Blue or red pill?

[PeterSt]

37 minutes ago, STC said:

Worth it?

 

I'd say that by now you will know for yourself which of the two sounds better to you. Which is that ?

 

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Okay, color me intrigued.

 

What should intrigue for real is that you (STC) were that other person who wanted to go to the bottom of this; Strange that two persons with this attitude now achieve something for real (as how I see it).

Or would it be normal / human ? (hey, assumed there *is* a difference of course)

 

40 minutes ago, STC said:

because I think Mansr is close to getting the answer.

hmm ...

[STC]

31 minutes ago, acg said:

 

STC did 50 ABX comparisons in 12 minutes...that's 14 seconds per ABX...it appears as though he could hear that "tell"

 

This is too small. Maybe, personal satisfaction. When you pay extra attention with ...say .. a new cable.. you are bound to hear difference. On any given days, I would have said no difference. I even got 9/10 wrong in my first attempt although being so sure I perceived a difference. Maybe, I will go back to the original file and see if I could chance the 9/10 wrong to 10/10 correct. 

 

 

[PeterSt]

12 minutes ago, acg said:

STC did 50 ABX comparisons in 12 minutes...that's 14 seconds per ABX...it appears as though he could hear that "tell"

 

Once you know what to listen for, why ?

Anthony, wouldn't you be able to do it "within the second" depending on the music and what XXHighEnd setting it is about ?

[STC]

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I'd say that by now you will know for yourself which of the two sounds better to you. Which is that ?

 

I am not sure if I can say for sure. At different portion, non-blinded, I have preference for A and for others B.  I think I will go for the first two 4/10 ABX which @manisandher attempted provided he would be kind enough to upload the analogue capture. BTW, I tried the digital files and heard no difference. 

[acg]

20 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Once you know what to listen for, why ?

Anthony, wouldn't you be able to do it "within the second" depending on the music and what XXHighEnd setting it is about ?

 

I don't know about "within the second" but, yes, once I was familiar enough with the particular "difference" then I would be more confident of picking it blind...but that is not what I was so much concerned about.  Frank suspects he has identified a tell at 0.9s into one of the captures and in this case STC is only listening to each A, B or X for about 4s on average.  It certainly appears as though Franks "tell" could be having an influence on the results...at least it is within the realm of possibility. 

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, acg said:

 

STC did 50 ABX comparisons in 12 minutes...that's 14 seconds per ABX...it appears as though he could hear that "tell"

 

Located what the "tell" is - before the first piano note sounds, at the beginning, there is a very short snippet of acoustic, about a quarter of a second; from the recording. In one sample, that acoustic snippet is slightly longer than the other, 0.025 secs worth ... now, is that long enough, significant enough for one's mind to register? I certainly can't hear it being special, but other people might pick up on it.

[STC]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

In one sample, that acoustic snippet is slightly longer than the other, 0.025 secs worth ... now, is that long enough, significant enough for one's mind to register? I certainly can't hear it being special, but other people might pick up on it.

 

You are speculating if you can't tell the difference. Even when we hear identical tracks, we may perceive difference but is it real or imaginary?

[fas42]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

You are speculating if you can't tell the difference. Even when we hear identical tracks, we may perceive difference but is it real or imaginary?

 

If one is to be certain that an unconscious trigger is not being fired each time, then the tells need to be excluded. Which is easy to do for Mani - he just needs to adjust the beginnings of the track, so that they match, perfectly.

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If one is to be certain that an unconscious trigger is not being fired each time, then the tells need to be excluded. Which is easy to do for Mani - he just needs to adjust the beginnings of the track, so that they match, perfectly.

 

IMO, this approach is wrong. The question is - Is there a difference? If yes - can you hear it? If yes - can you be consistent? It is no point reading into someone mind on how and why they could tell the difference because the difference itself is not constant to matter.

[fas42]

Just now, STC said:

 

IMO, this approach is wrong. The question is - Is there a difference? If yes - can you hear it? If yes - can you be consistent? It is no point reading into someone mind on how and why they could tell the difference because the difference itself is not constant to matter.

 

But the point is that this difference is purely the result of how Mani organised the track, to upload - absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the replay ... we need to start off by being confident that we are comparing oranges with oranges - and that can be done by ensuring that non-playback related aspects of the samples match.

