Blue or red pill?

[manisandher]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

And still, Mani, you know how easy it is. Try to utilise that  experience.

 

Oh, there is no question that my preference would be to have Mans come over here and just take a listen to a variety of factors that seem to affect the sound, whilst keeping things totally bit-identical. I really don't care one iota if nobody else believes what we report back. (I'd then be able to use my preferred DAC too.)

 

But this whole exercise is for Mans, and I'd like to be respectful of how he'd like to do things.

 

What I'll probably do is begin with my usual setup and DAC. If Mans then wants to grab some digital outputs, we can switch to the spdif DAC and do what I described earlier.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

PS: Two days ago I set back my SFS from 20.99 to 10.99 because eventually I got crazy from it.

 

I did a quick SFS=20 vs. SFS=1 comparison for myself the other day, just to gauge how comfortable I'd be doing an A/B/X with it, and decided that I would be.

 

Is SFS=1 below the threshold of bits getting changed?

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I did a quick SFS=20 vs. SFS=1 comparison for myself the other day, just to gauge how comfortable I'd be doing an A/B/X with it, and decided that I would be.

 

Is SFS=1 below the threshold of bits getting changed?

 

Mani.

 

What is SFS?

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What is SFS?

 

Split File Size. It's a parameter in XXHighEnd.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

38 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Mans has stated that he's keen to capture the digital output of the audio PC, so we'll do that. We can also capture the analogue output from the DAC, if that might be useful.

 

I'm going to look into the possibility of capturing the output of the audio PC in real time. I'm going to try a BNC splitter at the audio PC and feed one spdif cable to the DAC, another to the ADC, and then set the ADC to auto record. My main concern is that this doesn't affect the signal reaching the amps. If I'm happy it doesn't, we'll do things this way.

The first step is to verify that the digital signal into the DAC is unchanged. If a difference can be heard, this should be detectable in the analogue output of the DAC.

 

38 minutes ago, manisandher said:

But I definitely don't want to capture the analogue output of the DAC in real-time. For this, we'll simply replay the files exactly as we did when listening to them.

I think it's worth checking if the DAC can drive both the ADC and the amps at the same time. The input impedance of both should be fairly high. If that doesn't work, we could try connecting the DAC to the ADC input and its monitor output to the amp. If the alleged difference can be heard in this configuration, it really ought to have been captured by the ADC.

 

38 minutes ago, manisandher said:

We can also think about capturing the sound from the speakers in real time with a microphone->ADC.

Do you have some decent microphones?

 

38 minutes ago, manisandher said:

All this assumes that either Mans hears a difference, or if not, that I can prove I hear a difference through an A/B/X. If neither of these is the case, taking a digital, analogue or microphone capture is moot.

If I hear a difference, I'll definitely want to record it. If you can't prove you hear it, will you concede that there is in fact no difference to be heard?

[manisandher]

51 minutes ago, mansr said:

The first step is to verify that the digital signal into the DAC is unchanged.

 

Actually, the very first thing I'd like to do is give you a quick demo of differences with my Phasure DAC, and get your thoughts on what you're hearing. I'll then be happy to switch to the spdif DAC to do any testing.

 

51 minutes ago, mansr said:

I think it's worth checking if the DAC can drive both the ADC and the amps at the same time. The input impedance of both should be fairly high. If that doesn't work, we could try connecting the DAC to the ADC input and its monitor output to the amp.

 

No, not a good idea - the coaxial ICs to the amps are 10m in length. Not a problem for the Phasure DAC's output stage. The spdif DAC already sounds way less dynamic than the Phasure driving the amps through these ICs, and anything other than a direct connection to the amps is going to be detrimental. I suspect the ADC's monitor would be even worse.

 

51 minutes ago, mansr said:

Do you have some decent microphones?

 

I have an Earthworks measurement mic (only one), and a portable Korg recorder. Good enough?

 

51 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you can't prove you hear it, will you concede that there is in fact no difference to be heard?

 

No, there's too much evidence to the contrary - numerous people all over the world describing the differences they hear in exactly the way I hear them. Should it happen though, I'll concede that I've failed to prove I can hear any difference, and let people conclude what they want; either that I'm deluding myself, or that an A/B/X isn't the right way of testing.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

Is SFS=1 below the threshold of bits getting changed?

 

Mani, by far not. That would be in the 0.08 areas.

Btw, not (bits) changed, but samples skipped would be the correct term.

[PeterSt]

55 minutes ago, mansr said:

If a difference can be heard, this should be detectable in the analogue output of the DAC.

 

... Which you can't because you will see a change always. I suppose it is hard to make that clear. Repeat :

 

Try to take two captures which are equal. You can try this at home.

When you always succeed, something has to be wrong.

[pkane2001]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Mani, by far not. That would be in the 0.08 areas.

Btw, not (bits) changed, but samples skipped would be the correct term.

 

Wait... samples skipped? Why and when would you skip samples?

 

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, adamdea said:

/ theoretical Is there any reason why we aren't testings whether two identical files on the same nas sound different while we are at it? Some people may find this may seem less intuitively plausible than the nas/computer thing but I think they are narrow-minded.

Currently I'm working on something totally implausible/non-intuitive in every aspect. And    'theoretically'  impossible only a few years ago. 

 

"God doesn't play dice" - Einstein.  He does now.

[sandyk]

8 hours 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?

Performing on command like a trained seal is very different to relaxed listening. Lengthy sessions demanded as proof , in my case raise my BP which degrades my hearing due mainly to an Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal.
 After a large number of repeats, everything may start to sound the same, despite there being actual differences.
 As others have also reported , they may even cause a splitting headache.
 M.C. also made a remark about the stress factor .
 "A very experienced and fearless pair of ears who can be subjected to such tests and not worry in the slightest." 

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, Spacehound said:

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 

 

 Bullshit !

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Performing on command like a trained seal is very different to relaxed listening. Lengthy sessions demanded as proof , in my case raise my BP which degrades my hearing due mainly to an Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal.
 After a large number of repeats, everything may start to sound the same, despite there being actual differences.
 As others have also reported , they may even cause a splitting headache.
 M.C. also made a remark about the stress factor .
 "A very experienced and fearless pair of ears who can be subjected to such tests and not worry in the slightest." 

 

Nobody is pressuring Mani. He chose the format, he chose the venue and he chose the music. He can do whatever listening evaluations he wants, as long as he can't tell which source is playing.  I've done tests like that many times and found it no more stressful than doing them sighted.

 

If not knowing which component is playing induces so much stress that the 'not subtle' differences become too subtle to distinguish, then perhaps one should pick another hobby.

[PeterSt]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Wait... samples skipped? Why and when would you skip samples?

 

Actually easy enough : when you can interrogate in sufficient detail what the whole (driver and processor) system does, you are capable of skipping at the sample level (normal timer resolution in Windows is 10ms minimum, but in XXHighEnd it is sub-sample (which is 1/705600 sec at least)). This is very creepy because at first not detectable and usually we only can imply stutter (like 1/10ths of seconds long stalls of samples not going through, that even influencing the frequency).

 

Of course this is not what we want and it is also not intentional, but the result of how detailed things can these days be controlled in XXHighEnd.

It is also why Mani asked me, because this is not allowed to happen. It really goes unnoticed when it happens BUT changes the sound.

 

Apologies if this is confusing.

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Nobody is pressuring Mani. He chose the format, he chose the venue and he chose the music. He can do whatever listening evaluations he wants, as long as he can't tell which source is playing.  I've done tests like that many times and found it no more stressful than doing them sighted.

 

If not knowing which component is playing induces so much stress that the 'not subtle' differences become too subtle to distinguish, then perhaps one should pick another hobby.

I said  'they' would attack the methodology.

 

That's exactly what sandyk is doing. He has now done it several times.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Performing on command like a trained seal is very different to relaxed listening. Lengthy sessions demanded as proof , in my case raise my BP which degrades my hearing due mainly to an Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal.
 After a large number of repeats, everything may start to sound the same, despite there being actual differences.
 As others have also reported , they may even cause a splitting headache.
 M.C. also made a remark about the stress factor .
 "A very experienced and fearless pair of ears who can be subjected to such tests and not worry in the slightest." 

Read more  

 

Nobody is pressuring Mani.

 

I agree with Alex. My listening is explicitly unconscious (environmental noise is no issue at all) or otherwise I can't do it. Things must pop out positively, or annoy negatively.

That counts for me and can be different for everybody. It can also take quite some time (because not explicitly watching for).

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

If not knowing which component is playing induces so much stress that the 'not subtle' differences become too subtle to distinguish, then perhaps one should pick another hobby.

 

 All of our testing at the various GTGs in Sydney are done this way, but we don't do the huge numbers of repeats that some sceptics would demand. It's a HOBBY, not a bloody report to some Authority !

[Ralf11]

then don't try to convince others with your bloody hobbyist groove sessions

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, adamdea said:

Is there any reason why we aren't testings whether two identical files on the same nas sound different while we are at it? Some people may find this may seem less intuitively plausible than the nas/computer thing but I think they are narrow-minded.

adamdea 

Mac or Windows user ?

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Actually easy enough : when you can interrogate in sufficient detail what the whole (driver and processor) system does, you are capable of skipping at the sample level (normal timer resolution in Windows is 10ms minimum, but in XXHighEnd it is sub-sample (which is 1/705600 sec at least)). This is very creepy because at first not detectable and usually we only can imply stutter (like 1/10ths of seconds long stalls of samples not going through, that even influencing the frequency).

 

Of course this is not what we want and it is also not intentional, but the result of how detailed things can these days be controlled in XXHighEnd.

It is also why Mani asked me, because this is not allowed to happen. It really goes unnoticed when it happens BUT changes the sound.

 

Apologies if this is confusing.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Of course, high precision timers are available and should be used (for example, the HP counter on my audio PC, built about 4 years ago, has the frequency of 14.3 MHz).

 

But, that's exactly why digital output of the PC should be recorded and compared. If samples are unexpectedly dropped due to bandwidth,  processing, or other hardware limitations, this can affect the sound differently for different sources by changing actual samples being sent to the DAC.

 

[manisandher]

The A/B/X will likely never prove conclusive:

- if I pass and the digital captures show no difference, the die-hard objectivists will likely say the captures must be flawed

- if I pass and the digital captures do show a difference, I will say the captures must be flawed

- if I fail, irrespective of what the captures show, the die-hard subjectivists will likely say the A/B/X must be the wrong tool

 

I'm happy to do the A/B/X nevertheless.

 

Mani.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

The A/B/X will likely never prove conclusive:

- if I pass and the digital captures show no difference, the die-hard objectivists will likely say the captures must be flawed

- if I pass and the digital captures do show a difference, I will say the captures must be flawed

- if I fail, irrespective of what the captures show, the die-hard subjectivists will likely say the A/B/X must be the wrong tool

 

 Damned if you do, and damned if you don't ?

 

 If you succeed, the only person that you MAY convince is mansr, in which case I feel sure that he will do further investigations.

I presume that is your main objective ?

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

The A/B/X will likely never prove conclusive:

- if I pass and the digital captures show no difference, the die-hard objectivists will likely say the captures must be flawed

- if I pass and the digital captures do show a difference, I will say the captures must be flawed

- if I fail, irrespective of what the captures show, the die-hard subjectivists will likely say the A/B/X must be the wrong tool

 

I'm happy to do the A/B/X nevertheless.

 

Mani.

Just go to the pub and make something up over a few beers. Mansr can sleep it off in the shed.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Thanks for the explanation. Of course, high precision timers are available and should be used (for example, the HP counter on my audio PC, built about 4 years ago, has the frequency of 14.3 MHz).

You don't need high precision timers to play back audio. In fact, you don't need timers at all.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

You don't need high precision timers to play back audio. In fact, you don't need timers at all.

 

Probably not, but I'm not the one who brought up timer precision -- Peter did, and he's the author of the software and the DAC that will be used in this test, so I defer to him on what XXHighEnd is using.