Blue or red pill?

[adamdea]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Just as you omitted the .1 perhaps ?

I reckon the .1 is moot. Mind you you have to control for intermodulation.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

The system that we used for the A/B/X? Sure. The analogue captures sound massively degraded compared to the original file (and to the spdif captures). They seem to have lost the cues I heard in the A/B/X.

 

Mani.

 

Which confirms something I noted earlier - just on a visual comparison between the digital and analogue captures in a 'complex' area of the track, the analogue version has been "rounded", just enough to pick it with the eye - like a piece of fine sandpaper has been run along the digital original, taking off the pronounced 'burrs'.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, lmitche said:

The sibilance in Patricia Barbers voice is natural, I could hear it directly, but not really noticable unless one focuses on it. But it is there nevertheless so don't expect zero sibilance on her recordings. That would not be right.

 

Sibilance is an excellent starting point for learning to hear distortion - it's part of human speech, but less than competent playback makes it irritating, annoying; because of the added distortion. I have a vast range of recordings with vocals, and on none of them is there a "sibilance problem" - because I work to eliminate the systems issues which can make this artifact so offputting.

[phosphorein]

40 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I assume you mean 16/44 and I would omit the “virtually”.

 

Indeed, I'm not the best at the iPad keyboard! And yes, I omitted the decimal. What is the cause of your bile @sandyk?

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

 

Indeed, I'm not the best at the iPad keyboard! And yes, I omitted the decimal. What is the cause of your bile @sandyk?

Your answer is the cause.

 I pity you, if you are unable to hear the difference between RBCD and the high resolution formats.

 Even at my age, and despite hearing damage ,I can readily hear the differences in the format comparison pages by Soundkeeper Recordings. (Barry Diament)

16/48 LPCM also sounds noticeably better to me than the same in 16/44.1 LPCM

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Sibilance is an excellent starting point for learning to hear distortion - it's part of human speech, but less than competent playback makes it irritating, annoying; because of the added distortion. I have a vast range of recordings with vocals, and on none of them is there a "sibilance problem" - because I work to eliminate the systems issues which can make this artifact so offputting.

 

You can't get rid of excessive sibilance due to too close miking and hard limiting.

 You can reduce it however with better than average playback.

 " Norah Jones-Come Away With Me" album is a good example of this.

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

You can't get rid of excessive sibilance due to too close miking and hard limiting.

 You can reduce it however with better than average playback.

 " Norah Jones-Come Away With Me" album is a good example of this.

 

What is being reduced, is the seasoning added by the playback's distortion contribution - too much salt and pepper can ruin the finest cooked piece of meat, and it will never rescue a very average slice of beef.

 

Vocals are typically not limited, it's the transients of the backing instruments which are kneecapped; and this can disturb the sense of the piece - but female opera singers going for the big note can be a major struggle for many systems; I've had mine shut down because the amplifier overheated, producing the note.

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, esldude said:

I think that is pretty obvious.  The focus on the captures is that they were shared to everyone not there.  If the captures were good enough, you would get to hear what Mani heard.  Are they good enough?  I think they are plenty good enough below 30 khz.  As the source material was 44.1 should be fine. 

 

Yeah here's the thing and nothing personal. I appreciate everyones efforts and understand that compromises have to be made.

 

For me: If we are trying to determine whether bitperfect streams can sound different, the A/B/X test is the way to go. I'm not interested in ADC captured recordings because I don't know how the very act of ADC affects the bitstream.

 

Now, again, for me, if we are trying to figure out how? the ADC recoding simply has to be substantially higher resolution than the DUT DAC. I'm not willing to accept results otherwise, one way of the other, but particularly a lack of difference. 

 

"should be fine" isn't good enough in this particular case. 

[fas42]

Okay, it appears to be agreed that the analogue captures are too imperfectly captured so be of real use - for identical sections of the track, the 3. analogue capture _ A version compared to the 1. digital capture _ A version shows a steady loss of spectrum energy starting at about 3kHz, which reaches a 3dB loss by 20kHz. IOW, the HF content has been substantially compromised, which correlates with the visual loss of HF on the analogue waveform - this means that the two are highly likely to sound different.