[manisandher]

@STC, the tracks 23 & 24 aren't aligned and aren't of exactly the same length. If listened to all the way through, it should be trivial to identify either based purely on listening to when they end. B seems to end slightly sooner than A, just as a piano key is struck.

 

I never intended 23 & 24 to be used in an ABX, but if they are, they need to be aligned and cut to exactly the same length.

 

This was unnecessary during the 'real' ABX with Mans because each A and B were of randomly different lengths.

 

However, if you've already aligned and cut them, then I'm impressed.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 hours ago, STC said:

... I think Mansr is close to getting the answer.

 

News to me. Now I'm intrigued.

 

Mani.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

@STC, the tracks 23 & 24 aren't aligned and aren't of exactly the same length. If listened to all the way through, it should be trivial to identify either based purely on listening to when they end. B seems to end slightly sooner than A, just as a piano key is struck.

 

I never intended 23 & 24 to be used in an ABX, but if they are, they need to be aligned and cut to exactly the same length.

 

This was unnecessary during the 'real' ABX with Mans because each A and B were of randomly different lengths.

 

However, if you've already aligned and cut them, then I'm impressed.

 

Mani.

 

 I don't need the whole track to tell the difference. The first 10 seconds will do. Ok..I didn't align them because I thought that what was captured from the output and that what would have been reaching the amplifier. Is there a reason to align them? 

[manisandher]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

I don't need the whole track to tell the difference. The first 10 seconds will do. Ok..I didn't align them because I thought that what was captured from the output and that what would have been reaching the amplifier. Is there a reason to align them? 

 

I had to start/stop the analogue captures manually - my recording software doesn't have auto start/stop (I tried to get Audacity to work but it refused to recognize my ADC). Considering it was done manually, I think I did a pretty good job to get them started at a similar time. But the stop time is clearly different.

 

If you're listening to just the first 10 seconds or so, I doubt there's enough of a difference between the start times to use this to differentiate them - but there is a difference.

 

The digital captures don't suffer from this, and should start at pretty much the same time. Oh and BTW, the digital captures sound identical to me too.

 

Mani.

[STC]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

If you're listening to just the first 10 seconds or so, I doubt there's enough of a difference between the start times to use this to differentiate them - but there is a difference.

 

Actually, I only used the musical portion of the 10 seconds. But since you mentioned there could be a difference then it could be that as well. It could be the same with your ABX too. How do you know there wasn't a difference in the start time between the two different SFS setting. Was this ruled out?

[manisandher]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

Actually, I only used the musical portion of the 10 seconds. But since you mentioned there could be a difference then it could be that as well. It could be the same with your ABX too. How do you know there wasn't a difference in the start time between the two different SFS setting. Was this ruled out?

 

Yes ruled out:

 

On 4/26/2018 at 1:03 PM, mansr said:

For the X samples, the preceding gap, however, shows no obvious correlation with the selection. Both extremes were B samples, and the mean differs by much less than a standard deviation. In light of this, I find it unlikely that the timing skewed Mani's choices towards the correct.

 

It was a different situation though - we weren't listening to and comparing captures. If one capture has a tell 'recorded' into it, then it will be easier to identify.

 

I've listened to 23 & 24. I can hear no tell whatsoever and they sound different to me. If you scored your perfect 100%s from the sound of the music alone, really, very well done! It makes this whole endeavour more interesting now.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Located what the "tell" is - before the first piano note sounds, at the beginning, there is a very short snippet of acoustic, about a quarter of a second; from the recording. In one sample, that acoustic snippet is slightly longer than the other, 0.025 secs worth ...

 

I can't see or hear this.

 

 

Can you show us where you see it?

 

Mani.

[STC]

20 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Yes ruled out:

 

 

It was a different situation though - we weren't listening to and comparing captures. If one capture has a tell 'recorded' into it, then it will be easier to identify.

 

I've listened to 23 & 24. I can hear no tell whatsoever and they sound different to me. If you scored your perfect 100%s from the sound of the music alone, really, very well done! It makes this whole endeavour more interesting now.

 

Mani.

