red or blue pill - Part II?

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, STC said:

There is no such thing as real sound. There is only sound the confirms to all the cues for localization or not. 
 

Put a person playing bagpipes on one side and a speaker playing piano on the other side behind the curtain. If you ask a person who has never heard these instruments before both will be real to him. 
 

A sound is real when it confirms with the psychoacoustics principles. Practically all demos about how real the high end system can sound usually confined to solo or two instruments. 

 

Yup, there's no "real" here. Just at best how well it evokes a psychoacoustic illusion...

[STC]

31 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Yup, there's no "real" here. Just at best how well it evokes a psychoacoustic illusion...

I am afraid the word psycho is causing a lot confusion. 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hey Fred,

 

Fred, where's "Fred" come from ... ?

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

Well there are certainly times when I listen to my system and am surprised by how "real" the sound can be. At times with non-musical sounds, wondering if what I heard came from the system or maybe my wife and kids in the house. I suspect many of us would have similar occasions and stories where the illusion seems very real.

 

Also happens with musical sounds.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Frequency response is absolutely important - some headphones sound terrible with bad treble roll-off, likewise, it's hard to believe that one is listening to an organ without the lower registers! How can one possibly feel that a system is reproducing a "real"-sounding facsimile of music and musicians if it's missing chunks of frequencies!?

 

That's the general thinking in audio - but IME the better the accuracy of the sound in key areas, the more the hearing mind is able to compensate, by "filling the gaps". I was intrigued by this, and then discovered that instrument makers have known for centuries that one can trick the mind, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental.

,

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

No other SQ quality is going to be compensating for those losses and my brain ain't going to make up for the experience of those bass drops in some dubstep that went missing!

 

Extreme, synthetic bass won't make the cut, but most conventional instrument bass sends out the right messages when the overtones are well reproduced ... I normally find most audiophile bass to be quite unrealistic; lacks 'tightness', is overblown.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Room issues not important!? Again, since we're talking "real" sounding audio, even if I could squeeze my system in the bathroom, how am I supposed to consider that as sounding "real" with all the echoes, perhaps vibrating shower door, and poor representation of low frequencies!?

 

Well, we'll try not to get silly about it, perhaps 😉 ...in any sort of reasonable room, where one is comfortable having an extended conversation with someone, then there shouldn't be an issue ..

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Hmmm.. Okay, still would love to see that summary blog post Fred! And maybe some pictures of what was done, maybe a before and after of what the components and room looked like. If what you've accomplished in creating "real"-sounding hi-fi is something that can be taught, I'm sure many audiophiles across the Interwebs would be very thankful for your helpful blog post. If however, it can't be summarized or taught, then I guess there's no point saying too much.

 

If I had a dollar for every time that sort of thing has been said to me ... 😁

 

The method can be taught, but it takes time! Some years ago, a keen audio enthusiast, living local, turned up for a listening session, and I've remained friends ever since - steadily 'mentored' him for years, and regularly visit his place to check progress. Hardest thing was to shake him out of the normal trains of thought that audiophiles always fall back on - but he's got the bug now ... delights in using bargain basement solutions, and has a collection of "terrible" recordings to check how he's progressing, 😁.

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

For example, even if I'm able to convert lead to gold, what's the point in me speaking about it if it can't be taught to those I wish to share the knowledge with? Might as well stay quiet and just enjoy the result for myself...

 

There have been a good handful of people I've found over the Internet, who understand almost exactly what I'm talking about. It's out there, but it's rare - each person who has come across it has a different slant on how to achieve it; what they all understand is that it is far from trivial to make happen ...

 

5 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

 

Fair enough Fred... Let's still focus on that idea of whether the system sounds "real" though. Because I have some concerns about your perspective on what is needed and what isn't! 😲

 

The system sounds "real" in that the message it sends to your brain is never detected as being a deception - let's say I put on some intense, solo piano music at a realistic volumes - if I listen to it from outside, at a distance, through an open window, it gets a tick; if I listen, inside, at the other end of the house, it gets a tick; if I walk into the room where the speakers are, and am only inches away from one of the speakers ... it still gets a tick. An illusion is created which is never broken - because the SQ is good enough in key areas; enough for the brain to remain convinced, that it knows that it can't be a fake.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, STC said:

A sound is real when it confirms with the psychoacoustics principles. Practically all demos about how real the high end system can sound usually confined to solo or two instruments. 

 

The more complex the recording, the greater the need for the playback to be pristine - to "conjure up an illusion". There is a path of steadily improving the capability of a system so that more and more unlikely recordings "come good" - a rather nifty in between example is a defence forces band, with bagpipes, brass and drums - simple recording techniques mean tremendous transient bite, plenty of reverb from the recording space, "big" sound ...

[PeterSt]

Is there an off-topic button somewhere ?

Edit : of course there is. But it seems unethical to use it. But still ...

[PeterSt]

LOL

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

Peter, a question for you: If the ear can detect the difference (assuming proven by the ABX), why can't we measure it,

 

Mani, we must assume that what we can incur for minute differences (and let's say that they emerge by accident, hence out of our control really), which is ever so small but audible, and that because we could not control it explicitly, we can not measure it. It is almost a physics law;

 

Why wouldn't we be able to perceive noise-like modulations, especially if they oscillate (re-occur). And mind you, we already know that they oscillate because that is inherent to the processes (at least the ones I apply in XXHighEnd - all of them). Maybe take the analogy of a piano out of tune (or any string instrument for that matter). Would you be able to hear the two strings out of tune (but the ever so slightest !) when individually played ? maybe a very best musician can. But I wonder.
Suppose this level of distortion is sow low (the deviation to the absolute A key etc.) that no analyser would be able to measure it. This could be so already because of present system noise. But for sure you'd hear the out of tune when two strings are played (one so slightly out of tune) ! Maybe the audible oscillation would be once per minute only, but you'd hear it still.

I think this compares to IMD ...

 

We talked about it before : with a sufficient number of test tones we should be able to dig out some general distortion figure. I think Paul was on the same track (well over a year ago, I think). Mind you, in the end (sufficient number of test tones in parallel), it will be equal to music - with the difference we can measure it.

[Archimago]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Fred, where's "Fred" come from ... ?

 

 

Woops, sorry Frank. Conjuring up the wrong name last night :-). Will get back to you later today...

 

[pkane2001]

57 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Mani, we must assume that what we can incur for minute differences (and let's say that they emerge by accident, hence out of our control really), which is ever so small but audible, and that because we could not control it explicitly, we can not measure it. It is almost a physics law;

 

Why wouldn't we be able to perceive noise-like modulations, especially if they oscillate (re-occur). And mind you, we already know that they oscillate because that is inherent to the processes (at least the ones I apply in XXHighEnd - all of them). Maybe take the analogy of a piano out of tune (or any string instrument for that matter). Would you be able to hear the two strings out of tune (but the ever so slightest !) when individually played ? maybe a very best musician can. But I wonder.
Suppose this level of distortion is sow low (the deviation to the absolute A key etc.) that no analyser would be able to measure it. This could be so already because of present system noise. But for sure you'd hear the out of tune when two strings are played (one so slightly out of tune) ! Maybe the audible oscillation would be once per minute only, but you'd hear it still.

I think this compares to IMD ...

 

We talked about it before : with a sufficient number of test tones we should be able to dig out some general distortion figure. I think Paul was on the same track (well over a year ago, I think). Mind you, in the end (sufficient number of test tones in parallel), it will be equal to music - with the difference we can measure it.

 

Peter, 

 

Our ears are not any more sensitive than precision electronic equipment. We may not be measuring the right things or using the right tools to measure in some cases, but there is absolutely no evidence that the ear can hear something that the measurement instruments cannot detect.  But, I think that's the whole goal of Mani's testing with his Red/Blue pill proposal. And should his tests show that there is something he can hear that doesn't come through in the measurements, that would be a very exciting test result for me, personally.

