Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 22:42:47 GMT
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Apr 4, 2012 2:35:15 GMT
Just as inconclusive as our debates here. To be honest, the only really positive person is some bloke called sandyk. To be honest, I can't hear it and I count myself lucky, it's going to save me an awful lot of time and money messing about with linear power supplies, SSDs and USB sticks. Just bung the CD in the PCs CD-ROM drive, rip to a nice big 2TB drive, enjoy access to all your CDs in one place and forget about it. All the messing about with uncompressed formats may be for nothing anyway, as some storage controllers compress data on the fly anyway: www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/intel-ssd-520_7.html#sect0
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 2:45:05 GMT
Owen There is now far less opposition to these kinds of things in C.A. as many have seen the preliminary results of the HFC Forum investigation by Martin Colloms after the now banned "Julf" linked to the HFC threads in C.A. . You disbelievers can jump up and down and cry foul as much as you like, but it's hard to argue against the results of a series of blind A/B/A/ 3 minute tests, where not only are there differences heard, but the differences reported are quite similar. Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 6:57:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 7:30:56 GMT
More meaningless twaddle from the closed minded "instruments brigade".Yet once again using flawed digital techniques to try and analyse ANALOGUE, instead of analogue techniques to analyse analogue. Just as the HFC report WILL verify that there can indeed be SQ differences between .wav files with identical check sums, I have no doubt that "downrange" would be able to pass an AB test with his claims too. So we shall see who has the last laugh.
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Apr 4, 2012 9:49:30 GMT
Alex, you crack me up. You post a link to a long rambling thread in which varying participants reach no real conclusion as to whethar a difference between FLAC and WAV files can be heard. Frans then posts a link to a posts where someone who is clearly open minded and has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to look for differences in both a subjective and technical fashion, however you immediately dismiss this as "More meaningless twaddle from the closed minded instruments brigade." I find it increasingly difficult to take this whole issue seriously. I'm off to make sure my speaker cables are parallel to a ley line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 10:08:31 GMT
Owen Frans has already tried Diffmaker and found no differences, yet Martin Colloms was able to verify the differences you claim are impossible, in a series of blind A/B/A/ 3 minute tests with different listeners. Clearly, Diffmaker is not up to the task. I simply pointed to the thread as an independent investigation for those who may be interested.Nothing more. Like most other threads in this area, it will never come to any firm conclusions. I also find it interesting that Admin of C.A. who is certainly not a subjectivist, stepped in to stop the thread from being ruined by those unwilling to try for themselves what Downrange asked. I really don't give a damn whether you and Frans accept the results of the HFC investigation or not. There will however be many others with less closed minds who will further investigate these issues, just as they are with the TAS reports. Alex P.S. HiFi Critic Vol.6 No.1 is now back from the printers and I have just ordered a copy via airmail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 5:23:11 GMT
Alex my test with diffmaker ONLY shows bits are identical. in otherwords the files are exactly the same NUMERICAL and WAVEFORM DESCRIPTIONAL wise. You claim the differences are NOT in the bits but come from timing differences (in other words jitter) mainly in the ripping process or on the fly decoding (which you claim is a heavy load, which it isn't at all) and PS quality which in turn affect the analog output signal and changes that waveform so it is essentially slightly different in reality as what has been described as a waveform. Makes kind of sense to me (being a former subjectivist) The test done in CA is exactly the same as I proposed in my lossy/losslss article and involves playing a song on a PC (both in WAV and lossless) and RECORDING those analog output signals with ANOTHER PC and subsequently compare the files to the original (unaffected by the DAC) original waveform by matching the files (analog WAV and lossless playback) in time and substracting them from the digital described waveform. Also these PC's have normal PS's and they are coupled via the ground thus all common mode garbage is also entering the analog path as if you connect a PC to a stereo. NOTHING in it is digital it is PURE analog and all the artifacts (timing and amplitude) in the whole playback and recording chain of the analog part is INCLUDED. IF you concur the analog output voltage describes the sound (I think so, so do the testers) and these ANALOG signals are substracted in the same way as a differential amp does then it should be a valid test for the ANALOG output signal. At least it is a valid test to me. I own a differential amp (built it myself as you cannot buy it cheaply) and have used it extensively to test amps performance as it allows you to hear as well as see WHAT has been altered in the actual signal. everything...phase, time