Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

[Bugal1998]

People always make excuses for their gear. I don't think I've ever heard someone make choices on my posted file listening tests with:

I'm confident of my choices as I used my Wilson Grand Slam speakers driven by Mark Levinson 523 amps and my dcs stack as my MSB stack is back getting an upgrade.

Late to the party, but didn't read ahead in the thread. I couldn't hear any differences after trying all tracks. While lacking the pedigree you referenced, I'm confident in my choices and lay all blame on my ears (and my ears work just fine).

Equipment used:

PC USB>Focusrite Clarett 4pre USB>MiniDSP (PEQ)>Monoprice THX887>Sennheiser HD800S
PC USB>Focusrite Clarett 4pre USB>MiniDSP (DIRAC)>JBL 305p mkii w/single subwoofer (near field in small acoustically treated room)
USB Drive>NAD T777v3 (DIRAC)> JBL 708p w/dual subwoofers (far field in medium sized asymmetrical and highly reflective untreated room)
USB Drive>NAD C658 (DIRAC)>Crown 8/300N>JBL M2 (far field in very large treated room)

 

[Blumlein 88]

Late to the party, but didn't read ahead in the thread. I couldn't hear any differences after trying all tracks. While lacking the pedigree you referenced, I'm confident in my choices and lay all blame on my ears (and my ears work just fine).

Equipment used:

PC USB>Focusrite Clarett 4pre USB>MiniDSP (PEQ)>Monoprice THX887>Sennheiser HD800S
PC USB>Focusrite Clarett 4pre USB>MiniDSP (DIRAC)>JBL 305p mkii w/single subwoofer (near field in small acoustically treated room)
USB Drive>NAD T777v3 (DIRAC)> JBL 708p w/dual subwoofers (far field in medium sized asymmetrical and highly reflective untreated room)
USB Drive>NAD C658 (DIRAC)>Crown 8/300N>JBL M2 (far field in very large treated room)

Here is one comparing three pro ADC units over on Gearslutz. One of them is the Pacific Microsonics HDCD 2 converter.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/hig...pi-vs-pacific-microsonics-hdcd-model-2-a.html

 

[killdozzer]

I couldn't find even the slightest difference. I tested via headphones.

 

[escksu]

I just saw this. I didn't to click on the spoiler to check.

Just downloaded Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt.

Listen to it once and one more time to confirm. A is very different from B and I feel B is clearly superior to A. Its the plugging of the strings, its very distinct. The subtle details are gone in A. Reference is sounds the same as B.

This is the equipment I am using

PC (source)
Shanling DAC-50 (connect via USB)
Krell KAV-300IL
Dynaudio Emit-20
Definitive Prosub 80.

 

[escksu]

I couldn't find even the slightest difference. I tested via headphones.

Are you sure? I just listened to Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt. The difference is very obvious.

 

[killdozzer]

Are you sure? I just listened to Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt. The difference is very obvious.

There's also one other thing that's very obvious.

 

[escksu]

OK, I just listen to Phil Woods, its harder to tell compared to the earlier one. But the cymbals in A are definitely better than B. In the beginning (around first 5sec), the bass is stronger in A compared to B.

But I feel the reference is better than both. May be placebo but I listen for around 5 times, I still feel the cymbals sounds better.

Maybe its just me but I don't find this very well recorded, esp. the Saxophone. It sounded flat.


Just listened to Jennifer Warnes.

I hardly listen to songs so Jennifer Warnes is a tough one. I listen to it around 8 times. I think A is alot closer to reference than B. The main thing I could capture is the first 4 sec when she sings. A has longer decay (not sure if correct term), B sounded like there was some sort of filter over the voice.

Just listen to Cowboy Junkies...

haha, its interesting. Again, the cymbals is B is clearly better. In the beginning, the guitar, B is clearly better as well. Is that saxophone?

Lastly, Bob Marley.

The drum in the beginning is slightly better on B but its not that obvious. But the ticking sound (no idea what instrument is that), B is clearly better. The closely I can describe is like the triangle instrument. When its struck, you can hear the "ting" and then decay. The ticking in A is not good. Decay is very short and that "ting" is not obvious, its as if there is something wrapped over the mic when they recorded it.

There are other subtle sounds around but I didnt focus on them.

I yet to check the answers but rather not. This is solely my personal subjective experience. Its not about whether I got them right or wrong.

 

[escksu]

There's also one other thing that's very obvious.

OK, I did not try to tell whats other differences.

 

[LTig]

OK, I did not try to tell whats other differences.

No, you did the test sighted.

 

[Blumlein 88]

OK, I just listen to Phil Woods, its harder to tell compared to the earlier one. But the cymbals in A are definitely better than B. In the beginning (around first 5sec), the bass is stronger in A compared to B.

But I feel the reference is better than both. May be placebo but I listen for around 5 times, I still feel the cymbals sounds better.

Maybe its just me but I don't find this very well recorded, esp. the Saxophone. It sounded flat.


Just listened to Jennifer Warnes.

I hardly listen to songs so Jennifer Warnes is a tough one. I listen to it around 8 times. I think A is alot closer to reference than B. The main thing I could capture is the first 4 sec when she sings. A has longer decay (not sure if correct term), B sounded like there was some sort of filter over the voice.

Just listen to Cowboy Junkies...

haha, its interesting. Again, the cymbals is B is clearly better. In the beginning, the guitar, B is clearly better as well. Is that saxophone?

Lastly, Bob Marley.

The drum in the beginning is slightly better on B but its not that obvious. But the ticking sound (no idea what instrument is that), B is clearly better. The closely I can describe is like the triangle instrument. When its struck, you can hear the "ting" and then decay. The ticking in A is not good. Decay is very short and that "ting" is not obvious, its as if there is something wrapped over the mic when they recorded it.

There are other subtle sounds around but I didnt focus on them.

I yet to check the answers but rather not. This is solely my personal subjective experience. Its not about whether I got them right or wrong.

Looks like you were correct on two of them and missed on three of them. Interesting no?

 

[escksu]

No, you did the test sighted.

lol...ok....yes, I was looking at the PC screen to see which file I click to play.

 

[escksu]

Looks like you were correct on two of them and missed on three of them. Interesting no?

No, it just means that subjective testing is just that, subjective. Its known to be rather inaccurate and subjected to preferences of the listener. I would say its also affected by genre.

If I look at the spoiler before atempting, then its going to skew the test and become pointless.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No, it just means that subjective testing is just that, subjective. Its known to be rather inaccurate and subjected to preferences of the listener. I would say its also affected by genre.

If I look at the spoiler before atempting, then its going to skew the test and become pointless.

I don't agree with you in a case like this. You might prefer the 8th generation copy in every instance or just in some. The question is can you hear it as different vs the reference. You can listen to A or B, pick the one you prefer, and if it is the 8th gen copy say it sounds different than the reference. The fact you are listing your preference doesn't indicate anything unless you can hear copies as differing from references. Your posts referred to one or the other versions sounding different vs the reference. Your results are such it isn't clear you really heard a genuine difference reliably.

 

[escksu]

I don't agree with you in a case like this. You might prefer the 8th generation copy in every instance or just in some. The question is can you hear it as different vs the reference. You can listen to A or B, pick the one you prefer, and if it is the 8th gen copy say it sounds different than the reference. The fact you are listing your preference doesn't indicate anything unless you can hear copies as differing from references. Your posts referred to one or the other versions sounding different vs the reference. Your results are such it isn't clear you really heard a genuine difference reliably.

OK, but isnt that an issue with subjective test all along? Thats why I said its not accurate and thats also why this forum focus on measurements instead.

 

[Blumlein 88]

OK, but isnt that an issue with subjective test all along? Thats why I said its not accurate and thats also why this forum focus on measurements instead.

Purely subjective assessments without a reference are of usually no value. That is indeed why when pertinent measurements are possible they are much preferred.

 

[Robbo99999]

I thought I'd test myself on this, this was very hard, I don't know the answers yet, I'll click on the spoiler when I'm done typing. But I got the following as the 8x converted sample:
VM Bhatt A
Phil Woods B
Jennifer Warnes B
Cowboy Junkies A
Bob Marley A

I thought I felt the converted files were a bit more crispy in the highs, I don't know enough about DA/AD/DA etc conversion to know how it might theoretically affect music samples though. Ok lets see if I got the answers right.....

EDIT: I only got two of them right! Oh dear, lol! It was Jennifer Warnes & Bob Marley being the two I got right.

EDIT#2: I did the test using HD560s without EQ and at my normal listening levels (not loud), G6 DAC and Atom Amp Headphone amp.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I thought I'd test myself on this, this was very hard, I don't know the answers yet, I'll click on the spoiler when I'm done typing. But I got the following as the 8x converted sample:
VM Bhatt A
Phil Woods B
Jennifer Warnes B
Cowboy Junkies A
Bob Marley A

I thought I felt the converted files were a bit more crispy in the highs, I don't know enough about DA/AD/DA etc conversion to know how it might theoretically affect music samples though. Ok lets see if I got the answers right.....

EDIT: I only got two of them right! Oh dear, lol! It was Jennifer Warnes & Bob Marley being the two I got right.

EDIT#2: I did the test using HD560s without EQ and at my normal listening levels (not loud), G6 DAC and Atom Amp Headphone amp.

Kudos for giving it a listen and posting your results. Your gear should be quite revealing.

Each trip thru the generations adds noise, distortion, jitter and increases frequency response errors. Yet the result isn't so bad. Makes just one trip thru a good DAC for music listening an audibly transparent result I think.

 

[Robbo99999]

Kudos for giving it a listen and posting your results. Your gear should be quite revealing.

Each trip thru the generations adds noise, distortion, jitter and increases frequency response errors. Yet the result isn't so bad. Makes just one trip thru a good DAC for music listening an audibly transparent result I think.

Yes, it does highlight the limits of our (my) hearing!

 

[Cbdb2]

I hope people are downloading and listening in larger numbers. At least they'll hear it for themselves. I didn't have the downloads tracked so I don't know. I've done similar in the past when about a dozen people responded, and had it set up to know the number of dowloads. It was just short of a thousand.

I think many here think of themselves as golden eared and have trouble admitting they cant hear a difference, or they imagine they do. All that time and money spent when a cheap dac is all you need is a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Robbo99999]

I thought I'd test myself on this, this was very hard, I don't know the answers yet, I'll click on the spoiler when I'm done typing. But I got the following as the 8x converted sample:
VM Bhatt A
Phil Woods B
Jennifer Warnes B
Cowboy Junkies A
Bob Marley A

I thought I felt the converted files were a bit more crispy in the highs, I don't know enough about DA/AD/DA etc conversion to know how it might theoretically affect music samples though. Ok lets see if I got the answers right.....

EDIT: I only got two of them right! Oh dear, lol! It was Jennifer Warnes & Bob Marley being the two I got right.

EDIT#2: I did the test using HD560s without EQ and at my normal listening levels (not loud), G6 DAC and Atom Amp Headphone amp.

