Thanks to this forum I am an recovering audiophile. It was a very humbling experience to do some double blind testing of 128kbit mps but a necessary one. The cool thing about this process is that I've come to enjoy the music again, not the sound. Thus I listen more with more enjoyment. Thanks to everybody here who have made this learning possible. I have also learned that most audio equipment is not that much different. But since my amp doesn't have a remote control I am in the market for a receiver or new amp. And I like the new features like Airplay and the like.
Now I have been reading a lot about different models etc.
What sometimes comes up is the way the volume control is made - digital vs analog.
Here are my questions:
Should I be bothered? Is one really better? Will I hear a difference?
Thanks in advance for your time!
Stephen
If it is sanely implemented and you avoid silly things like attenuating by a large amount, then amplifying by a large amount afterwards, it should not be something to worry about.
-k
What sometimes comes up is the way the volume control is made - digital vs analog.
There's not much difference...
With an analog control turned-down, the quietest parts/details get lost in the analog noise. (And, since you are turning-it down, you can't hear those detals anyway.)
With a digital control turned-down, the quietest parts get truncated to silence and you loose resolution. (Again, since you are turning-it down, you can't hear those detals anyway.)
People who worry about "throwing away bits" seem to forget that essentially the same thing happens in analog.
As knutinh noted, in either case if you re-amplify the signal you may be able to hear the quality loss (loss of dynamic range, S/N, or resolution).
Some readings:
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/digital-vs-anal...ume-control.pdf (http://www.esstech.com/PDF/digital-vs-analog-volume-control.pdf)
Some readings:
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/digital-vs-anal...ume-control.pdf (http://www.esstech.com/PDF/digital-vs-analog-volume-control.pdf)
Reference the slide titled "Analog Volume - variable noise"
The article is seriously flawed by an analysis of an incomplete system, especially on the analog side. In all cases it appears to presume that the analog stages following the volume control have infinite or at least vastly greater than 16 bit system dynamic range. While isolated analog stages can have dynamic range that equals or at least approaches 24 bit resolution, real world audio systems including consumer preamps, power amps, speakers and rooms don't even come close.
No surprise given that ESS has essentially bet their future on DAC chips with extremely high resolution. While advancing technology is laudable, their basic methodology which involves paralleling upwards of 8 lower resolution DACs is basically "Brute Force".
Digital audio need not to convert to integer formats before it reaches DAC or SPDIF.
Floating point audio can achieve "variable noise" as well, we can even change volume by a large amount and many times without audible loss.
Does it mean digital wins?
Digital audio need not to convert to integer formats before it reaches DAC or SPDIF.
I am not sure I understand this correctly, but how do you transfer floating point over spdif or which DAC (chip) takes floating point as input?
Relevant: C5 Headphone Amplifier (http://blog.jdslabs.com/?p=464)
THE CHANNEL BALANCE PROBLEM: Devices with conventional volume controls may have audible channel imbalance at very low volumes [i.e., one side is much louder than the other --JDS]. It’s extremely difficult to manufacture volume control potentiometers that maintain tight channel balance below about -40 dB (referenced to full volume). - NwAvGuy
It’s 2013, and it’s finally time to say goodbye to the analog potentiometer. C5 features 64 steps of audibly perfect digital attenuation […] C5 presents only +/-0.1dB of deviation all the way down to -50dB, and only +/-0.55dB at -60dB! [Yes, you can only see 28 steps here, as I'm manually racing the dScope test duration by making larger volume transitions.]
In other words, C5′s digital attenuation achieves perfect audible balance at volumes -20dB lower than the analog Alps RK097.
We seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
We all agree on how old-fachioned analog potentiometers work, and their limitations. When we discuss digital volume control, however, we are talking about two different things: there is the all-digital multiplication of the values by a scale factor before sending them to a DAC; then there is the device that digitally selects one of several analog dividers after the DAC.
So, what exactly are we discussing here?
We seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
We all agree on how old-fachioned analog potentiometers work, and their limitations. When we discuss digital volume control, however, we are talking about two different things: there is the all-digital multiplication of the values by a scale factor before sending them to a DAC; then there is the device that digitally selects one of several analog dividers after the DAC.