 

Which part of the test setup is at fault is another matter ...

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

Your answer is the cause.

 I pity you, if you are unable to hear the difference between RBCD and the high resolution formats.

 Even at my age, and despite hearing damage ,I can readily hear the differences in the format comparison pages by Soundkeeper Recordings. (Barry Diament)

16/48 LPCM also sounds noticeably better to me than the same in 16/44.1 LPCM

 

Here's the thing, and despite my lack of hearing damage, on my system, I simply don't hear differences in files that have been downloaded in one lossless format or the other, that have been compressed and decompressed etc.

 

Why oh why do you always accept reports of  difference as "proof" yet ignore my reports of lack of difference?

 

Does the emperor have clothes?

[sandyk]

54 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Here's the thing, and despite my lack of hearing damage, on my system, I simply don't hear differences in files that have been downloaded in one lossless format or the other, that have been compressed and decompressed etc.

 

Why oh why do you always accept reports of  difference as "proof" yet ignore my reports of lack of difference?

 

Does the emperor have clothes?

 

 I shouldn't need to keep repeating the same old stuff about confirmation via DBTs etc. and the fact that quite a few other  members report similar about .flac vs. .wav files. I have more trust in reports from highly respected Recording and Mastering Engineers who say similar , than from someone who hasn't even been able to compare the microphone feeds with the actual recorded results.

Neither do I have any idea of just how revealing your system is, other than  you keep insisting that

your method has overcome all the problems that others report having.

 That comes across as a wee bit arrogant without confirmation by others.

What reference do you have to make this claim ? Do you have access to any Master Recordings for comparison  purposes ?

 I sure don't, which is why I have more trust in reports from Industry professionals.

 

" Why oh why do you always accept reports of  difference as "proof" yet ignore my reports of lack of difference? "

 

 That works both ways  In this case,  quite a few people, including several prominent C.A. members have previously confirmed my reports !

I don't post reports like this without first obtaining confirmation from others with proven qualifications and experience in these areas.

 

Yet once again, threads like this have turned into Objective vs. Subjective, with no clear end result and personal attacks.

I bet that Mani now rues the day that he tried to meet half way with a hard line Objective member !

 

" No, it's become obvious to me that people will only truly accept that which is consistent with their current belief system. Any evidence to the contrary is simply dismissed. - Mani"

 

 Perhaps it's time for Admin to lock this thread ?

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps it's time for Admin to lock this thread ?

 

Why?

 

As long as we stick to trying to understand what happened in the ABX, and not conflate it with other scenarios, we should be fine.

 

I think people have remained quite civil in this thread.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

I bet that Mani now rues the day that he tried to meet half way with a hard line Objective member !

 

No, not at all.

 

Mani.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

No, not at all.

 

Mani.

 

Can you realistically see any further progress being made without the need for another session using different methods and equipment ?

 

[semente]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

You can't get rid of excessive sibilance due to too close miking and hard limiting.

 You can reduce it however with better than average playback.

 " Norah Jones-Come Away With Me" album is a good example of this.

 

The better than average playback will not produce sibilance-like distortion.

This distortion affects all high frequency sound, not only sibilance, but using close-mic'ed vocals helps detection.

[manisandher]

33 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Can you realistically see any further progress being made without the need for another session using different methods and equipment ?

 

Maybe.

 

There are things I can do here that may help further analysis, but they require others to trust that I'm doing what I say I'm doing. Although we certainly have our differences of opinion, I think the necessary level of trust has been built up between Mans and myself.

 

I can repeat things with different DACs and different ADCs, and we might be able to get a better picture of what's happening.

 

But all of this is predicated on people believing that there really are differences in sound between these bit-identical playback means. I'm all for healthy scepticism - there are too many charlatans out there - but when someone scores 9/10 in a well-conducted ABX, it should be enough for people to accept this.

 

Not accepting it is a show-stopper. Analysis then just becomes an act of trying to show that audible differences could not have occurred. It leads us nowhere.

 

Mani.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Maybe.

 

There are things I can do here that may help further analysis, but they require others to trust that I'm doing what I say I'm doing. Although we certainly have our differences of opinion, I think the necessary level of trust has been built up between Mans and myself.

 

I can repeat things with different DACs and different ADCs, and we might be able to get a better picture of what's happening.

 

But all of this is predicated on people believing that there really are differences in sound between these bit-identical playback means. I'm all for healthy scepticism - there are too many charlatans out there - but when someone scores 9/10 in a well-conducted ABX, it should be enough for people to accept this.

 

Not accepting it is a show-stopper. Analysis then just becomes an act of trying to show that audible differences could not have occurred. It leads us nowhere.

 

Mani.

Things aren't quite that binary at least to me. 

 

Am I highly convinced by your one 9 of 10 result?  Not quite.  I've said before this listening session you undertook I like at least 30 choices to be convinced.  

 

Does that mean I don't believe your 9/10ths result?  Not quite that either.  I think you were hearing something more than likely.  Not fully convinced, but not doubting too much. 

 

So further analysis or testing isn't an act of trying to show differences could not have occurred.  It would be probing further to see what they are.  In my mind it isn't about testing till we find a way you fail to get results.   Let us say you do this again and managed 30 of 30 correct over several hours.  I would be convinced you are hearing something.  But we still don't know what it is manifesting itself you hear.  I would want to know what is different in the signal that you hear from this.  

 

So I'm in limbo.  I would like to see more captures done with a better ADC.  Maybe that turns something up.  If you can do analog captures with another device and you can hear the differences in the captures, then we would have something to work with. 

 

Of course all of this is beyond the original purpose of your listening session with mansr.  Asking for more from you is asking a lot.  All down to curiosity being satisfied or not at this point.  So whether you do more or not is up to you and mansr.  

[Summit]

19 hours ago, psjug said:

Really I don't get being so emotionally attached to all this.  I think it's all fun and I learn a lot here.

Edit: I can understand being emotionally attached if you make the equipment or software being discussed, or performed the tests, but not so much for the rest of us.

 

I would say that’s not unusual to get emotionally attached in a hobby, politics, religion, debate or whatever. It kind of part of the human nature and DNA to be passionate about something (also meaningless things). If you don’t realize how some people can get emotionally attached, just take a look at the supporters for a football club, climate deniers or for Trump’s follower.

 

In our hobby many people have spent a lot of money and time, to step by step build his/her audio system, and it can get tiresome to hear the same objection over and over again from those that haven’t even listed to the thing in question. Some individuals have also positioned themselves and made statements to an idea, audio design or a subjective/objective* view of what’s most important and are defending it hard.

 

*The main difference between subjectivist and objectivist IMO is not about if one relies on facts and science, it’s about applied science VS basic theories. Subjectivist take reasons and values to be definable in terms of some relation to desires and/or emotions had under some factually described circumstances. Objectivist theories deny either the sufficiency of such a condition or its sufficiency and necessity. To me listing to music with good SQ is the goal, and the why some gear sound better than others is interesting to know, but will not change my mind of what sound best in that set up. And even if I don’t know why some things sound better than another it’s not itself evidence of what I hear is just bias.

 

I cannot understand how 8 ferrets can sound different than 6 ferrets. It seems impossible that any EMC, EMI or RFI can travel true my SPDIF cable, but still the difference is clear to me. Now hearing the difference is often the easy part, to decide if its better is much harder and are often more or less system dependent.   

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Let us say you do this again and managed 30 of 30 correct over several hours.  I would be convinced you are hearing something.

 

But we have to be more specific than this. You would need to be convinced that there was a difference in the sound of the music, otherwise there's always this 'get out of jail' card:

 

22 hours ago, mansr said:

You were unknowingly reacting to something external to the audio playback.

 

My analysis showed no evidence of any external 'tells' during the two failed ABXXXXXXXXXX runs. So unless you believe that they magically appeared just for the ABX, it's reasonable to dismiss them. And yet, some are hanging on to them. In which case, 9/10, 30/30, or 100/100... it wouldn't make any difference.

