• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Beta-test: DeltaWave Null Comparison software

Pluto

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
139
Likes
221
Location
Harrow, UK
re. drag and drop of files
That's there. Go to Windows Explorer, pick one or two audio files, and drop them onto DeltaWave
OK, just tried it. Dropping a single file anywhere within the DW surface places the file in the 'Reference' field. OK. Dropping two files places them in the 'Reference' and 'Compare' fields respectively. IMHO what is really needed is the ability to drop files, one at a time, into either the 'Reference' or 'Compare' fields from entirely different places on the system. In other words, how about making two smaller drag and drop zones, corresponding to the text entry areas for 'Reference' and 'Compare'? A very good example of this is to be found here [in the "single file" tab].

Your current scheme is good only if the two files reside in the same folder (unless I have missed something).
 

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
DeltaWave Version 1.0.17 is now available
  • Fixed a problem with the Index out of Bounds error when engaging DC offset removal option
  • Fixed a problem that resulted in Reference level being adjusted to match Comparison, instead of the other way around
  • Added support for down-mixing stereo files into a mono track for comparison (DSD not supported with L+R yet)
  • Fixed a small glitch with FFT windowing routine that resulted in a low frequency spurious tone with certain window types
  • Added track RMS and peak values before and after matching to the Results tab
  • Added drag-and-drop of individual files to the Reference and Comparison boxes
Thanks to all that reported issues and made new feature suggestions! DeltaWave getting better and better ;)
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
34
Likes
15
DeltaWave Version 1.0.17 is now available
  • Fixed a problem with the Index out of Bounds error when engaging DC offset removal option
  • Fixed a problem that resulted in Reference level being adjusted to match Comparison, instead of the other way around
  • Added support for down-mixing stereo files into a mono track for comparison (DSD not supported with L+R yet)
  • Fixed a small glitch with FFT windowing routine that resulted in a low frequency spurious tone with certain window types
  • Added track RMS and peak values before and after matching to the Results tab
  • Added drag-and-drop of individual files to the Reference and Comparison boxes
Thanks to all that reported issues and made new feature suggestions! DeltaWave getting better and better ;)
Hi,

With 1.0.17, if i compare the same 16/44 .wav files, it's only 88% bit perfect. A bug ? - With previous version, no problems :)


Capture d’écran 2019-03-14 à 22.11.47.png



Olivier
 
Last edited:

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
Hi,

With 1.0.17, if i compare the same 16/44 .wav files, it's only 88% bit perfect. A bug ?

Olivier
Hi Olivier,

Is the EQ turned on? Go to settings and turn off non-linear level matching. See if that fixes it. Also check that Dither to original bit size option is turned off, although that should give a number closer to a 50% match.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
34
Likes
15
Hi Olivier,

Is the EQ turned on? Go to settings and turn off non-linear level matching. See if that fixes it. Also check that Dither to original bit size option is turned off, although that should give a number closer to a 50% match.
Hi,

Right :

i've just unchecked this, and it works again, with 2 same files :

Capture d’écran 2019-03-14 à 22.19.25.png
 

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
I'm getting close to completing all the planned features for v1 of DeltaWave.... but not yet :)

Version 1.0.18 is now available, and has the following changes/features:

Two new blind/sighted tests added, in addition to the ABX test that was already available:
  • Added Stereo XY difference test to the Comparator. This is a pair-wise discrimination test that lets you use stereo perception to detect differences between two similar tracks
1552873960715.png

  • Added Preference XY difference test to the Comparator. This test lets you determine if you really like the sound of one track over another. As such, this is a subjective blind preference test

    1552873975105.png
  • Added file and settings information to the test result window for validation, along with signature and file MD5 hashes
Other changes:
  • Changed the behavior of play buttons and menu items, including the comparator to not require a Show or Match button press
  • Extended default frequency scale on plots to Nyquist frequency
The two new tests are experimental. I welcome all input as to whether they work, make sense, or maybe are completely misguided ;)
 
Last edited:

Pluto

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
139
Likes
221
Location
Harrow, UK
The ABX module has great potential. I have two fundamental points that you may or may not agree with.

