Will
Been here a while! 
Ribena abuser!
Member since 2008
Posts: 2,164
|
Post by Will on Oct 8, 2009 20:46:41 GMT
Also, having properly written dedicated drivers is advantage against using general off-the-mill drivers written as an afterthought and not with SQ in mind. USB is just data. How can having well written dedicated drivers possibly affect SQ? It's all just 1's and 0's, isn't it  The usb receiver only had to turn the stream from 101010 to a PCM signal for spdif or analouge out. I2S isn't supposed to get out of the box, and then over very short distances. Having said that, I'll try it one day, as I now never right anything off until I try it. By accepting that a dedicated software driver will affect SQ (we are talking SQ here, not 16/44 - 24/96) surely it follows that there will be a difference between lossless files and full bit .wavs? Personally, I feel there is. I built and have used an Alien DAC (PCM2702 based USB jobby) for over a year now, and feel it competes easily with a decent CD player, but compared with the spdif output from my PC, it is not as good, by a fair stretch. As you say, a dedicated USB driver can/could cure that, you become tie to that one product, and cannot DIY it, so to speak, which is a problem for me. USB 3.0, although having been around since 2007, is due in 2010 by all accounts, but all my thoughts are just me peering into my crystal ball! From what I gather, USB 2.0 can only natively 'do' 16/44, due to being restricted to 480 Mbit/s. USB 3.0 will be capable of doing 4.8 Gbit/s in superspeed mode, allowing the data transfer speeds that will enable hi-res natively, without the restriction of dedicated drivers We'll see when it actually arrives ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2009 20:48:23 GMT
Well... one point in favour of external USB anything can be moving delicate mission critical electronics away from noisy computer internals into its appropriate noise free enclosure... Also, having properly written dedicated drivers is advantage against using general off-the-mill drivers written as an afterthought and not with SQ in mind. Add async in the mix and you have bitperfect 24/192 with almost no CPU usage (if guys have programmed it properly - all is done through IRQs and DMA). USB 3.0? Nice... when it arrives. But even then someone has to properly implement dedicated audio drivers. IMO, of course... Well implemented USB as in the Benchmark DAC and others certainly is an advantage, but in many cases it still has to contend with a USB power feed from the internal SMPS. Some USB devices have an inbuilt SMPS, again usually added more of an afterthought, using SMPS in the majority of cases. However a well designed outboard linear PSU has been found to further improve things. The latest trend appears to be the use of Firewire.On the CD player front, there is now even an expensive player which decodes the CD (rips) using software, and stores it for playback from memory. SandyK |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2009 21:04:31 GMT
Are you just talking about "lossless" files, or .wav files also, and are you only referring to USB input of the DAC ? Alex - in my book and through my computers lossless and wavs are the same (remember, I still am that rebelious non-converted pagan  ), so yes - I was referring to both. Also, yes - I was addressing just USB input DAC stages and not DACs as a whole. I was amazed with audible SQ improvement by "just" swapping an ordinary USB to SPDIF converter with proper one. Moreso because I thought there were nothing to improve in this part of the chain (HagUsb being highly acclaimed and I being satisfied with it's supremacy over majority of USB inputs of DACs that went through my hands). Live and learn they say... ...but I am still uber atheist regerding lossless vs. wavs, bit-per-bit same rips sounding different, computer damping and silencing, etc... Valter I will upload a couple of .wav files especially for you, so that you can compare them . IF your gear and listening abilities are as good as you believe they are, you should be able to hear clear differences between them as many other people have. Admittedly, many were using very good DACs (e.g. Twisted Pear "Buffalo" and Class A HA/Power amps.Unfortunately, I can't post the earliest rip before the PC virus, as I reinstalled a later version of EAC. If you are still unable to hear differences, I will upload a couple of high resolution rips to try. Alex P.S. Now uploading 3 different rips of the same tracks. ETA approx 1 hour.Anybody else wishing to compare also, please send me a PM. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2009 22:08:33 GMT
Will
Originally, I believed that lossless files were not lossless, and didn't sound as good as the original .wav files. I now believe that there is most likely nothing wrong with lossless files as downloaded from the Record companies such as Linn, due to their use of special commercial type equipment, and not just being converted from a typical rip from a very average CD player then converted between formats in a noisy PC environment.
Most .flac files posted on the Internet sound absolute shite compared to the original CD of the same recording after reconversion, if your playback equipment is of high quality. The .flac files, whether from companies such as Linn Records, or Internet uploaders then suffer further degradation during the conversion to. wav again in the noisy PC environment. My paid high resolution downloads from Linn Records sound so much better now after decoding, due to all the sound and vibration measures I have taken. In fact, the earlier saved .flac files from Linn Records now sound markedly better after decoding to .wav files than they did originally. I suspect that if people downloaded these files to a PC/Mac using SSDs , that there would then be no discernible differences between the decoded .flac files, and the original file that the encoding to .flac was performed on. However, it is still possible that the typical noisy PC's SMPS may cause a small amount of degradation.
Alex
|
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 9, 2009 11:14:48 GMT
Valter I will upload a couple of .wav files especially for you, so that you can compare them . IF your gear and listening abilities are as good as you believe they are, you should be able to hear clear differences between them as many other people have. Admittedly, many were using very good DACs (e.g. Twisted Pear "Buffalo" and Class A HA/Power amps.Unfortunately, I can't post the earliest rip before the PC virus, as I reinstalled a later version of EAC. If you are still unable to hear differences, I will upload a couple of high resolution rips to try. Alex P.S. Now uploading 3 different rips of the same tracks. ETA approx 1 hour.Anybody else wishing to compare also, please send me a PM. Alex, Alex, Alex... thank you for the files... First thing that I have done, after downloading, was to compare them byte by byte (Total Commander is a great tool)... All three of them have EXACTLY THE SAME CONTENT!  Every byte is the same in all three of them. Now how am I supposed to hear the difference between exact copies of the same music? That would be the equivalence of playing same CD twice through the same gear and claiming that 1st play was "better" or "worse" than the 2nd play. If anyone claims that there is a difference he can actually hear - I will claim that there is something seriously wrong with a) his computer, b) his audio chain, c) his hearing, d) any combination of a, b and c. This is voodoo I just refuse to believe...  ...But not to rely only on my beliefs and in scientific exploring spirit, I will use the following: IBM ThinkCentre, conected via USB to Musiland Monitor 01 USD USB to SPDIF converter, conected via 75Ohm BNC coax to CA DacMagic, connected via Van Den Hull Ultimate RCA interconnections to A-GD Roc headphone amplifier, conected via balanced output and Canford SQJ mini starquad to (obviously recabled) AT W-1000. Foobar2000 will play the wavs through ABX comparator plugin for easier comparison. To make the test more objective - I will also ask my colleagues to blindly compare the tracks. Let's see... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 11:29:51 GMT
FauDrei
You computer guys never seem to learn.
Forget comparators and all that crap. You already have 3 files that you know nothing about, other than they are of the same musical track. Forget that they have the same check sum.
It's a shame you checked that first, because you have already told yourself they are identical.
Turn the lights down, Sit in a comfortable chair with a glass of your favourite brew and relax. Don't try and listen for any specifics, just relax and listen to the music.
If you are relaxed , you will be more aware of any differences.
You may need to revisit certain sections, to confirm if you really did notice anything.
I will give you one small hint though, the drums should sound a little more dynamic on one of the tracks.This is one of many differences that others have picked up on.
Alex
P.S.
Foobar is far less revealing than the much maligned Creative Media Source Player . XXHE is also very good acording to JeffC.
|
|
Will
Been here a while!
Ribena abuser!
Member since 2008
Posts: 2,164
|
Post by Will on Oct 9, 2009 12:57:38 GMT
First thing that I have done, after downloading, was to compare them byte by byte (Total Commander is a great tool)... Not trying to be Ernie to Alex's Bert, but I have to agree with him. The first thing you should have done was use your ears, and see what difference, if any, you could hear. I had a quick listen, and the differences are there to hear. I wont be able to have a really good listen until next Monday (loads of reports to do ) but one track in particular does seem more listenable than the others. The thing is, faudrei, is that I completely agree with you in the principle that if you have two files, both technically the same, how can they sound different? They should not. But having ignored the check sum of previous files, and listened to them, I have heard a difference between the tracks, one that corroborated with others who had downloaded them and listened to them. It doesn't make sense, but it does sound better! Weird, eh? I'm not going to hammer on this, as you have been a Gentleman in your replies, but have a listen with your mates (grab some beers) and see what you make of it |
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 9, 2009 14:17:52 GMT
It is Friday, so many of my colleagues agreed to participate... There were 7 participants to the test (me excluded). I announced the test as comparison of two different recordings of the same song and ask them to pinpoint the differences between the two. The participants were given opportunity to change the volume level and to chose between track A and track B in ABX Comparator. Between each test participant I swapped the wavs so that all three wavs were compared vs. each other. Six out of seven could not find any difference. The participant who claimed that he can differentiate the "difference in lower bass when drum was kicking" of the track B (in his case A was first "California Girls.wav" and B was "Track04.wav") was subjected to further XY testing. He scored 3/10 with 94,5% probability that he was guessing. QED |
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 9, 2009 14:44:43 GMT
Forget that they have the same check sum. No guys, not checksum... checksum or hash sum is number computed on block of digital data for detecting accidental errors that may have been introduced during its transmission or storage. Although highly improbable, two files with different data inside CAN have same checksums. I checked, byte per byte, EVERY BYTE of 30.994.700 bytes those three files are long. All 30.994.700 bytes of information (in our case music) were THE SAME between files. This means that the information stored in those files are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL. This further means that, by Information Theory that we currently use in Computer Science, there are no possibilities that any of those three wavs had any piece of music information more (or less) than other two that would make "drums sound a little more dynamic". Now, I have nothing more to add to that. If we can not agree on those digital information facts (and there are no discoveries of pseudo-information that drags along with every piece of digital data that nowadays we know nothing about) I suggest to stop this debate here and agree that we do not agree on this subject. ;D How's that for an agreement? |
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 9, 2009 15:03:27 GMT
BTW Alex, This "California Girls" track recording is superb! It is much better than the one I have from my CD. Can you please tell me from what CD have you ripped yours? |
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 9, 2009 15:06:54 GMT
A dac like the Dacmagic uses heavy upsampling and DSP, a lot of newer commercial dacs now sport heavy upsampling and DSP
I found some of the tracks uploaded by Alex did have subtle differences where as some the differences was very clear indeed, with some dacs the more DSP etc used the harder these differences are to pick out imho
The downside of having all this DSP is that it tends to mess about with the signal too much adding its own signature, trying to pick out the differences from these sort of recordings would be much harder imo
|
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 9, 2009 15:09:31 GMT
BTW I've known various electronic equipment to measure EXACTLY the same yet sound totally different, don't just rely on test figures, it cannot guarantee bog all in this game |
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 9, 2009 16:45:42 GMT
IMO, upsampling just clears things up - details are much easier to spot with upsampling. But I am willing to repeat the ABX test with (so called) NOS DAC. Will see next week...
I do agree with that when we are talking about playback equipment. I read somewhere (Stereophile?) a story about a DAC which measurements were bloody awful, yet it sounded exceptionally good.
We are here talking about same information sounding different. If we were arguing about two "identical" LPs - OK: much more variables to take into consideration in analogue domain. Not in digital domain: 1 is always 1 and 0 is always 0. Identical streams of 0s and 1s are always the same.
|
|
leo
Been here a while!
Team wtf is it?
Posts: 3,638
|
Post by leo on Oct 9, 2009 17:51:01 GMT
Upsampling just clears things up and digital is just 1's and 0's, if things was only that easy ;D
BTW I never even hinted to try NOS
Anyway not wanting to go totally off topic at least you tried it and posted results
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 20:16:05 GMT
BTW Alex, This "California Girls" track recording is superb! It is much better than the one I have from my CD. Can you please tell me from what CD have you ripped yours? Valter California Project-Papa Doo Run Run from Telarc CD.70501 1985 Alex P.S. Replace Foobar with a more revealing player, and you will hear much more delicate nuances. A couple of members confirmed that they thought CMSP was better than Foobar in an earlier thread. Perhaps we need to find some CDs that we have in common, and compare our rips ? I stand by what I have said about "lossless" files such as .flac in my replies elsewhere. PC processing degrades them at both ends. Why don't you check out some of the threads in Computer Audiophile where they found SSD sounded better in that Symposium ? Surely that must tell you something ? P.S. I was asked to compare an uploaded file of the Beatles track "Come Again" from the new release, with my uploaded version of the original. This is part of what I noticed different between them. They have increased level a bit, and the to and froing is more pronounced on the new one. The voice is less distant in the mix on the new one though. What I hear is a typical .flac smoothing of HF detail. Remember that I have industrial type hearing damage , and am very sensitive to reduced HF detail (or perhaps rise and fall times of transients) or "smoothing". Although there is a very wide soundstage, and plenty of movement both ways across the soundstage in the new version, my ripped version has serious DEPTH in many places, that is barely hinted at in this version. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 20:35:13 GMT
Forget that they have the same check sum. No guys, not checksum... checksum or hash sum is number computed on block of digital data for detecting accidental errors that may have been introduced during its transmission or storage. Although highly improbable, two files with different data inside CAN have same checksums. I checked, byte per byte, EVERY BYTE of 30.994.700 bytes those three files are long. All 30.994.700 bytes of information (in our case music) were THE SAME between files. This means that the information stored in those files are ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL. This further means that, by Information Theory that we currently use in Computer Science, there are no possibilities that any of those three wavs had any piece of music information more (or less) than other two that would make "drums sound a little more dynamic". Now, I have nothing more to add to that. If we can not agree on those digital information facts (and there are no discoveries of pseudo-information that drags along with every piece of digital data that nowadays we know nothing about) I suggest to stop this debate here and agree that we do not agree on this subject. ;D How's that for an agreement? FauDrei We will continue our uploads and discussions, and just pretend that you do not exist . As I said, let's see if we have any CDs in common, and see if we can hear any differences between rips, ignoring the check sums,but using a common program such as EAC for the ripping. Alex |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 23:54:21 GMT
FauDrei FTR , your friend WAS correct if he picked track 4 as having the quoted differences.This also agrees with my perhaps badly worded hint. I don't doubt that using the ABX, which went against my recommendations for relaxed listening made things difficult for the participants. Did you play the .wav files directly from the original HDD that they were saved to ? This ABX testing used to be used to convince people that all amplifiers sound the same !  Jeff C has also posted in RG the need for normal listening, where you aren't under pressure. Now to state which track was which. The 1st track posted was an earlier rip, copied to a USB pen and back again, as I couldn't use my very first rip of this album due to using an earlier EAC version, and thus different check sums. The 2nd track was ripped by the Pioneer DVD writer. The 3rd track (04)was ripped using the LG BR writer,and was the most recent rip. Alex |
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 10, 2009 1:21:53 GMT
I was using EAC long before I joined RockGrotto. In fact I customised it ( REACT) to the level that in one go I create wavpack archive, m4a (aac) lossy for my iPod, get the artwork and tags info from allmusic... ;D Tried cPlay, good upsampling, extremely bad interface, same SQ as Foobar2000 KS (kernel streaming) or ASIO. Will try to use it in next NOS blind testing if I manage to make it half as usable as foobar is. Will you guys be so kind to try foobar2000 and its included ABX comparator? In preparation of the test this comparator expands both files from anything to clean wav format so you can easily test wav vs. wav, flac vs. wav and other myths. Do not have to post results - just see for yourself with statistical evidence whether are you fooling yourself or not. As for common ground CD's... Do not have many Chesky's or Telarc's... Have "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" CD-80108... How about Pink Floyd "Echoes"? Or something from dIRE sTRAITS ( Communiqué, Brothers in Arms...)? ...and guys - thank you for not burning me at the stake |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 1:54:10 GMT
FauDrei That is insulting. Obviously you haven't been across a couple of threads in the Computer Section, including especially findings from Jeff C. These uploads have been going on for MANY months now, and originally included many files for comparison. The fact that the uploads are still going, and in many cases using up the maximum 10 downloads of each , indicates that these guys in the main are satisfied that there are differences, and enjoy the ripped files, which on several occasions have been compared with discs that they own.This has resulted in around 5 members now owning LG BR writers, and several who have also fitted the 3M anti vibration tape, which does not come cheaply at >US$100 a roll after P and P. People do not spend money like that unless they are convinced it is worthwhile. Again, I will state that ABX is a flawed test. It is like students being put under pressure in a major examination, and in many cases freezing. Relaxed listening is the only way to evaluate equipment performance, and that goes for all kinds of hardware and software. Again, I will state ,that several members will verify that they found Creative Media Source Player had better HF resolution than Foobar. Shock ,horror ! Commercial software that outperforms the highest regarded freeware player ! Rant over ! Now for the dried wood and the matches ! Do you have "Dire Straits-Love Over Gold" ? And did you come to any conclusions yourself,about the files that you asked me to compare ? I wish that you had sent me a genuine .wav file for the comparison, instead of a .flac file,though. Alex P.S. Are you going to tell your friend that what YOU most likely regard as a wild guess, was indeed correct ? |
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 10, 2009 12:13:26 GMT
Alex, I am sorry if my views are insulting to you. I'm just a skeptic that have to be empirically persuaded into something. As you want to prove something to me, I want to prove that you are wrong or there is unaccounted fact in your theory. I have tried your test. I hear no difference. Six other people hear no difference. Seventh was statistically proven wrong in hearing differences (spoted differences between A and B, asked to detect between X and Y which of them was A and which B, guessed 3 out of 10 times). I am also willing to try your 24/96 test with the gear and SW you say is better than stuff I use. Why then you do not indulge me and try ABX testing? It would take just a couple of hours of relaxed ABX listening (because you can take as much time as you want). You would get statistical proof on audible differences... whatever they might imply. Speaking from the bigger perspective - my beliefs are accepted from vast majority of people who know what lossless is at all - lossless exists because of beliefs of that majority in the 1st place. I believe in them, not because of that vast majority, but because I have tried them, confirmed them and can treat them as facts. My facts are: - The equivalence of digital music information can be determined by equivalence of bits/bytes that music information is stored in. If same information is ripped by using 10$ Chinese CD-ROM or by using newest damped, silenced, multiK$ BlueRay writter - it does not matter: the quality of retrieved information is the same.
- Same digital music information should sound the same through equivalent non flawed reproduction system. If not - there is a flaw in reproduction system (information is the same, remember?).
- Lossless is loss less (flac, alac, ape, wavpack, tak, wav...). If you store same music information in any of those - you can restore the same information back. By expanding it or playing it back - it does not matter. Saying different is like saying that files that have been zipped and subsequently unzipped are of lower quality than same files that were never zipped. Because all those lossless packers can be explained as "zip" specialized for audio. Saying that expansion during playback degrades quality stand very little ground. You need processing power lower than 25 Mhz 486 to play back flac file. With nowadays HW and properly written SW/drivers (IRQs, DMA, buffering...) the computer resources are hardly affected at all.
- ABX tests are objective methods for proving differences between, in our case audio, samples. ABX, especially double blind ABX, eliminates unconscious influence from the listener: the "when I plug my phones in my new shiny uber$ amp it sounds soooo much better than from my old lousy one" effect. This was the method I used with my new uberamp and was shocked when test revealed that my old one dusted him ... fortunately for my expenditure approval feeling, ABX results were quite different after 48 hours...
I've also been investing absurd (for my surroundings) amounts of money into my headphone rig and this have no significant corellation with the past, present or future quality of my CD ripping quality, which I firmly believe is flawless from the very start (have done an extensive investigation before starting the ripping). What have dramatically changed in the process is the sound quality - which has directly to do with playback components upgrades of my gear. From the same lossless rips. I will also try HD800 (or it's successor) some day... but for now, it's price is just too f. much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 13:29:29 GMT
faudrei
Experienced listeners and designers do not need to ABX every time they make a circuit change. I can't imagine Mike doing that either,every time he modifies a piece of equipment.
If my subjective judgement is suspect, then why have there been >100 Jaycar HAs made using my modifications, amd also several Class A HAs built by RG members from my design, as well as a Class A amplifier with my mods constructed by a U.K. member ? These modifications have been widely accepted by members who started off with the original design. There are also a number constructed by HeadFi members, and I was invited along as a guest to a Head Fi Western Sydney area get together some months back. IF you check the links provided in the reply to FritzS, you will also find that my original subjective findings from 1987 about close differential pair matching in amplifier front ends are also widely accepted in DIYAudio now.
You are also suggesting that the many members who have also reported hearing these file differences, and reporting similar areas of difference are imagining things ?
There are also several DIYAudio and Computer Audiophile members who do not dispute these PC file findings either. One of them is the author of the highly regarded XXHE software player design. He can't explain it yet though. He has also noted the improved SQ of playback from an SSD, as have the many professionals from the electronic design area, and recording industry engineers and recording artists at the recent Computer Audiophile symposium.
I am well aware of the importance of checksums, as I was a shift leader in a group of Telephone Exchanges, most of which were processor controlled.
What I have been suggesting to you, is that these .wav files, which are almost certainly identical in binary content, but not necessarily timing (?), are stored by some unknown mechanism along with the overall system noise at the time, (which includes jitter related components too), at the time of being ripped, processed,or even when being moved between HDDs or other storage devices. It has also been demonstrated by others, that the ripped files from an external optical device using either a linear PSU, or runs off the laptop's batteries, also sounds better.
SandyK
P.S.