 

Finding the right things to compare between the original recording and the output of a test system is what DeltaWave was designed to do, and why I created it in the first place. 

 

I've since created another tool, called DISTORT, that allows any number or combination of distortions to be applied to an existing digital recording. This includes things like noise, jitter, or even 'oscillations' with a 1 minute period, IMD of any type, etc. Hopefully this can help answer the question as to what's audible to you, with your music, on your system. You can test for what matters and what doesn't and not accept someone else's study results.

 

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

And should his tests show that there is something he can hear that doesn't come through in the measurements, that would be a very exciting test result for me, personally.

 

All right Paul, fair enough. Then : Could you please take distance from your own remark that some random ADC requires its time to settle and (level) trigger the recording, so that it is perfectly allowed to chop off the irregular beginnings in order to next have comparable files.

I think you can.

 

Next up are the recordings already present. So what can your software do with them ?

The whole point is: if that brings nothing, it most certainly does not testify of Mani cheating or anything of the sort. It would tell, however, that the test means are still too weak.

 

FYI, and just in case you didn't know it yet: I can show you and everyone the most easily discernible differences between whatever dozens of means, all leading to bit identical looped back data, those means including USB cables. It goes from, way too wide sound stages, to way to flat ones, compared to narrow and deep. Don't ask me why you and so many others have difficulties with getting that. All I know myself by guarantee, is that somehow we all (!) are not able to find test means showing it. So ... let's have it puuulease ?

I am sure Mani will hand you the files, if you don't already have them.

 

All not meant as teasing or anything, but I feel we are in a deadly loop.

[pkane2001]

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

All right Paul, fair enough. Then : Could you please take distance from your own remark that some random ADC requires its time to settle and (level) trigger the recording, so that it is perfectly allowed to chop off the irregular beginnings in order to next have comparable files.

I think you can.

 

DeltaWave can chop off any mismatches at the start and even the end of the track, so no worries. It can do this automatically, or manually. The problem with mismatched data was not on ADC recordings in the first test, it was with the digital recorder. That leaves the question whether the issue was with the recorder, or the source. In the absence of additional testing, I don't know the answer. And if the error was with the source, then that could easily cause some audible differences at the start of the track and so needs to be eliminated as a possibility.

 

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Next up are the recordings already present. So what can your software do with them ?

The whole point is: if that brings nothing, it most certainly does not testify of Mani cheating or anything of the sort. It would tell, however, that the test means are still too weak.

 

The problem is that my software shows very large differences between the ADC-recorded track and the original digital one. Larger than any good DAC/ADC loop would produce. I would be very surprised if this was caused by this extremely low-level noise that you are talking about: -50dB or so difference is certainly in the audible range. Which is why I have to question the quality of the equipment and how it was set up.

 

The other issue I find often in trying to take ADC captures is ground loops and other electrical interactions between components that are not normally part of the playback system. The result can easily be a very distorted ADC capture, while the DAC is producing a reasonably clean and accurate output. That's why I suggested a preliminary end-to-end/loop-back test using simple sine-wave signal as that will help to reveal any such issues, as well as a baseline recording using a standard music track.

 

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

FYI, and just in case you didn't know it yet: I can show you and everyone the most easily discernible differences between whatever dozens of means, all leading to bit identical looped back data, those means including USB cables. It goes from, way too wide sound stages, to way to flat ones, compared to narrow and deep. Don't ask me why you and so many others have difficulties with getting that. All I know myself by guarantee, is that somehow we all (!) are not able to find test means showing it. So ... let's have it puuulease ?

 

All not meant as teasing or anything, but I feel we are in a deadly loop.

