audio fidelity is only as strong as the weakest link.

If the DSP and/or DAC you use introduces electronic noise in place of the signal (that is, "bits" of the bitstream are corrupted), it will directly impact other factors later (headphone adapter, headphone cable, headphone quality, driver size, etc), not to mention other factors such as THD and crosstalk.

SNR numbers play a rather significant part in digital audio fidelity, it's simply part of the science that some people choose to believe is art to justify some absurd opinions.

Whether it sounds "better" or not is art, whether it's accurate reproduction is science. It's 2005, it's time for some people here to realize that.

[monolith94]

Hot Topic is the epitome of what I hate about... everything.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Agathon
But the only way to really test audio equipment is to compare the sound yourself by doing listening tests. If you really care about the sound you get, you will do that, and it will ensure that you get something you like.

And that in the end, is the only thing that anyone can really say.

The word.

The thing I don't understand is why people care so much about what other people buy.

I compared the zen touch with the iPod and I like the iPod better. The sound quality is about the same, but the zen touch is a cheap piece of plastic crap in my opinion.

Boris likes the zen touch better. Fine, what do I care.

As for giving advise, all I'd say is spend money on a good set of earphones simply because you pay for what you get and the earphones make all the difference.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem with Agathon's argument is heard audio fidelity is only as strong as the weakest link.

If the DSP and/or DAC you use introduces electronic noise in place of the signal (that is, "bits" of the bitstream are corrupted), it will directly impact other factors later (headphone adapter, headphone cable, headphone quality, driver size, etc), not to mention other factors such as THD and crosstalk.

SNR numbers play a rather significant part in digital audio fidelity, it's simply part of the science that some people choose to believe is art to justify some absurd opinions.

Whether it sounds "better" or not is art, whether it's accurate reproduction is science. It's 2005, it's time for some people here to realize that.

Again - from Wikipedia

The designer of a system for sound reproduction needs to be able to measure the system's performance in a number of areas. While this is not a measure of quality but of quantity, it is a fact that certain quantifiable measurements must be of a certain order to assure quality. That said, it is possible to design systems that sound terrible nevertheless — in other words, a quality system will attain certain measurements, but the existence of those measurements does not guarantee quality.

Everyone who loves hi fi knows this. We simply don't have measurements that are accurate enough to predict with reasonable certainty which systems will sound better and more faithful to the original sound.

You can rabbit on all you like, but the entire audio review industry agrees with me. So give it up.

[Agathon]

From the Mpeg audio FAQ

http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/faq/mp1-aud/mp1-aud.htm

What is the Signal-To-Noise Ratio (SNR) of MPEG Audio?

For a perceptual codec, this is not really a relevant question. The SNR is a very bad measure of perceptual audio quality, even for a waveform coder. The SNR measured in a conventional way, may vary from a few dB up to more than 100 dB, mostly depending on the signal, while no noise is audible in any of these cases. Within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R), a task group (TG 10/4) is working on the development of a more appropriate objective measurement system, based on perceptual models. For the moment, one has to rely on the human ear as a measuring instrument, i.e. there are no other reliable means to determine the quality of a perceptual codec than listening tests. Even when a standardised perceptually based objective measurement system is available, listening tests will still be wise for comparison of different audio codecs.

Kiss my ass Asher.

[Agathon]

The use of measures such as MSE (SNR) allow us to get an objective indication of the performance of our processing. Such measure is known to have little perceptual meaning as far as considering the human psychoacoustics;

http://www.isr.umd.edu/~cknoll/enee624/proj1.html

[Agathon]

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/572/

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You can rabbit on all you like, but the entire audio review industry agrees with me. So give it up.

Strawman -- I'm not saying good SNR guarantees "good" sound. I've made this very clear.

If you have a component in the chain of sound reproduction that loses lots of the signal, that will impede the highest possible sound quality available.

I really don't give a rats ass what these pretentious audiophiles claim -- most of them probably can't even comprehend the concept of a bitstream let alone the implications of SNR with a bitstream.

They don't understand the technology if they think the SNR doesn't have an impact on the integrity of the digital signal.

I agree that ideally you need to listen to both to see which sounds better. My argument is that if you have a system with a crap SNR (ie, noise impedes on the signal in a significant way, resulting in loss of signal), it cannot possibly sound as good as a system with a good SNR, given everything else is the same.

Frankly, anyone who says otherwise needs a crash course in digital audio.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
From the Mpeg audio FAQ

http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/faq/mp1-aud/mp1-aud.htm

Kiss my ass Asher.

You really do love those strawmen -- evidently, the only way for a philosophy major to try to win any kind of argument.

1) I've said, repeatedly, that under ideal circumstances, you should compare them and make a judgement (in all referenced cases here -- except for Tingkai who obviously has a bias if he calls one 'cheap plastic junk' and a vendetta against the Creative CEO -- people say the Zen sounds better)
2) I've said, repeatedly, that SNR in digital audio is a useful metric for measuring signal integrity of components. If you lose the signal in an early stage of the output, you cannot get it back. Saying that it's irrelevant is saying it's irrelevant that lots of information is missing from JPGs compared to BMP. It's not irrelevant...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/572/

An article from 1989 written by a bobb from the most famous pretentious audiophile magazine, clearly from an expert in modern digital audio reproduction.

Good catch.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon

The use of measures such as MSE (SNR) allow us to get an objective indication of the performance of our processing. Such measure is known to have little perceptual meaning as far as considering the human psychoacoustics;

http://www.isr.umd.edu/~cknoll/enee624/proj1.html

Aha, the problem here is you don't seem to understand the other ramifications.

One of the reasons that the Zen DSP is so much better is because of things like the reduced SNR.

If you do things like EAX on the iPod, the "defects" introduced by poor SNR get amplified. It's akin to the need for higher precision color depth internally on 3D cards (128-bit color on DX9-era hardware), while the external color remains 32-bit (well 24-bit w/ alpha channel).

There are reasons internal SNR measurements are useful in modern digital audio, ones I don't think most hobbiest audiophile philosophers are aware of, or even apparently capable of comprehending.

Once you design a DSP and DAC, come back to talk to me.

[DRoseDARs]

I just got home from CIrcuit City with a black Zen Mirco for $199.99 USD plus tax. It's charging right now and pulsing blue. :mesmorized: