Blue or red pill?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

The glitches are readily apparent on a scope.

 

That is no surprise, yet Mani was widely ridiculed at the time for reporting hearing glitches at such a low level.

[sandyk]

50 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

But not when I just listen to music (no A-B whatsoever) in unconscious fashion

 

 Too much booze ?

 

BTW,  and you call your USB cable Lush.

Guilty by association ?

 

Urban Dictionary: Lush

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lush

1. Cached

Either sex can be a lush. It's someone who drinks a lot and enjoys drinking a lot---not necessarily an alcoholic, but someone whose drinking is noticeable. It can be used teasingly or as an insult, but even if someone teases you (or whoever), there's probably some truth in it, and it probably means you're overdoing the ...

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

A truly impartial mind would entertain the possibility that we're measuring the wrong thing. It seems to me that you're projecting your own determination to limit thinking.

 

 

Good advice!

 

Mani.

Mani

 I hate to say this, but the only way that you may finally convince Mansr is to do more repeats of the 9 out of 10 results using the same methodology,(not a pleasant thought , is it ?) or find a way to make the differences even more audible so that Mansr is able to hear them for himself.

My E.E. friend Ionwyn gave me hell for >12 months, telling me I was making myself look foolish, until one day at his own place, and using his own system, he was able to hear the differences for himself via a USB memory stick that I provided.

Will the Analogue captures be released soon, not that I expect to hear any differences after yet  another stage of A/D conversion.
I suspect that the different S/W settings are causing different CPU current draw patterns, and perhaps altering the system's noise profile ? 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It does NOT. That is the whole point.

The concept it : bits stay the same but noise/jitter differs.

 

Try to remember his forever because it is crucial.

 

 

PS: It is NOT about noise leaving the PC (towards the DAC). It is noise impeded in-DAC in the receiver area.

 

And what if there is NO DAC involved ?

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Then you wouldn't know the difference. 

Hi Peter

 I will take this to a PM

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

There will be a mechanism at play that involves no pseudo-science or voodoo, and that doesn't break any laws of Physics. We just haven't fully articulated it yet.

 

There IS a mechanism at play that involves no pseudo-science or voodoo, and that doesn't break any laws of Physics.

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 It's not necessary to dig out more data than what's been done so far (or it must be that you like to satisfy random quests now).

  +1

 It's all about not doing things originally the way they would have liked to have seen them done, and perhaps attempt to denigrate Mani's results in the process ?

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, manisandher said:

If people still don't believe the results of the A/B/X, that's their problem. I won't be pursuing this any further.

Mani

 No matter what you do, some people will NEVER accept results that don't agree with currently accepted theory.

They will always try to find fault with the methodology used .

 Given another couple of months to theorise over it, for many it will just be like this thread and it's results never happened !

Alex

[sandyk]

Mani

 Unfortunately, when I tried to play the files, . CPlay which is my preferred player had no audio output .

(A job for tomorrow)  I used what I find the vastly inferior sounding "Jack of All Trades, Master of None"  (Foobar 2000) instead. (11.18PM)

The digital copies are markedly cleaner sounding with her voice, than the A/D conversion, (Analogue Capture) which appears to have some low level noise/grain with it . I will try the A/D again when I sort out the cPlay problem.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

I think it is really @manisandher (or @mansr) who should do this. Not everybody and everybody in different fashion. 

 

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Just downloaded the files, and my first thought is that this piece of music is as far from what I would use to evaluate a rig as one could get ... "You wish to testdrive the Ferrarri, sir? ... OK, a few rules: never go over 2,000 RPM; never go beyond 2nd gear; only on the smooth road in front of the showroom; there's a glass to water inside that will tip over and let us know if inertial forces are too great ... enjoy the run, sir!!" ...

 

 This track is at quite a low level, and will highlight any masking low level noise which DOES affect how individual female voices can sound.

[sandyk]

52 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I work in a different fashion - I don't care whether her voice is different, I want it to to be convincing ... I have a recording of Odette, the Harry Belafonte one, from the '60s, which fits the bill of being extremely low level - the system either makes her voice a caricature of that style of singing; or, a living, breathing person.