 

The reason this is questioned is that unless you do the test under properly controlled blind conditions, you are using your brain's interpretation of what you see in combination with what you hear.  I think you'll agree that your ability to see is not what we want to test when doing proper listening tests

 

If you can demonstrate (just like Mani is trying to do) that you can distinguish your USB cable under double-blind conditions then that will break the "deadly loop"! Even more so, if the measurements/ADC captures still don't reveal any differences.

 

[Archimago]

@fas42

Since we're chatting about your technique, for the sake of keeping this open for the OP's topic, I'll post a reply and take it to your "step-by-step surgery" thread...

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

FYI, and just in case you didn't know it yet: I can show you and everyone the most easily discernible differences between whatever dozens of means, all leading to bit identical looped back data, those means including USB cables. It goes from, way too wide sound stages, to way to flat ones, compared to narrow and deep. Don't ask me why you and so many others have difficulties with getting that. All I know myself by guarantee, is that somehow we all (!) are not able to find test means showing it. So ... let's have it puuulease ?

I am sure Mani will hand you the files, if you don't already have them.

 

Peter and I live in the same world here ... I have no difficulty making a very slight alteration to a seemingly trivial area of a system, and hearing the presentation dramatically change.

 

Why this occurs, to me, is quite obvious - the qualities of the low level information embedded in the obvious stuff change quite significantly, in comparison to the strength of that part, if you could separate it out, of the waveform. The change is tiny with respect to the primary information, but not with respect to that component of the sound. A real world example, that recording studios constantly deal with - a musician plays with a certain arrangement of acoustic materials and treatments in the room; the producer is not happy, and very slightly readjusts one piece of that acoustic material - "That's it", he says, with a grin ... now, how easy do you think it would be to see in the waveforms of the before and after what he was triggering on ... ?

[manisandher]

On 1/13/2020 at 4:17 PM, pkane2001 said:

Our ears are not any more sensitive than precision electronic equipment. We may not be measuring the right things or using the right tools to measure in some cases, but there is absolutely no evidence that the ear can hear something that the measurement instruments cannot detect. 

 

Paul, as you know, I've been exploring getting hold of an ADC that would be up to the job of measuring the bit-identical differences I'm hearing. Here are the loopback measurements (most taken from the Gearslutz DA_AD thread) of the ADCs I currently have to hand:

(* Potential future purchase.)

 

I suspect that in the majority of cases it's the ADC that's the limiting factor in these measurements, and not the DAC. So, it seems to me that none of these are really be up to the job at hand... and the RME is considered one of the best currently available!

 

So where to now?

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Paul, as you know, I've been exploring getting hold of an ADC that would be up to the job of measuring the bit-identical differences I'm hearing. Here are the loopback measurements of the ADCs I currently have to hand:

(* Potential future purchase.)

 

I suspect that in the majority of cases it's the ADC that's the limiting factor in these measurements, and not the DAC. So, it seems to me that none of these are really be up to the job at hand... and the RME is considered one of the best currently available!

 

So where to now?

 

Mani.

 

The Gearslutz measurements are a little out of date DeltaWave corrects for the non-linear phase effects (which is usually caused by the filters in the DAC and the ADC). Since these are usually not audible differences, the Gearslutz results are way too low. I've had a conversation with Didier who is running the list about updating the list, at least to add the new, corrected measurements. But he's reluctant to do so, claiming that the results are already too confusing and complex and he doesn't want to add to the confusion  Maybe at some point I'll just set up DeltaWave to run through all the uploaded files on that thread and produce and publish my own list of results...

 

Let me run some of these through DW (assuming the loopback files are available) to get proper results.

[manisandher]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Let me run some of these through DW (assuming the loopback files are available) to get proper results.

 

That'd be great. Thanks.

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

Paul, as you know, I've been exploring getting hold of an ADC that would be up to the job of measuring the bit-identical differences I'm hearing. Here are the loopback measurements (most taken from the Gearslutz DA_AD thread) of the ADCs I currently have to hand:

(* Potential future purchase.)

 

I suspect that in the majority of cases it's the ADC that's the limiting factor in these measurements, and not the DAC. So, it seems to me that none of these are really be up to the job at hand... and the RME is considered one of the best currently available!

 

So where to now?

 

Mani.

 

Here are the DeltaWave results for the few loop back files I could find. The others were no longer available, so I couldn't test them.

 

Unfortunately, can't confirm that, for example, RME FF800 was not recorded through a digital loopback, similar to your first attempt with M2. In any case, Motu M2 doesn't look that bad at all. Remember that this is the combination of the DAC and ADC, so individually, ADC and/or DAC may perform even better.

 

[manisandher]

30 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 

 

Thanks Paul, that's really, really helpful. I might hang on to my new M2 after all .

 

I've got a Fireface 800, so will do some loopbacks (once I've fixed its SMPS - second one to fail on me on an FF800!).

 

The ADI-2 Pro FS is supposed to be the king of modern 'affordable pro' ADCs. Any idea why it performs so badly in the loopback?

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

Thanks Paul, that's really, really helpful. I might hang on to my new M2 after all .

 

I've got a Fireface 800, so will do some loopbacks (once I've fixed its SMPS - second one to fail on me on an FF800!).

 

The ADI-2 Pro FS is supposed to be the king of modern 'affordable pro' ADCs. Any idea why it performs so badly in the loopback?

 

Mani.

 

I'll try to dig into it, didn't have the time to look in detail. Unfortunately, it's not clear under what conditions the loopback recording was made, with what settings, etc.  Let's see if DW can help to find what was causing the large error.

[pkane2001]

44 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

Thanks Paul, that's really, really helpful. I might hang on to my new M2 after all .

 

I've got a Fireface 800, so will do some loopbacks (once I've fixed its SMPS - second one to fail on me on an FF800!).

 

The ADI-2 Pro FS is supposed to be the king of modern 'affordable pro' ADCs. Any idea why it performs so badly in the loopback?

 

Mani.

 

Hold the presses! Found another loopback recording. This one is described as using ADI-2 Pro FS with sharp filter setting for both, DAC and ADC. A much better result (see last item):

 

[manisandher]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Hold the presses! Found another loopback recording. This one is described as using ADI-2 Pro FS with sharp filter setting for both, DAC and ADC. A much better result (see last item):

 

 

Great! I'll go ahead and order an ADI-2 Pro FS.

 

(The M2 seems pretty good for the price though.)

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

58 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Great! I'll go ahead and order an ADI-2 Pro FS.

 

(The M2 seems pretty good for the price though.)

 

Mani.

 

To close the loop. Looking into the other ADI-2 Pro FS capture with lower scores, it appears to be using a different filter, and has an excessive amount of jitter. The first capture shows around 13μs RMS jitter over the entire recording, while the second one shows 186ns. The shape of the phase difference plot is also obviously different between the two. The first one is shaped as an inverted letter U, the second one is nearly a straight line.

[fas42]

Gee whiz ... the technical, measured accuracy of a piece of hardware dramatically changes, just by altering a setting or two of how it works ... guess that proves that all one needs is dig out of a set of numbers from somewhere, to be fully assured "how good something is" ... 🙃.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Gee whiz ... the technical, measured accuracy of a piece of hardware dramatically changes, just by altering a setting or two of how it works ... guess that proves that all one needs is dig out of a set of numbers from somewhere, to be fully assured "how good something is" ... 🙃.

 

Good try, but in this case, there's no indication as to how the 'bad' capture was produced. There's so much jitter in it that I'd be surprised it had anything to do with settings. At least I can't imagine what setting would cause this.

 

[fas42]

Which underlies the problem with taking measurments in audio, in general - unless one has absolutely full understanding of every detail that may be pertinent to the numbers derived, then it is Russian roulette, often times, whether they have any bearing on "what it sounds like" ...