Blue or red pill?

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

A high Expectation  that you will hear differences, does not mean that you will hear verifiable differences under non sighted conditions. One reason could be that you aren't relaxed enough (stress) , and the other reason that there are none to hear !

 

What’s to stress about if you’re 100% certain you can hear the differences, you are listening in your own home, listening to your own system and music of your choosing? This is the case in this test, is it not?

[beerandmusic]

^^^ Does anyone NOT agree that if there are audible differences that the recording will show differences?

and wouldn't you be able to see the differences on an oscilloscope on the input to the D->A circuitry?

 

[lmitche]

10 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

^^^ Does anyone NOT agree that if there are audible differences that the recording will show differences?

and wouldn't you be able to see the differences on an oscilloscope on the input to the D->A circuitry?

 

You mean an objective measurement like this one?

 

[Spacehound]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What’s to stress about if you’re 100% certain you can hear the differences, you are listening in your own home, listening to your own system and music of your choosing? This is the case in this test, is it not?

Precisely.

 

But at first he accidentally said that the bias only happened to those he disagreed with.

 

When I later said that he had got the person he disagreed with  and the person he agreed with backwards  he changed his mind and said bias works both ways 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, lmitche said:

You mean like this?

 

 

Kind of looks like the tektronix scopes i used to use back in my navy days...I think ours were a little more rectangular (slimmer and wider)...

 

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

^^^ Does anyone NOT agree that if there are audible differences that the recording will show differences?

and wouldn't you be able to see the differences on an oscilloscope on the input to the D->A circuitry?

 

Do you need to ask? Pretty much all subjectivist audiophiles will disagree with this.

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

But some people, often 'set in their ways' and lacking 'technical' knowledge in this area, do not understand 'digital' at all (btw - quite a lot of manufacturers take advantage of this) so try and stay in their 'safe spaces'  in any way they can..

 

Yep, that would be me.

 

Quote

This includes insulting the entire body of (electronic) 'engineers'

 

Hey, I do just that !

Were you addressing me perhaps ?

 

Quote

And that is in the DAC where the 'timing' and  digital to analogue conversion is done. After that, including the 'latter' half of the DAC things start to matter. Before it they don't.

 

Yes, you qualify. 

[PeterSt]

51 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

^^^ Does anyone NOT agree that if there are audible differences that the recording will show differences?

 

Me.

I have never seen anyone making the decent recordings which reliably show the differences. Hence the recording itself is subject to prerequisites which are in general too difficult to meet. It starts with synchronized (hence the same) oscillators for DAC and ADC and ends with the exact same (sample) moment of recording.

Additionally, if one might think that differences at -160dB etc. are neglectable, he will never get any result.

 

Btw, I did those things with great success and I have never seen it repeated anywhere.

It is based exactly on the proposition of Mansr : if we hear it (the difference), the microphone should be able to capture it (the difference). This is correct *plus* it really works. But no Mani + Mansr ++ is going to do this on a Sunday afternoon. Btw, Mani knows as it requires a complete analysis system which I built indeed and Mani was there. This is also how I know that no ADC is going to do the job. It requires 2 months of work more (really, I know).

 

Quote

and wouldn't you be able to see the differences on an oscilloscope on the input to the D->A circuitry?

 

Never. A scope is not suitable for this.

 

 

The above is from 9 years ago.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Me.

I have never seen anyone making the decent recordings which reliably show the differences. Hence the recording itself is subject to prerequisites which are in general too difficult to meet. It starts with synchronized (hence the same) oscillators for DAC and ADC and ends with the exact same (sample) moment of recording.

Additionally, if one might think that differences at -160dB etc. are neglectable, he will never get any result.

 

Btw, I did those things with great success and I have never seen it repeated anywhere.

It is based exactly on the proposition of Mansr : if we hear it (the difference), the microphone should be able to capture it (the difference). This is correct *plus* it really works. But no Mani + Mansr ++ is going to do this on a Sunday afternoon. Btw, Mani knows as it requires a complete analysis system which I built indeed and Mani was there. This is also how I know that no ADC is going to do the job. It requires 2 months of work more (really, I know).

 

Never. A scope is not suitable for this.

 

So the whole purpose of the exercise is just to see if they both hear a difference?

My guess is that even when people may suggest they hear a difference, that if they were to write down the differences, without the other knowing what the other wrote (without discussing), that they wouldn't be able to agree on what differences they heard?

Test would be better to write down differences (if any), rather than to discuss them.  Only if they could both articulate the differences, and then both agreed to what the differences were on paper, without any first discussion, would the results really have any merit, otherwise there will be bias if they discuss, if nothing could be obtained by measurements or recordings....

I guess I am an objectivist (grin).

[PeterSt]

Additionally, I can quote from my own text, back then and 4 months into the project :

 

Well, I now have accomplished the most difficult task of it all : compare the DACs output with the original digital data. Took me two weeks only, and although not directly to the benefit of XXHighEnd, I hope we audiofreaks will benefit in general.

So ... have fun ?

 

[beerandmusic]

I would also suggest, to further legitimize the test, that mansr bring his own files, and not letting mani know ahead of time, what file he wants to test on.

[manisandher]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

I would also suggest, to further legitimize the test, that mansr bring his own files, and not letting mani know what file he wants to test on.

 

Why?

[beerandmusic]

Just now, manisandher said:

 

Why?

 

to eliminate possible bias, file manipulation, and if there is clearly differences, then it shouldn't make a difference, right?

at least as a second test, to see if guess factor weighs more heavily on his provided files.

 

why not?

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

to eliminate possible bias, file manipulation, and if there is clearly differences, then it shouldn't make a difference, right?

 

Suggesting the possibility that I might not actually be hearing any real differences is something that I accept as healthy skepticism. Suggesting that I might go to the lengths of manipulating files isn't.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Suggesting the possibility that I might not actually be hearing any real differences is something that I accept as healthy skepticism. Suggesting that I might go to the lengths of manipulating files isn't.

 

I agree. Regardless, Mans said he'll record the digital output to the DAC, so the bits can be compared. Any bits manipulation (intentional or unintentional) will be easy to discover.

 

[beerandmusic]

17 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Suggesting the possibility that I might not actually be hearing any real differences is something that I accept as healthy skepticism. Suggesting that I might go to the lengths of manipulating files isn't.

 

it just further legitimizes the test...I believe files can be manipulated unintentionally more than i can believe that two files with same checksum can sound differently from same interface, even though I stated previously that I lean toward the possibility that they can sound differently dependent on bandwidth usage.  I also believe the renderer itself (tidal push) can sound different than (dlna pull) can sound differently, so i actually am more on your side than mansr on this thinking...i am just trying to legitimize the test as much as possible, and to see if guess factor weighs differently on familiar song vs unfamiliar song....just do both.

[beerandmusic]

Here's something else to consider (regarding bandwidth usage).

 

I was listening to streamed music perfectly when i started a high bandwidth file copy on same segment....it practically killed the streamed music.  Granted, that is an extreme, but the fact that bandwidth usage can impact file play, that streaming over internet could very easily have different sound than playing file locally.

 

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yep, that would be me......

No it isn't 

[beerandmusic]

Also, does the software or hardware allow you to buffer the entire track prior to playing?  You might try the buffer settings as well.

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

Also, does the software or hardware allow you to buffer the entire track prior to playing?  You might try the buffer settings as well.

 

It (XXHighEnd) can't do anything else.

(you were asking me, right ?)

That's how I said that you (Mani) won't be able to eliminate the caching (or proxies) because it will happen regardless.

But the nice thing is : it still makes a difference. Everything does.

[PeterSt]

50 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Any bits manipulation (intentional or unintentional) will be easy to discover.

 

Are you among those who think that copying a file will change the bits ?

haha

 

- File is on NAS - Play.

- Copy same File from NAS to local - Play.

 

When I once suggested to Barry Diament that checking for such a thing would be the utmost waste of time, he got angry with me.

But I guess such a thing happens when one really doesn't know digital.

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Are you among those who think that copying a file will change the bits ?

haha

 

- File is on NAS - Play.

- Copy same File from NAS to local - Play.

 

When I once suggested to Barry Diament that checking for such a thing would be the utmost waste of time, he got angry with me.

But I guess such a thing happens when one really doesn't know digital.

 

When doing objective testing it's important to eliminate all sources of error or bias. So yes, bits should be compared, but not at the file level, but before they enter the DAC. 

[adamdea]

Am I missing the point here, but are we agreed that in practical terms if two checksum-identical files aren't to be regarded as the same then, well no two audio events are going to be the same. After all the bits don't stay completely still even on your nas do they? ie the file keeps changing...

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Do you need to ask? Pretty much all subjectivist audiophiles will disagree with this.

They'd be wrong.

[mansr]

Just now, adamdea said:

After all the bits don't stay completely still even on your nas do they? ie the file keeps changing...

What now?