Is a modified Offset audible in a .wav track?

[SIY]

Comparing the files yields nothing (by definition), we must look at the difference in the recorded analog output.

Given the source of this claim (who also claims to hear differences between WAV and FLAC files and between identically-measuring DACs), I would say that WE must do nothing. The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of providing evidence, otherwise we waste a lot of time chasing down fairies at the foot of the garden.

 

[solderdude]

That may well be true but only Amir will be able to test the claims of the person in question (there are probably a few more out there as well).
When 'we' show that the actual output of a DAC indeed did not change at all then 'we' know its all placebo with a reasonable margin of safety.

Of course, some people will still claim: Not in the 1% of top equipment, hearing and measuring don't correlate, that individuals ears are superior, jitter levels are too high in the 'tested' equipment, we did not bother to actualy listen as it is evident in that case, the ADC used is not revealing enough, jitter... did I mention jitter already .. in the few ps range.
I could probably go on making up excuses but 'we' would know it's not the DAC used in the test that get's fooled by the offset and produces a different analog signal (and space around instruments) .

measuring the correct way is knowing. It keeps the fairies away.

 

[SIY]

Not if the fairies keep stamping their feet and insisting that measurements don't encompass what they hear (and of course, the fairies' paychecks depend on that belief).

The claimant can either demonstrate that he's not bullshitting by running a controlled DBT or he should be called on the bullshit. His claims should not cause anyone else to waste time in doing anything serious which will be handwaved away in the interest of continuing huckstering.

 

[solderdude]

Fairies do have a tendency to become more vocal on this forum lately...
Is there a law against shooting the pesky/noisy ones ?

KSTR seems to enjoy the experimentations and found some things he would like explained as well, no harm done.
Do fairies sound like birdies ?

Edit: I do believe Steve is not trolling but genuily believe what he hears is there and given the amount of words used by him is actually trying to educate 'us' or enlighten 'us' or trying to get 'us' to verify (not debunk) his 'findings'.

 

[SIY]

I do believe Steve is not trolling but genuily believe what he hears is there and given the amount of words used by him is actually trying to educate 'us' or enlighten 'us' or trying to get 'us' to verify (not debunk) his 'findings'.

I wouldn't say "trolling," but it does come across as very deliberate huckstering. Especially when basic questions are being brushed aside or flat out ignored.

 

[KSTR]

Personally, I gave up a long time ago to ask for "scienific evidence" from those who claim the extraordinary. Still, if a topic is of interest for me, I do my own investigations, some more on a scientific level with blind testing an all, others less so. There is always something to learn even if the outcome is nil.

Of course there is a line I will not cross as well, and that line is claimed effects from metaphysical phenomena. An example for this is the claim that the same bit-identical CD rip (truly identical files as per "fc /b" Windows cmd), made with a different software or under different circumstances (laptop doing the rip mains-powered vs. battery-powered), do sound different and -- the important claim here -- keep their specific sound signature even when copied/moved around across media (including cloud storage). We all know that there cannot be any other information associated with a file beyond the bits in the file itself, this is a logical/philosophical impossibility and I divide people in two groups, those who understand this and those who don't.

 

[solderdude]

I wouldn't say "trolling," but it does come across as very deliberate huckstering. Especially when basic questions are being brushed aside or flat out ignored.

had to google 'huckstering' ... agreed.. smells like huckstering a bit as well.

KSTR ... I have wasted too many keystrokes on Alex(Sandy) K. in the past as well.. in another forum not where he dwells now.
Nice guy ... weird theories.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Offset is the leading and trailing nulls in the .wav format before and after the music data. It is not part of the music and it does not create any "dead" time in the music track. It is simply part of the format. Given this, it would follow that this should not impact sound quality in any way, unless there is something at work here we don't yet fully understand.

The following track downloads contain 4 tracks of piano, 2 being 16/44.1 and two being 24/96. Each of the pairs contains one unaltered track and one track with 200 nulls added to the offset.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g9jz9lwgvozepic/AADx1d8YLCr5YCPQl23fUkFDa?dl=0

Since this is not an A/B/X test, one can only rate each of the tracks for things like dryness, ringyness, attack, decay, warmth, depth or shallowness of soundstage, clarity, wooliness etc. If you listen to these tracks, please rate them 1-4 with 1 being the most live sounding and 4 the least. Each track should have a unique number assigned, for example:

1) track 2a
2) track 1
3) track 2
4) track 1a

Also, please list your playback software, DAC and any re-clocking/resampling that occurs in your system. This will help answer the question of whether this is a hardware or software anomaly. Whether you use S/PDIF, network or USB to connect to the DAC.

Everyone does not have to get the same result to make this a valuable exercise. Even if they don't, if there is a definite trend that demonstrates that the tracks sound different, this is useful too.

After about 2 weeks, I will post all of the results. We will see if there is any smoking gun here. This test is already ongoing on several other forums, so I will combine all of those results as well.

Thanks,
Steve N.

Frankly I don't know how this has a place on this forum. We are being asked to just listen and describe what is heard like every other subjective snipe hunt.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Can someone playback the file and record the audio output (high sample rate) and use Paul's software to compare the results.

I think it has been established the files are the same and should sound the same.
If there are any audible differences (which I have a hard time believing) it should be measured at the analog output of a DAC not in the file itself.

The same can be done to put the USB/SPDIF cable sounds different and has less bass or treble nonsense which by definition isn't possible.

Don't have time today. But I've recorded such offsets and Paul's software shows nulls around -100 db. Basically noise.

 

[Empirical Audio]

I fail to see why the two file-pairs are at different sample and bit rates. If you wanted to determine if offset alone can make a difference, why not add padding to the original but otherwise retain the same data?

These were files created by someone else many years ago, so this is all I have to work with. If someone wants to create some new files for me, I'll be happy to use these as well. I think I will create A/B/X set of these and make these available to those that want to do the "sounds the same" test.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Worst case, what might this demonstrate?

That USB or some types of DACs or some other thing is somehow distorting the sound when the offset is changed from the original recording. This may be an explanation as to why some rippers don't do a good job or why some CODECs are better than others etc..

 

[FrantzM]

slippery slopes here at ASR ....I don't like where this is heading ...

Caveat emptor ...

 

[Pluto]

This may be an explanation as to why some rippers don't do a good job

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that two rippers which produce identical audio data sound, somehow, different.

 

[Pluto]

why some CODECs are better than others

The implementation of the encode segment of a codec is far from simple and much of the psychoacoustic research that underpins the performance is jealously guarded and highly proprietary.

Or have I missed your point?

 

[Empirical Audio]

I seriously hope you are not suggesting that two rippers which produce identical audio data sound, somehow, different.

Prove to me that all rippers result in the same offset. Why does a rip from XLD or dbpoweramp sound better than a rip from WMP?

 

[SIY]

Why does a rip from XLD or dbpoweramp sound better than a rip from WMP?

Cite or evidence needed for that assertion.

 

[Empirical Audio]

For those that have not already peeked, analyzed or have bias, here are the ABX tracks. Compare all the A files and all the B files to see what matches the respective references:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bi3zgsyucci2jbc/AABpEF52_62e37AHQMdJ2fL2a?dl=0

 

[SIY]

For those that have not already peeked, analyzed or have bias, here are the ABX tracks. Compare all the A files and all the B files to see what matches the respective references:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bi3zgsyucci2jbc/AABpEF52_62e37AHQMdJ2fL2a?dl=0

So since you have claimed to hear a difference with the offset, where's your validated ABX results? Or your wife's?

 

[Pluto]

Prove to me that all rippers result in the same offset

I wouldn't care to, because they don't. But, at this point, neither do I think that some offset at the beginning of a file makes one jot of audible difference beyond the consequent delay. Should you come up with convincing evidence I will cheerfully concede this point.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

On the other hand, can you be absolutely certain that rippers such as WMP that do not support the AccurateRip CRC thing really are delivering identical data compared to rippers such as dBPoweramp or EAC that can be shown to be numerically accurate?

 

[PierreV]

Prove to me that all rippers result in the same offset. Why does a rip from XLD or dbpoweramp sound better than a rip from WMP?

No one can prove that all rippers will rip correctly on all CD readers and will be played properly on all devices/software. That is a patently absurd challenge.

The files may look very different because the RIFF format is very flexible (and not so strictly defined) and you can embed a ton of things in them, but what matter is the audio data stream.

I picked up one old CD and did a comparative rip with EAC and WMP. Here is the result.

That, in itself, does not prove EAC will not be better in some case. But generally speaking, it the "IT" part of your chain is working fine, there is no need to chase the ghosts of the past.