Can you hear 16 times the jitter?

[esldude]

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

At least he scored a 100%.

 

Of course he was the only contender. And there was only one possible choice. Not much to convince there.

[esldude]

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.

 

I already have done that. No difference. Now if you talking two fully separate files then yes it will be different due to free running clocks. You should know better Peter. And yes, if I use two separate channels normalizing is necessary or you have polluted results. I can do what you wish with locked clocks. But you will not care to do that as it won't pollute the results in the way need.

[PeterSt]

Ah, I really thought of making a bet of it. But then I figured I would be the only contender.

 

But seriously, this test can be way more useful (in my view), which we only learned after the fact of the test of this thread :

 

Have one original and have one 8 gen copy.

 

Now I am not so sure I will guess right. Maybe after much experience with it. But this would really come down to that DAC being (say) harsh, and the ADC rounding that. Which will sound better ? probably the rounded one.

But we like to choose the best one.

I'd even bet I will lose ...

[esldude]

An expression almost worse than Alex's.

 

 

 

You can't measure - that is something different.

 

 

 

Ehh

 

 

 

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

Maybe next time change the purpose of the test ?

 

 

Sorry, you have some twisted version of failing a test. Identical samples sounds identical to me and different samples sound different. You consider that a failure? Quite laughable.

 

Of course I listened without the label, and you analysed and then put the labels on and listened.

[PeterSt]

I already have done that. No difference.

 

At first glance, to me this reads as "I found no differences".

But you can't be meaning that because there will be differences.

 

I suppose you're talking about the dB thing. That doesn't work. I said (tried to say) to look visually. This means comparing the waves. If you then say you don't see differences, you're dreaming out loud.

 

Or ?

[esldude]

At first glance, to me this reads as "I found no differences".

But you can't be meaning that because there will be differences.

 

I suppose you're talking about the dB thing. That doesn't work. I said (tried to say) to look visually. This means comparing the waves. If you then say you don't see differences, you're dreaming out loud.

 

Or ?

 

The differences are of a kind that is consistent with noise and other issues and nothing else. If there was some consistent difference in the residuals beyond that it would show up and it doesn't.

[PeterSt]

Identical samples sounds identical to me

 

I believe that. If you only know you're alone at that one.

Ok, you don't care.

 

Plus you claim that the samples are identical. Well, show us (record the output of the two files and upload them).

Say it will be my task to prove that they are not identical. And if I can't do that, I can't show it either. So, easy.

 

...

 

The differences are of a kind that is consistent with noise and other issues and nothing else. If there was some consistent difference in the residuals beyond that it would show up and it doesn't.

 

Or we trust you.

But personally I don't and this is because of the dB thing you already brought up.

Mind you, this is the same sort of checking as how JPlay sounds the same as JRiver.

Ok, I guess you believe in that too.

[PeterSt]

Mind you, this is the same sort of checking as how JPlay sounds the same as JRiver.

 

Sorry to take some short cuts here, but I assume that you know what I am talking about (a bit difficult for me to look it up as I forgot the guy doing these tests - archimedo or sth).

 

Edit : From the top of my head I tried to refer to Archimago('s Musings) , but although that guys does the same kind of thing, it is not he who I meant; that would be Mitchco (see in next post).

[PeterSt]

JRiver vs JPLAY Test Results - Blogs - Computer Audiophile

[esldude]

I believe that. If you only know you're alone at that one.

Ok, you don't care.

 

Plus you claim that the samples are identical. Well, show us (record the output of the two files and upload them).

Say it will be my task to prove that they are not identical. And if I can't do that, I can't show it either. So, easy.

 

...

 

 

 

Or we trust you.

But personally I don't and this is because of the dB thing you already brought up.

Mind you, this is the same sort of checking as how JPlay sounds the same as JRiver.

Ok, I guess you believe in that too.

 

The files are there for you to download. See if they are identical other than the offset trimming. I already know the answer as do you. They are identical.

 

I also am not the one to whom they sound that way. In fact the majority of responders found it to be so.

[esldude]

Sorry to take some short cuts here, but I assume that you know what I am talking about (a bit difficult for me to look it up as I forgot the guy doing these tests - archimedo or sth).

 

Don't know, haven't used either one.

[PeterSt]

The files are there for you to download. See if they are identical other than the offset trimming. I already know the answer as do you. They are identical.