1. Your test paradigm is, currently, that switching between A, B or X plays the section defined by the red/blue sliders from the blue point. I believe a second mode is needed to continue playing from the current position as opposed to restarting from the blue point. When A and B are highly similar, the flick back to the blue point might be a distraction.

2. I think you need to implement stereo playback for this ABX test to be viable. So often, it's a slight change in the stereo image that is the giveaway in an otherwise audibly perfect match.

Could you please explain the methodology of your stereo XY difference test in more detail.

I suggest you take a look at the Foobar ABX add-on if you are not already aware of it – a great implementation in my view although you are clearly thinking further outside the box. I love the simple idea that you avoid the need for a potentially noisy mouse click :D
 

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
1. Your test paradigm is, currently, that switching between A, B or X plays the section defined by the red/blue sliders from the blue point. I believe a second mode is needed to continue playing from the current position as opposed to restarting from the blue point. When A and B are highly similar, the flick back to the blue point might be a distraction.
Of course you can always set the start/end points to beginning and end of the track, so it doesn't distract. The reason for the repeat feature of a short selection is the contention that echoic memory is only 10 seconds or less. Plus, the automatic repeat of the selection allows for a more effortless switching between X and A, or X and B, or between A and B. All you need to do is move the mouse, and you can probably do this with eyes closed which was one of my goals.

2. I think you need to implement stereo playback for this ABX test to be viable. So often, it's a slight change in the stereo image that is the giveaway in an otherwise audibly perfect match.
That is something that I've thought about. You're right, this is very important for any real comparison. This is a more complex change to DW as it currently doesn't process stereo files. I'll have to think about how to do this without major surgery to the software, but definitely a must-do.

Could you please explain the methodology of your stereo XY difference test in more detail.
Stereo XY test is simply playing both tracks (reference and comparison) over left and right channels. The contention is that stereo imaging produced by such a combination will be different if the two tracks are dissimilar than when they are the same. The XY difference test plays either the same track over left and right channels, or different tracks, selected at random. If you can detect the difference in a blind test, then the difference must be audible.

There's documentation available for all three test formats: https://deltaw.org/comparator.html

suggest you take a look at the Foobar ABX add-on if you are not already aware of it – a great implementation in my view
I have to admit, I've never used Foobar :) What in particular do you like about the ABX implementation there?
 

PierreV

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
215
Likes
426
As far as comparisons are concerned, I'd love to have something like a blink comparator of the two spectrograms. I think it shouldn't be too hard in terms of implementations when the two spectrograms have been computed (I may be wrong if the data displayed is internal to the graphing lib though). I find the spectrogram delta very hard to interpret as such, probably because the color mapping is relative and not absolute.

If I look side by side at the big difference between bright/dark amplifier I posted in another thread vs two almost identical solid state amplifiers vs two DACs, etc... the delta spectrograms are visually similar in terms of punch. It is a bit as if in one case the color mapping was 0-10 and in the other case 0-1 with the same color mapping for min and max.

No idea if I express myself clearly - let me know if you need an example.
 

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
As far as comparisons are concerned, I'd love to have something like a blink comparator of the two spectrograms. I think it shouldn't be too hard in terms of implementations when the two spectrograms have been computed (I may be wrong if the data displayed is internal to the graphing lib though). I find the spectrogram delta very hard to interpret as such, probably because the color mapping is relative and not absolute.

If I look side by side at the big difference between bright/dark amplifier I posted in another thread vs two almost identical solid state amplifiers vs two DACs, etc... the delta spectrograms are visually similar in terms of punch. It is a bit as if in one case the color mapping was 0-10 and in the other case 0-1 with the same color mapping for min and max.

No idea if I express myself clearly - let me know if you need an example.
I understand, Pierre, and agree. Let me see what I can do to improve the spectrogram comparison process.
 

Pluto

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
139
Likes
221
Location
Harrow, UK
I have to admit, I've never used Foobar :) What in particular do you like about the ABX implementation there?
It's stereo ;) and... it has a tick box option, "keep playback position when changing track" which still respects the start and end points but switches seamlessly between the sources under test when the current playback position is between the start and end points. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't see how...
you can always set the start/end points to beginning and end of the track
...helps in this respect. I have been involved in several ABX-style tests professionally and the standard paradigm is that you switch the variables under test in real time, rather than playing the same section over and over. You have the option of re-running the material if you wish but switching between A, B or X does not usually return to the start (i.e. blue) point.

I would argue that the echoic memory is considerably less than 10s on a difficult ABX1, (I would guess at <3s) and, therefore, switching the sources under test in real time is usually the better approach.

I suggest you study the Foobar ABX module and consider it as a model for your implementation – it is seriously well thought of.

1 In any case, I have my doubts about some of the attributes of echoic memory as interpreted by audiophiles. Does such memory encompass the sound itself or the information conveyed by that sound? On an evolutionary basis there is, arguably, little need for the former but a lot for the latter.
 
Last edited:

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
It's stereo ;) and... it has a tick box option, "keep playback position when changing track" which still respects the start and end points but switches seamlessly between the sources under test when the current playback position is between the start and end points. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't see how...

helps in this respect. I have been involved in several ABX-style tests professionally and the standard paradigm is that you switch the variables under test in real time, rather than playing the same section over and over. You have the option of re-running the material if you wish but switching between A, B or X does not usually return to the start (i.e. blue) point.

I would argue that the echoic memory is considerably less than 10s on a difficult ABX1, (I would guess at <3s) and, therefore, switching the sources under test in real time is usually the better approach.

I suggest you study the Foobar ABX module and consider it as a model for your implementation – it is seriously well thought of.

1 In any case, I have my doubts about some of the attributes of echoic memory as interpreted by audiophiles. Does such memory encompass the sound itself or the information conveyed by that sound? On an evolutionary basis there is, arguably, little need for the former but a lot for the latter.
I'll take a look at Foobar ABX.

The primary reason for implementing the comparator in the first place, was that I found it hard to zero in on differences between two similar tracks, even in a sighted test. What I've done so far is a lot less about the proof of audibility and more about the difference detection. The blind testing part is just a validation mechanism to use once I can find that I can detect the differences in a sighted test. I'd certainly like to see if there are better ways to enhance the detection part of the process.

One feature that's been suggested is to allow adding of the delta back into the reference waveform for playback with a variable level control. This would allow the differences to be amplified to a point where they become obvious, and to then back off from there to determine at what level the differences disappear. I'd be interested in any other suggestions that can aid in detection, especially if you have some professional experience in this space.
 
Last edited:

la2ygoo

Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
55
Likes
33
When the gray is longer than the blue, can the longer part be changed to another color?Or can the gray choose transparency and color?or choose which color be front.

QQ截图20190320213242.png
 
Last edited:

Pluto

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
139
Likes
221
Location
Harrow, UK
Units

What units are used on the y axes of the waveform plots? The axis goes from -1 to +1 so I guess that 1 corresponds to 100% modulation i.e. 0dB. Would it not be better to calibrate the Y axis of the waveform plots in dB? My thinking is that when you look at the Δ waveform plot, a Y axis of 0.0003 means little whereas -60dB is abundantly clear.
 

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
When the gray is longer than the blue, can the longer part be changed to another color?Or can the gray choose transparency and color?or choose which color be front.

View attachment 23889
To get one or the other waveform in the front, just uncheck and then check the checkbox next to that waveform. It'll show up on top of the other one. Sorry it's not very obvious :)

1553170761272.png
 
Last edited:

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
Units

What units are used on the y axes of the waveform plots? The axis goes from -1 to +1 so I guess that 1 corresponds to 100% modulation i.e. 0dB. Would it not be better to calibrate the Y axis of the waveform plots in dB? My thinking is that when you look at the Δ waveform plot, a Y axis of 0.0003 means little whereas -60dB is abundantly clear.
The Y axis is in units -1 to 1, as that's the internal floating point format representation of samples. dB scale would certainly make more sense :)
 

pkane

Senior Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
473
Likes
379
Units

What units are used on the y axes of the waveform plots? The axis goes from -1 to +1 so I guess that 1 corresponds to 100% modulation i.e. 0dB. Would it not be better to calibrate the Y axis of the waveform plots in dB? My thinking is that when you look at the Δ waveform plot, a Y axis of 0.0003 means little whereas -60dB is abundantly clear.
Something like this?
1553173363478.png
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom