Can you hear 16 times the jitter?

[sandyk]

There was also no need to include level test tones in the original and the copy, only the later A/D samples.

 

Dennis

If the original file was ripped directly, and the "copy" was only trimmed, why did you need to do this ?

You only needed to take READ ONLY measurements of the original file and adjust the levels of the later A/D conversions without the need for level test tones.

There appears to have been too many non essential additional operations performed.

By doing such things you are virtually saying that what others are telling you is BS, and their concerns can be ignored, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong.

That is no different than setting up Blind A/B Listening Sessions without accepting any input from the participants in the way the tests are performed.

Alex

 

P.S.

Perhaps you could revisit this area when under much less stress in your personal life ?

[esldude]

Dennis

If the original file was ripped directly, and the "copy" was only trimmed, why did you need to do this ?

You only needed to take READ ONLY measurements of the original file and adjust the levels of the later A/D conversions without the need for level test tones.

There appears to have been too many non essential additional operations performed.

By doing such things you are virtually saying that what others are telling you is BS, and their concerns can be ignored, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong.

That is no different than setting up Blind A/B Listening Sessions without accepting any input from the participants in the way the tests are performed.

Alex

 

I needed 30 second snippets. I decided to string them all together so all nine selections could be recorded at once. I place 3 seconds of silence between them. There was zero adjustment to the level of the music at all. Otherwise what I offered for original downloads wouldn't null to infinity with the original rip. I did however need to adjust recording level to prevent clipping. As both ADC and DAC didn't match in levels exactly I needed some adjustment to keep them close. The reference tone was at - 1db and I set record levels as or as near to -1 db as I could. Then recorded music.

 

Now I later took the original non adjusted 30 second snippets and export each one into its own file for people to download. How does that get effected by the fact it once was in a file that has a steady tone a couple of minutes in front of it? Think before you answer. The answer is it doesn't because otherwise it would not null out to minus infinity which it most definitely does.

[esldude]

Dennis

snippage................

That is no different than setting up Blind A/B Listening Sessions without accepting any input from the participants in the way the tests are performed.

Alex

 

P.S.

Perhaps you could revisit this area when under much less stress in your personal life ?

 

And when I just earlier today asked how you would do it and avoid these issues your answers were..............................?????????????????????????????????????????????? Not at all helpful. You said to use different recordings to upload.

 

BTW, I used a very minimalist Wilson, some of the other choices in the earlier polls were SBM discs or MFSL discs. I think one was a JVC XRCD. Mostly pretty good stuff. The Fiona Apple for what it is seems fairly good. For whatever reason it got downloaded the most which is why I used it for the later simpler polls. Popular demand of sorts.

[sandyk]

And when I just earlier today asked how you would do it and avoid these issues your answers were..............................?????????????????????????????????????????????? Not at all helpful. You said to use different recordings to upload.

 

I have previously stated on several occasions that in my opinion there were far too many non essential operations performed.

 

I only just remembered that with the original "rip" (or the trimmed copy) that you did NOT need a Level Test Tone, let alone any further level manipulation, and I still say that you need material with greater dynamics including percussion, which is an area that many home in on. Perhaps even that earlier Shelby Lynne recording that we both listened to some time back may suffice ?

Popular demand of sorts does not mean that it is suitable for these kinds of tests.

[STC]

I have previously stated on several occasions that in my opinion there were far too many non essential operations performed.

 

I only just remembered that with the original "rip" (or the trimmed copy) that you did NOT need a Level Test Tone, let alone any further level manipulation, and I still say that you need material with greater dynamics including percussion, which is an area that many home in on. Perhaps even that earlier Shelby Lynne recording that we both listened to some time back may suffice ?

Popular demand of sorts does not mean that it is suitable for these kinds of tests.

 

I am confused. Shouldn't you be asking why despite going through more degradation it is still hard to pick the original file?

[esldude]

I have previously stated on several occasions that in my opinion there were far too many non essential operations performed.

 

I only just remembered that with the original "rip" (or the trimmed copy) that you did NOT need a Level Test Tone, let alone any further level manipulation, and I still say that you need material with greater dynamics including percussion, which is an area that many home in on. Perhaps even that earlier Shelby Lynne recording that we both listened to some time back may suffice ?

Popular demand of sorts does not mean that it is suitable for these kinds of tests.

 

So step me through it Alex. What are the steps to create an 8th generation copy and two identical original files to download. Why is a test tone a problem? How do you control levels without it? I could in fact create a file without a test tone since I know what adjustments are needed having used a test tone, but why is that a problem?

[esldude]

I am confused. Shouldn't you be asking why despite going through more degradation it is still hard to pick the original file?

 

Hey that makes sense to me. And was the whole point. Now we have talk that the originals are not the same and a total ignoring of the copy of a copy of a copy etc etc.

[sandyk]

So step me through it Alex. What are the steps to create an 8th generation copy and two identical original files to download. Why is a test tone a problem? How do you control levels without it? I could in fact create a file without a test tone since I know what adjustments are needed having used a test tone, but why is that a problem?

 

See my reply 151

It would appear that you have completely rejected all of my previous posts and concerns about SQ degradation due to copying and moving etc. as complete and utter bullshit.

You didn't even need to trim the "copy", just give them different names.

Who gives a stuff for results/opinions from those who would need to cheat by looking first in an Audio Editing program BEFORE listening to something ?

That's pure unadulterated CONFIRMATION BIAS from those with no confidence in their listening abilities.

 

You only needed to adjust the levels of the later A/D conversions based on READ ONLY measurements of the original ripped file.

 

BTW, none of the recent uploads, or the contents on the comparison CDs that I sent you have had ANY additional processing.

 

Now we have talk that the originals are not the same

Neither did any of those comments come from me. They came from other members who listened to your supplied files in good faith and gave you honest answers that you don't appear to have liked.

[esldude]

 

 

Neither did any of those comments come from me. They came from other members who listened to your supplied files in good faith and gave you honest answers that you don't appear to have liked.

 

They gave honest answers and I accept them. I accept they heard identical files as different. It is they who wish to say the files really do sound different upon playback. I can't find reason for that to be so. And they don't like that I can't find a reason.

[esldude]

About the offsets playing back differently I tried the following test.

 

I put the same file in both channels with no offset (5 seconds silence in front of and behind it) after which I put the same file in both channels with a 200 and later 500 sample offset trim in one channel only. I played these files and recorded them. One supposition was an offset file reproduces differently because the trimmed bits effect the entire track. The offset in one channel should have percolated through differently as it occured at a different time and in relation to different bits.

 

I normalized levels between channels (there is usually a small difference) and nulled the left against the right channel. With no trim and no offset the two channels nulled into the low 80 db range. I then took the offset file and moved the one with bits trimmed off the front and lined it all up. It also nulled into the low 80 db range. When looking at short sections of the files the difference in offset nulling and aligned nulling was consistently less than 1 db and quite often the same within .2 db. This doesn't indicate any difference explaining why an offset trim would sound different than another without the trim. They appear to be within the accuracy of the gear and noise levels the same.

 

So if the two original files sounded different to you I accept that. I don't necessarily accept they really were different.

 

If enough were interested we could put up several files some of which were trimmed and some not. See if they can be heard as identical and different.

[sdolezalek]

I wish Goldsdad in post #96 had put up graphs for all three files. Where I agree with Mansr is that this is a case of the measurements indicating two files that "measure" as same (but that a number of us, myself included) hear as "different," perhaps as or more so than either of the "measures same" files do when compared to the "measures totally different" file.

 

So, from a Listening Test perspective, how can two files that measure so differently be so hard to distinquish between? I have heard very little explanation for this part.

 

Second, why would two files that measure as same sound different. Here, I have heard lots of speculation about possible mishandling of the two in truncation, but little that anyone focused on "measurement" can actually point to.

 

If Dennis was to resubmit this test with two truly identical files and one 8th generation copy, how many of us would agree to a) participate in redoing the test and voting, and b) agree not to do any measuring to confirm those results until after we had actually listened and voted?

[sandyk]

I can't find reason for that to be so. And they don't like that I can't find a reason.

 

Dennis

 

Nobody expected you to find a reason. Far more qualified Industry Professionals have tried to come up with answers to questions like this, and failed. To come up with even where to start looking, we would have to closely examine the analogue output of the DACs, and that is exceedingly difficult to do without further A/D conversions ,which usually appear to remove the original causes due to their resampling etc. You may also need to go to much higher resolutions and increased bit depths (e.g. 16 to 24 or 32) in order to retain the possible causes for examination, such as possibly wideband or spurious low level noise etc. ?

[sandyk]

About the offsets playing back differently I tried the following test.

 

I put the same file in both channels with no offset (5 seconds silence in front of and behind it) after which I put the same file in both channels with a 200 and later 500 sample offset trim in one channel only. I played these files and recorded them. One supposition was an offset file reproduces differently because the trimmed bits effect the entire track. The offset in one channel should have percolated through differently as it occured at a different time and in relation to different bits.

 

I normalized levels between channels (there is usually a small difference) and nulled the left against the right channel. With no trim and no offset the two channels nulled into the low 80 db range. I then took the offset file and moved the one with bits trimmed off the front and lined it all up. It also nulled into the low 80 db range. When looking at short sections of the files the difference in offset nulling and aligned nulling was consistently less than 1 db and quite often the same within .2 db. This doesn't indicate any difference explaining why an offset trim would sound different than another without the trim. They appear to be within the accuracy of the gear and noise levels the same.

 

So if the two original files sounded different to you I accept that. I don't necessarily accept they really were different.

 

If enough were interested we could put up several files some of which were trimmed and some not. See if they can be heard as identical and different.

 

Barry D. ( and others) has already previously taken you to task on several occasions about any NULLS that aren't perfect at much higher than 80dB. Yet again, you are making assumptions about what the human ear is capable, or not capable of resolving.

FFS Dennis, you are already aware that due to my age (77) and industrial type hearing damage, that I shouldn't be able to hear many of the things that I report if current hearing theory was 100% correct, but I feel sure that you would also admit in all fairness, that I have also heard things that we have both agreed on, that perhaps I shouldn't have been able to hear due to those causes ?

My Neurologist says that due mainly to the Acoustic Neuroma , I am profoundly deaf in my right ear,

yet I managed to correctly confirm Mani's personal findings in the Schiit thread without any collusion. Can you explain that ?

Yet again, you appear to have decided that any perceived differences are due to the actual trimming, and not that the files have been further manipulated, thus exposing them to more damaging RF/EMI.

[esldude]

Barry D. ( and others) has already previously taken you to task on several occasions about any NULLS that aren't perfect at much higher than 80dB.

 

In their mind they have taken me to task. In the real world, color me unimpressed. Only someone who lacks understanding would make such comments. No nulls are perfect due to thermal noise. That Barry D doesn't get that isn't my problem. It also doesn't explain why if my files are so lousy, they seem to be difficult to hear as different by a good many.

[esldude]

I wish Goldsdad in post #96 had put up graphs for all three files. snippage.....

 

The reason he didn't put up three is the other original would be exactly and precisely and completely the same. So a total redundancy. Which is why some of us are wondering what you are hearing differently because it isn't in the file. There is no difference other than a couple hundred bits trimmed.

 

So why would trimmed, but identical bits sound so different? I don't find it does, I can't measure it changes anything, and it doesn't make sense as I understand how this works. So??

[sandyk]

It also doesn't explain why if my files are so lousy, they seem to be difficult to hear as different by a good many.

 

There could be many reasons for that, including inexperience in reliably identifying such differences.

Many members have yet to exceed CD replay via their computers, and are far more interested in the possibilities of ease of access to a much greater library size, along with full cover information , and have ultimate SQ much lower on their list of priorities.

That is possibly the main reason for lack of participation in threads such as these ?

[sdolezalek]

The reason he didn't put up three is the other original would be exactly and precisely and completely the same. So a total redundancy. Which is why some of us are wondering what you are hearing differently because it isn't in the file. There is no difference other than a couple hundred bits trimmed.

 

So why would trimmed, but identical bits sound so different? I don't find it does, I can't measure it changes anything, and it doesn't make sense as I understand how this works. So??

 

Yes, I understand they would have been identical, but there are assertions being made in this thread that they really aren't (the implication being something else is going on which that measurement isn't capturing).

 

Are you saying that to you the 8th generation copy does sound clearly different AND the other two sound identical? Or are you saying you don't care what you hear as long as the measurements tell you what is/should be there?

[esldude]

Yes, I understand they would have been identical, but there are assertions being made in this thread that they really aren't (the implication being something else is going on which that measurement isn't capturing).

 

Are you saying that to you the 8th generation copy does sound clearly different AND the other two sound identical? Or are you saying you don't care what you hear as long as the measurements tell you what is/should be there?

 

The two original files sound the same to me. Exactly the same.

 

The two originals are not discernible unsighted. The 8th generation is discernible as different unsighted.Though only in fleeting particular moments and if you are very careful in how you listen. Very careful. So it is not an obvious difference and it is an almost meaningless difference in terms of listening for musical enjoyment. That such is the case is a very high testament to the fidelity of affordable, sensible modern electronic gear in the digital and analog realm.

 

The measurements tell me they are different. Should it be audibly different? It is though barely and only under extremely careful auditioning. Any other conditions and it is close enough not to worry. Why not worry, because almost any other part of the playback chain would make much more difference. Tweek the volume a decibel higher, much larger difference. Alter speakers, oh man, like 3 orders of magnitude more difference.

 

So the fact 8 generations is so exceptionally minor, means any one generation truly is not worth bothering with. Basic good digital gear is effectively perfectly transparent for home reproduction of recordings. Celebrate and enjoy that. Don't get lost in a never ending line of ever increasingly ridiculous accessories to what is already just fine. Accept that and move on. Get some better speakers or buy some real room treatment devices.

 

The smartphone in my pocket is apparently a scary proposition to mainstream audiophiles. Don't bury your head in the sand, celebrate the goodness.

[sandyk]

So the fact 8 generations is so exceptionally minor, means any one generation truly is not worth bothering with.

 

But you are comparing these with an already degraded ,supposedly "Original" version that has been manipulated several times already in software , both by adding level tone checks and later removing them again, as well as possibly altering levels ,and then a trimming exercise.

 

The original file is NO LONGER Original ! Why are you and your "through hell and high water" supporters unable to accept that fact ?

 

How about next time, if there is a next time, you provide a straight FULL LENGTH originally ripped .wav file that has not been processed further in any way , shape or form ? The "copy" could still be slightly trimmed as before though, to see if members are still able to hear differences between the original file and the trimmed copy, as well as differences with the multi generational version.

[PeterSt]

If enough were interested we could put up several files some of which were trimmed and some not. See if they can be heard as identical and different.

 

That already happened, but Mani was the only contender (my uploaded Y1 and Y2 files).

At least he scored a 100%.

[PeterSt]

About the offsets playing back differently I tried the following test.

 

I put the same file in both channels with no offset (5 seconds silence in front of and behind it) after which I put the same file in both channels with a 200 and later 500 sample offset trim in one channel only. I played these files and recorded them. One supposition was an offset file reproduces differently because the trimmed bits effect the entire track. The offset in one channel should have percolated through differently as it occured at a different time and in relation to different bits.

 

I normalized levels between channels (there is usually a small difference) and nulled the left against the right channel. With no trim and no offset the two channels nulled into the low 80 db range. I then took the offset file and moved the one with bits trimmed off the front and lined it all up. It also nulled into the low 80 db range. When looking at short sections of the files the difference in offset nulling and aligned nulling was consistently less than 1 db and quite often the same within .2 db. This doesn't indicate any difference explaining why an offset trim would sound different than another without the trim. They appear to be within the accuracy of the gear and noise levels the same.

 

So if the two original files sounded different to you I accept that. I don't necessarily accept they really were different.

 

It is a bit beyond me what you are all doing with this. Just do this :

 

Have one file with an offset and record that through your ADC.

Have another file (of the same track) but with a different offset and record that through your ADC.

 

Align both recorded files as good as you can and chop off the silent (the offset) part of both.

Now compare them visually (or upload them and let me do that, including the trimming).

 

The analysis will be somewhat tough because of the noise in the recording plus the clock offset of both recordings not making both recordings equal. But if I am correct with the filtering stuff, you should be able to see differences not dedicated to noise and clocks.

Of course use an Oversampling DAC for this or otherwise the theory won't apply.

Drop the normalizing from your workflow, because that already causes differences (rounding errors) plus it is not necessary.

[PeterSt]

If Dennis was to resubmit this test with two truly identical files and one 8th generation copy, how many of us would agree to a) participate in redoing the test and voting, and b) agree not to do any measuring to confirm those results until after we had actually listened and voted?

 

I would agree to both.

But it's almost a moot thing because I will pick the correct ones anyway; by now it almost requires another method :

Take a slow organ piece or something, of which it can be expected that it will be difficult to be molested by an 8 gen recording.

[PeterSt]

So why would trimmed, but identical bits sound so different? I don't find it does, I can't measure it changes anything, and it doesn't make sense as I understand how this works. So??

 

I don't find it does

 

An expression almost worse than Alex's.

 

I can't measure it changes anything

 

You can't measure - that is something different.

 

and it doesn't make sense as I understand how this works

 

Ehh

 

So??

 

So you seem to be the only one failing your own test.

Maybe next time change the purpose of the test ?

[sandyk]

But it's almost a moot thing because I will pick the correct ones anyway; by now it almost requires another method :

 

WOW! That's what I call super confident.

 

An expression almost worse than Alex's.

At least mine are understood by many more members than many of yours are. (grin)

[esldude]

But you are comparing these with an already degraded ,supposedly "Original" version that has been manipulated several times already in software , both by adding level tone checks and later removing them again, as well as possibly altering levels ,and then a trimming exercise.

 

The original file is NO LONGER Original ! Why are you and your "through hell and high water" supporters unable to accept that fact ?

 

How about next time, if there is a next time, you provide a straight FULL LENGTH originally ripped .wav file that has not been processed further in any way , shape or form ? The "copy" could still be slightly trimmed as before though, to see if members are still able to hear differences between the original file and the trimmed copy, as well as differences with the multi generational version.

 

No credible evidence they are degraded.

 

I am not putting up full tracks due to copyright. You might as well get that right now. Sorry, I get it, but it is what it is.