The "sound" of the difference file above is "white noise" or close to it.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Sonore MicroRendu Hardware Teardown and Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
manisandher
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Do you think this 'white noise' could have had an audible affect on the original 'digital' files, #2 and #3 (recall my descriptions of the differences I thought I heard)?
Mani.
Mani.
It would seem to be in both files, and not represent a "difference".
Assuming it could be heard at all.
manisandher
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,754
- Likes
- 37,597
Trival, but transport B is clocked about 27 ppm faster than perfect speed, and transport A is about 8 ppm faster clocked than B. Not that those will create anything you could hear.
Analog:
There's a slight level difference between 8 and 9 - about 0.062dB - maybe.
The difference file (after amplification) sounds like the source music.
Adjusting the level doesn't eliminate difference.
Beyond that, inconclusive.
When comparing analog you have to expect to see some differences when looking closely. Values of analog components cannot match perfectly. Look at two of anything with a microscope and they won't be "the same".
A 90dB microscope would have about 31,622 power magnification, in terms of energy, 90dB is 1,000,000,000 times magnification.
Unexpected:
The channels are reversed in 8/9 compared to original, files 2 and 3 are not reversed. Maybe you swapped cables around and missed.
Glitch in both 8 and 9 at 0.045 seconds from the beginning of the data, not in 2 and 3.
There's a slight level difference between 8 and 9 - about 0.062dB - maybe.
The difference file (after amplification) sounds like the source music.
Adjusting the level doesn't eliminate difference.
Beyond that, inconclusive.
When comparing analog you have to expect to see some differences when looking closely. Values of analog components cannot match perfectly. Look at two of anything with a microscope and they won't be "the same".
A 90dB microscope would have about 31,622 power magnification, in terms of energy, 90dB is 1,000,000,000 times magnification.
Unexpected:
The channels are reversed in 8/9 compared to original, files 2 and 3 are not reversed. Maybe you swapped cables around and missed.
Glitch in both 8 and 9 at 0.045 seconds from the beginning of the data, not in 2 and 3.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,754
- Likes
- 37,597
Just listening to amplified difference of 8 and 9 there is a shift to a brighter sound. Usually the result of timing shifts from the clocks not quite being the same speed. You get an upward 6 db tilt per octave in the residual. Otherwise seems no reason they would sound different.
A segment of 8 and 9 and the difference file.
The difference is amplified by 22dB (about 12x visually)
Original, and 8 and 9 and difference (unamplified), shows channel reversal and glitch at 1.045
I'm done.
I suggest you load your files into an ABX tool and see if you really can identify an audible difference.
A user here contributed one:
http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...nt-abx-tool-for-windows.660/page-2#post-25716
The difference is amplified by 22dB (about 12x visually)
Original, and 8 and 9 and difference (unamplified), shows channel reversal and glitch at 1.045
I'm done.
I suggest you load your files into an ABX tool and see if you really can identify an audible difference.
A user here contributed one:
http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...nt-abx-tool-for-windows.660/page-2#post-25716
OP
- Thread Starter
- #49
For analog captures we need a control so that we can understand the chain/pipeline better. A simple one may be capturing the same data twice. We can then look at the differences that may be due to drift, temperature, etc.
For me, now that I have begun using DSP to correct aberrations caused by the speakers and the room, I' may have made some adjustments to things I consider "material" to accurate playback. Maybe I'm no longer too worried about minute differences since I impose gross differences before I listen.
Output of a sweep tone (frequency response) from the preamp's right channel, before (green), and after (red) DSP (room correction).
Phase:
Output of a sweep tone (frequency response) from the preamp's right channel, before (green), and after (red) DSP (room correction).
Phase:
Only just tuned into this thread addition, but thanks for putting it up, Mani. Agree, one version is quite superior as a closer match to the original - quite a bit of life and sparkle has been lost in the poorer version.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,754
- Likes
- 37,597
Well diffmaker when it works is good. On the track 8 vs track 9 it shows null depth 93 db left/97 db right. That is essentially going to be the system noise floor.
Amir is right about a control. When I do such things I usually run the same gear twice. Compare something to itself a few minutes later. Chances are transport A differs from transport B by no more than transport A will differ from transport A 5 minutes later.
Amir is right about a control. When I do such things I usually run the same gear twice. Compare something to itself a few minutes later. Chances are transport A differs from transport B by no more than transport A will differ from transport A 5 minutes later.
And have just read though to your subjective evaluation, Mani - and agree! This is just via laptop in-built speakers, with almost no optimising of the playback that I sometimes do.
I note some members are hard at work getting a handle on it - good to see!
For those who are not picking it, when listening - with the inferior version, your brain is working harder to reconcile the copy with the original; if you pay attention to the level of "stress" in your head you can feel the analytic side of your mind "working" to make the copy match. With the original, one can completely relax, and the sound just flows ...
I note some members are hard at work getting a handle on it - good to see!
For those who are not picking it, when listening - with the inferior version, your brain is working harder to reconcile the copy with the original; if you pay attention to the level of "stress" in your head you can feel the analytic side of your mind "working" to make the copy match. With the original, one can completely relax, and the sound just flows ...
90dB relative...
That would be like hearing a penny drop onto the pavement from a one -inch height while standing next to your running lawnmower.
Even that might not be a full 90dB difference.
---
I have 4 standard staples still stuck together but broken off the strip.
Here is what the microphone picks up, from 5 feet (measured) away, and off axis, when I drop them from 1/2 inch onto my desk:
My normal loud music listening would register 80-85 dB across that chart, and I don't think I'd hear the staples hit the desk sitting over by the mic (at the listening position), and that would be only a 5odB relative difference.
Of course, I won't win any Golden Ear awards.
That would be like hearing a penny drop onto the pavement from a one -inch height while standing next to your running lawnmower.
Even that might not be a full 90dB difference.
---
I have 4 standard staples still stuck together but broken off the strip.
Here is what the microphone picks up, from 5 feet (measured) away, and off axis, when I drop them from 1/2 inch onto my desk:
My normal loud music listening would register 80-85 dB across that chart, and I don't think I'd hear the staples hit the desk sitting over by the mic (at the listening position), and that would be only a 5odB relative difference.
Of course, I won't win any Golden Ear awards.
Last edited:
OK, listened to versions 8 and 9. Again, no contest - 8 has a piece of cloth draped over the mic, that's the subjective impression. All the attack elements in the sound have been dulled, it's boring to listen to.
I hear no difference 8/9.
Time for fas42 to try an ABX, I think.
Time for fas42 to try an ABX, I think.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #58
You can say that again...
Well, it would probably fall upon even deafer ears than mine...
Thanks for the huge effort you put into this Ray. From aggressive measurements like this we continuously learn about how sighted listening bias creeps in to cloud our impressions.
Great job!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