Do you have "Dire Straits-Love Over Gold " CD ?
|
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 10, 2009 20:52:02 GMT
This is not every time - you are trying to prove your point. I think it is worth a try. Neither do I have any reason to compare identical wavs - but in the spirit of scientific curiosity - I do that. With all due respect to your age and your achievements as well as achievements and/or positions of references you have mentioned - those are only reverse argumentum at hominem in our dispute. "I am Edison, so I should be right" never quite held water with me: what if you are arguing with Tesla? Again, digital data is something different than checksums. I refer to equivalence of digital data, you, on the other hand continue to mention checksums (of digital data). Again - checksums can be the same for very different sets of digital data. If two pieces of digital data are the same - they are just two instances/copies of the same data. What you are suggesting here is so surreal that in our known time-space I just have to euphemistically call it nonsense. ;D What's next - bit recycling? Seriously, timing is not part of Redbook PCM data, nor of the PCM part of wav file - 2-channel signed 16-bit PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz is a given constant. Timing though is crucial factor in modulation (recording) and demodulation (reproduction) of PCM data - not storage. Yes, in the beginning I've thought: oh, no another set of loonies that are imagining things and like bragging about it... but since you are a coherent group AND can accurately and repeatedly pinpoint the differences (ABX anyone? ), I am starting to suspect your (mine ) setups and wonder what are we missing here? Why you can and I can not hear those differences? I think we should focus on that. P.S. No, "Love over gold" I do not have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 21:32:22 GMT
Valter
If you were involved in this discussion much earlier, at least within the group, you would have known that I have gone much further than your ABX. I gave an RG member from Sydney , who works in the IT area, a USB stick containing some files for comparison purposes . He wrote a program that rearranged the naming of the files, and the "Properties" of the files so that I could listen to them and post the results. I had difficulty correctly identifying which file was which, as there appeared to be a marked SQ deterioration. To help me identify which were my preferred files, I added a 3rd file to each group of 2. The problem then, was neither of the other 2 files sounded identical to the introduced "control" file. After much hair tearing out, I asked him if during the renaming , the files had been moved around between his HDDs and the USB pen. They had been. When I told him that all 3 files now sounded different, my friend got pretty annoyed with me, and gave me another lecture on 1s and 0s, but in a nice way, as he was ((Still is,I hope !) a friend. My friend then requested that he no longer have any connection with this project. Incidentally this friend has heard my gear on quite a few occasions in comparison with other audio gear.
So, if I am rather forceful now, it is because I have gone over this area so many times previously, and copped much sarcasm for daring to suggest such "heresy" One really obnoxious DIYAudio member from Australia even said something about Monks dipping their pens in sacrificial goat's blood and transcribing the binary notes by hand.
So I am not willing to go further with this discussion . TBH, I am beginning to no longer give a damn what the sceptics think. It's their loss. In the meantime , I continue to listen to PC audio far ahead of the SQ available from the best of affordable CD players. As I said in another forum, it is like winding the clock back 30 years on my ageing hearing. Incidentally, the very experienced owner of this other forum , who arranged the Symposium and SSD comparisons, is not dismissive of my claims, and has given me a degree of moral support on occasion, pointing out that there is a lot of stuff we don't currently understand.
If you search thoroughly, you will find some very indepth , and to me, way over my head, explanations as to why there is a large amount of analogue processing in what most people believe is purely a digital area.
Alex
P.S.
.
You are not the first person to do full binary comparisons of some of these files. My friend from Sydney did that a long while ago.
|
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Oct 10, 2009 22:36:52 GMT
OK Alex, we will just let it be... Hope I did not insult you (much  ) in the process... Will still try your 24/96 with cPlay next week. With my tube NOS DAC and, if I am in luck, with something really much more refined...  Regards from Sarajevo |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 22:52:18 GMT
Valter
Why don't you save those 24/96 files, and invite your friend who thought he heard a difference with track 4, to have an informal listen. I personally would not use a tube DAC as the S/N (and bandwidth ?) , is more than likely far below that of a comparable SS design. The differences that I hear are in the area close to the recording's noise floor,and with very low level ambience.
Regards
Alex
|
|
The usb receiver only had to turn the stream from 101010 to a PCM signal for spdif or analouge out. I2S isn't supposed to get out of the box, and then over very short distances. Having said that, I'll try it one day, as I now never right anything off until I try it. 
), so yes - I was referring to both.
Every byte is the same in all three of them.
Jeff C has also posted in RG the need for normal listening, where you aren't under pressure.
) in the process... Will still try your 24/96 with cPlay next week. With my tube NOS DAC and, if I am in luck, with something really much more refined... 