domain and amplitude domain can all be seen and above all HEARD with these techniques and are relentless in showing IF something has changed and waht the change IS. To me it is a valid test. Ofcourse not nearly as valid as the opinion of M.C. I wish somebody in the hearing camp simply came forward (anonymously via PM) to join me in my queste to see if indeed some people can hear things. You see convincing M.C. was the easiest thing to do as he 'found' it also already and you KNEW he was going to verify it. Not to difficult is it ? What IS difficult is convincing the technically minded people (which is never going to happen is it ?) by simply eliminating the only question that remains to be questioned... i.e. the hearing of the people who report. We both know what happened the last time we tried this... Ah yes... the files were manged during transport, or I fooled you by sending back just one file or my PC made them all sound the same. Testers fault or transport fault for sure. It could not possibly be that truly blind tests are hard to take. ;D PS I am not going to debate this further as it only leads to aggrevation. Perhaps the resistance is less and less in those threads NOT because it is 'generally accepted' but because the opposing ignorant people camp are tired of it (I am) because there is NO willingness to perform a single test where it is controlled by those pesky tech guys who are ONLY out to destroy reputations and are willing to rig tests or results just to prove they are right. ???Someone step up the plate please... anonymously... nobody needs to know so NO loss of face. The ONLY varaible that needs to be verified by techs to posuede them is the hearing ability of those that make the claims to THEM. The technical part is easy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 7:44:05 GMT
Frans, no one would volunteer because it's a one sided test. Same thing goes with the evil twin. He 'knows' so much that it is in his interest to prove you wrong. That's why he gets away with his sweeping statements about how perfect his amp is. No one is willing to challenge him. I don't pretend to know anything about the technicalities of equipment but I can normally spot differences if they're there. However, we all know the influences of our heads and I try to be responsible in how I report things. I don't challenge anything said by tech people because it's pretty black and white but the variations in our ears and heads are huge (I guess) and that may account for all kinds of things. So if a listener is able to pick files out correctly, it could be luck but if it's done consistently, then it will probably be proved that it's due to something else. What I found strange was that I was actually able to pick out the files correctly without knowing which was which. Alex just sent me two versions of each file and I was listening on the same gear for both. It always reminds me of Mike's 'flat earth' remark way back. No one believed the world to be round until someone stuck their neck out. Anyway, it's not important if you're happy with your current files so no one is too bothered I guess. It just becomes a battle of wills and pride in the end. I'd like to see extensive blind testing with the whole forum involved and an anonymous voting system. That way, it's not personal and in neither your control or Alex' control, eliminating the side taking which is something that I personally don't like watching. It ends up in an unnecessary argument and personally, if I don't agree with something that someone states, I don't reply in order to avoid the battle of words which I can see starting up yet again here!!
|
|
toad
Been here a while!
I am the Super Toad, the Original Toad, the Whole Toad and nothing BUT the toad.... don't forget it!
Posts: 1,223
|
Post by toad on Apr 5, 2012 8:32:12 GMT
Just a thought. Does FLAC sound worse because the computer has to work harder to decode the FLAC compared to the uncompressed WAV file? i.e the PC will be generating more electrical noise (for want of a better expression) when playing FLAC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 8:42:52 GMT
You never know, Ian. There could be some really simple explanation for it but until people hear the difference, it's a kind of odd discussion. It takes a sensitive ear I guess. When/if that explanation appears, everyone will start to actually hear it and the explanation will make perfect sense to tech people too. It's a nice thought to think that digital files could be improved and is the way to go for the future as well. There IS room for improvement although technically we aren't supposed to hear beyond a certain point. CD originally in 16 bit was perfectly adequate according to tech people but it was suddenly improved upon. So it wasn't right in the first place? That is the problem - technically, we can only work with current knowledge and expand on it but in the future, who knows what will be found ..... scary
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 8:50:06 GMT
Just a thought. Does FLAC sound worse because the computer has to work harder to decode the FLAC compared to the uncompressed WAV file? i.e the PC will be generating more electrical noise (for want of a better expression) when playing FLAC. Hi Ian There may be something like that, because when I have copied 24/96 .flac files from a HDD to the Corsair powered by a low impedance, low noise external +5V PSU,and then decode the .flac file to .wav at that location, then the differences between the .flac file and the newly converted .wav file are VERY much less. In fact, when playing both versions from both locations from System Memory using cPlay, the new versions on the Corsair sound markedly better than the originals on the HDD. Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 10:56:09 GMT
