DeltaWave null-testing audio comparator (beta)

TomCapraro · March 26, 2019

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Lasciatemi provare a disattivare il nuovo algoritmo di calcolo della deriva, poiché è l'unica differenza che posso vedere tra queste versioni. Pubblicherò una nuova versione da provare a breve.

2019-03-26 14:52:23.5003|DEBUG|Wave.WaveForm|Settings:
   Gain:False, Remove DC:False
   Non-linear Gain:False   EQ FFT Size:524288, EQ Frequency Cut: 0Hz - 0Hz, EQ Threshold: -160dB
   Correct Drift:False, Precision:30
   Upsample:False, Window:Hann
   Spectrum Window:Hann, Spectrum Size:65536
   Spectrogram Window:Hann, Spectrogram Size:32768, Spectrogram Steps:1024
   Dither:False
   Trim Silence:False

2019-03-26 14:52:33.8994|DEBUG|Wave.WaveForm|Progress [NOT Bit Perfect ] 0,63% Gain matching disabled. Phase offset=0ms Difference (rms) = -84,8dB [-89,19dBA] Correlated Null Depth=68,78dB [69,82dBA] Clock drift: 0 ppm, , 100%
2019-03-26 14:52:33.9150|INFO|Wave.WaveForm|Signature: bff25344e75ac416a03691702340650a

TomCapraro · March 26, 2019

2019-03-26 15:03:25.2516|DEBUG|Wave.WaveForm|Settings:
   Gain:False, Remove DC:False
   Non-linear Gain:False   EQ FFT Size:524288, EQ Frequency Cut: 0Hz - 0Hz, EQ Threshold: -160dB
   Correct Drift:False, Precision:30
   Upsample:False, Window:Hann
   Spectrum Window:Hann, Spectrum Size:65536
   Spectrogram Window:Hann, Spectrogram Size:32768, Spectrogram Steps:1024
   Dither:False
   Trim Silence:False

2019-03-26 15:03:29.3058|DEBUG|Wave.WaveForm|Progress [BIT PERFECT!] Gain matching disabled. Phase offset=0ms Difference (rms) = -300dB [-300dBA] Correlated Null Depth=300dB [300dBA] Clock drift: 0 ppm, , 100%
2019-03-26 15:03:29.3058|INFO|Wave.WaveForm|Signature: a6dd658afbae9719e993a86ddbdbaa2a

TomCapraro · March 26, 2019

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Very strange, and I still can't reproduce it, even changing precision, reinstalling, etc. Random is even harder to explain.

Let's try the change I suggested earlier. Please uninstall the current version, then download and install this update:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gLXAumjPOekHLuE3UvuO6K0E3HaL8fvA

Please let me know if this solves the problem.

now everything works perfectly
thank you...!!!

TomCapraro · March 27, 2019

I have seen that the algorithm that calculates the clock drift has been deactivated
Why not make it enabled and disabled through an option?
In this way we can verify the drift at will before making the comparison.
In any case, the software is fine.

TomCapraro · March 27, 2019

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Non pensavo che qualcuno avrebbe voluto elaborare file a 8 bit! 🧐

😊

TomCapraro · March 29, 2019

today I did some tests
I have resampled the comparison files and up to 384khz I have got excellent improvements
at 768khz then bust everything
at 384khz an excellent alignment is obtained
The comparison files have a sampling rate of 96khz and as an upsampling I used these parameters

TomCapraro · March 31, 2019

THANKS PAUL ... !!! 👍

TomCapraro · April 1, 2019

42 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

That error happens if you have less than 10 seconds worth of samples in one or both of the tracks. I can change it so that it works with fewer samples, but accuracy will be lowered.

In other words, you want to allow the current plot to be zoomed in/out without affecting the scale of the other plots, correct?

No, please ... now the software is very precise, I won't reduce the accuracy otherwise I won't download a new version 😂

TomCapraro · April 1, 2019

If there is something to be corrected in the dB scale it is fine but I would advise not to change the alignment accuracy, now it's very good.

TomCapraro · April 3, 2019

531/5000

I tried the DW comparing the analog acquisitions of the output stage of a dac (MSB Analog)
The first acquisition with the dac under the same clock circuit, then entering from the s / pdif and connecting the analog output to the ADC controlled by the same master clock.
The second acquisition connecting a PC to the dac via USB, which uses its own clock and is therefore disconnected from that of the master and the ADC.
Now we see the delta waveform without drift correction and then inserting the drift correction.

It seems very reliable to me in this case.

TomCapraro · April 15, 2019

I compared a loopback between the original file (pink noise) and the analog signal passing through a M2tech Young DAC. Of all the comparisons I made the DW 1.0.25 version turns out to be, not only the best, but it has surpassed even the best things that Audio Diff Maker produced with some signals.

TomCapraro · April 23, 2019

hello these days I did some tests, I recorded twice with the same dac and the same ADC of the signals (sweep and pink noise) and I made the comparison of the signals (rec1 with rec2)
The null test drops to the noise except in the initial part of the files (the first 5/6 seconds), being able to notice that the cause is a worse alignment than the signal part beyond 5/6 seconds.
If this software could solve this problem it would be perfect.

TomCapraro · April 23, 2019

👍

TomCapraro · April 24, 2019

I tried with the same signals to perform the null test, now it works very well.
Comparing the two recordings, the null test brings the residue in the noise I checked also through the spectrum analyzer.
There is a slight rise around 10-15hz but it is normal since the power supply is not very stable and the signal oscillates in a non-linear way.
The problem I pointed out has been solved.
If there are other small problems they will be resolved but starting from this base that turns out to be almost perfect, at least for how I use it.
Thanks Paul.

TomCapraro · April 24, 2019

ah ... I forgot to say that the software immediately realizes the quality change of the DAC because I also redid a loopback with a better dac and the null test (between original and recorded signal) produces a cancellation much more evident.

TomCapraro · April 24, 2019

40 minutes ago, Jud said:

That’s a quite interesting application - which DACs produce the most consistent results and lowest noise.

Edit: Hmm, and under which environmental (e.g., electrical) conditions....

The electrical conditions appear to be under the same clock, with the same cables, and with the same ADC that recorded them.

TomCapraro · April 24, 2019

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

Yes, I was thinking it would be interesting to experiment with changes to cables, various electrical noise reduction strategies (using or not using particular power supplies, for example), and see whether anything at all came of it.

Of course something comes out
In the archive I have acquisitions made on an original OPPO CD player and then after changing the clock, the capacitors and the power supplies are separated.
I look for them tomorrow and post the results.

TomCapraro · April 26, 2019

On 4/24/2019 at 10:53 PM, Jud said:

Yes, I was thinking it would be interesting to experiment with changes to cables, various electrical noise reduction strategies (using or not using particular power supplies, for example), and see whether anything at all came of it.

451/5000

Given the result of the null test relating to the OPPO 205 device to which the capacitors were replaced, the clock improved the power supply.
Nothing could be seen of traditional measurements, with Deltawave one can see a difference.
The graph shows the two Delta of spectra that derive between the original signal (pink noise) and the analogue stage signal.
In blue the OPPO 205 improved, in white the same device without modifications.

TomCapraro · April 26, 2019

5 hours ago, bibo01 said:

Hi Tom,

Was this difference perceived in listening tests too?

hi Gianni, at the time a listening test was conducted (with dufay and others, it seems there was also the participation of Emidio Frattaroli) and it seemed to me quite reliable. Most blind participants chose the modified OPPO reader.

TomCapraro · May 9, 2019

The previous version perfectly recovered the clock drift on two signals (same DAC) acquired from spdif input and usb input.
This version provides much worse results.😞

TomCapraro · May 9, 2019

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Hi Tom,

Strange, can you share the files that generated this?

Yes

to better understand, try 1.0.26
Even the null test of the DAC-ADC loopback is worse than version 1.0.26

http://www.filedropper.com/nuovacartella

TomCapraro · May 9, 2019

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Thanks, Tom. This seems to have to do with the initial offset difference in the two files, so likely due to the cross-correlation change I made. Let me see if I can make it less sensitive to the initial misalignment in the two files. If you skip 1 second in the SPDIF file, the match becomes much better:

If I do the null test with the old version and save the DELTA file, loading it on the new version generates a graphic on the FFT with + 42dB of difference.

TomCapraro · May 14, 2019

I think the problem is not just about alignment, I extracted the delta (usb / spdif) this if I load it on version 1.0.26 it gives me a FFT 65536 points at almost -130dB minimum, while if I load the delta on version 1.0 .28 the FFT gives me a higher value of at least 43dB.
I posted you the delta so you can try and understand better.
There is a problem with the FFT display.

http://www.filedropper.com/nuovacartella_1

TomCapraro · May 14, 2019

I did a further test to confirm that the alignment of version 1.0.28 works as well as version 1.0.26.
I extracted the DELTA file of both and analyzed the FFT on my spectrum analyzers, the result is identical.
The problem with version 1.0.28 only concerns the FFT display error, so I tell Paul not to focus on the alignment, that is fine ... he will just have to double-check the FFT amplitude match.

TomCapraro · May 23, 2019

On 5/19/2019 at 8:51 PM, pkane2001 said:

Version 1.0.29b is now available for download. This version fixes the FFT/Spectrogram plot scaling issue introduced in the previous release.

The scale of the FFT values works perfectly.
Thanks Paul.

DeltaWave null-testing audio comparator (beta)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in