Replying to my own post here, as I have an update, I decided to ABX them using Foobar - so selecting the copy and the original to ABX. Following are the reports copy & pasted, it seems that it's 50:50 for all of them apart from Bob Marley where I got 6 out of 8 right. In terms of statistics or probabilities I don't know whether I can say or not that I was able to detect a difference in the Bob Marley track, but I certainly couldn't for the others. However, I got the first 3 tries in each of them correct though (apart from for one of the tracks), so maybe I was getting frustrated or fatigued with listening to the same portion of the track over & over and grew impatient, or maybe that was just coincidence.
EDIT: some thoughts about the probability of guessing the first 3 tries correctly in 3 of the tracks is as follows. Probability for guessing first 3 tries correctly = 0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.125 or 12.5%. Probability for guessing first 3 tries correctly in 3 different tracks = 0.125x0.125x0.125 = 0.002 or 0.2% probability. Hmm, in that case maybe there is something in that. (That's me discounting the Jennifer Warnes tracks where I didn't get the first 3 tries correct, which is only valid to do if it would be assumed that it wasn't a good track to recognise such differences).

Bob Marley:
foo_abx 2.1 report
foobar2000 v1.6.13
2022-11-18 19:18:44

File A: Bob Marley A.wav
SHA1: d3768ea41258201067946670f840a45f5f1e3a54
File B: Bob Marley Reference.wav
SHA1: 6dce64b387b81639b9644d8be79dd5eae90fcf17

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

19:18:44 : Test started.
19:23:33 : 01/01
19:26:01 : 02/02
19:26:52 : 03/03
19:27:27 : 03/04
19:27:47 : 03/05
19:28:09 : 04/06
19:28:39 : 05/07
19:29:37 : 06/08
19:29:37 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 6/8
p-value: 0.1445 (14.45%)

-- signature --
d5e13bbb73d8009ca685c8ff4c533ce41eaaecc5

Cowboy Junkies:
foo_abx 2.1 report
foobar2000 v1.6.13
2022-11-18 19:42:26

File A: Cowboy Junkies B.wav
SHA1: 10cf5046197d55e47908412ef7bf02779b37b258
File B: Cowboy Junkies Refernece.wav
SHA1: 57088217313acff74dc657e55249b87f43eb68ca

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

19:42:26 : Test started.
19:44:51 : 01/01
19:45:48 : 02/02
19:46:43 : 03/03
19:47:51 : 03/04
19:49:24 : 04/05
19:50:51 : 04/06
19:51:57 : 04/07
19:53:27 : 04/08
19:53:27 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 4/8
p-value: 0.6367 (63.67%)

-- signature --
200815cc66df313ae2c2879cf32dc179f7e53f62

Ry Cooder:
foo_abx 2.1 report
foobar2000 v1.6.13
2022-11-18 20:03:06

File A: Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt B.wav
SHA1: 1833211cbc558646d94a7e40ccfbc938e42dcafd
File B: Ry Cooder and VM Bhatt Reference.wav
SHA1: 6327e3b1331ad43f0d51b11719c98a0916b37e17

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

20:03:06 : Test started.
20:04:53 : 01/01
20:05:49 : 02/02
20:06:47 : 03/03
20:07:47 : 03/04
20:09:17 : 03/05
20:10:03 : 03/06
20:11:12 : 04/07
20:12:12 : 04/08
20:12:12 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 4/8
p-value: 0.6367 (63.67%)

-- signature --
408b325a81b4d969f2bb954b6a143d41f7eeacb4

Jennifer Warnes:
foo_abx 2.1 report
foobar2000 v1.6.13
2022-11-18 19:32:46

File A: Jennifer Warnes B.wav
SHA1: b2267d2dfca51d73226afb57ddb9667adbc342f5
File B: Jennifer Warnes Reference.wav
SHA1: 76a305264e0f50d60762ebeebecda594373425d8

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

19:32:46 : Test started.
19:35:33 : 00/01
19:36:43 : 01/02
19:37:44 : 02/03
19:38:18 : 02/04
19:38:59 : 03/05
19:39:35 : 03/06
19:39:59 : 03/07
19:40:36 : 03/08
19:40:36 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 3/8
p-value: 0.8555 (85.55%)

-- signature --
0fb84b6ca4bb670a65cd80067927af8aed8a990c