Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy part Two

[Paul R]

39 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Paul

 Dennis clearly stated

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 !

 

Hi Alex - it is (embarrassingly enough for me) in the first line of the first post. The files went D/A -> A/D  eight times. 

 

Like I said, I believe I heard a difference, with once one file in each group sounding better (as in what I was listening for sounded better to me), so I assumed the one file was "the copy."  Won't know until Dennis reveals the results. 

 

What I listened for was pretty simple - the word "ribbons" in the Jennifer Warne cut, and the gingersnap/whistle/hiss in the Marley cut. I am sure there was more, but those happened to be the sonic moments that first caught my attention. This isn't something that is life or death, no matter what the real answer turns out to be. ]8)

 

-Paul 

 

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

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?

 From Dennis's original post.

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 are 3 versions provided. One is the original, and there are 2 copies.

At the very least, Dennis has badly worded what he intended .

 Perhaps USA English isn't the same as Au. and U.K. English ?

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 From Dennis's original post.

 

 

So you didn't see this in the OP?

 

Quote

The copy has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD conversion.

 

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So you didn't see this in the OP?

 

 

 

 

 

The use of the word CONVERSIONS, not Digital copies may have been more appropriate ?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

What part do you keep missing about there being the ORIGINAL version and 2 copies of the original ? (A and B)

 What Dennis isn't saying is what the differences are between A and B, or even if he has been sneaky and they are both identical just to try and make a few members appear foolish .

 

Is it possible that you originally misunderstood the premise of the poll, and are just doubling down on your misunderstanding now that it's clear to everyone you misunderstood?

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Is it possible that you originally misunderstood the premise of the poll, and are just doubling down on your misunderstanding now that it's clear to everyone you misunderstood?

 Put simply , I wouldn't put it past Dennis to try this.

 The premise of this poll is a waste of time with all 3 Au. participants making comments about the poor quality of the samples provided.

 (Both Garry and Frank have made similar comments.)

If anyone is interested I have an alternative full copy of the Jennifer Warnes track available on Dropbox

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Put simply , I wouldn't put it past Dennis to try this.

 The premise of this poll is a waste of time with all 3 Au. participants making comments about the poor quality of the samples provided.

 (Both Garry and Frank have made similar comments.)

 

Ok.  I think we're reading different forums.  Are you saying that the samples provided don't meet some kind of minimum Australian standards or something?  And I have no clue who Garry and Frank are.

 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Ok.  I think we're reading different forums.  Are you saying that the samples provided don't meet some kind of minimum Australian standards or something?  And I have no clue who Garry and Frank are.

 

 

 fas42 and one and a half made comments about the poor quality of the samples provided.

 I called them " lacklustre"

We all know your disdain for Audiophiles and the Forum's advertisers , so I am not surprised that you find the samples satisfactory.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 fas42 and one and a half made comments about the poor quality of the samples provided.

 I called them " lacklustre"

We all know your disdain for Audiophiles , so I am not surprised that you find the samples satisfactory.

 

 

I have no disdain for audiophiles.  An audiophile is someone who simply cares about sound quality.  And with due respect, "We all know" makes you sound rather silly.  That might be your goal?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I have no disdain for audiophiles. 

 

Your posts in other threads in the General area of the forum say otherwise, and especially your comments about the products from the Forum's advertisers.

 Back on IGNORE you go .

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 fas42 and one and a half made comments about the poor quality of the samples provided.

 I called them " lacklustre"

We all know your disdain for Audiophiles and the Forum's advertisers , so I am not surprised that you find the samples satisfactory.

 

 

Not quite sure where you got that idea from, Alex. I noted that in what I believe are the copies clear indications of losses of quality; the reference samples were fine; in comparison to the latter, the 'lesser' version was acquiring the sense of listening to a radio - that roundness, and lack of fine detail.

[esldude]

Okay, I expected some adult reading  and context comprehension.  I could have worded the headline title differently I suppose.  If I had used all the proper exact most precise king's English, I think we all know Alex still wouldn't have listened and voted.  While not the case here, what if I had used all the same file to see if people heard differences or instead selected I don't hear a difference?  

 

My snippet is an absolute bit for bit identical copy from the original CD which is the CD which caused this recording to get a reputation as an excellent bit of music and excellent recording.  Now to some it sounds like a transistor radio.  Never heard an old AM transistor radio (the connotation I gathered) with 20hz -20 khz response.  I've never been to Australia unfortunately.   One of the files has indeed been thru 8 generations of copying via a DAC feeding an ADC.  I've listed the names of the gear.  I very, very slightly tweaked volume on the copies to match the original.  All recording was done 24 bit, and I took the final 8th generation copy and saved it into dithered 16 bit.  All of which if anything would make the 8th gen copy much easier to hear as different. 

 

Alex has a version of the recording which sure appears to have been through one sloppy DA to AD conversion.  The level is lower by nearly 3.5 db. Transients are bit blunted.  And there are a couple other tell-tale signs.  He doesn't know the provenance of it, but it sounds far better he says than my exact copy from the original CD.  I suggest everyone get a copy from him and see what you think. 

 

Finally these files are discernibly different.  It is very difficult.  Which was the main point of this.  An 8th generation copy with measurable amounts of degradation is still good enough after going thru a $380 DAC that you have no easy time hearing a difference.  

