Computer Audio Bake-Off

Rob.

I agree that bake-offs are good for only really giving one an idea of what stuff sounds like. Its usually held in strange surroundings with kit you don't know.

They are great for socialising, hearing new music and getting a feel for some kit you have never heard.

Above all its a laugh.

 

I've hosted blind cable dems (and blind dac dems) and attended a fair few bake-offs over the years.

I've heard and owned many dozens of cables over the years, and yes I attribute the differences to the effects of a sighted dem. There are exceptions of course and there are perfectly rational and measurable differences between some cables and their interaction with a system, but that is very much the exception IME.

Anyway, I shan't start all that again here. Search the forum if you have a spare weekend

 

It was a life-changer hearing Richard's prototype 'Statements': and Figlet's Xonar-based PC was shockingly better than I expected. Also very grateful for the netbook v laptop comparison . . . it's all good stuff. Long live the bake-off and hosts hospitable enough to host them!

 

Yes, they are good fun.

I also like just visiting other people and listening to their idea of a good system.
No swapping or messing around, just turn up with some music and enjoy.

Those always seem to involve alcohol for some reason perhaps because its more relaxed than when there is lots of kit swapping.

 

Oi, you saying I talk too much!

 

Mark, you may have heard it that way, but I did not. I preferred the HiFace/MIT Shotgun to your Halide Bridge, possibly because I am used to the colourful, vibrant and detailed sound that the MIT cable seems to facilitate wherever it is used. Would the result have been the same with a cheaper cable more in keeping with the price of the Halide Bridge? Who knows, but if I had not heard the HiFace first, I would certainly be more than pleased with the sound of the Halide Bridge, particularly since it does not need any additional cables.

Yes, that was definitely the case and I think you know the answer to the question - it's most likely due to poor USB power supplies on the netbook, rather than CPU load or anything like that. It would be interesting to feed the HiFace (or your Halide Bridge) from the netbook via one of those USB power regulation gadgets that you showed me. If it could be made to work, the netbook could be a perfect computer audio source/controller.

 

It seems like no-one could agree about coaxial cables from the HiFace. Half preferred NVA SPs to SSPs; the audience was also apparently also divided comparing the Bridge to the HiFace+MIT pairing. I favoured it for the same reason I preferred the SP coaxial: I interpreted the more fulsome presentation as less accurate: where some heard bloom, I heard bloat.

Pretty subjective stuff based on a very quick A-B listen. I'd have liked to obsess a bit more over an A-B-A-B-A-B kind of comparison with a few different tracks: the snap verdict split the jury.

The six of us couldn't even agree whether there was a difference between them at all - thanks, Rob!

 

Your version of reality is not mine, or most of those who were present. I think you need to stop worrying about your products and trying to talk them up.

There were bound to be discrepencies, that is why we all own different hi-fi, there is no "answer", there is only your music, through your equipment, in your room, nothing else matters. AND the last two in this situation were mine!

 

I'm going to use an SPL meter at my bake-off, thanks for the suggestion (not directly obviously). I have a test record with tones on it so we can adjust the volume on the 72 to make sure all TT combos have the same volume. That's one less 'issue' to deal with down the pub

 

With these get-togethers its GIGO: if you don't make the test under controlled conditions, you won't get meaningful results.

There's also a tendency for the loudest-shouted opinion to dominate. Fortunately, over the last few days, each member has now piped up with their own views: they comprise a fascinating lack of consensus!

Jason's Nexus/Xonar impressed all, but Jason and I both felt that it was quite flawed in some respects: which is why he's on the lookout for a better DAC.

Try to unravel that result, I don't think I'm putting words in people's mouths when I say that Rob, Jason and I seem to place a higher priority on resolution and finesse than the other half of the group, who seemed to be most excited by dynamics. The verdicts therefore reflect somewhat different priorities.

There's only four kinds of speaker: boring and wrong; wrong, but exciting; and correct, but boring. And I'm still waiting to hear a speaker that's exciting and right. The Xonar card for me was exciting but wrong; the KingRex was correct, but boring. But these are cheap, cheap converters. The much more expensive Wyred 4 Sound and Benchmark DACs were obviously a lot closer to being exciting and right: no surprise there.

 

It is easy to deal with something that is obviously louder, but small SPL differences won't always manifest themselves clearly in terms of loudness.
A slight and barely perceptible increase with often make a product seem a little more dynamic, better projected and subjectively 'clearer' - when it might not be.

As you say, one less variable.

 

The SPL meter is a must: on my system, the output of the modded Benchmark DAC 1 requires 4 notches less help from the preamp than the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 to achieve the same level.

 

As Richard pointed on on Saturday: it's possible to perceive dynamic range differences independent of volume: when something lacks DR, we pump the volume to get feet tapping: a better system doesn't need such help.

The Xonar/Nexus evidently had better DR than the KingRex UD-01 SE, but loud isn't the same as clever . . .

 

OK seeing as you are continuing to play games, as far as I am concerned the KingRex made it sound like a midi system, it lost scale and dynamics and that is what the Statement Range was design for, to add that to the clarity and information retrieval of the Black Box Range - so all I can say is you are talking bollocks and hearing things *no* one else heard.

 

Absolutely.

Look as what are often described and dynamic and punchy rock recording, then you look at the dynamics and discover massive compression.

With equipment, there are plenty of speaker systems that need to be played loud in order to give the impression of life and dynamics. Others sound lively and dynamic at much lower levels.
Some complex mechanisms at work both with the music, equipment and our perception.

 

My ears perceive dynamic range and my brain resolves that into scale, it has nothing to do with loudness. I can get it at midnight when I am keeping the system down because of the nieghbours. It is only with equipment that is struggling to get it out that you have to keep turning the volume up. It never got beyond acceptable levels at the Bake-Off otherwise I would have turned it down.

 

Sorry, I don't understand - what games are you referring to?

Is that the consensus view then, or just your view?

 

Have you looked very far? Maybe you should open your mind and broaden your horizons to include, for instance, Avalon or Royd? Just a suggestion.

For me, the Xonar played music, not HiFi, where the Kingrex USB DAC played neither. I would not have called the Xonar merely exciting to listen to - it was musical, as was your expensively modded Benchmark, by the way. The Wyred 4 Sound DAC did not tickle my musical fancy in the same way, even after you had coaxed your PC into life. That's me. but am I wrong?

All of this confirms what Richard says above:

As I said on Saturday, we each possess ears, which are but the first part of an auditory system, unique to ourselves in every way, that involves a great deal of complex processing in the inner ear and brain before we perceive sounds. In effect, each person's auditory system is like a computer running slightly different operating systems and employing different hardware, processing software and drivers to everyone else. That's why we each have different opinions (Ivor T would call them prejudices) on audio matters, but critically why nobody's musical experience is the same as anyone else's. Hell, that's why some people like Schoenberg!

 

Also I think we need to add some light of reality to pierce the fog of bullshit.

I organised the Bake-Off for one purpose and one purpose alone. I have a system that produces massive scale and reality (IMO), but only with a turntable, every CD player I try leaves me cold and I have put it down to the digital process which I insult on line at every opportunity. I was challenged by Figlet and Uglymusic that my thinking was out of date and I needed to listen to what digital did with computer or hard disc acting as source - hence the Bake-Off.

Now at that Bake-Off I heard two of the contenders that did it for me Figlets home built creation, and a combo of an expensive dac and ipod dock. The ipod was a complete shock as I have dissed the bloody things since they came out, but it is a impractical solution and also Figlets creation was better, *in what I wanted and was looking for in **MY** system*. It will be used in dems and shows, so it has to be synergistic.

Now none of that makes the rest of the product at the Bake-Off bad product, in other situations and systems it could well be prefered, so all the marketing protectionism that is going on is not relevent or applicable - if you don't like the results go and do it somewhere else and find different results if you can.

I was also impressed with the simplicity of Rob and Shuggies approach and for the money both were very acceptable, but for me I needed something to match or exceed the PL-71 / Ortofon SPU. Though both IMO were better than CD.