Two versions of same track. Do they measure and sound the same?

[Rexp]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mnmd47b4fekosmo/Melle - Running out of Time1.wav?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0v4uctdwxaxbdyy/Melle - Running out of Time2.wav?dl=0

 

[Rexp]

12 hours ago, danadam said:

Sound the same to me.

I'd say the second one is the first one that was peak normalized to 0 dBFS. So it is about 0.0004432 dB louder 🙂

The diff between the first one and the second one has:

             Overall     Left      Right
Pk lev dB     -85.82    -85.82    -86.20
RMS lev dB   -102.29   -101.65   -103.03
RMS Pk dB     -92.78    -92.78    -94.26
RMS Tr dB    -129.57   -129.53   -129.57
Window s       0.050

The diff between the normalized version of the first one and the original second one has:

             Overall     Left      Right
Pk lev dB    -114.39   -114.39   -114.95
RMS lev dB   -129.13   -129.11   -129.15
RMS Pk dB    -128.16   -128.16   -128.29
RMS Tr dB    -129.77   -129.69   -129.77
Window s       0.050

 

Thanks for the feedback! I'll take that meaning the difference in measurements is so small it won't affect the sound. 

 

[Rexp]

@pkane2001 @March Audio any thoughts? Anyone else care to offer an opinion? 

[Rexp]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Nothing here, to be heard ... I loaded both into Audacity, subtracted one from the other, there was a difference waveform that was about 85dB down; I amplified that difference file by 85dB  - which then looked the same as one of the original files. Soloing that original, then the new, amplified by 85dB difference, waveform, and bouncing between them, they sounded the same ...

? The difference in db has been measured at 0.0004432 dB, see above

[Rexp]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The numbers I quoted were approximate - what matters is that there was a difference, which could be amplified to the same level as the original; which then sounded the same as the original. Which says that the difference between them is only of level, and nothing else - at least as far as being meaningful to non hypercritical listening.

Ok thanks

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, March Audio said:

Just listened and they sound the same here.

 

So whats the check all about? :)

I prefer one over the other, wanted to see if others agree. 

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, March Audio said:

@Rexp  OK, second attempt.  I think I may have inadvertently mix copied the same file into itself yesterday. DOH! 

 

Track 1 numbers.

 

 

Track 2 numbers

 

 

The amplitude levels are all identical so the difference is less than 0.01dB, however you can see the difference in amplitude on the min/max sample values.

 

I nulled as yesterday and it is not a perfect null.  The peak levels are around -86dB and more around -106dB average.  You can just about see something in the spectrogram.  Nothing can be heard if played back at any sensible volume setting.

 

 

Here is the nulled wav file.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgmEgY_hxnSq57Lyg?e=X3Qn48

 

I then amplified the nulled file by 66dB (2000x)

 

here is the amplified file

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnQ0c7fb_4zLgmL2pHPlEfCDMeb2?e=fZeRur

 

When listening to the amplified null file it has some "phaseyness" but is generally quite similar to the originals which implies the differences are primarily (but not entirely) amplitude.

 

I still cant hear any difference when comparing the two tracks.

 

Hope that helps

 

So what is meant to be/reason for the difference in the files?

Thanks, was hoping more folks would compare the sound. Will leave it up for a bit longer before the reveal. 

[Rexp]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

All right (not so) ... you should not do this. And not even sure if you are aware of it @Rexp, but this is so full of "ticks" cause by overloading the digital file, that I could only be distracted by that. So ... (in the 16 bit domain) 32767 + 1 is ?

wrong.

 

I played Time2 before Time1 to avoid additional pitfall, but if you ask me Time2 has less of it but more severe (more subsequent of it ?) and Time1 has more of it and could even be more annoying.

 

Now, if I won a price, please let me know. But I'm afraid it was about something else.

haha

 

PS: The exercise took exactly 6m50 so no need or lust to listen to more of this. And oh, would thee suggestion that this is from LP to begin with (which I believe firmly is not the case) ... better don't; Too distracting.  

 

 

No LP's were harmed in the making of this recording. 

[Rexp]

FYI I did nothing special to these tracks, just used Audacity 'normalize' to increase the volume in one and 'amplify' in the other. 

[Rexp]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes. The other trick I do is to oversample, say by 4x, the track rate - this shows where the bad buggers are ... so, if you want to squeeze max volume out of the track, this will give you a good number to amplify by.

 

 

Did you hear any difference?

I did, no one else did, the recordings not great though. 

[Rexp]

11 hours ago, danadam said:

So neither of these is the original recording? What was the max level in the original recording then? (or in another words, by how much did you increase the volume?)

Original  https://www.dropbox.com/s/quy078zf1dyd8a5/Melle - Running out of Time.flac?dl=0