 

WHAT ?

Are you now changing the subject ? It is not about that. And btw I was first to tell that when trimmed both are 100% equal.

 

Are you playing games now ?

 

Never mind.

[goldsdad]

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 ?

 

No doubt you are referring to me. You are completely wrong. I didn't cheat - I didn't vote. I actually listened first, then inspected the files in Audacity.

 

For the record, I had one listen to the 3 FA tracks loaded into Decibel player, didn't notice anything obvious to audibly differentiate them, then opened the files in Audacity since that is more interesting to me than repeatedly listening to 30 secs of music I'm not enjoying. Let me repeat, I did not vote in the poll, and I did not cheat.

[goldsdad]

Bully for you !

The test in it's present form is completely flawed, and irrelevant, as can be seen by the lack of participants, despite numerous views of the thread.

 

Consider that many people maybe did not vote because there is no option for "cannot hear a difference."

 

What value do you think there'd be if people just made a random choice in order to make any choice at all?

 

 

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

G.I.G.O.

 

You make another mistake. There are no test tones in any of the FA files, which are the files that have stirred up so much controversy. Was that your tinnitus playing up again, Alex?

[sandyk]

No doubt you are referring to me.

 

As is so often the case, you got it wrong again!

 

Doesn't leave too many others to choose from, does it ? (grin)

 

The level test tones had been added, then removed again before being made available as DLs.

According to Peter (and I suggested this possibility beforehand too) the volume levels of the 2 supposedly "original" files also had their levels Normalised.

 

Consider that many people maybe did not vote because there is no option for "cannot hear a difference."

 

That wouldn't have stopped them from posting their findings.

[goldsdad]

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

 

 

Here's both channels of all 3 files when aligned:

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25868[/ATTACH]

[goldsdad]

As is so often the case, you got it wrong again!

 

Doesn't leave too many others to choose from, does it ? (grin)

 

It would be less infantile of you if you'd just name the person/people you are referring to.

 

 

The level test tones had been added, then removed again before being made available as DLs.

 

So what? The tones aren't mixed into the music that's in the FA files. The section of each file that contained the tone has been trimmed off, so the tone has no bearing on the playback of the files because the tone has never been in the sections of audio that are in the FA files.

 

 

According to Peter (and I suggested this possibility beforehand too) the volume levels of the 2 supposedly "original" files also had their levels Normalised.

 

Again, irrelevant. The "originals" null to infinity when aligned, so even if they have been normalised they have been normalised identically, making them identical apart from offset.

 

 

[no option for "cannot hear a difference."] wouldn't have stopped them from posting their findings.

 

Fear of being considered sub-audiophile by their peers would stop many people from posting, I suspect.

[goldsdad]

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 ?

 

You (even though profoundly deaf, by your own admission, LOL) heard (or maybe imagined is a better word) what you were primed to hear by reading Mani's description.

[sandyk]

Owen

Despite all your blustering ,several well respected members have reported hearing differences between the "original".wav files.

There are several possibilities here.

1. They have imagined the differences.

2, The differences were caused by the realignment of the files due to cutting, as suggested in the thread that I linked to re Steve Nugent from Empirical Audio..

3. Repeated opening, editing and saving again has exposed the files to added RF/EMI resulting in a poorer S/N due to low level wideband noise. This ties in with my findings that Martin Colloms and Barry have previously confirmed about the part the actual PSU and the degree of PSU isolation has to play in the SQ of a file.

Several members have also already confirmed in other areas of the forum that improving the +5V power to internal SSDs does result in an improved SQ.

 

BTW, according to Dennis the files only nulled to 80dB IIRC.

 

Going by your most recent personal comments , the old Owen is still here, and you still are a nasty and sarcastic piece of work when people stand up to you.

 

BTW, the hearing in my right ear with the Acoustic Neuroma pressing on the ear canal does vary considerably with my BP, and at certain times when my BP drops below a certain amount, the hearing loss is much less. I know from experience the best times to do critical listening.

A good guide for me is when the DTV audio through my main system exhibits a vastly improved stereo image and sounds 3 dimensional on well recorded local productions. Another guide is when my car's engine noise and road noise sounds WAY louder than normal. (sometimes worryingly so at the time)

[goldsdad]

BTW, according to Dennis the files only nulled to 80dB IIRC.