Frans, no one would volunteer because it's a one sided test. That is assuming all I am looking for is to be right I can assure you that is NOT my motivation at all though I suspect it will be the case. Those that actually know me in person will know this to be true. My theories are based on the countless experiments I have done on myself and unsuspecting/unknowing individuals. So if a listener is able to pick files out correctly, it could be luck but if it's done consistently, then it will probably be proved that it's due to something else. What I found strange was that I was actually able to pick out the files correctly without knowing which was which. Alex just sent me two versions of each file and I was listening on the same gear for both. That's exactly my point. You see I (nor some others) cannot hear the differences. This might be due to bias (expecting not to hear) or equipment (arguably) or ears (or should I say brain) that is not trained. So in order for something to be tested or improved this can NOT be done by 'us', as we understand how it (should) work, and can look for it because any changes we would not hear. What IS needed is the ear and gear of people that CAN. because I am a tech guy I need to rule out an aspect that I think might be a big contributer and that is the way it is tested. I explained this a while back and is of statistical nature, not a dismissive one. I'd like to see extensive blind testing with the whole forum involved and an anonymous voting system. That way, it's not personal and in neither your control or Alex' control, eliminating the side taking which is something that I personally don't like watching. It ends up in an unnecessary argument and personally, if I don't agree with something that someone states, I don't reply in order to avoid the battle of words which I can see starting up yet again here!! Now that is what I proposed the last time too and even stated I didn't need to be involved. A test that someone can take himself (with the aid of someone they trust, family member or friend) is outlined. No one needs to know, not even the friend or family member if the results aren't as expected. You yourself will be the only one who knows if you can reliably hear it. Like in the J-Play thread I already stated I am ONLY interested in finding people that actually can pass this test with a certain scoring percentage. These people, and only they, can work together with tech people (when reasonable doubt is eliminated to them) so they can actively look for these things USING the ears and gears they now have come to TRUST. The test takers would be willing to duplicate the test in front of an INDEPENDENT referee before commitment from the tech side should be there.If only..... This would end the 'battles' in this forum and could also end those in other forums as there would likely be technical evidence (or looked for by those who wish to spend time on more urgent matters to them) to support the claim. Some independent referees and ears... please... P.S. the reason studios WANT and NEED to record on 24 bit and higher bitares is actually exactly the same as why the better photographers/cameras work with RAW data. No printer will ever be able to print beyond what JPG can do (depth wise) but still jpg from a camera itself is insufficient for a good print. a converted RAW camera picture that has been optimised and made into jpg (8 bit/color) can be printed with all of it's aspects. It came over to the highend world in the same (but different reasons) cables, gold connectors, tubes e.t.c. came.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 11:51:14 GMT
Hi Fi Critic Vo.6 No.1 has now been published, and I hope to receive a copy via airmail in a week or so. The only further participation from me in this area will be to find out WHY, NOT why not.
Alex
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Apr 5, 2012 13:40:24 GMT
Just a thought. Does FLAC sound worse because the computer has to work harder to decode the FLAC compared to the uncompressed WAV file? i.e the PC will be generating more electrical noise (for want of a better expression) when playing FLAC. It makes sense that FLAC would sound worse than WAV in some cases at least, because of the extra work involved in decoding on the fly. If you convert the FLAC to WAV and then play the WAV (and assuming that WAV has the same content as the original uncompressed lossless WAV file), you should be getting the maximum quality playback. I haven't heard the differences people often report, so I can only assume I'm not educated to listen for the right things.
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Apr 5, 2012 14:41:43 GMT
Yes, it's well known that modern PCs, despite having 2, 4 or even 6 processors cannot do more than one thing at a time. That's why if you type an e-mail while working on an Excel spreadsheet it gets all the sums wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 15:22:47 GMT
Everyone has a system monitor in their PC.
switch off as much unneeded services as you can (to get the basic processor load as low as possible without hurting the PC's performance) and play a WAV file and the same song as a FLAC and see if the processor breaks out in a sweat... How much difference is there in processor load, RAM usage e.t.c. ?
