The set up is irrelevant- there were 3 changes- homeplug/wireless/hardwired- and can the invited people hear the difference.
Answer -all three heard differences and preferred different sounds from the 3 options.There aren't "problems",and it isn't a problem solving test.It is an individual preference test based on three people hearing the same system in three different formats.I wish people would stop trying to prove things through statistics and "proven " hardfacts and just accept that different people hear different things.
That thread may have been locked,but the early beautiful post by the prof really said it all about the Big Question approach.he could equally have done the same post about light reception through the eye and its transmission to the brain if the question had been about TVs.It is personal interpretation in this test,not a be all and end all verdict on sound and vision.
you completely missed the point on the locked thread, and again on this one. there could be an easily avoidable problem in the setup that others would like to avoid. you wish people would stop trying to prove things with facts? i wish people would stop interfering with those who would like the facts.
Synology NAS + Audio Station - ATV2 - Benchmark DAC1 HDR - Event Opal
Consulting Editor, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision/whathifi.com Audio Editor, Gramophone
There is of course a completely different discussion to be had on whether the set up could have been different etc( I hesitate to say better because then the argument becomes circular)
but that is not the point of the Big Question-and as usual it generates more questions than answers but it is after all a fun day .
i'm not sure i understand your point. i was commenting on the prof saying (if i read it right) that the marked differences between the systems was an eye opener. maybe if all three sources were connected via, say, optical to a decent dac, and then there were marked differences - that would be an eye opener. to me anyway. i'm not sure if the analogue outputs of three different sources sounding different, qualifies.
ravey, sorry, your meaning wasn't clear to me from your post. i understand now, thanks for explaining.
That does not rule out packet corruption though, and you are right, TCP/IP has safeguards against such corruption that UDP does not have. But packet loss is very unlikely.
As we know UDP is an unreliable transport. MTU is often set at the 1500 bytes, however this is a maximum, VOIP apps often use smaller packet sizes, no idea what packet sizes are used here, so not sure we can rule out packet loss/corruption and interpolation.
However, despite the above I totally agree that SQ differences perceived are unlikely to be caused by the choice of network connection. Which is my issue with these articles, that is, for me they don't actually answer the big question they ask.
Reading this months Big Question, I get the same sense of missed opportunities.
For me, the Big Questions seems more about reinforcing the idea that more expensive is better.
Whereas of course the fact of the matter is that we have no such agenda, and just report what the BQ participants say.
This edition's BQ gave us the rather uninspiring conclusion that (generally) a highly rated source at a higher price point was better than a highly rated source at a lower price point. Can't imagine such a test would have been performed with CDPs.
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
Apologies then. As far as I could tell the Linn seemed to be there to show that spending more improved SQ, which didn't appear to be relevant to the article.
To answer the BQ, wouldn't you have been better to keep the variations to a minimum, e.g., CD transport and streamer both connected to the same DAC using the same cables, etc.?
I realise you're not conducting a scientific experiment and it's just a bit of fun, but a bit more rigour could help answer these BQs, I'm sure helping your readers.
Sorry if this is negative as I think the BQ is probably the best concept in the mag.
Odd, seemed pretty clear that it was there to demonstrate the superiority of higher bitrate audio, although obviously there would have been an improvement because the hardware itself was better but there isn't much that could be done about that.
No signature worth mentioning...
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing