Blue or red pill?

[manisandher]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

I don't care whether her voice is different, I want it to to be convincing...

...

the system either makes her voice a caricature of that style of singing; or, a living, breathing person.

 

She's a living, breathing person here. It was one of the cues I was listening for in the A/B/X - did the voice remain totally real and believable, or did it become slightly synthetic, with too much sibilance?

 

IMO, these sorts of differences, that were clearly audible in the A/B/X, just don't come across in the analogue captures. And it has nothing to do with the ADC not being of high enough resolution - 32/705.6 captures would be of no extra help whatsoever.

 

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.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

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

 

I think it's important to qualify this with 'bit-identical' - they were different settings that didn't change the bits one iota.

 

Mani.

[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 ? 

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

For what it's is worth, I tried some foobar ABX on the two analog captures. 

...

So individually or 26/48 for the aggregate is still pretty much guessing.

 

I reckon I'd score about the same using the two analogue captures. It might be worth having a reminder of what I heard during the A/B/X:

 

On 3/27/2018 at 10:01 PM, manisandher said:

I was listening to the piano transients - were they 'incisive' or 'blurred'/'soft'? With the female vocals, I was listening to her sibilance - acceptable, or too sharp and annoying.

 

Generally, it's much more about 'focus' than it is about the 'quantity' of any particular thing. For example, I didn't hear more bass, or more highs in one over the other, or anything like that.

 

The clear differences I heard during the A/B/X with Mans don't seem to be either measurable or obviously audible in the analogue captures.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

I can't hear any differences between the digital captures. But they clearly sound a lot better than the analogue captures.

 

Mani.

[Rexp]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I reckon I'd score about the same using the two analogue captures. It might be worth having a reminder of what I heard during the A/B/X:

 

 

The clear differences I heard during the A/B/X with Mans don't seem to be either measurable or obviously audible in the analogue captures.

 

Mani.

Its probably no surprise that the Tascam is not capable of capturing the SQ difference you heard?

[manisandher]

14 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Its probably no surprise that the Tascam is not capable of capturing the SQ difference you heard?

 

I wouldn't say that the Tascam is at fault. It's a good ADC, with pretty good specs - not the best, but much better than the specs of the DAC used. A 'better' ADC would not have helped. The results people are getting in their analyses would have been exactly the same.

 

The only conclusion I can draw is that an FFT is the wrong measurement for measuring something like jitter, which is the likely cause of the differences heard in the A/B/X.

 

Maybe we need to rethink the audible effects of jitter? My understanding is that it's usually measured with test signals. Maybe this is wrong - maybe it needs to be measured with real music? There's no doubt in my mind that had we captured the outputs of the DAC with a 'jitter measurement device' (whatever that would be), there'd be clear differences between the two bit-identical playback means.

 

Mani.

[STC]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

I wouldn't say that the Tascam is at fault. It's a good ADC, with pretty good specs - not the best, but much better than the specs of the DAC used.

 

I thought Tascam was only capturing the digital stream. Any analogue signal involved there?

[esldude]

36 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I thought Tascam was only capturing the digital stream. Any analogue signal involved there?

Mani can confirm this.  I believe the Tascam was capturing the digital during the listening test to confirm everything was bit correct.  Afterwards analog captures were made by the Tascam to get a record of the analog output of the Altmann Attraction with each of the two tested software settings.  So if this is true, then the actual analog output during the test was not directly captured. 

 

 

[manisandher]

Exactly.

 

a) digital output of PC captured on Tascam's S/PDIF input in real-time to prove bit-identical playback during A/B/X -> digital captures

b) analogue output of DAC captured on Tascam's analogue inputs immediately after A/B/X to help with analysis -> analogue captures

 

You can only select one input on the Tascam at a time, so we couldn't have captured both a) and b) in real-time during the A/B/X. Even if b) hadn't been done at all, the A/B/X would remain valid. So just regard b) as an extra to help with analysis.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

I can't hear any differences between the digital captures.

 

@sandyk, that is because they are the same.

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

[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  ?

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

21 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  ?

 

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

Alex, please, this is not about that. It is not about your subject. And don't try to twist it into that after all. 

 

May I remind you : I created the stuff. OK ?

 

It's about how the file is played, not how the file IS.

[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 ?

 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

A valid point.

[PeterSt]

@manisandher

 

Hi Mani - being as far as we are, I think we must approach this differently now. What do you think of this :

 

I provide you a track which I would use myself to test this stuff (as you know - day in day out I am doing this). It will contain all there is to look for in this realm. Just a full track but I will look for a not too long one (say 3-4 minutes).

You can record this track from the analogue outs in the 100% same fashion as you did previously with Mans. Of course you are going to guarantee you are doing this in the exact same fashion. Those two recordings you put up again and in an equal as possible start (offset). I will do that for you, if people allow me to (Mans can do it too but I don't want to put burdens anywhere).

Now we have two files which at least emphasize the difference because they were "made to suit".

 

Those who now hear the difference (and whether they can score a 10/10 is not important) can verify the reality via XXHighEnd themselves. They can do this via the digital file provided just the same (the very same file you will get, Mani) which nobody needs to check, but can do if they don't trust it.

Those who can not hear a difference may blame the (Tascam) recording and they could try XXHighEnd if they want.

 

I'll add this : because I saw complaints that the old Altmann with its 16 bits wasn't the best idea, Mani could also use his Phasure NOS1 for the two recordings. But mind you, this would NOT resemble technically what was done together with Mans and for Mans it could be maybe something to trust less.

 

Good idea ? bad idea ?

 

 

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

A valid point.

 

OK STC, you take that part on you, OK ? Let us know whether you hear a difference and what it is.

[manisandher]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

What do you think of this :

 

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.

[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

 

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Please send me the link for the file,

 

OK, you are fast. Small problem : I am not even there at this moment. Hopefully somewhere this afternoon.

[adamdea]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

You don't actually hear anything at a normal to slightly high volume. 

 

I put 75 db of digital amplification to the difference file and it sounds like interstation hiss on a mistuned FM tuner. No indication at all of anything resembling voice or music or any of that.  I thought of making that available, but a file of basically nothing except inaudible hiss isn't too interesting.   

This puzzles me. When I play the difference file it sounds almost exactly like the track only quieter. But then that's without the drift correction. Is your difference file the one after drift correction

[adamdea]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

I reckon I'd score about the same using the two analogue captures. It might be worth having a reminder of what I heard during the A/B/X:

 

 

The clear differences I heard during the A/B/X with Mans don't seem to be either measurable or obviously audible in the analogue captures.

 

Mani.

This is interesting- I was listening out for a difference in sibilance and wasn't sure I could hear anything and could not ABx it.

[adamdea]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

I wouldn't say that the Tascam is at fault. It's a good ADC, with pretty good specs - not the best, but much better than the specs of the DAC used. A 'better' ADC would not have helped. The results people are getting in their analyses would have been exactly the same.

 

The only conclusion I can draw is that an FFT is the wrong measurement for measuring something like jitter, which is the likely cause of the differences heard in the A/B/X.

 

Maybe we need to rethink the audible effects of jitter? My understanding is that it's usually measured with test signals. Maybe this is wrong - maybe it needs to be measured with real music? There's no doubt in my mind that had we captured the outputs of the DAC with a 'jitter measurement device' (whatever that would be), there'd be clear differences between the two bit-identical playback means.

 

Mani.

Sorry if I am being obtuse but I can't follow this reasoning:

If the tascam is capable of recording the effect you believe you heard (as between the two software settings)  then why does it matter what an FFT shows? (if the files can be ABx ed then we can assume that the effect is in there somewhere

If I have understood correctly you don;t think that the tascam recording captures the effect you believe you heard. If the tascam is not capable of recording that effect, why does it matter what an FFT shows? Sorry if I have misunderstood.

 

The major premise is that the tascam can't record what you heard. Any jitter measurement device is likely to require an adc- in which case what it measures is going to be capable of being recorded. So this takes us back to- either the effect is capable of being recorded or it isn't. 

[adamdea]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

Anyway, thank you for clarifying that the changes in volume will alter the bits.

This is fundamental. It is why some people consider that digital volume controls reduce dynamic range, and why digital volume controls may need dither.

[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 !