So, what exactly are we discussing here?
I'm responding on the topic of all-digital multiplication of the values by a scale factor before sending them to a DAC;
The selection of various analog dividers is digitatlly-controlled analog, and from a signal standpoint it is 100% analog.
This is BTW the means by which contemporary AVRs implement their volume controls, even when there is a DSP in the signal flow.
Digital audio need not to convert to integer formats before it reaches DAC or SPDIF.
I am not sure I understand this correctly, but how do you transfer floating point over spdif or which DAC (chip) takes floating point as input?
What I mean is we can change volume in floating point before it reaches DAC and SPDIF. For example, typical DAWs and even freeware like Audacity can change volume and save in floating point. Only in the final stage we need to convert to integer.
What I mean is we can change volume in floating point before it reaches DAC and SPDIF. For example, typical DAWs and even freeware like Audacity can change volume and save in floating point. Only in the final stage we need to convert to integer.
If you have a CD, a CD-player, some dac/pre-amp, an amplifier and a set of loudspeakers, doing floating-point digitalvolume is just another way to implement digital volume. You would still have the fundamental challenge of multiplication by a gain <1, (hopefully) dithering, requantizing to 16 or even 24 bits.
-k
If you have a CD, a CD-player, some dac/pre-amp, an amplifier and a set of loudspeakers, doing floating-point digitalvolume is just another way to implement digital volume. You would still have the fundamental challenge of multiplication by a gain <1, (hopefully) dithering, requantizing to 16 or even 24 bits.
-k
Your example is pretty safe. I agree with you that we still need to face the fundamental challenges you mentioned but requantizing to 24-bit is very safe for 16-bit CD audio as we can reduce volume by more than 40dB without quality loss.
But it is not my main point. What I mean is we can take an digital audio stream, convert to floating point, then apply gain like +33dB then -66dB then +33dB then repeat the above steps 10 times without significant loss.
It sounds silly to do such things when we are only listening to music like the scenario you stated, but I do mixings and sequencings so it is very important to me.
Wow, that is some interesting stuff to read here.
This is BTW the means by which contemporary AVRs implement their volume controls, even when there is a DSP in the signal flow.
Do I understand that correctly that your typical AVR volume control is rather bad? Audibly bad?
Stephan
Well, mine is, but not in terms of any kind of noise or distortion, so what is the definition of "bad" here?
Actually a rather good question....
Should I avoid AVRs and look for something more "sophisticated"?
Can one buy a stereo amp for the same money (about 1000 Euros max.) that has a better volume control and do you know any that do?
Or is this a trivial problem, i.e. lets forget about it and buy whatever has best feature/price relationship?
Well my AVR is perfectly fine for music. It's maybe 8 years old now but was a nearly top of the line model in it's time.
Check out the Onkyo TX-8050
Should I avoid AVRs and look for something more "sophisticated"?
Can one buy a stereo amp for the same money (about 1000 Euros max.) that has a better volume control and do you know any that do?
Or is this a trivial problem, i.e. lets forget about it and buy whatever has best feature/price relationship?
In my opinion, just skip this problem and buy some nice digital gear you can afford and don't care about analog volume control.
Analog has other problems as already mentioned in #8 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=824917 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99572&view=findpost&p=824917)
For 1000€ you can get excelent AVRs:
Yamaha RX-A820
Denon AVR-3313
Onkyo TX-NR717
Pioneer SC-2022
or check the prizes for "last 2 year" products.
Analog has other problems as already mentioned in #8 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=824917 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99572&view=findpost&p=824917)
Reading further down suggests that the issues raised are no longer relevant.
There is no way I would ever spend a grand on an AVR.
For anyone who, like me, uses their AVR volume knob over a large range of settings, I encourage them to try it out in person, via remote control, before they buy. The Marantz I bought recently (over $1000 USD) is rather awkward in how the volume up and down ramp speed varies depending on your start location, the time you depress the up/down button, and also differs depending on whether you are raising or lowering the volume.[ My previous Yamaha unit didn't have this issue at all. ] I would assume it is the same on all current Denon units as well, in fact it may be a problem with almost everything on the market, for all I know.
Wow, that is some interesting stuff to read here.
This is BTW the means by which contemporary AVRs implement their volume controls, even when there is a DSP in the signal flow.
Do I understand that correctly that your typical AVR volume control is rather bad? Audibly bad?
No. At this time the typical digitally-controlled analog volume control chip has very low noise and distortion as well as excellent channel tracking. For example the Cirrus CS 3318
http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/CS3318_F1.pdf (http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/CS3318_F1.pdf)
has 127 dB dynamic range and -112 dB nonlinear distortion. However, its presence in a device with a DSP and DACs with dynamic range > 110 dB seems a little strange unless it is used to implement an analog pass-through feature which some consumers desire for use with digital players with their own high quality converters. In that case it still doesn't make any actual technical sense, but it makes some consumers feel better.
Analog has other problems as already mentioned in #8 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=824917 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=99572&view=findpost&p=824917)
Reading further down suggests that the issues raised are no longer relevant.
There is no way I would ever spend a grand on an AVR.
I completely agree. The last AVR I purchased (Yamaha RX -V371) was B stock and cost me $118 with full warranty. Other than having fewer channels and no so-called room correction (but it does have independent eq on every channel) I doubt that it would fail an ABX with equipment costing > $1K.
Your B-stock RX-V371 does have a full warranty, a full B-stock warranty, which is half as long as that of a new RX-V371 warranty (two years, parts and labor). As is common with other brands, cosmetic defects on the faceplate, cabinet, and remote are not covered on Yamaha B-stock units, although their occurrence is probably rare and obviously they don't detract from the electrical performance.
Doubt it would fail ABX means what, exactly?
Sounds to me like you're saying you believe your AVR will be distinguishable from the more expensive ones.
Your B-stock RX-V371 does have a full warranty, a full B-stock warranty, which is half as long as that of a new RX-V371 warranty (two years, parts and labor). As is common with other brands, cosmetic defects on the faceplate, cabinet, and remote are not covered on Yamaha B-stock units, although their occurrence is probably rare and obviously they don't detract from the electrical performance.
It was appliance store B-stock. A demo that appeared to have never been powered up. Everything was there but the box. The sales documentation was indistinguishable from that for a new, in-box product except for the bottom line price.
Doubt it would fail ABX means what, exactly?
Failing an ABX would be my shorthand for saying that it would be audibly different from any other good amp.
Passing an ABX would be to me a failure to find a statistically significant difference in comparison with an ideal device.
Sounds to me like you're saying you believe your AVR will be distinguishable from the more expensive ones.
No, the opposite. I believe that my AVR will be indistinguishable from the more expensive ones.
Sorry for any confusion.
Thanks for the clarification. I am under the impression that most here would consider 20/20 to be a passing test.
If one considers that the null hypothesis is what is being tested then 20/20 would strongly suggest the outcome is indeed a failure.
I would consider p > 0.05 to be a failed test, given that the results fail to reject the null hypothesis. The device fails to sound different; the user fails to hear a difference.
Saying that failure would be equivalent to an audible difference is confusing and, at best, highly context-sensitive to whether the device that produces a statistically significant result sounds better or worse to the individual tester.
ABX does not necessarily address better or worse, just audibility. Using positive and negative adjectives is bound to lead to misunderstandings, especially when they don’t align well with the usual scientific terminology.
I acknowledge that I’m talking to the inventor of ABX here! I’m not claiming any mistakes, just a potential source of confusion.
Your B-stock RX-V371 does have a full warranty, a full B-stock warranty, which is half as long as that of a new RX-V371 warranty (two years, parts and labor). As is common with other brands, cosmetic defects on the faceplate, cabinet, and remote are not covered on Yamaha B-stock units, although their occurrence is probably rare and obviously they don't detract from the electrical performance.
It was appliance store B-stock. A demo that appeared to have never been powered up. Everything was there but the box. The sales documentation was indistinguishable from that for a new, in-box product except for the bottom line price.