 

Mani.

[Summit]

28 minutes ago, esldude said:

Things aren't quite that binary at least to me. 

 

Am I highly convinced by your one 9 of 10 result?  Not quite.  I've said before this listening session you undertook I like at least 30 choices to be convinced.  

 

Does that mean I don't believe your 9/10ths result?  Not quite that either.  I think you were hearing something more than likely.  Not fully convinced, but not doubting too much. 

 

So further analysis or testing isn't an act of trying to show differences could not have occurred.  It would be probing further to see what they are.  In my mind it isn't about testing till we find a way you fail to get results.   Let us say you do this again and managed 30 of 30 correct over several hours.  I would be convinced you are hearing something.  But we still don't know what it is manifesting itself you hear.  I would want to know what is different in the signal that you hear from this.  

 

So I'm in limbo.  I would like to see more captures done with a better ADC.  Maybe that turns something up.  If you can do analog captures with another device and you can hear the differences in the captures, then we would have something to work with. 

 

Of course all of this is beyond the original purpose of your listening session with mansr.  Asking for more from you is asking a lot.  All down to curiosity being satisfied or not at this point.  So whether you do more or not is up to you and mansr.  

 

I don’t think the goal was to show which one that was “best” or most accurate. The goal was to demonstrate if Mani can hear this change in an ABX test. To decide if something sound “right” one need to listen to many tracks and over long time.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

So I'm in limbo.  I would like to see more captures done with a better ADC.  Maybe that turns something up.  If you can do analog captures with another device and you can hear the differences in the captures, then we would have something to work with. 

 And if Mani is able to repeat his earlier 9 out of 10 (or better) session another couple of times, yet the captures do not reveal definite differences, as I suspect will happen, where does that leave you ? 

 You certainly can't claim that he failed to prove that there can be audible differences between files having identical binary data. If Mani can prove that he is able to hear differences , yet the Digital Capture is unable to reveal the same audible differences into the previous signal chain, are you willing to concede that  the digital capture, for whatever reason, is no longer EXACTLY the same as the original stream to the DAC, despite STILL having identical binary data ?

5 minutes ago, Summit said:

To decide if something sound “right” one need to listen to many tracks and over long time.

 

As Barrows can confirm, some people even prefer the sound of a little added Jitter, and unless you heard the original master, you wouldn't know which file was more correct.

[Andyman]

On 18/04/2018 at 7:04 PM, Andyman said:

Page 100 suggestion. 

 

How about trying a recursive loop with each of the sfs settings. 

 

Play a file with sfs 0.1 (was that the number? Too many pages to check) record (pre, post dac or both). Play back resultant file at same sfs, record, repeat ad inf (or until bored).

Do same with sfs 200. 

 

Listen to both.

 

Any cumulative effect, or is it a one off playback thing?

 

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

Maybe.

 

There are things I can do here that may help further analysis

 

Mani, you seem not to have considered my page 100 suggestion. Whilst flippantly written, it was actually a serious suggestion. (Dennis up-ticked it too. Presumably he also thought worth a go?)

 

Andy

[STC]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

But all of this is predicated on people believing that there really are differences in sound between these bit-identical playback means.

 

I am afraid I have disagree with you. If this experiment is about bit- identical files sounding different than I am afraid this is not the correct method. 

 

If you want to proof that bit identical files can sound different than use several different but identical file at the source and do the blind test without touching the SFS or other controls. Otherwise, this is not about bit identical files but about the SFS changing the sound of bit identical file. I hope @PeterSt can agree on this. 

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, Andyman said:

Mani, you seem not to have considered my page 100 suggestion. Whilst flippantly written, it was actually a serious suggestion. (Dennis up-ticked it too. Presumably he also thought worth a go?)

 

Worth a go... once we can get past the 'show-stopper' I mentioned earlier.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

I am afraid I have disagree with you. If this experiment is about bit- identical files sounding different than I am afraid this is not the correct method. 

 

Where did I say "files"? There is just one source file being played back in two bit-identical ways.

 

Mani.