 

 This is NOT what this thread is about. It's about hearing differences between files with identical check sums, so it does matter  whether her voice sounds a little different or not, in one of the samples.

Music from the 60s is NOT suitable for these types of comparisons due to recording limitations of that period, and the quality of the surviving masters.

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Actually it is about hearing differences between the same file played with different settings in the playback software. 

 

You can pussy foot around the wording all you like, but these ARE from the same music file, created using different settings in Software. (whether software or hardware created is really immaterial) 

The claim from Mani, and verified by his  9 out 10 correct choices ,  is about them having audible differences, despite having identical Binary Content. 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

The digital captures sound a lot better. But you have to take into account the -18dB attenuation that was applied in the software player, hence why they are at such a low level.

 

Are you able to hear any differences between the digital captures, especially given the 18dB attenuation ? 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

@sandyk, that is because they are the same.

I start to be afraid that this is all too difficult to comprehend. 

 

  Did you listen to the digital captures yourself, or are you assuming that they must be audibly identical  ?

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Why would I listen to two files which are the same ?

  

Just to be sure that theory and practice are the same ?

 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I'm game Peter. Tascam is already connected to the Altmann and fully warmed up, so I'll start with that. But I'll repeat everything with the Phasure too, for those who might be interested.

 

Please send me the link for the file, and I'll be able to do this this afternoon (UK time).

 

Mani.

 Mani

 If possible, you should prepare the file yourself using Peter's instructions.

 

Alex

 

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, adamdea said:

So this takes us back to- either the effect is capable of being recorded or it isn't. 

 

 That's the $64 question !

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I am afraid that here this exercise stops.

 

  Well you can all ridicule me all you like, ( I don't give a damn !) but I believe that I CAN repeatedly hear small audible differences between the Digital Captures with her voice, (especially a little after 12 seconds) with Digital B sounding slightly  cleaner and more realistic. It's a shame that the clips weren't longer, with less attenuation to further improve S/N.

 I reported this via a PM to Mani not long after the files were released, but didn't post about it.

 My  remark to Mani about around 12 seconds in my PM,  pre-dated other reports in this thread.

 I have tried again several times in the last day or so with the same conclusion.  

The only time I couldn't hear a difference was earlier yesterday evening BEFORE taking my BP medication.

 ( The TV didn't sound so great at the time either )

 

Yes, I know, I must be DELUSIONAL !!!  

[sandyk]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

one way to find out

 

do a test

 

 

It is completely immaterial to me whether you (or others from the Objective side) believe me or not.

 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, manisandher said:

FWIW, I can't hear a difference between the analogue captures, because they're clearly degraded compared to the S/PDIF captures, and not enough detail is coming through.

 

 

Neither can  I, and for the same reasons.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

In your case we know there's something wrong with your ears so we can try to blame your gear but ...

 

 Yes, and we can say the same about your ears, in which the hearing is quite different in both ears, and like mine has even apparently shut down on a few occasions.

Nevertheless, it hasn't prevented you from designing one of the best regarded software players. AND DACs on the planet.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Neither can  I, and for the same reasons.

 Mani

Were the Digital Captures that you listened to already in your possession, or were they forwarded to you via a download from Mansr ?

Alex

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, adamdea said:

As I said before, perhaps some evidence as to audible differences between analogue and digital captures might be helpful (assuming level matching)

 

 I wonder how many members , in this case, didn't hear clear differences between the Analogue and Digital Captures ?

 

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I think we are cluttering up the thread talking about Diffmaker's inner workings.  I know we are talking about results with the files used.  Maybe a separate thread about the inner workings, pitfalls, and how much you can trust Diffmaker would be a good idea.  

 

 

 Dennis

That would be a very good idea.

I also tried using Diffmaker some years back, but I found it unreliable and too prone to crashing.

 

 For quite  a while it became the Peter-Mani thread too, where it should be the Mansr-Mani thread, with Mansr virtually being relegated to the sidelines , and to me at least, appearing to lose interest in the thread.

Perhaps some of Peter's content should have been sent initially via PM to Mani ?