Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16

[crenca]

Interesting.  When the OP transmitted these files to Paul over the Internet, was the EM/RF "noise" of your computer, your ethernet cables and switches/routers, etc. taken into account?  Would "audiophile" networking equipment made any difference to any computational analysis?  What if you retransmitted these files several times and due to the differing paths these filed traveled over the Internet backbone (as any tracert will tell you), an analysis was done to see the effects these differing routes had?

 

Along these lines, what would happen if you took these files and transmitted them back and forth from your computer to an external HD connected via USB, say 1000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 times?  How would this computational analysis be effected, and would it matter if your USB connections used "Audiophile" USB cables, USB decrapifiers, and differing USB design implementations?

[crenca]

@Jud, on the contrary very on topic.  As much as I appreciate what the OP, Paul, have done and your cogent suggested expansion, the fact is most of this analysis has been done before and is (largely) non-controversial and accepted.  In Audiophiledom however much is claimed about not only about the integrity of sampling/down-and-up conversations, etc. so much as how all this does not matter because it is over those (realtively) short USB connection (or ethernet, etc.) that all the Audiophile grade endpoints, USB cables, and internal EM/RF "noise" do their thang to the sound (positively or negatively).  Suddenly, in this last 10FT or so of digital (analogue of course at the physical layer) transmission the "sound" of various files/connection method suddenly bloom up, including for yourself with whatever cheap USB mod your using currently.  There is a rather large disconnect between your faith in your own experience and the faith you are putting in this topics computational analysis because the fact is these files suffered all sorts of EM, RF, poor cables, and other assaults that you claim you "hear" in the last 10ft....  

  

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't care.   

 

I'm just interested in the very nice analysis these two kind folks have done, and looking forward to anything further they're able to do along the same lines.  But to save these people the trouble, if you have got a link to the types of measurements they've done, comparing a DSD256 recording and a 44.1kHz downsampled version, that would be great.  If including DSD is a problem, there are the 2L comparison tracks that would enable comparative measurements of 352.8 and 44.1kHz files: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

 

I care ?

 

Another thought:   during the recording, downloading, resampling, and analysis of these files on the OP's and Paul's computer(s), these files were transmitted back and forth from memory to HD(s) countless times.  Yet, no "audiophile" grade cables or decrapifiers were involved (unless the OP and Paul wan't to correct me about the internals of their computers).  The assault from the EM/RF inside these computers on the files in question can hardly be imagined. Clearly, their results are mere objectivist dreams...  ?

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

On the contrary, its analog is experienced in all the threads polluted by fruitless debates.  It would be so very nice to keep this thread free of that sort of thing.

 

Pot, black, etc. from you especially.  The OP can speak to rather he would like to discuss the "final 10ft" to DAC and is the usual audiophile claim that it is here (in this final 10 ft) that the differences between files suddenly become audible and obvious, at least to "audiophiles"...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, semente said:

My knowledge is very limited but from what I have read the problem is not when transferring the digital data around but in the data stream which leaves the music playing/processing software to the DAC.

If this is correct, what are the differences between moving data around and that stream which is fed to the DAC?

 

40 minutes ago, bachish said:

I have to admit, you did make me chuckle. Point well made, though, in a somewhat smart @$$ way. Haha

 

 

 

What I find interesting about your analysis @bachish is not your results, but how expected and non-controversial it is.  The core "debate" about digital audio has largely sidestepped and ignored the robustness and repeatability of digital, really by itself, before you even append the qualifier "audio" on the more engineering oriented and computational side of things.  How could they not, for 1+1=2 is what it is, and is as certain as it is banal.  Like you point out and demonstrate, this modern software gives us near "perfect" results, trivial changes to the audio band, etc. etc.

 

However, there is this very large space where there is a debate about the last 10ft - what happens to digital once it is transmitted from what suddenly becomes a very noisy and influential desktop/laptop, through USB (or ethernet or whatever) to a DAC, which despite being a computer itself at least on the front digital side (i.e is a computer itself) is somehow in unexplained terms influenced by all these other factors that did not matter up until this point.  So you have a whole industry of "audiophile" computer gear that ostensibly solves these problems.

 

In any case this is your thread and I will honor your wishes, I just thought your efforts points to certain insights concerning this other "debate", the "sound" of digital which large numbers of Audiophiles claim they here which is apart from the formats (i.e. PCM of any sample rate, lossy vs bit perfect, etc. etc.)...

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

Ok, interesting. I suppose it isn't too hard to test. I could take an original recording that is on the SD card in my field recorder that hasn't been transfered yet, upload it to the computer, load it into programs and export over and over, transfer between external hard drives, many times, and upload and download from OneDrive several times. 

 

I could then take it, flip the phase and load it into my DAW and load, just one time, the original from the SD card into the DAW and see if they null. Would be interesting.

 

 

What is the cabling/bus tech of your "field recorder" (i.e. how does it connect to your computer)?  USB?  

 

Much of the Audiophile debate is centered around the bus tech implementation (USB, etc.) to DAC tech.  I have thought about writing a little batch script that copies an audio file back and forth between my computer through my cheap USB cables and "noisy" USB bus, letting it run for a while (say a month), and then doing an analysis such as yours.  So far I have been too lazy... ?

[crenca]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The various things she thinks make a difference to eventual sound quality.

 

If I recall correctly, and @cookiemarenco can chime in herself of course and correct/confirm me, she believes she hears a difference between WAV and the same file encoded to FLAC.  @bachish, this belief I would argue would be an "audiophile" assertion, because those who know the math behind FLAC encoding will tell you that there is no difference (i.e. perfect, not just near perfect, null).  Someone then mentions the computational overhead necessary to decode a FLAC encoding vs. a WAV file and your off to the audiophile races about what can or can not be "'heard" in a digital file...

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Are you now serious or are you the biggest hidden troll ever ?

As you may have noticed, yesterday I down-voted a couple of your posts (to off-topic) but I now start to believe you are serious with this.

Tbh I like to see you in a huge sarcasm role. But if that is your act, this now went too far (you are now fooling people with good intentions with it).

 

Btw, this is not related whatsoever to what Cookie is pleaing (with my notice that she now leaves out the transfer of the file in FLAC vs WAV (or I missed it) - which is a good thing).

 

Serious as a heart attack.  I noticed you did not say anything of substance, only attacked personally.  What's the substance behind your "Lush" USB cable for example?  If the OP were to use it to copy his files from his field recorder to his computer, would the files test differently, or would they just "sound better"?

 

What's the explanation for your (or any other) for the "sound of an "audiophile" USB cable? 

 

 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You noticed well, but isn't meant to be that explicitly. It's just that I wouldn't know where to start in explaining that this is the biggest bullocks ever. This is again not aimed at the person, just fact. And if it is your stance, then I can't help nor change that.

Btw, I am not into any debate because my English doesn't allow it (we know that both, so, sorry about that).

 

 

I saw that one coming (and challenged for it). There is no relation whatsoever with a poor or better or voodoo cable, dipped in snake oil or not. But I suspect that you think that using a Lush or Lush^24 cable would copy files better ? or that a printer cable would do worse on it ?

There won't be any difference in the resulting file. Also not after a month of back and forth copying.

 

For fun : "Lush^24 cable would copy files better ?" ... "Better" to the sense of faster perhaps because it could imply less errors which now don't need to be corrected (re-send). Sadly, however, it would be the other way around : such an explicit audio "speced" cable would imply more error. Error which thus always is corrected with normal data transfer and if not, it is my advice to stop with computers (or find the serious fault in it).

I hope this is not getting too complicated because it is about the implied speed of the data transfer. For copying this is completely different from playing an audio stream over the same cable.

 

I am not here to offend. Really not. I just couldn't believe you were serious. That is all.

 

 

Hey no worries.  Believe it or not, I am not after yet-another-audiophile-cable debate.  Rather, your explanation "...For copying this is completely different from playing an audio stream over the same cable." is what I wanted to indicate to the OP.  This is the "audiophile" assertion I wanted him to understand, which shows that for (some, most probably), digital is digital up to a certain point, when it becomes something else (i.e. the "sound" of digital files say FLAC vs. WAV, or the "sound" of USB signal transmission, or whatever).

 

The why of your assertion, the how of any other file transmission vs. audio (file) transmission (the assertion that USB becomes something different when an audio file is transmitted over it) is never explained really at all but it is simply considered normal and accepted wisdom in Audiophiledom...

[crenca]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Btw, this does not compare by any the slightest means to being able to see (null) differences as per the thread we're in at this moment....So, nothing whatsoever would appear in any null test because it is by far way too small to "see" in there. This thus means that once we see something anyway and especially as large as bachish so kindly shows it to us,  never mind he thinks or feels that the majority is out of the audio band, the subject is to way out for me or anyone who knows how audio can be controlled at this minute level. Not only by cables but also by software and the whole hoopla in between and beyond. IOW, @bachish, your subject has to be moot, once because e.g. me, myself and I are able to show you enormous differences in SQ....

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'd much rather argue about math, as the differences there can be resolved between knowledgeable people. Unlike listening tests of the type typically practiced by most here on CA, math is not a matter of opinion.

 

 

Well stated PeterSt.

 

You see pkane2001 and bachish, the subject, the math, is moot.  There is an audio reality in between the math, the digital signal, and it is this in between reality that really matters.  

[crenca]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Btw, this does not compare by any the slightest means to being able to see (null) differences as per the thread we're in at this moment....So, nothing whatsoever would appear in any null test because it is by far way too small to "see" in there. This thus means that once we see something anyway and especially as large as bachish so kindly shows it to us,  never mind he thinks or feels that the majority is out of the audio band, the subject is to way out for me or anyone who knows how audio can be controlled at this minute level. Not only by cables but also by software and the whole hoopla in between and beyond. IOW, @bachish, your subject has to be moot, once because e.g. me, myself and I are able to show you enormous differences in SQ....

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'd much rather argue about math, as the differences there can be resolved between knowledgeable people. Unlike listening tests of the type typically practiced by most here on CA, math is not a matter of opinion.

 

 

Well stated PeterSt.

 

You see pkane2001 and bachish, the subject, the math, is moot.  There is an audio reality in between the math, the digital signal, and it is this in between reality that really matters.  

[crenca]

29 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

To be as precise as I can be (as a layperson) about what I'm asking:

 

Miska and Fokus have made some criticisms (both of ringing; Fokus of aliasing, see edit to my last comment) of typical ADC filters.  I don't know what decimation filters Cookie used for her DSD/44.1k comparison, or 2L used for its DXD/44.1k comparison; and I am supposing the decimation filter @bachish used might be different from either.

 

I would be curious to see how if at all these various decimation filters - typical, Cookie's, 2L's, the OP's - might change the measurements in the hi-res/44.1k comparison.

 

To answer your quesiton would require an analysis such as this:  https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/49646-null-test-88224-and-44116/?tab=comments#comment-864221t 

 

 

But such a thing requires access to both the "master" and knowledge of which specific software/DAW and the settings (filters, etc.) used.  None of this is normally available, or even appears to be understood and/or remembered by those who do it on "most" recordings at "most" labels (certain "audiophile" lables being the exception).

 

So it appears to be all analysis and informed guessing on the backside...

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, cookiemarenco said:

Thank you for prompting me to write an article on comparative listening tests.  I scribbled something out this morning for you to read.  It's an off the top of my head guide to how we do the tests.  I'm sure I've forgotten something.

 

Testing is not easy and requires a minimum of people to do a good test and half a day to setup properly.  We listen for differences in sample clips whether it's in the silence, wideness of space, movement of phase, fall off of dynamic response.  It's not easy, but we find we can teach people in a workshop (which we've done successfully at many audio shows).  Here's the article.

https://dsd-guide.com/how-do-comparative-listening-test

 

 

This has been an interesting thread.

 

Enjoy your music!

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com/

 

Thanks!  Bookmarked for future reference!  On what has been discussed here on this thread this part of your writeup is relevant:

 

"Phasing issues.. this is tricky to hear, but when comparing 1st and 2nd generations of digital transfers at the DSD256 range, comparing FLAC conversion levels, etc, we have found that using an orchestral or multi mics recording of live jazz can expose shifting phase issue (seemingly instruments move differently in various clips)."

 

This implies a filter like "transform" (is that the correct digital/mathematical term?) of the PCM by the FLAC algorithm, in particular a phase shift.  This would of course be an unintentional side effect, one that is not understood in math.  No computational evidence is known as far as I understand it.  Other explanations would lie outside the math, such as some unknown effect of software and hardware outside of the file/specific FLAC computation itself, but such an explanation really strains what we know about digital implementation in modern hardware (which, it must be remembered, is always "analog" at the bottom "physical" layer - but this does not imply what many audiophiles thinks it does)...

[crenca]

35 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

Yep, I do see your point and believe I see the concern of audiophiles.

 

I am sitting here thinking...I have a 20year old digital Spdif cable....I could stream from the digital outs of my Roland recorder (the field recorder I mentioned) to the Spdif inputs of my 20+ year old Marantz CD burner. I could then stream back to the Roland recorder via the same digital cable. In other words, I'd be streaming in real time with a low end cable. I could upload the double streamed version to the computer and null test it with the original. If it nulls, then it looks like the cable doesn't matter much. If it doesn't null, more tests would need to be done to isolate the problem (could be errors in writing to CDR by an older machine, for example).  

 

Just a thought. If it nulls, would that satisfy the concerned?

 

 

If only ??

 

The ways that  your original test, and your hypothetical above, is "moot" is as diverse as the number of audiophiles. You have seen two respected and respectable members of the community (I mean that - I don't disparage them personally and I value what I have learned from them) say explicitly why the math itself is moot, that there is an in between where there is a sound, etc. just on this very thread.  Others who have been conversant with you would reveal similar beliefs if pressed.  Like John Atkinson says, being an Audiophile is about "belief ", which is to say that it is more than a mere emphasis, or a state of understanding/knowledge about digital, circuits, or even a methodology about how to go about getting the best sound...

 

[crenca]

55 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

Yes, cool website.  Some of the DAWs don't do well and, actually, I've tested one of them against the original and it didn't null. I could hear the whole tune faintly with the volume up all the way up. That is NCH MixPad, which in many other respects works pretty well. But for SRC, no, I wouldn't use that DAW. 

 

But the ones I listed are amoung the most common for studio work. 

 

 

 

In the pro audio world, is there a trade publication or organization that reviews and tests these applications - I mean, really test them for computational integrity and usefullness?  As a music lover/audio enthusiast I have occasionally found myself looking at pro audio websites/publications (can't even recall the names at present) and their speaker or headphone reviews, and they don't appear on average to be any more rigorous than most "audiophile" reviews.   This surprised me a bit to be honest.  Perhaps I have been looking at the wrong publications?

[crenca]

57 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Would higher quality conversion then characterize recordings (if not all, then a substantial proportion) issued by major labels since that time?

 

(I am wanting to get a notion of the quality of the conversions that are done with most of the music I buy.)

 

Anecdotally, I want to say yes (which means I am probably wrong ?).  This just based on my personal experience with many Jazz artists I buy.  I have noticed a quality "demarcation" that I had been placing at about 2005 in my mind up until now.  Recordings before then have an "edgy" quality that those after don't (a general statement of course).  I had wondered the cause, and was wondering if it was something digital or something else.  I had also not made a distinction between the "major" labels in Jazz (e.g. Blue Note, Posi-Tone {are they "major"?} , etc.) but will have to go back and evaluate...