[sandyk]

38 minutes ago, esldude said:

Alex has a version of the recording which sure appears to have been through one sloppy DA to AD conversion.  The level is lower by nearly 3.5 db. Transients are bit blunted.  And there are a couple other tell-tale signs.  He doesn't know the provenance of it, but it sounds far better he says than my exact copy from the original CD

 You obviously didn't read what I sent you later about the exact CD that was ripped. It is NOT a DA to AD  conversion.

 The quoted CD was simply converted to .flac  This is just one of 68 different versions of this recording, including Vinyl.

https://www.discogs.com/Jennifer-Warnes-Famous-Blue-Raincoat/release/3029840 ( U.K. and Europe version)

 I stand by what I said about your version sounding poor here , possibly due to all the TX, RX again.

 But of course you refuse to accept that this is possible despite what was published in HFC Vol.6 No.1.

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, esldude said:

I think we all know Alex still wouldn't have listened and voted. 

 

I did obviously listen to the Jennifer Warnes original and hated the overdone compression.

 There are far better versions of this album available.

 I have just listened to yet another version which sounds markedly different again.

.

[sandyk]

55 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

Finally these files are discernibly different.  It is very difficult.  Which was the main point of this.  An 8th generation copy with measurable amounts of degradation is still good enough after going thru a $380 DAC that you have no easy time hearing a difference.  

 Really ?

 Perhaps you are happy with .mp3 too ?

 Your posted personal conclusions have just taken out the Audiophile from Audiophile style and made a mockery of this forum and what it stands for, as can be seen in other areas of the forum.

 You aren't just talking about digital copying here, you are talking about numerous D to A and A to D conversions,

and highlighting just how pathetic some cheap ($380) DACs can be if you have difficulty hearing the differences .

[jhwalker]

Voted - after listening and voting I took a peek with my favorite audio editor.

 

Got the first one right, second one wrong.

 

Listening chain:

Roon (no resampling or filters) > microRendu > iFi xDSD > MrSpeakers AEon Flow Closed

[esldude]

59 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Really ?

 Perhaps you are happy with .mp3 too ?

 Your posted personal conclusions have just taken out the Audiophile from Audiophile style and made a mockery of this forum and what it stands for, as can be seen in other areas of the forum.

 You aren't just talking about digital copying here, you are talking about numerous D to A and A to D conversions,

and highlighting just how pathetic some cheap ($380) DACs can be if you have difficulty hearing the differences .

So let me get this right.  I use a cheap DAC to 'defile' 8 trips thru it.  Then it vs the original file is harder to discern than if I used a tremendously good DAC compared to the original?  You'll have to explain that one to me.  Your conclusions seem backwards.  

 

So yes I'm giving an example of numerous recordings and conversions with inexpensive gear.  Seems it would be a piece of cake to hear if the gear is so poor as you imply.  

 

And no I've not seen emails as I was out on an errand.  I'll look. 

[esldude]

@sandyk Have you ever heard any song I've posted that was a good recording?  I seem to recall you claim they all sound very poor and substandard.  Seems unlikely I somehow always have the worst version of everything.  And did you listen to any of the other 4 songs in this thread?  Are they all so poor quality you can't make heads or tails of them?

[STC]

People are keen only when they can hear a difference .... whether real or imaginary. 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

@sandyk Have you ever heard any song I've posted that was a good recording?  I seem to recall you claim they all sound very poor and substandard.  Seems unlikely I somehow always have the worst version of everything.  And did you listen to any of the other 4 songs in this thread?  Are they all so poor quality you can't make heads or tails of them?

 

 The recordings may have been good in some cases, but almost everything that I DL from you is lacklustre.

 There may be other reasons for this too, including file exchange via the Internet.

 No, I didn't bother with other than the Jennifer Warnes track. 

 I certainly can hear differences between all those that I bother to listen to, but I will not support your ( and several others) determined efforts to show that what some of you find is more than adequate, comes even remotely close to Audiophile quality .

 

[esldude]

Looking at info about versions of Famous Blue Raincoat I knew there were many illustrious musicians that had some part in it.  I didn't know that some of the guitar work on it was by Stevie Ray Vaughn.  If my files were less lacklustre I probably would have heard Stevie's licks on the songs.  

[Ralf11]

I suspect what is happening is that the change in coriolis force is making them sound lacklustre to some people.

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I suspect what is happening is that the change in coriolis force is making them sound lacklustre to some people.

So you are going with the coriolis force being the opposite direction in the down under.  I like it.  

 

Let me ask your opinion about something.  Should I turn my listening room orientation to an east-west direction to prevent a channel imbalance from north south orientations?  And should I face east or west? I'm in the northern hemisphere.  

[Ralf11]

You must align your Axis of Auditory Integration with the magnetic field

 

 

unfortunately, it is shifting...

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

You must align your Axis of Auditory Integration with the magnetic field

 

 

unfortunately, it is shifting...

Yes I read about the recent rapid shift.  Fortunately there is a place to keep up to date. 

 

http://www.magnetic-declination.com/

 

I'm 3.5 degrees negative.  30 years ago when I was an active private pilot before GPS my location was on a 0 degree line. So do I face west, and plus 3.5 degrees south?