Blue or red pill?

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

A program already exists which nominally does this, DiffMaker - and it may prove useful in this situation. But it unfortunately has many issues in its operation, and can very easily produce spurious, completely wrong results.

 

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

It's the other way around. People of perceived fame use it to show you that any -160dB of difference can't be audible and thus is no difference.

 

Are people like Archimago and Dennis, perceived as Famous , or Infamous ?

 Some will even make that  claim for -130dB of difference.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

I think we all agree that -160dB, -130dB, etc., differences cannot be heard.

Mani

 esldude and others may believe that, but I certainly do NOT agree.

 

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, your use of English makes it a bit of minefield trying to work out precisely what you're saying - perhaps, an alternative phrasing, .

 Many people have trouble understanding Peter !

 However, given that his first language isn't English, he does remarkably well without the need for the Google translator.

[sandyk]

Mani

 At your next GTG with Mansr, would it be possible for you to educate him on what you listen for, and give him  some demonstrations?

 I have found that most are able to hear these things too, provided that they aren't extremely subtle, after a little guidance.

 After a few initial successes, they usually end up becoming quite proficient in this regard.

 It would be very helpful if he was able to home in on these things for himself too.

Alex

[sandyk]

Mani

 Are you also able to hear clear differences between any of your files saved at different locations (e.g. internal and external ) when played using the same player settings ?

 These wouldn't need to be "captured" , as they could be saved to another medium (with a small degradation) or uploaded directly.

Alex

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Doing a "digital" comparison is the only worthwhile option -

 

 No. It isn't an option. It does not show any differences between files that sound different, but have the same Binary Data.

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

You mean before any digital-to-analogue conversion has taken place?

 

But Mans has already done this analysis and has concluded categorically that the 24/176.4 digital captures taken during the A/B/X are bit-identical (ignoring the first 10k samples on some of them).

 

What would you be able to do that Mans can't?

 

Mani.

Mani

 Would I be correct in saying that you were unable to hear the differences that you originally heard when listening to the digital "captures" ? 

 

Alex

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

The 30 digital captures taken in real-time during the A/B/X all sound the same to me (assuming of course that nothing else is changed between playing them). Unsurprisingly, they sound the same as the original file when played back-to-back.

 

The handful of post A/B/X analogue captures that I have sound pretty similar to me. I wouldn't be confident identifying 'A' and 'B' in an A/B/X (not that I have any intention of ever doing another one again - a pretty strange and unnatural experience, to my mind).

 

Mani.

Mani

 Please check your PMs

Alex

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Your brain is going round in a groove. Assuming significant results, who knows what was being detected and how? 

 

Mani invited mansr along for  a good reason. He wanted confirmation from someone with high technical skills, who would undertake further indepth investigation if he was convinced that Mani was hearing these things that he reported. 

9 out of 10 was sufficient to pique Mansr's interest.

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, rando said:

What are we building up to for next season?  I for one would like to see how deep this rabbit hole actually goes.  

 That will depend mainly on Mansr's findings, which are more than likely not able to show any differences, and his dedication to finding out why.

 It would be very helpful if Mansr was able to hear these differences for himself at a future session.

 He would have quite a few contacts who may be able to offer further suggestions to him, or perhaps even a loan of suitable test equipment ?.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, it can play the disk but it's doing it hanging on by its fingernails - constantly audibly glitching, as error correction and interpolating does its damn best ... but this doesn't get in the way of the music coming through!

 Frank

You have of course tried cleaning the Laser diode area (carefully) with something like Isopropyl Alcohol ?

 If so, the Laser Diode is probably on the way out.

A few minor masked errors will not alter how the music sounds, yet so many have a hangup about Bit Perfect copies.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

Can any recorder capture digital streams without reclocking and buffering the incoming Data ?

If they can't, then any/most deficiencies in the original waveform, including levels, and TIMING will be gone.

 In other words, whatever made the original files sound different when played originally will almost certainly be removed.