I assumed from your wording you meant you bought a "B-stock Yamaha RX-V371 A/V receiver (http://usa.yamaha.com/support/warranty/audio_visual/images/yec_bstock_products_warr.pdf)", they have the half length warranty I was speaking of, no guarantee against blemishes, and should (in theory at least) have a stamp on the box, often red, which indicates that they are B-stock goods with a shorter warranty [although the original warranty card may still be left in the box, as well]. What you bought now sounds more like a "showroom floor model" (at least that's what customers are sometimes told, in truth they could be customer returns). Those, if bought from an true authorized dealer, not a parallel importer, have a full electrical performance warranty from Yamaha as if they were factory sealed A-stock (2 yrs P/L).
I would consider p > 0.05 to be a failed test, given that the results fail to reject the null hypothesis. The device fails to sound different; the user fails to hear a difference.
Saying that failure would be equivalent to an audible difference is confusing and, at best, highly context-sensitive to whether the device that produces a statistically significant result sounds better or worse to the individual tester.
ABX does not necessarily address better or worse, just audibility. Using positive and negative adjectives is bound to lead to misunderstandings, especially when they don’t align well with the usual scientific terminology.
I acknowledge that I’m talking to the inventor of ABX here! I’m not claiming any mistakes, just a potential source of confusion.
I confess that I treat online forums as casual conversation, and I'm more careless when I'm posting on them than I am when I'm giving a paper to a professional organization. ;-)
At any rate I don't expect my RX-v371 to sound any different than any of the far pricier and impressively branded stuff that is hanging around the house now or at some other time. I know what's in the box in pretty good detail, and I've read enough tech tests of popular-priced AVRs to believe that most AVRs are pretty blameless.
There is a lot of confusion over the fact that most AVR's can't operate all channels at maximum power concurrently with pure test tones and resistive loads. However as actually used to play music and multichannel source material, that isn't a real-world test. For one thing the worst case music I've ever tested had at least a 6 dB crest factor, which means that it takes 4 channels playing music to equal the average energy of 1 channel playing a pure sine wave with the same peak level.
AVRs are typically used with subwoofers, which further eases the demands on their typically minimalistic power supplies.
Historical perspective: When we did our initial ABX tests of audio amplifiers we were mystified by how insensitive our tests seemed to be to obviously measurable faults. Now something like 20 years on the other side of Zwicker and Fastl and the Perceptual Coder revolution, it all makes sense. ;-)
Your B-stock RX-V371 does have a full warranty, a full B-stock warranty, which is half as long as that of a new RX-V371 warranty (two years, parts and labor). As is common with other brands, cosmetic defects on the faceplate, cabinet, and remote are not covered on Yamaha B-stock units, although their occurrence is probably rare and obviously they don't detract from the electrical performance.
It was appliance store B-stock. A demo that appeared to have never been powered up. Everything was there but the box. The sales documentation was indistinguishable from that for a new, in-box product except for the bottom line price.
I assumed from your wording you meant you bought a "B-stock Yamaha RX-V371 A/V receiver (http://usa.yamaha.com/support/warranty/audio_visual/images/yec_bstock_products_warr.pdf)", they have the half length warranty I was speaking of, no guarantee against blemishes, and should (in theory at least) have a stamp on the box, often red, which indicates that they are B-stock goods with a shorter warranty [although the original warranty card may still be left in the box, as well]. What you bought now sounds more like a "showroom floor model" (at least that's what customers are sometimes told, in truth they could be customer returns). Those, if bought from an true authorized dealer, not a parallel importer, have a full electrical performance warranty from Yamaha as if they were factory sealed A-stock (2 yrs P/L).
Well yes. You are thinking that B-stock has a fairly narrow meaning, and I've been around retailing long enough to think that B-stock has a fairly broad definition. I've bought a ton of B-stock, held my nose over the warranty situation and almost always laughed all the way to the bank. I see that some formal definitions of B-stock don't include refurbs, but that's not how I was raised!
You are welcome to define "B-stock" however you please, however Yamaha has a clear definition, marks such products appropriately, and the warranty is not the same as A-stock as your original post suggested by the use of the words "full warranty " in terms of both what it covers and the time period length:
The last AVR I purchased (Yamaha RX -V371) was B stock and cost me $118 with full warranty.
