Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
esldude

Can you hear 16 times the jitter?

Rate this topic

Which is the 8th generation copy?  

7 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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 !

 

 

Good night from Sydney Au.

The 80 dB null is between channels sent thru an DAC ADC loop. The original files null to infinity with each other and the rip file.

 

Channels of a DAC usually don't null more than somewhere in the 80s. Only then if you normalize them. I can run a file through one channel and record. Repeat the process and the two files usually will null closer to 100 dB. Since the supposition was trimming altered the entire stream of samples I imagined serial comparing would be dismissed.


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 read and believe I understood the info about the tones, etc. None of which changes the fact that the posted "originals", which some people found to sound grossly different, are identical (that's zero difference, not an 80 dB difference) apart from an offset of 207 samples.

 

 

"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 dbrange. 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.

 

You are obviously confused and still failing to comprehend that the -80 dB difference is not between the audio contained in the two "original" files which were posted.

Edited by goldsdad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read this thread. I did try the Fiona Apple tracks. All 3 samples sound identical -- just awful. I can't believe this is what passes for quality sound. Grainy, harsh, lo-definition trash. Sounds like a vinyl rip from a using a $50 cartridge from some Chinese DJ turntable or something. Damn.

 

My setup:

PC JRiver -> USB (JH Labs Silver Sonic)-> Gustard U12 -> I2S (Amazon Basics HDMI) -> Gustard X20 (stock) -> XLR balanced (Better Cables) -> Schiit Ragnarok -> HiFiMan HE-6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't read this thread. I did try the Fiona Apple tracks. All 3 samples sound identical -- just awful. I can't believe this is what passes for quality sound. Grainy, harsh, lo-definition trash. Sounds like a vinyl rip from a using a $50 cartridge from some Chinese DJ turntable or something. Damn.

 

My setup:

PC JRiver -> USB (JH Labs Silver Sonic)-> Gustard U12 -> I2S (Amazon Basics HDMI) -> Gustard X20 (stock) -> XLR balanced (Better Cables) -> Schiit Ragnarok -> HiFiMan HE-6.

 

The Fiona Apple recording isn't super fidelity. It serves its purpose however.

 

Try the Hyperion Knight files as that is a very high quality recording.


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you believe this, I ask you again:

 

Why are you still here shitting all over this thread?

 

I think it is some sort of mating behavior.


--

Do facts matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

View Poll Results: Which is the 8th generation copy?

Voters: 7 in 9 days.

 

This poll will close on 05-10-2016 at 05:22 AM

 

 

A is the 8th gen highly jittered copy. 1 Vote = 14.29%

 

 

B is the 8th gen jittered copy. 3 Votes = 42.86%

 

 

C is so jittered it must be an 8th gen copy. 3 Votes = 42.86%

 

 

Even the Ill Tempered Audiophool's Polls attract far more voters and participation !


"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Poll Results: Which is the 8th generation copy?

Voters: 7 in 9 days.

 

This poll will close on 05-10-2016 at 05:22 AM

 

 

A is the 8th gen highly jittered copy. 1 Vote = 14.29%

 

 

B is the 8th gen jittered copy. 3 Votes = 42.86%

 

 

C is so jittered it must be an 8th gen copy. 3 Votes = 42.86%

 

 

Even the Ill Tempered Audiophool's Polls attract far more voters and participation !

I don't believe his polls required any listening.

 

Most polls that require listening seem to get low participation rates. Many who express trusting your ears really mean trust your labels/eyes I'm supposing. Opinions seem to become very firm once identities are known. Has been the case in these polls too.

 

I suppose Alex you are the exception. Your opinions are totally firm so you won't even listen.

 

I do express my thanks to those who did listen and participate. You are exceptional people.


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose Alex you are the exception. Your opinions are totally firm so you won't even listen.

Given what I know about all the additional non essential processing with these files, and the stuff up right at the start, which was probably due to your present personal situation taking it's toll, I decided that it was a waste of my time further pondering on varying degrees of mediocrity. Another recent poster also commented on how poor he thought the files sounded.

Neither did I consider the selection of music in this exercise suitable material for highlighting these differences. IF the stuff up hadn't occurred I may have listened further, but after that I lost all interest.

I didn't however have any problems with the files posted by Mani, and did post my results which turned out to very close to what Mani reported hearing.


"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given what I know about all the additional non essential processing with these files, and the stuff up right at the start, which was probably due to your present personal situation taking it's toll, I decided that it was a waste of my time further pondering on varying degrees of mediocrity. Another recent poster also commented on how poor he thought the files sounded.

Neither did I consider the selection of music in this exercise suitable material for highlighting these differences. IF the stuff up hadn't occurred I may have listened further, but after that I lost all interest.

I didn't however have any problems with the files posted by Mani, and did post my results which turned out to very close to what Mani reported hearing.

 

So let me get this straight Alex. One file was copied from its original rip (held in RAM by the software in use at this point I believe), I excised the song past 30 seconds, I chopped off a few dozen samples in the beginning, and saved that result. My next step was this same file still open, still in RAM I believe, had another 100 or so samples chopped, and that was saved with a second name. And this series of steps created such a "stuff up", you couldn't possibly hear it vs an 8th generation copy?


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis

You appear to be deliberately twisting my words to excuse the very poor response to this challenge.