 As an example, you can directly play the 2 comparison BluSpec CDs , and they sound different (one uses A Blue Laser during the creation of the Master, and a special Polymer, and the other used a normal "red" laser for mastering.)

When they are ripped / Captured and saved to HDD they sound almost identical again.  

Most claim they sound completely the same , although I can still detect minor differences. 

 

[sandyk]

Just now, esldude said:

I think the sole purpose of the digital capture here was to confirm the corrects bits were transmitted the same in both ways of listening.  Deficiencies in the original waveform will always be filtered out with digital capture. Enough deficiency and you get a bit error. 

 

 

 In other words, the captured digital streams are virtually useless for comparison purposes by others, and it will be a waste of time providing them as DLs .

[sandyk]

Just now, esldude said:

I don't think they were ever envisioned as useful for that.  I think from the beginning the digital capture was to confirm identical bits being sent.  I expected only the analog captures to be of any interest to others. 

 

Not so long back, several members were asking for them to be made available as DLs.

[sandyk]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Correct.

But I am not Dennis.

  I hear you Peter, without the Google Translator too !

[sandyk]

Just now, PeterSt said:

(so we give Alex one recording and he can copy to a next so he have two and we saved some bandwidth)

 

Want to bet that I can't make the copy of the original captured music file sound different to you , than the original while still remaining Bit Perfect ?     I won't need your software either.

 Do you want it a little duller sounding, a little more detailed, or with an awesome low end (assuming the original had a pretty good low end already) but unfortunately sounding a little tonally unbalanced ?

[sandyk]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Hi Alex, this is too difficult for my Google Translate. 

 Perhaps you can understand my edited version a little better ? 

[sandyk]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Do you want to bet that I can not make the copy of the original recorded music file sound different from the original while it is still Bit Perfect? : P I do not need your software either.

 

 

 It's really a bit pointless me doing this for you Peter, as you, Mani and Anthony(acg) have already heard the differences, and posted in  C.A. about them, for my 2 different versions of "Unter Donner und Blitz Polka,Op.324"( Thunder and Lightning Polka)

 (Unless of course you have managed to make everything sound the same with a later XXHE revision)

 

[sandyk]

Just now, PeterSt said:

OK, back to the light subjects.

 

How about we just wait for the next instalment from Mani and Mansr?

 This thread is hard enough to follow already, as it is.

 I would, like many other members,  like to hear the analogue captures when they become available, not that I expect to hear what Mani heard though, as after all , he has arguably one of the best DACs on the planet, and the best Windows software player too ?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Of course I'm hoping when mansr gets done he will have found a reason you heard the difference.  

 

 Don't hold your breath while waiting !

 For Mani's sake let's hope that he doesn't need to perform another series or ten of ABX sessions .

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I think it's totally irrelevant.

 

Mani.

 

 The only thing relevant about that, is that a higher quality Coax SPDIF input DAC would almost certainly make the audible differences even  greater.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

You could be right about error correction as my knowledge about the workings of DAC is next to zero. Yet, it is hard to accept that digital comes without error correction.

 

 If there are errors in the Coax SPDIF stream to the DAC they will not be corrected in the DAC, and are likely to be heard as tiny clicks or missing samples etc.( IF they are even noticed.)

 Capturing the Analogue Output involves another conversion to a Digital File, and the differences are then either likely to be greatly reduced or not even heard.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Presumably, you can find no consistent differences in the 6 analogue captures of the track (not 10k tone) you have?

 

Mani.

 

Would you expect to after the analogue captures of what would almost certainly have been very small heard differences, are captured and converted to digital in an A/D converter again ?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Alex, there are many on this forum who would swear that a good 24/176.4 ADC is more sensitive than any human ear, by many orders of magnitude.

 

Mani.

 

 Are you one of them ?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Chaotic signal or not, my ears (almost definitely) heard them. And therein lies the rub.

 

Mani.

 

 Just as you heard the tiny glitches with a certain commercial product that later resulted in a software update to eliminate the glitches. Those glitches were not discovered by using test equipment !