What is the difference between A-stock, B-stock, and C-stock Yamaha products (http://faq.yamaha.com/us/en/article/audio-visual/accessories/swk-w10_black__u/4741/2534/What_is_the_difference_between_A-Stock_B-Stock_and_C-Stock_Yamaha_products)
I agree such units are often a good bet, however I wouldn't want anyone reading your post to think that Yamaha B-stock goods have the same full warranty as A-stock. They do not.
... no wonder the layman thinks that statisticians are a bunch of kooks when a significantly higher-than-normal rate of horse-kick fatalities is counted as a “success”. Well they should have learned by now that a positive HIV test is not positive for you.
Wow, thanks for all the input here.
This is what I've learned so far, correct me if I'm wrong.
- Digital volume setting is as good as analogue if not better, but both are audibly fine (you can't hear a difference anyway)
- it's unneccesary that receivers have built in a digitally controlled analog volume setting
- today's AVRs are transparent and buying a cheap one doesn't mean that you are going to loose anything (sound-wise)
So a normal-priced AVR it will be. Thanks again for the enlightenment and your effort.
- Digital volume setting is as good as analogue if not better, but both are audibly fine (you can't hear a difference anyway)
- it's unnecessary that receivers have built in a digitally controlled analog volume setting
So much so that TI's web site shows an AVR with just a DSP driving a power amp.
Just guessing, but products being designed in the next few years will drop the analog volume control.
- today's AVRs are transparent and buying a cheap one doesn't mean that you are going to loose anything (sound-wise)
So a normal-priced AVR it will be. Thanks again for the enlightenment and your effort.
That's the message I wanted you to receive.
I do believe that the signal processing software in AVRs differ? There are many ways to map N channels of content to M channels of loudspeakers, and if you want room/loudspeaker correction, that is another differentiatior
I do believe that the signal processing software in AVRs differ? There are many ways to map N channels of content to M channels of loudspeakers, and if you want room/loudspeaker correction, that is another differentiatior
Much of the DSP code might be a lot less variable than one might think. A big chunk of the DSP code has to be licensed by people like DTS and Dolby who are pretty sophisticated and careful. They appear to be the developers of much of it. It appears to be primarily distributed through chip manufacturers. Of the major AVR manufacturers, only Yamaha appears to have the technical resources to actually develop this sort of programming in depth.
One major variable among AVRs from various manufacturers and at various price levels is the automated system optimization software, IOW Audyssey, MCACC and YPAO. How this software works can reasonably expected to introduce sonic variations that are easy to reliably detect in a good level-matched, time-synched, double blind listening test. Some of those variations may even have strong random components.
The Marantz I bought recently (over $1000 USD) is rather awkward in how the volume up and down ramp speed varies depending on ...
A slight correction, since I can no loner edit that original post. The Marantz unit I own has no power amp section, so it is not really a receiver. It calls itself an "AV Pre Tuner" but most forum people seem to refer to it as a "prepro".
Much of the DSP code might be a lot less variable than one might think. A big chunk of the DSP code has to be licensed by people like DTS and Dolby who are pretty sophisticated and careful. They appear to be the developers of much of it. It appears to be primarily distributed through chip manufacturers. Of the major AVR manufacturers, only Yamaha appears to have the technical resources to actually develop this sort of programming in depth.
The codecs themselves probably have reference implementations, compliance tests etc. My guess is that working with them consists mainly of optimizing cycles for a given dsp architecture. It seems that some (typically new/exotic) codecs have license conditions that ensure that they will be included only in more expensive receivers.
The processing after decoding is more open. I believe that there have been a number of "bugs"/undesirable features wrgt e.g. bass management in different receiver products. The user generally just wants things "to work" given an ever-increasing list of possible input formats.
One major variable among AVRs from various manufacturers and at various price levels is the automated system optimization software, IOW Audyssey, MCACC and YPAO. How this software works can reasonably expected to introduce sonic variations that are easy to reliably detect in a good level-matched, time-synched, double blind listening test. Some of those variations may even have strong random components.
As seen e.g. here:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subj...luation-of.html (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html)
Moreover, perceptually motivated level control was a topic when I did my last purchase.
-k
As seen e.g. here:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subj...luation-of.html (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html)
Unfortunately that article is now 4 years old and that can be pretty deadly with a fast-moving technology.