Linear Powered Rips & flash drives sound better - Alex was right !

[sandyk]

While I am still able to , I continue to work behind the scenes with members that don't have an axe to grind.

I will not be providing any further comparison files to sarcastic or closed minded sceptics,(you know who you are) especially those that are too scared to list the equipment they use, so that others can decide if they have a snow flake's chance in hell, of hearing these differences !! If you are unwilling to accept that the results of the 6 separate Blind A/B/A/ 3 minute sessions performed by Martin Colloms are worthy of further investigation, then you will not be receiving any further cooperation from me in providing more recent comparison files

BTW, there are already 2 sets of comparison files on CD-R available, ( Barry has one set, and David L, has the other) which could be used by an "operator" to be played in the fashion demanded. They should however be played directly from a decent CD player WITHOUT being saved to a computer, which should only be used for confirming the checksums are identical.

I am presently on limited time as I expect to be transported to Casualty today sometime due to my Arthritis.

[sandyk]

The problem with that opinion of yours, is DBT's are demonstrably useful at showing genuine differences. A negative result doesn't show as much, but a rigorous well done blind test with positive results is quite useful. Despite the oft heard complaint they are always negative, that is not the case.

 

That's utter BS. Have you ever tried to perform DBT with 3 sets of 20 (total of 40 per set) comparison files, where the 3 sets contained the same content, but in a different order, especially when they had between copied between HDDs on somebody else's computer using an automated program,then back to USB memory again ?

The bloody copied files no longer even sounded quite the same as an inserted original file for comparison purposes!

As usual , you don't have a damn clue about how stressful these tests are to those who are not professional reviewers,

and have learned how to overcome this stress. Everything sounds the same after a while, despite there being clear repeatable differences initially.

[wakibaki]

Alex

 

It is obvious that a large number of people here hold you in high personal regard, myself included, and this is unsurprising considering the personal kindness you have shown me.

 

I have dealt with this subject as tactfully as I know how, with no intent at sarcasm. I suspect you would only be happy with my arguments if they were ineffectual.

 

I am at a loss as to how I might otherwise deal with this subject. Only one of us can be right.

 

Fred

[Paul R]

Two files Alex. Two bit for bit identical files on the same media played back through the same system.

 

If people can tell a difference, it validates your contention to almost everyone.

 

If people can not tell a difference, it does *not* invalidate your contention, just makes it harder to test. And yes, less likely to prove true.

 

That's it Alex.

 

Simple, easy, no large number of files involved, easy to do. All the hard part is in the initial setup. Verifying the files on the media and documenting the playback system. Play the whole track, half the track, 10 seconds of the track, whatever it takes to identify the difference that we are assuming exists.

 

 

 

 

That's utter BS. Have you ever tried to perform DBT with 3 sets of 20 (total of 40 per set) comparison files, where the 3 sets contained the same content, but in a different order, especially when they had between copied between HDDs on somebody else's computer using an automated program,then back to USB memory again ?

The bloody copied files no longer even sounded quite the same as an inserted original file for comparison purposes!

As usual , you don't have a damn clue about how stressful these tests are to those who are not professional reviewers,

and have learned how to overcome this stress. Everything sounds the same after a while, despite there being clear repeatable differences initially.

[Daudio]

DBT's are demonstrably useful

 

Really ?? And what actual contribution have they made to audio in the last 35 years ?

[esldude]

That's utter BS. Have you ever tried to perform DBT with 3 sets of 20 (total of 40 per set) comparison files, where the 3 sets contained the same content, but in a different order, especially when they had between copied between HDDs on somebody else's computer using an automated program,then back to USB memory again ?

The bloody copied files no longer even sounded quite the same as an inserted original file for comparison purposes!

As usual , you don't have a damn clue about how stressful these tests are to those who are not professional reviewers,

and have learned how to overcome this stress. Everything sounds the same after a while, despite there being clear repeatable differences initially.