 

This was Mansr opinion.  Ignore the digital capture and just concentrate of what was coming out of the analogue output. Was there a difference in the timing (delay) before the start of music coming out of the speakers between A and B?

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

This was Mansr opinion.  Ignore the digital capture and just concentrate of what was coming out of the analogue output.

 

Each digital capture has a time code. Using that, we can determine exactly when the music started playing during the ABX. So they're actually very useful.

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

Was there a difference in the timing (delay) before the start of music coming out of the speakers between A and B?

 

The difference in time delay before the start of music between X=A and X=B was random. As proven by the time codes on the digital captures.

 

Edit: There were no analogue captures taken during the ABX. Only digital captures were taken. The analogue captures I provided originally were taken immediately after the ABX, whilst Mans was still here.

 

Mani.

[STC]

BTW, the original A and B analogue is still difficult to differentiate. 

 

Is it possible to make four 20 seconds of the digital track and joined together with a three seconds gap in the beginning of the four tracks AND then capture the playback from the analogue out put by playing SFS0.1 for the first portion of 20 seconds and SFS 200 for the next 20 seconds followed by SFS0.1 and SFS200 for the last two. Is the 3 seconds gap time is enough to make the changes. This would eliminate whatever difference in the start/stop timing difference.

 

I want to see the actual changes in the analogue output due to SFS changes.

[esldude]

Yes in foobar ABX that difference in time would likely be audible with quick switching. You need to align the signals. I'd do it, but I'm stuck in the hospital with a relative.

 

You guys had me excited that there was something new.  Then another gotcha. So maybe aligned STC will still manage 50 of 50.

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, STC said:

BTW, the original A and B analogue is still difficult to differentiate.

 

We've determined that the Tascam DA-3000 is a POS as an ADC. It's perfect for the digital captures though - it's easy to set up, has all the necessary I/Os, and can't screw the sound up in any way.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

Is it possible to make four 20 seconds of the digital track and joined together...

 

I really don't like manipulating digital files in any way - it just seems to screw the sound up. I have no idea why - perhaps there's always a bit of guessing required from the software whenever an edit is made?

 

I have another idea though...

 

I'll recreate the ABX in its entirety. 10 sets of ABX. The timing between the B and X will be random (within a certain window), just as it was for the 'real' ABX. I'll make the following files available:

 

- 10x ABX

- 30x digital captures (just to prove that the bits remained identical throughout)

 

You can use whichever playback method you like (in my case I need to use software with good-sounding upsampling/filtering). Give me a short while to get this sorted out.

 

If anyone gets >9/10 Xs correct, then we're on to something...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

So maybe aligned STC will still manage 50 of 50.

 

I reckon he will. The differences between the timings of 23 and 24 really are minute (I'd say one or two 10ths of a second at most), and I'd be surprised if this were the 'tell'.

 

Edit: much less than this even:

 

 

When I did the ABX, I pretty much knew the correct result within 3 seconds - all based on the sound of the first few notes of the piano. But I waited until I could hear the sibilance of her voice before deciding for sure.

 

Mani.

[STC]

The whole purpose of this thread is to show that SFS can alter the sound and on that premise alone I took about one week to get the results of perfect score because I believed there was a difference between the two analogue captures. 

 

Having said that, if you go extra mile to eliminate whatever difference that could be there than it defeats the purpose of the blindtest. I think @PeterSt assertion is that the sound changes after reaching the DAC so the attention should be trying to capture whatever comes out of the DAC output as identical as possible as it would reach the amplifier. If there is going to be time difference than that should be reflected and not eliminated by way of time aligning the two samples. 

 

I think my proposed method would show if there was indeed a timing difference between the two SFS settings coming out of the analogue output. Anyway, the audibility is not that difficult to discern with file 23 and 24 why not give it a try and post the results here.

[manisandher]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

Having said that, if you go extra mile to eliminate whatever difference that could be there than it defeats the purpose of the blindtest.

 

Let's be clear what we're talking about. There is a minute difference in the 'silence' before the music starts between 23 and 24. It looks to be around 1.15s vs. 1.12s. If anyone believes that A and B can be differentiated in a foobar ABX based on a 0.03s difference, then go ahead. I don't think so.

 

Had the difference been ~0.5s, I think the start of the music would need to be better aligned.

 

Mani.