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Apr 5, 2012 15:46:56 GMT
Everyone has a system monitor in their PC. switch off as much unneeded services as you can (to get the basic processor load as low as possible without hurting the PC's performance) and play a WAV file and the same song as a FLAC and see if the processor breaks out in a sweat... How much difference is there in processor load, RAM usage e.t.c. ? I have all those monitors and profilers and never became proficient with them. It seems like a really good idea if you can. My biggest (!!!) issues are with permission denied and I can never find which file is in use.... But all that aside, software like Foobar has a lot of code lines, especially if you could get to the source of all the components. So much goes on there with recursive routines calling themselves and god knows what else - it's not likely you could ever get a perfectly clean rendition of anything no matter how powerful the computer. Even if it sounds clean there's bound to be something... I wonder if anyone who knows WAV playback intimately on the software level can state that there is a perfect playback algorithm that can be described, ignoring any and all "extras" like plugin EQ's or other non-necessary options. If such a thing is possible, then maybe someone could investigate how FLAC playback might differ even when the internal decoding to WAV is perfect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 21:56:55 GMT
Dale As usual, in his efforts to be a smart arse, Xerxes has missed the point that it's the additional electrical activity at the time, and nothing to do with whether the processor has a single core or multicores.These kinds of things are even more noticeable when you play back from external devices like the widely acclaimed ( by the PC Mags at least) WD TV Live etc. They don't even sound like they are in the same ball park, perhaps even the same city, as very good PC Audio via a good DAC and other suitable equipment. My WD TV Live now languishes in a cupboard. Using a Linear PSU with it did result in improvements, but it's still 2nd rate. For this reason, and due to my PC being in a different room to my speaker system, the best that I have heard from my speaker system at home has been with a Corsair Voyager plugged into Allan Pagan's little media PC then into my SC DAC.At david2vk's place with the same Corsairs using the +5V JLH PSU , the results are absolutely stunning through his preamp and PA,(both with front end balancing) then into his big Infinity speakers with added Raal 100kHz tweeters. Alex
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Apr 5, 2012 23:39:26 GMT
More electrical activity is interesting. I asked someone once why I was hearing electronic noises through headphones when the computer did certain things, when there was no sound supposed to be going through the soundcard and all of the system sounds were turned off. Not major noises, just subtle things that were clearly electronic and not mechanical. I am guessing that my lossless rips from CD are free of these noises when accu-rip or whatever it's called is working, but I wonder now if any of those rips from CD to MP3, or conversions to MP3, could be picking up noises that are permanently embedded into the MP3. I bought a couple of lossy tracks from iTunes and they had small but irritating noises in the background.
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Apr 6, 2012 0:27:33 GMT
Most of the time when you're just using a PC for word processing, browsing the web etc. it's only using a few percent. Decoding audio is very easy for a modern CPU and hardly taxes it.
When you talk about extra electrical activity it's slightly daft. A modern processor consists of millions of transistors, 291,000,000 in a Core 2 duo, 731,000,000 in a Core i7. So whether the CPU is ticking over at 2% or 1% it still means tens of thousands of transistors switching on and off, so how much less electrical activity is there?
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Apr 6, 2012 0:47:30 GMT
Most of the time when you're just using a PC for word processing, browsing the web etc. it's only using a few percent. Decoding audio is very easy for a modern CPU and hardly taxes it. When you talk about extra electrical activity it's slightly daft. A modern processor consists of millions of transistors, 291,000,000 in a Core 2 duo, 731,000,000 in a Core i7. So whether the CPU is ticking over at 2% or 1% it still means tens of thousands of transistors switching on and off, so how much less electrical activity is there? If memory serves, there are many things going on electrically in a desktop PC, with the processor a fairly low consumer next to other things, especially across connectors and wires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 1:04:49 GMT
Dale Since fitting the JLH PSUs with their very low residual noise (<4uV typically) I have become more aware of this. For serious listening I even close Windows Live. I can sometimes hear the background activity through headphones when Windows Live does it's scheduled check for new emails. It isn't a short term event either, and spread over MANY seconds even when there is no new mail. MANY people using USB DACs report hearing keyboard and mouse activity breaking through.This is far more prevalent with some cheap laptops. Many people run off battery when doing serious listening with a laptop. In fact, a laptop spoiled a group listening session a couple of years ago. The SQ was the worst we had ever experienced at these sessions. For the next session David2vk had a new Windows 7 USB3 capable PC.The results with the Corsair Voyager plugged in using the +5V Linear PSU were sensational,and way above what you normally hear from the demo rooms at specialist Audio retailers such as Len Wallis, which has been recognised for it's excellence world wide. Regards Alex
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on Apr 6, 2012 4:13:42 GMT
I'm not used to people using flash sticks etc. with O/S configs or whatever on them - you see ads for this and that, but people just don't talk about this stuff unless they're experienced hackers or something - 'nuff said. I've been using low-tech Lexar 128's for backup, but I never thought about getting isolated from the main chassis that way, I always assumed that running on the laptop battery, you just picked the lowest noise machine you could find and go with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 4:22:46 GMT
I'm not used to people using flash sticks etc. with O/S configs or whatever on them - you see ads for this and that, but people just don't talk about this stuff unless they're experienced hackers or something - 'nuff said. I've been using low-tech Lexar 128's for backup, but I never thought about getting isolated from the main chassis that way, I always assumed that running on the laptop battery, you just picked the lowest noise machine you could find and go with it. Dale I am not sure what you are referring to here, or even if it is addressed to me. My Corsair Voyager USB 2.0 memory sticks are only used for storing my highest quality rips, both for storage and highest possible quality playback in conjunction with the external +5V Linear PSU. Alex
|
|