It wasn't just about the differences between the original and the multi generation version . It was also about differences between the "original" and the derived Copy. To hear those kinds of small differences you need a high quality non manipulated version to start with. But we already know that you don't consider that this is possible, so it was way down in your priorities.

Please stop assuming in advance what others can, or can not hear ,if you wish more members to participate in your threads.

 

Perhaps you should just have stuck with a high quality non manipulated original, and the multi generational copy where members would be more likely to detail the differences that they heard, and not just which file they thought sounded better ?


"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe SandyK is right about the reasons for the poor response. So how would a serious audiophile propose a foolproof experiment that would attract big response?

 

No matter what you do, you are unlikely to receive a large response in this forum, compared with some other larger Audiophile forums unless you offered some kind of a prize incentive at the end for participating !

However, that's not going to happen, is it ?


"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Most polls that require listening seem to get low participation rates. Many who express trusting your ears really mean trust your labels/eyes I'm supposing...

 

Due to my fading mental capabilities I’m not actively participating in online discussions, although I still read threads at CA.

 

However, I feel the need to respond to your statements above as I might have a reason why you don’t get more participation in your polls. Many of us who only believe in experiencing music with our ear-brain system abhor with a purple passion comparing anything whatsoever and only do so when absolutely necessary. Such as in a new format, or replacing something that has broken.

 

Personally, I don’t even like comparing different performances of classical works.

 

Instead of comparing, I have always relied on my previous music listening history. If I like a format or label I tend to purchase them in the future. Thus I lose less money on recordings and/or formats I don’t enjoy listening to music I like through.

 

I’m not much into equipment, accessories or cables. If I have to replace something because it died, I listen with my favorite music and pick what sounds realistic and offered the most musical enjoyment. I have always been a poor audiophile, I prefer inexpensive stuff that sounds great.

 

I don't trust my eyes, I don’t trust ABX/DBT protocols, I don’t trust name brands, I don’t trust price, I don’t trust measurements, I don’t trust reviewers, I don’t trust salespeople. I only trust long-term listening when absolutely necessary. Never for fun because in my opinion critical / analytical listening for details instead of listening for musical enjoyment is not fun, in fact I have always hated that type of listening.

 

I prefer listening to music for pleasure and watching TV and movies for pleasure. Taking tests of any kind are not pleasurable. I don’t think I am alone in feeling this way.

 

Since I don’t have any reason to ever make an 8th generation copy of anything I see no point in your test. The most I do is convert .flac to .aiff using XLD. I don’t understand the purpose of an 8th generation copy.

 

...So how would a serious audiophile propose a foolproof experiment that would attract big response?

 

I personally don't think that is possible, as I believe most people would prefer to listen to music or watch a video in their free time than in taking boring comparison tests that makes everything sound like bad. Personally I don't believe in critical or analytical listening unless it is absolutely necessary. In my case, even before my memory issues, I always found it would often take a week or longer to recover from critical and analytical listening before I could once again listen for pleasure. Just my personal opinion.


I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always found it would often take a week or longer to recover from critical and analytical listening before I could once again listen for pleasure.

 

So you might even prefer a visit to the Dentist ? (grin)


"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD,

you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco"

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..

I personally don't think that is possible, as I believe most people would prefer to listen to music or watch a video in their free time than in taking boring comparison tests that makes everything sound like bad. Personally I don't believe in critical or analytical listening unless it is absolutely necessary. In my case, even before my memory issues, I always found it would often take a week or longer to recover from critical and analytical listening before I could once again listen for pleasure. Just my personal opinion.

 

That's is not entirely true. They do A/B comparisons often but usually confined to their like-minded group. Meaning, only believers participate in those "tests". No matter what the outcome they still come up with their own logic to support one product over another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis, I took too much time to participate... And I would have needed more listening, but I chose B (Y) for the most jittered piece of music. I am absolutely not sure of my choice, but it seemd that some tiny details were not as prominent. "Tiny"...


Alain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the poll has closed I will reveal the file which was the 8th generation copy.

 

That was file Z which was the 8th generation copy.

 

I wish there were more participation. Hopefully it has shown a few people that ADC/DAC conversion causes only a tiny degradation in quality. Otherwise an 8th gen copy would be so completely obvious all the choices would have been the same and been for file Z.

 

I also wish to express my respect and gratitude for those who did actually vote in the poll.

Edited by esldude

To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the poll has closed I will reveal the file which was the 8th generation copy.

 

That was file Z which was the 8th generation copy.

 

I wish there were more participation. Hopefully it has shown a few people that ADC/DAC conversion causes only a tiny degradation in quality. Otherwise an 8th gen copy would be so completely obvious all the choices would have been the same and been for file Z.

 

I also wish to express my respect and gratitude for those who did actually vote in the poll.

 

 

The votes, although far too few to be significant, are even more interesting if we ignore the two for Z which were based on the accidental inclusion of a 0.4 seconds long test tone at the beginning of file Z of the HK set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The votes, although far too few to be significant, are even more interesting if we ignore the two for Z which were based on the accidental inclusion of a 0.4 seconds long test tone at the beginning of file Z of the HK set.

 

Check your PM's.


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't participate because this isn't a test of jitter

You are correct though obviously a substantial increase in jitter would be one of the results.


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...