Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy part Two

[fas42]

The results display doesn't add up - for me, it says 6 members have voted, but I can only see 4 choices made.

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The results display doesn't add up - for me, it says 6 members have voted, but I can only see 4 choices made.

 

Maybe some chose not to vote, just to see the results. These probably still count in the total ?

 

[STC]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

Would be interesting to know which one that was.  The purpose is to see if people can hear the difference.  So initially a difference is all the poll concerns.  

 

 

Honestly, if I were to use the foobar’s ABX , i dont think I would able to tell the difference unless I use a marker to distinguish the tiny difference. 

 

PMed you for further details and asking for a favour. 

[sandyk]

50 minutes ago, esldude said:

And I don't think Alex ever votes in my polls. 

 

 Perhaps because I feel the segments provided, are to put it mildly, "lacklustre" at best.

 See how you find the version that I sent you a link to.

[Paul R]

Well Phooey - a digital copy will always sound the same.  I did not check to see if the files were identical. 

 

What gets me is the one that sounded just slightly different to me, which I guessed were the copies, in both cases, sounded just slightly better. 

 

Is this just a great exercise is expectation bias?

 

-Paul 

 

 

[fas42]

For some reason, my first vote for Bob Marley didn't register. And I also had a listen for the Jennifer Warnes track. So I voted again, for both items this time.

 

I agreed with the other voters on the Warnes track - what was apparent was quite distinctive distortion when the backing vocals came in, they had the smell of a lacklustre synthesizer add-on.

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Well Phooey - a digital copy will always sound the same.  I did not check to see if the files were identical. 

 

 And a copy of a digital image will always look the same too, even without Photoshop or whatever doing an Auto adjustment ?

 

Quote

Is this just a great exercise is expectation bias?

Yeah.

You still managed to hear a difference despite your chosen career brainwashing telling you it wasn't possible !

The differences must have been quite obvious for you to be able to overcome your HUGE dose of EXPECTATION Bias .

[Allan F]

[Paul R]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 And a copy of a digital image will always look the same too, even without Photoshop or whatever doing an Auto adjustment ?

 

Yeah.

You still managed to hear a difference despite your chosen career brainwashing telling you it wasn't possible !

The differences must have been quite obvious for you to be able to overcome your HUGE dose of EXPECTATION Bias .

 

Um-  a digital image *will* always look the same, if the display it is shown on is correctly calibrated.

 

Honestly, I don't even know if I really did hear a difference. Only time - or an analysis - will tell. 

 

-Paul 

 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Seems that you care enough not to use the IGNORE option ?

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

Um-  a digital image *will* always look the same, if the display it is shown on is correctly calibrated.

 

 Please enlighten me as to how 2 bit perfect images can consistently look different when using a non calibrated display, and FUTHERMORE, the preferred image never changes either, despite them being presented in a different order.

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Seems that you care enough not to use the IGNORE option ?

 

 Please enlighten me as to how 2 bit perfect images can consistently look different when using a non calibrated display, and FUTHERMORE, the preferred image never changes either, despite them being presented in a different order.

HOLD ON!

 

Please let us not get the bit perfect isn't always the same sound or image thing going.  Not the topic of this thread.  Please start a thread about that if you wish.  I'll even take part. 

 

These copies aren't digital copies they are copies done digitally via DA to AD conversion.   It is reasonable to think such after 8 generations would be audible (and it is).  But it isn't as easy as some might think if they've not heard it.  

[Allan F]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Seems that you care enough not to use the IGNORE option ?

 

I save that option for a select few who should not be too difficult to identify.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, esldude said:

HOLD ON!

 

Please let us not get the bit perfect isn't always the same sound or image thing going.  Not the topic of this thread.  Please start a thread about that if you wish.  I'll even take part. 

 

These copies aren't digital copies they are copies done digitally via DA to AD conversion.   It is reasonable to think such after 8 generations would be audible (and it is).  But it isn't as easy as some might think if they've not heard it.  

 I simply replied to Paul, AND you stated that the files WERE digital copies !

 Perhaps you should have aligned your samples better then ?

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

HOLD ON!

 

These copies aren't digital copies they are copies done digitally via DA to AD conversion.   It is reasonable to think such after 8 generations would be audible (and it is).  But it isn't as easy as some might think if they've not heard it.  

 

My fault I fear - I did not realize that these files had gone through D/A. However, that sure makes me feel better about hearing a difference.

[One and a half]

The Jennifer Warnes samples were downloaded and compared. The track is 'Bird on a Wire' from the 'Famous Blue Raincoat: The songs of Leonard Cohen' album. I play this album reasonably regularly and am very familiar with how it sounds, in fact, quite amazing.

 

Downloaded sample files are rubbish. Roon reports DR 2 compared to the ripped local version of DR9 (I think it's the anniversary CD in the library). The dynamics are lost and all three, A, B and reference are horrible. The B version has a focused centre compared to A of the 10s I could stand listening. That's what I noticed right away, by the time the reference was played, there was something really wrong and couldn't listen any more.

 

Played the ripped CD and that's more like the memory I have of the track, full of life, vocals front and centre and music spread from left to right, just classic. 

 

Have not answered the poll, the sources supplied are of insufficient quality to determine anything.

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, One and a half said:

The Jennifer Warnes samples were downloaded and compared. The track is 'Bird on a Wire' from the 'Famous Blue Raincoat: The songs of Leonard Cohen' album. I play this album reasonably regularly and am very familiar with how it sounds, in fact, quite amazing.

 

Downloaded sample files are rubbish. Roon reports DR 2 compared to the ripped local version of DR9 (I think it's the anniversary CD in the library). The dynamics are lost and all three, A, B and reference are horrible. The B version has a focused centre compared to A of the 10s I could stand listening. That's what I noticed right away, by the time the reference was played, there was something really wrong and couldn't listen any more.

 

Played the ripped CD and that's more like the memory I have of the track, full of life, vocals front and centre and music spread from left to right, just classic. 

 

Have not answered the poll, the sources supplied are of insufficient quality to determine anything.

That is amazing. 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Jennifer+warnes&album=

 

According to this the Anniversary version has the lowest DR.  And the track I used off of the 1986 version I have is DR16.  I know it is bit for bit identical to the track on my CD.  And the software will use those bits for calculating DR.  So how does Roon come up with DR2 on any of those?

 

EDIT to add: Roon uses the R128 method so it isn't directly comparable to the DR database.  In any case, I don't see a DR 2 unless it has something to do with it being a restricted snippet of the song.  It is the same data as exists on the old fairly wide range CD. 

[One and a half]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

That is amazing. 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Jennifer+warnes&album=

 

According to this the Anniversary version has the lowest DR.  And the track I used off of the 1986 version I have is DR16.  I know it is bit for bit identical to the track on my CD.  And the software will use those bits for calculating DR.  So how does Roon come up with DR2 on any of those?

Independently used Musicscope to verify. Samples were LRA 2.8, Anniversary 5.8. Ask Roon how they work out their DR is the next step.

 

Stored elsewhere is a 1987 copy local AU edition with sibilance as a bad bonus, "your housssseee deep in the desssert", just a mess. Wasn't until years later acquired a US origin CD and the sibilance was under control. The anniversary edition has "If it be your will", fantastic track with deep bass and piercing guitar, now that's a nice bonus.

[esldude]

Here is a screenshot where I lined up the section I used for the reference. Below it is the entire track from the CD.  I inverted the excerpt.  you can see where I've highlighted a combined FFT for that section and it shows like -2000 something db which is what Audacity shows when there is nothing. 

 

Here is another screenshot where I've mixed the two together.  I've opened the contrast window and for the highlighted section under volume it shows 'zero'.  It will only show this if there is nothing except zero value samples in the selected area.  Sounds like someone looked at Roon's DR and decided what they would hear.  As to why Roon shows this I don't know. 

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Seems that you care enough not to use the IGNORE option ?

 

 Please enlighten me as to how 2 bit perfect images can consistently look different when using a non calibrated display, and FUTHERMORE, the preferred image never changes either, despite them being presented in a different order.

 

Hi Alex - please start a topic for it and we can discuss it. Essentially, every time you view a photograph, digital video capture, or any other digital images on your monitor, you are forcing it to go through a series of algorithms to do the display. That can easily cause different copies of the same image to look different, depending upon what you actually started with. A RAW image can demonstrate that very well. 

 

-Paul

 

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Hi Alex - please start a topic for it and we can discuss it. Essentially, every time you view a photograph, digital video capture, or any other digital images on your monitor, you are forcing it to go through a series of algorithms to do the display. That can easily cause different copies of the same image to look different, depending upon what you actually started with. A RAW image can demonstrate that very well. 

 

-Paul

 

 

The same will apply to Digital Audio where there is normally NO reference to adjust to !

[bluesman]

OK - I did the last two. Again, the difference is tiny.  But I thought that Warnes' copy was A and Marley's was B, both based on the clarity of the multiple sounds in the mix. Percussion, voices, and the bass line seemed slightly less distinctly defined in the versions I think are the copies when compared to both the second unknown and the master (which do sound alike to me in all 5 cases).

 

Now when do we find out which file is which?

[daverich4]

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

 I simply replied to Paul, AND you stated that the files WERE digital copies !

 Perhaps you should have aligned your samples better then ?

 

“Please choose in the poll the one which is a copy. The copy has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD conversion.” 

[sandyk]

15 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

My fault I fear - I did not realize that these files had gone through D/A. However, that sure makes me feel better about hearing a difference.

Paul

 Dennis clearly stated

Quote

*One* of these files has been thru 8 generations of copying. So it is a chance to hear what damage is done with multiple digital copies of a 44.1 khz 16 bit file.

There was no mention of this particular file also going through A/D conversions.

 According to Dennis ( and some others) even though the files ,despite being not quite the same length, even though the binary content was 100% accurate in the actual samples provided, MUST sound identical.

According to Dennis, then  anyone who reported hearing differences with this particular file MUST be imagining it !

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

 

“Please choose in the poll the one which is a copy. The copy has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD conversion.” 

 

Some of you must be even way deafer than this 80 year old (Ralf11 especially ?) if you need a silly poll to confirm what should be blindingly obvious to you if your equipment is good enough.

 I have voted in quite a few polls conducted by members who aren't intent on trying to put down observations by the non Objective  members . (Polls from Mario, Manishander etc.)

 

[daverich4]

38 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

There was no mention of this particular file also going through A/D conversions.

 

Ok, I’ll try this again....

 

“Please choose in the poll the one which is a copy. The copy has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD conversion.”

 

That sure reads to me as if he said it went through a conversion. It doesn’t to you?