 

Firstly, I have copied files back and forth many ways. And do not get results that are bloody obvious, obvious or different at all that I can tell. A multi-generational, multi-format, multi-streamed file compared to the original sounds the same. Having some experience I am comfortable doing about 20 trials, and don't usually do more. I have tried ABX tests of WAV vs Flac, WAV vs Flac sent to a dropbox, then to email, then through file mail and back to my desktop. Best I ever got was 13 of 20. Then 9 of 20 showing your likely regression to the mean if your choices are actually random.

 

As Paul points out you can take two files prepared as you need them and use them. You won't need to do any additional copying. If we are testing for degradation of copies it is obvious we don't wish to make copies of copies.

 

And yes, I have taken two files and done 20 trials and then 20 again or sometimes 30 trials in one go quite a number of times. When they are the same or even quite close it is tedious, and tiring. And it is worth doing a few times to learn to be comfortable with the procedure. Another approach is having several people who say they hear the difference being tested for and let them do just a few trials each maybe 4 or 5. Enough of them develops a statistically valid test. 10 such people give us 50 trials with no one doing more than 5. Yet another approach is do a few trials take a break then do some more.

 

Your approach to the test of course can make a big difference. Take this with a win or lose attitude or I am gonna show these guys I hear it, they aren't gonna show me, a showdown attitude of High Noon at the OK corral, and you likely will feel too much stress. If you are comfortable with the procedure and take it with a "hey I am going to see if I really hear it or not" then things are quite different and not so stressful. In your case, I would never even suggest you take a blind test on this because you have too much of your self invested in it and it would be stressful. But if you proctored having a system and set of files that you deem different sounding, the let others run and take such a test we might get somewhere.

 

Something many don't believe is often my own experience in comparing two things I will consciously not think they sound different. If you asked I would say I cannot tell any difference they are just flat the same. Yet I will manage ABX results showing I am perceiving a difference. The goofy Jangling keys test of Arny K I felt that way about. I scored 17 of 20 and 17 of 19 correct. I could perceive a difference genuinely though it was a subconscious perception. And looking at what differed about those files the difference was so very small I was quite convinced they would not be perceptibly different, but they were.

 

Not surprisingly the size of the difference can make the test easy or tedious. Give me files with a 3 db loudness difference and I can blow through 30 trials in a few minutes and get it. Give me files that differ by 1 db, and I won't notice what is different, but will get very high marks on a blind test while having a good feeling one is better than the other. Give me files .3 db different, and I will think there is nothing there any longer. As long as I do it with curiosity and not as if it is a test of my audiophile manhood it merely becomes tedious yet I still get marks showing I perceive a difference.

 

So the BS here is building the proverbial straw man of a DBT, and then setting fire to it to watch it burn. Like any procedure or test of small differences you need to dot your i's and cross your t's. Handle it so you don't ruin the test.

[beanbag]

I have better things to do with my time than replying to a TROLL like you.

 

Yes. You get called out all the time !

 

It would be good if you stuck to your proclamations.

[prot]

Really ?? And what actual contribution have they made to audio in the last 35 years ?

 

Same it had in any other domain (notably medicine). That's obvious & readily available everywhere, no need to clarify here.

 

Something you wont find anywhere else: it saved me about $10K that I was going to invest in various useless components (at the time I was still thinking that the 'reviews' in the hifipress are worth something.)

[Jud]

It would be good if you stuck to your proclamations.

 

You make some useful contributions here. This is not an example of one. See Dennis's response (esldude) just prior to yours for an example of a response that, whether anyone agrees with it or not, is a sincere attempt to advance the discussion.

 

And yes, no one appointed me arbiter of anything - just my opinion.

[RealAudio]

I will not be providing any further comparison files to sarcastic or closed minded sceptics,(you know who you are) especially those that are too scared to list the equipment they use, so that others can decide if they have a snow flake's chance in hell, of hearing these differences !! If you are unwilling to accept that the results of the 6 separate Blind A/B/A/ 3 minute sessions performed by Martin Colloms are worthy of further investigation, then you will not be receiving any further cooperation from me in providing more recent comparison files

BTW, there are already 2 sets of comparison files on CD-R available, ( Barry has one set, and David L, has the other) which could be used by an "operator" to be played in the fashion demanded. They should however be played directly from a decent CD player WITHOUT being saved to a computer, which should only be used for confirming the checksums are identical.

I am presently on limited time as I expect to be transported to Casualty today sometime due to my Arthritis.

 

 

Why not provide comparison files to everyone. Take one pair of rips, make a half dozen copies of each with randomized names and put them on dropbox. Give a third party the information the translation between the source and destination files. Then see if when people listen to the files, the ones that they think sound different are the ones with the different power supply or just random selection.

[alfe]

© CJoint.com, 2012

© CJoint.com, 2012

© CJoint.com, 2012

 

this is the Alex files:

melody range spectrogram

Peak frequency

waveform

This shows the end of the song any constructive comments will be welcome

[Paul R]

Could you please give a brief explanation of those screenshots. I know what I think they are, but it would be better indeed if you posted precisely what they are and direct our attention to the most interesting data. Thanks! - Paul

 

 

© CJoint.com, 2012

© CJoint.com, 2012

© CJoint.com, 2012

 

this is the Alex files:

melody range spectrogram

Peak frequency

waveform

This shows the end of the song any constructive comments will be welcome

[sandab]

Now ask people if the pairs are the same or different.

The problem is that a perfect rip is just that - perfect, and accurip guarantees it to cryptographical certainty. The claim is that two identical rips sound different depending on the power supply and drive, possibly cable, used during the ripping process. This is akin to claiming homeopathic water is different because it has a "memory" of something else that has been diluted out of existence, that diluting to a high certainty of not finding a single molecule of this something else, ever, leaves its "memory" without actually containing any of it. If two identical rips sound different it's because of some other reason, like a ton of AC, RF, EMI, and other noise and noise-induced jitter. They just happen to sound different because the pages are in different locations in memory and some addresses happen to cause more bus transceiver switching noise than others - or something else more or less random and indicative or poor isolation. Which brings up the matter of experimental rigor, control, and repeatability.

[alfe]

Could you please give a brief explanation of those screenshots. I know what I think they are, but it would be better indeed if you posted precisely what they are and direct our attention to the most interesting data. Thanks! - Paul

 

© CJoint.com, 2012

 

I added this one for the beginning of the track

The track length is 5:42:8

musique end at 5:37:306

Keep in mind I'm not comparing files they are exactly the same.

 

This will help to understand

 

http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/doc/reference/2.4.1/en/

[RealAudio]

The claim is that two identical rips sound different depending on the power supply and drive, possibly cable, used during the ripping process. This is akin to claiming homeopathic water is different because it has a "memory" of something else that has been diluted out of existence, that diluting to a high certainty of not finding a single molecule of this something else, ever, leaves its "memory" without actually containing any of it.

 

 

You mean he didn't discover proof of quantum entanglement?

[esldude]

© CJoint.com, 2012

 

I added this one for the beginning of the track

The track length is 5:42:8

musique end at 5:37:306

Keep in mind I'm not comparing files they are exactly the same.

 

This will help to understandSonic Visualiser: A Brief Reference

 

I downloaded the software to use it some and understand what it is showing. I still don't get what your point is with these screenshots. Could you slow down and go through it point by point as to what you are seeing and what it means. It looks as if some of the files are of different length as you show them. Is that one of the points? If so they definitely aren't going to have the same checksum though one could be identical to the other with some silence added. Again though exactly what is the point in all this you are trying to get across to us?

[Audio_ELF]

With respect... You appear to have come on 99% of the way through this conversation especially if you think I am promoting the idea they sound differently...

The problem is that a perfect rip is just that - perfect, and accurip guarantees it to cryptographical certainty. The claim is that two identical rips sound different depending on the power supply and drive, possibly cable, used during the ripping process. This is akin to claiming homeopathic water is different because it has a "memory" of something else that has been diluted out of existence, that diluting to a high certainty of not finding a single molecule of this something else, ever, leaves its "memory" without actually containing any of it. If two identical rips sound different it's because of some other reason, like a ton of AC, RF, EMI, and other noise and noise-induced jitter. They just happen to sound different because the pages are in different locations in memory and some addresses happen to cause more bus transceiver switching noise than others - or something else more or less random and indicative or poor isolation. Which brings up the matter of experimental rigor, control, and repeatability.

[alfe]

I downloaded the software to use it some and understand what it is showing. I still don't get what your point is with these screenshots. Could you slow down and go through it point by point as to what you are seeing and what it means. It looks as if some of the files are of different length as you show them. Is that one of the points? If so they definitely aren't going to have the same checksum though one could be identical to the other with some silence added. Again though exactly what is the point in all this you are trying to get across to us?

 

I will let you do your home work first:

 

http://charm.cchcdn.net/redist/pdf/analysing_recordings.pdf

[esldude]

I will let you do your home work first:

 

http://charm.cchcdn.net/redist/pdf/analysing_recordings.pdf

 

Gee thanks, when you have something to say worth knowing about try writing it out. Otherwise not sure what your point is, and I am guessing when it comes out you will have misunderstood something anyway. In a thread about bit identical files sounding different you are offering a cryptic account of we don't know what using software that will show completely and exactly the same exact thing if two files are bit identical.

 

I have consistently gotten the idea in your comments that you don't quite understand what you think you do. This kind of post isn't changing my opinion in that regard.

[alfe]

Gee thanks, when you have something to say worth knowing about try writing it out. Otherwise not sure what your point is, and I am guessing when it comes out you will have misunderstood something anyway. In a thread about bit identical files sounding different you are offering a cryptic account of we don't know what using software that will show completely and exactly the same exact thing if two files are bit identical.

 

I have consistently gotten the idea in your comments that you don't quite understand what you think you do. This kind of post isn't changing my opinion in that regard.

 

Thank you for you kind comment,look at the peak frequency in silence the subject was also about noise.

But as far as that I don't know what I'm talking about I will switch off.

[sandab]

With respect... You appear to have come on 99% of the way through this conversation especially if you think I am promoting the idea they sound differently...

I wasn't contradicting you; I was elaborating on what you said...

[kumakuma]

Thank you for you kind comment,look at the peak frequency in silence the subject was also about noise.

But as far as that I don't know what I'm talking about I will switch off.

 

Al,

 

Many of us aren't experts in this field so perhaps, rather than telling us to look at something, could you tell us what YOU see and what it means to YOU?

 

Thanks,

 

KK

[esldude]

To alfe

 

I must apologize for my previous comment. It was uncalled for. My intent was not to convince you to stop posting, rather to point out that if you understand something your style of posting dribbling out info in little bits is not a good style of communication. It makes it look as if you don't get it. I must not be the only one as others have asked you to elaborate.

[alfe]

To alfe

 

I must apologize for my previous comment. It was uncalled for. My intent was not to convince you to stop posting, rather to point out that if you understand something your style of posting dribbling out info in little bits is uncomunitive. It makes it look as if you don't get it. I must not be the only one as others have asked you to elaborate.

 

 

Sorry also, I get this bad habit with my engineers to push them to think

Please read this document and read carefully what it is said about zero-bit data

 

Wav (RIFF) File Format Tutorial

[alfe]

Al,

 

Many of us aren't experts in this field so perhaps, rather than telling us to look at something, could you tell us what YOU see and what it means to YOU?

 

Thanks,

 

KK

 

If you look at the beginning of the track you have no noise in silence then at the end of the track I'm showing the point where we have noise in silence then no noise in silence.

Normally for silence we have 0 amplitude and that's what I was trying to point out with these screen shots.

Did the same test with R&S audio analyser and got the same result.