 

You're confused by another test performed by Dennis. The two "originals" of FA null to infinity when they are not offset from each other.

 

The image below shows the null (sample values are zero, i.e. -infinity dBFS) in the stereo track named Mix. It's produced by aligning the X and Y tracks, inverting the Y track, then mixing X with Y. That arithmetically subtracts each sample of Y from X to leave precisely zero as the value of each resulting sample except for the first 207 samples by which the tracks were initially offset, therefore X and Y are identical except for being offset by 207 samples

 

 

 

Going by your most recent personal ;comments , the old Owen is still here, and you still are a nasty and sarcastic piece of work when people stand up to you.

 

Pot, Kettle, Black?

[sandyk]

You're confused by another test performed by Dennis. The two "originals" of FA null to infinity when they are not offset from each other.

 

The image below shows the null (sample values are zero, i.e. -infinity dBFS) in the stereo track named Mix. It's produced by aligning the X and Y tracks, inverting the Y track, then mixing X with Y. That arithmetically subtracts each sample of Y from X to leave precisely zero as the value of each resulting sample except for the first 207 samples by which the tracks were initially offset, therefore X and Y are identical except for being offset by 207 samples

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25870[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

Pot, Kettle, Black?

 

Your graphs prove nothing. We don't listen with our eyes ,so I have Zero interest in any graphs that either of you post.

My comments have been solely directed to this thread. You apparently didn't even know that the original file had been modified to include a level tone check.

Neither did I make any personal attacks on you until you decided to attack my hearing abilities.

I have been previously involved with a listening session along with Dennis, and although we both don't agree on these issues,I doubt that he disbelieves that I can hear things that many others are unable to.

Peter also has a problematical ear that can shut down, yet he has managed to design one of the most respected DACs available.

My own heavily modified DIY DAC recently easily outperformed a friend's AU$11,800 Bricasti M1 DAC.

 

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

From Post 160 in THIS thread by Dennis.

 

Are you pissed again ?

[goldsdad]

Your graphs prove nothing. We don't listen with our eyes ,so I have Zero interest in any graphs that either of you post.

 

The graphs demonstrate that you were wrong to state the two originals null to only -80 dBFS. I realize that you don't want to know that.

 

 

My comments have been solely directed to this thread. You apparently didn't even know that the original file had been modified to include a level tone check.

 

Of course I didn't know that! The tone isn't in the FA files that were posted! Not only did that prevent me knowing that a tone had been used by Dennis, the tone cannot possibly affect playback of the posted FA files since it isn't in these files.

 

 

Neither did I make any personal attacks on you until you decided to attack my hearing abilities.

I have been previously involved with a listening session along with Dennis, and although we both don't agree on these issues,

I doubt that he disbelieves that I can hear things that many others are unable to.

Peter also has a problematical ear that can shut down, yet he has managed to design one of the most respected DACs available.

My own heavily modified DIY DAC recently easily outperformed a friend's AU$11,800 Bricasti M1 DAC.

 

LOL

[sandyk]

The graphs demonstrate that you were wrong to state the two originals null to only -80 dBFS. I realize that you don't want to know that.

 

 

 

 

Of course I didn't know that! The tone isn't in the FA files that were posted! Not only did that prevent me knowing that a tone had been used by Dennis, the tone cannot possibly affect playback of the posted FA files since it isn't in these files.

 

 

 

 

LOL

 

Whatever you say. I couldn't be arsed continuing any further discussions with someone like yourself.

Perhaps if you had read the thread a bit closer then you would have known about the inserted tones and other manipulations !

 

 

 

 

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 - From Post 160 in THIS thread by Dennis.

.

 

Good night from Sydney Au.

[goldsdad]

Are you pissed again ?

 

You are the one demonstrating impaired comprehension and reasoning, as clearly evidenced by your confusion over which of Dennis's tests revealed a 80 dB difference.

[esldude]

As is so often the case, you got it wrong again!

 

Doesn't leave too many others to choose from, does it ? (grin)

 

The level test tones had been added, then removed again before being made available as DLs.

According to Peter (and I suggested this possibility beforehand too) the volume levels of the 2 supposedly "original" files also had their levels Normalised.

 

 

 

That wouldn't have stopped them from posting their findings.

No the original files never had the levels touched at any time during the whole process.