This is perfect, Karl!
But, please, in this case I am very curios which of the sound files you have preferred by listening and why. You will see why I ask after I show the measurements. Thanks.
I felt kiwi had a smoother edge to it in the section I differentiated them on but they are both very close.
There is a lot of sibilance on both, and I thought that would be an area where differences would show but for me they don't. For example 1'45" to 1'55". I also picked up the hiss of the master tape ? which I don't actually object too in many recordings
Filter is set up for normalizing mike and then it is applied to kiwi:
Smooth line is 0.9Hz Butterworth filter.
Noise in mike is white; likely dither. Listening to quiet parts it becomes apparent relative to kiwi.
With kiwi the noise becomes pinkish. It sounds quieter with an open sense, but lower frequency content picks up a slightly grainy texture.
I gave this a shot last night and kept volume down; couldn't tell them apart at all then with significant ABX result. Mooly's earlier comments and a fresh start lead me right to it.
Smooth line is 0.9Hz Butterworth filter.
Noise in mike is white; likely dither. Listening to quiet parts it becomes apparent relative to kiwi.
With kiwi the noise becomes pinkish. It sounds quieter with an open sense, but lower frequency content picks up a slightly grainy texture.
I gave this a shot last night and kept volume down; couldn't tell them apart at all then with significant ABX result. Mooly's earlier comments and a fresh start lead me right to it.
Good analysis, but it does not hit the target. I assume that it is impossible to tell from FFT what was done and especially it is not possible to tell which parameters have changed, though the noise indication is very good. I would like to have more preferences for kiwi x mike sound files. Then I will reveal what was done, together with measurements that cannot be digged out from the FFT.
OK, no more reactions, so please let me quote from one of the PM's that I have received:
Kiwi is the D/A --> A/D path and the file that has been already used here in my recent tests. The D/A output level was set quite high and the path is optimized rather for highest S/N than for distortion.
Mike is the same D/A --> A/D path. But, output level of the DAC and input level of the ADC were set and optimized for minimal distortion of all kinds (thd, ccif, smpte) and a minimum of disturbing spectral lines, i.e. for the cleanest spectra possible. This improvement of distortions is at the expense of slightly higher noise and slightly worse S/N. You can see FFT of both kiwi and mike paths attached. All other test tones correspond to the plots attached.
0dB = 2 Vrms in case of 'kiwi' path
0dB = 164 mVrms in case of 'mike' path
Both kiwi and mike files are in 24-bit depth.
Kiwi is the D/A --> A/D path and the file that has been already used here in my recent tests. The D/A output level was set quite high and the path is optimized rather for highest S/N than for distortion.
Mike is the same D/A --> A/D path. But, output level of the DAC and input level of the ADC were set and optimized for minimal distortion of all kinds (thd, ccif, smpte) and a minimum of disturbing spectral lines, i.e. for the cleanest spectra possible. This improvement of distortions is at the expense of slightly higher noise and slightly worse S/N. You can see FFT of both kiwi and mike paths attached. All other test tones correspond to the plots attached.
0dB = 2 Vrms in case of 'kiwi' path
0dB = 164 mVrms in case of 'mike' path
Both kiwi and mike files are in 24-bit depth.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks Pavel.
I know I preferred Kiwi on this one. To me it was "smoother" and I know I commented that Mike sounded different, perhaps almost with a little distortion with it. Although you minimised distortion etc with the lower levels, was the DA/AD chains resolution compromised by doing that ?
I know I preferred Kiwi on this one. To me it was "smoother" and I know I commented that Mike sounded different, perhaps almost with a little distortion with it. Although you minimised distortion etc with the lower levels, was the DA/AD chains resolution compromised by doing that ?
Not regarding the content of the sound file (original recorded on master tape with less S/N than that available in the DA/AD path). Yes in case of the lowest detectable sine test tone.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.