Will do, thanks! My music taste is pretty diverse, so I'll let you pick something, just make sure it is something where you know you hear a difference.
Wouldn't using something like dropbox be easier than sending a physical disk?
Not sure - what kind of sound are you into?
Worth checking out for anyone who still believes there is a "class D sound".
"Not trivial"
, and still an ongoing project of fine-tuning.Probably not. Crossover order is much less of an issue with DSP than with passive filters. DSP allows you to control both steepness and impulse response, so that you can use steep cut-offs (your drivers will thank you) without any of the traditional downsides.
Ah yes, the IMF transmission line speakers - I still fondly remember helping a good friend build a TL speaker based on the Wireless World article from the 60's (that John Wright based the IMF design on).
The Linn isobaric design is of course a bit different, with two 139's working in tandem, giving a virtual mass of double that of a single speaker, with half the compliance (basically giving the response of an enclosure double the size of the real one),
but yes, both the transmission lines and the Isobariks were famous for their deep but neutral bass. I also love the treble of the Isobariks - they use a rather special tweeter from Hiquphon, a small danish company that still makes them (I had to replace two tweeters in my 'briks).
Of course, it would be easier to use something like DROPBOX but I would think you would realize that I would think that would spoil it.
My assumption is the use of minimal processing is what is making these sound good.
Yes, I know there is a vast difference in transmission line loading and the isobarik concept pioneered by LINN.
I like the sound of a loudspeaker that is capable of producing a large wavefront - before I went with horns I used electrostatics, first ACOUSTATS and then the original MARTIN LOGAN CLS1, using modified ACOUSTAT direct drive amplifiers, no transformers. I find my horns give me that same level of delicacy with little limitation of "dynamic expression" as Herb Reichert elegantly labelled the quality.
Never was quite sure what the relationship was with Mr. Fried and the company that made the loudspeakers. Was he just the importer of the speakers into the US or did he invest in the company?
Decades ago I carried on a correspondence with Mr. Fried who very kindly deigned to correspond with a youngster, I was in my twenties. Back when we had to send real pieces of paper through the mail. I was in awe of the transmission line idea since it was an unusual approach. The unusual has that effect on me. Then I got to hear a pair, someone in Atlanta had them, a friend of Bob Levi who is a legendary audio guy these days writing for POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Not to pretend that I am friends with Mr. Levi ...
Effortless bass, in comparison to anything I had ever heard until that time.
A few years later I got to hear the horns of John Fusilier. Probably the smartest audio guy I ever had the chance to know. He had been a pilot for decades and his upper frequency hearing was just about gone but with this deficiency he had the most acute hearing. He could listen to a speaker and tell you what was happening in the crossover, how the crossover was configured. I figure it is akin to color-blind people being able to see things the rest of us miss entirely.
Mr. Fusilier had designed his own version of the KLIPSCHORN (is that missing an "H" or more than that?) that was an incredible sounding thing. I heard actual KHorns a few years later and there was no comparison. I could not enjoy listening to those for very long at all.
I took a ROGERS LS3/5a to his house one evening and he was able to describe what was being done in the crossover and that was one complicated crossover. Needless to say he had built hundreds of loudspeakers over the years and had learned what does what.
After hearing what horns could really sound like I knew that is where I would end up. The way the things can load, and unload, the room with immediacy. Something I have never heard any direct radiator able to do. I think there is definitely a horn sound, but I do not mean the sound of cupping your hands in front of your mouth. The immediacy of the attack and the subsequent silence with ease, they never sound like they are working.
They do take up lots of room which for most would be, and is, the problem.
I love the idea of digital crossovers but I do listen to LPs so I am not very interested in the extra processing that would be needed. Plus, I figure they are easier to implement when using a computer for playback and I do not use a computer for playback; only to control the SOEKRIS DAC for polarity inversion and filter selection, which is a fine feature of the DAC.
I am getting a very flat response below 1000 hz as measured with REW. Above that there is a smooth slow decline which sounds best in the room. I think I have a decent room for music.
My assumption is the use of minimal processing is what is making these sound good.
Yes, I know there is a vast difference in transmission line loading and the isobarik concept pioneered by LINN.
I like the sound of a loudspeaker that is capable of producing a large wavefront - before I went with horns I used electrostatics, first ACOUSTATS and then the original MARTIN LOGAN CLS1, using modified ACOUSTAT direct drive amplifiers, no transformers. I find my horns give me that same level of delicacy with little limitation of "dynamic expression" as Herb Reichert elegantly labelled the quality.
Never was quite sure what the relationship was with Mr. Fried and the company that made the loudspeakers. Was he just the importer of the speakers into the US or did he invest in the company?
Decades ago I carried on a correspondence with Mr. Fried who very kindly deigned to correspond with a youngster, I was in my twenties. Back when we had to send real pieces of paper through the mail. I was in awe of the transmission line idea since it was an unusual approach. The unusual has that effect on me. Then I got to hear a pair, someone in Atlanta had them, a friend of Bob Levi who is a legendary audio guy these days writing for POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Not to pretend that I am friends with Mr. Levi ...
Effortless bass, in comparison to anything I had ever heard until that time.
A few years later I got to hear the horns of John Fusilier. Probably the smartest audio guy I ever had the chance to know. He had been a pilot for decades and his upper frequency hearing was just about gone but with this deficiency he had the most acute hearing. He could listen to a speaker and tell you what was happening in the crossover, how the crossover was configured. I figure it is akin to color-blind people being able to see things the rest of us miss entirely.
Mr. Fusilier had designed his own version of the KLIPSCHORN (is that missing an "H" or more than that?) that was an incredible sounding thing. I heard actual KHorns a few years later and there was no comparison. I could not enjoy listening to those for very long at all.
I took a ROGERS LS3/5a to his house one evening and he was able to describe what was being done in the crossover and that was one complicated crossover. Needless to say he had built hundreds of loudspeakers over the years and had learned what does what.
After hearing what horns could really sound like I knew that is where I would end up. The way the things can load, and unload, the room with immediacy. Something I have never heard any direct radiator able to do. I think there is definitely a horn sound, but I do not mean the sound of cupping your hands in front of your mouth. The immediacy of the attack and the subsequent silence with ease, they never sound like they are working.
They do take up lots of room which for most would be, and is, the problem.
I love the idea of digital crossovers but I do listen to LPs so I am not very interested in the extra processing that would be needed. Plus, I figure they are easier to implement when using a computer for playback and I do not use a computer for playback; only to control the SOEKRIS DAC for polarity inversion and filter selection, which is a fine feature of the DAC.
I am getting a very flat response below 1000 hz as measured with REW. Above that there is a smooth slow decline which sounds best in the room. I think I have a decent room for music.
So you think copying the file to dropbox would change the sound? In that case we are officially deep in the SandyK Twilight Zone territory.
Can you please explain what possible mechanism for degradation there could be in that scenario? And why doesn't that mechanism affect any other data (such as programs, spreadsheets, emails and web pages)?
Then I assume you mostly listen to recordings made more than 20 years ago - anything newer probably started out as a digital recording.
Yes, that does indeed sound like a pretty good match of room and speaker.
I do not know who sandyk is but I would have to assume I am there. I know you mentioned he heard a difference ripping with linear supplies. I would tend to think linear supplies, alone, would not make a huge difference. We found with the cMP minimized OS project that the goodness of linear supplies was more evident with the OS getting smaller and out of the way, so to speak.
Not sure I would call it Twilight Zone but I am certainly not offended by such a reference. Never watched the show ...
All I can say is the diode at one time seemed like something out of the "Twilight Zone".
Most of my LPs are old. I have purchased some new ones and have not been all that happy with them.
But as far as LPs from digital masters: not that I am one to spend big money on power cords (I do not use exotic power cords) but I could see a correlation
with those who posit that, in the case of the power cord, even though miles of cable comes before the power cord there is something about the last few feet could be analogous to the possibility that the LP version of a digital recording could sound better than the CD or download. I am of no opinion on this.
Since I am finding myself as pleased with what I am hearing digitally as analogically that is not the case for me. I think the CD from the digital master will be as good as the LP.
On the other hand: I had never bought a LED ZEPPELIN CD since I am not much of a fan but I do love HOUSES OF THE HOLY. So with my new found digital happiness I thought I would hear what it sounds like. Well, in this case, my old original LP sounds much better. I think they say Page assisted in the mix and one has to assume he decided to compensate for missing upper midrange and above since this thing sounds anemic in the low end and almost glassy in the upper frequencies. Quite a disappointment
I try not to have too much duplication of formats so direct comparisons are not often possible.
Not sure I would call it Twilight Zone but I am certainly not offended by such a reference. Never watched the show ...
All I can say is the diode at one time seemed like something out of the "Twilight Zone".
Most of my LPs are old. I have purchased some new ones and have not been all that happy with them.
But as far as LPs from digital masters: not that I am one to spend big money on power cords (I do not use exotic power cords) but I could see a correlation
with those who posit that, in the case of the power cord, even though miles of cable comes before the power cord there is something about the last few feet could be analogous to the possibility that the LP version of a digital recording could sound better than the CD or download. I am of no opinion on this.
Since I am finding myself as pleased with what I am hearing digitally as analogically that is not the case for me. I think the CD from the digital master will be as good as the LP.
On the other hand: I had never bought a LED ZEPPELIN CD since I am not much of a fan but I do love HOUSES OF THE HOLY. So with my new found digital happiness I thought I would hear what it sounds like. Well, in this case, my old original LP sounds much better. I think they say Page assisted in the mix and one has to assume he decided to compensate for missing upper midrange and above since this thing sounds anemic in the low end and almost glassy in the upper frequencies. Quite a disappointment
I try not to have too much duplication of formats so direct comparisons are not often possible.
So, one more time, just for clarification - do you think copying the file to dropbox would change the sound?
Can you please explain what possible mechanism for degradation there could be in that scenario? And why doesn't that mechanism affect any other data (such as programs, spreadsheets, emails and web pages)?
But unlike stuff from The Twilight Zone, the diode effect was first detected by measurements, conformed to the theories about electricity at the time, and was verified and replicated by several researchers in a repeatable, controlled way.
The LP version definitely sounds different (and that is easy to verify, unlike the power cable situation) due to the shortcomings of vinyl as a medium and the studio processing required to account for those shortcomings (limited SNR and limited low frequency amplitude capability).
Yes, and that has been proven multiple times by the simple test of adding an analog-digital-analog step into an analog vinyl chain. Adding the digital step was undetectable in double-blind listening tests. Thus you wouldn't need to worry about adding a digital step to accommodate active crossovers.
Indeed. Different mixes/masterings, so not comparable.
I have no idea what the mechanism is. Have never made any claims as to know what mechanism it could be!
Only thing I can conceptualize is that something happens between the ones and zero's which we do not yet understand. Could they become "blurry", not as well defined because of "noise" interwoven in with the numbers? That is what I would think.
All I know is what I have heard and, subsequently, reported. I am hoping one of you engineers would find the mechanism since you have the tools and the training. This should be a collaboration.
I have not uploaded a file to DROPBOX and then reloaded it so I have no idea if it would affect the file. It is my instinct that it would.
The measurements made on the first diode would have been very crude and could be seen as an attempt to document what was observed. The observation was far more important than the measurement, I would think.
Only thing I can conceptualize is that something happens between the ones and zero's which we do not yet understand. Could they become "blurry", not as well defined because of "noise" interwoven in with the numbers? That is what I would think.
All I know is what I have heard and, subsequently, reported. I am hoping one of you engineers would find the mechanism since you have the tools and the training. This should be a collaboration.
I have not uploaded a file to DROPBOX and then reloaded it so I have no idea if it would affect the file. It is my instinct that it would.
The measurements made on the first diode would have been very crude and could be seen as an attempt to document what was observed. The observation was far more important than the measurement, I would think.
No, they can't. That is exactly the difference between analog and digital. Analog uses a quantity such as voltage as a direct representation ("analogy") of the signal, so any distortion or noise affecting the analog quantity affects the sound signal directly. Digital encodes the signal using symbols representing the values. It doesn't matter if the symbols are sharp or fuzzy, pink or blue, as long as they don't turn into a completely different symbol.
A voltage of 100 V can easily be 100.01 or 99.99 V. The symbol string "1100100" is exactly that, unless you actually change a "1" into a "0" or a "0" into a "1".
Of course the symbols are represented by voltages, charges, currents, magnetic fields or laser light inside computers, cables and networks. But the way the bits are encoded make them error-resistant - a typical circuit would use something like 0-0.7 V to signify "0", and 3.5-5 V for "1", so you would have to introduce a lot of noise to swap a "0" to a "1" - and there is nothing in between. The circuit receiving the signal makes a binary decision - the outcome is either "0" or "1", based on the voltage being above or below a set limit, such as 1.5 V. Not "just a bit more than 0" or "almost, but not quite 1".
Again, how come spreadsheets, web pages, programs and emails don't get corrupted?
Yes. The first step would be to rule out the obvious explanation, confirmation bias. Easy to do with a double-blind listening test, like I have suggested a number of times.
But you have no curiosity to try? As I have stated before, if it actually does affect the file, it is a discovery worth the Nobel Price in physics (and the patent would be worth billions of dollars).
Human instincts are great for a lot of things, but not that great for understanding information theory, or even logic.
The measurement *was* the observation. It wasn't "this looks a bit funny" or "that sounded strange", but "if I have a glowing filament and a metal plate in a vacuum, we can measure a current flow only in one direction".
I doubt that that would qualify for any kind of prize much less the dynamite prize!
I agree it makes no sense. I agree even more that I wish it made no difference.
I realize that my measurement comment made no sense - what I was trying to say and obviously still cannot quite express it is that the tool with which whomever saw that the current only flowed in one direction was only good for that one thing. There was no quantification, I figure this crude ammeter was the tool of observation but ...
from WIKIPEDIA
In 1880, William J. Hammer, assistant to Thomas Edison at his Menlo Park, New Jersey laboratory, reported a blue glow around the positive pole and a blackening of the wire at the negative pole of an early electric light bulb. Originally called “Hammer’s Phantom Shadow,” his employer renamed the phenomenon the “Edison Effect,” when he patented the incandescent light bulb in 1883.
So it did begin with an observation.
I agree it makes no sense. I agree even more that I wish it made no difference.
I realize that my measurement comment made no sense - what I was trying to say and obviously still cannot quite express it is that the tool with which whomever saw that the current only flowed in one direction was only good for that one thing. There was no quantification, I figure this crude ammeter was the tool of observation but ...
from WIKIPEDIA
In 1880, William J. Hammer, assistant to Thomas Edison at his Menlo Park, New Jersey laboratory, reported a blue glow around the positive pole and a blackening of the wire at the negative pole of an early electric light bulb. Originally called “Hammer’s Phantom Shadow,” his employer renamed the phenomenon the “Edison Effect,” when he patented the incandescent light bulb in 1883.
So it did begin with an observation.
It would. It would revolutionize information theory, computer science, digital electronics and much more. Imagine the ways of stealth communication it would enable?
Unfortunately I suspect there is a much more mundane explanation.
There is nothing that can happen between the bits, that is the crux of the matter, if there was it would have been found by now as digital data transmission, storage and retrieval is well studied and well understood, the only possible mechanism is perception... If you want to see how dirty a digital signal can look have a look at some DDR memory screen shots, they are not clean square waves... Digital signals are not analogue (generically) they are unaffected by quite high levels of noise hence why we use them to reliably transfer data.
As said there is no mechanism for what we previously jokingly called the dark bits, the data gets through or it doesn't, this is the purpose of an eye diagram, there is a minimum pupil opening and as long as the eye diagram is clear in this area then the data will be transmitted reliably, if it doesn't then you get data drop out, you do not get a slight change in the transmitted data it either gets through or it doesn't... This is a hard and immutable fact regarding data transmission, if the data is bit identical then the information contained within is EXACTLY the same, so if you transfer a file from a to b to c to a again it will always sound the same if the bit pattern is identical.
We did multiple file transfers etc,. when discussing this previously with SK and also others who have the misplaced belief that bits are not bits, i.e. you can get interbit additional noise...
I am glad we are able to talk about this with good humour; without rancor.
I would be the first to say this could all be in my head, and initially I thought it might be.
I do not think what I am hearing would have any impact on systems that are already working as they were designed to work. What I am perceiving would have little use in high speed data transfer because what I am working with is not high speed data transfer. I would not consider REDBOOK some kind of example of extreme performance.
The data lines you both work with are working as expected and as designed are what I would consider finished products. At the same time, at the risk of inspiring increased blood pressure I would still think it possible there is something different about digital audio just as there are measures taken, some might think, or did at one time, foolishness, for audio amplifiers that are very different than what is expected for industrial and scientific amplifiers that are not used for music reproduction.
I cannot see why there could not be something about "digital" used for audio purposes that requires different methods than for industrial applications. It is not as if this experiment would cost anyone much money to try. I do tend to think that if anything sandyk might have been on the right track but stopped short with just using linear supplies. I think there is more noise generated by the operating system that the power supplies. Once the OS is calmed down the difference in noise levels given by linear supplies becomes more of a factor.
I do wonder if what I am hearing is because of the quiet environment of the SDTrans? Could be within the confines of a typical desktop the gains would be masked entirely which is why I bring this up in the SDTrans thread. Maybe one could hear the difference with a very specialized desktop likely requiring linear supplies on all rails and using something like WTF, the LINUX based player which is a minimal OS/player. You can read about it in DIGITAL SOURCE and is the best sounding computer player I ever worked with but I think it is limited by the need for a USB cable. It can work with some soundcards and that was something I never tried. One would need a soundcard where you can get to the IIS and use the PS AUDIO HDMI scheme to get the signal to the DAC. I am not very keen on computer audio after hearing what the SDTrans can do.
I have never tried this with WTF or any other system so I am speculating. I realize this will sound like backtracking but it is not since the whole project was inspired by what I was hearing with the SDTrans. When I used a USB SD card writer I was hearing the same kind of sound that made me give up on computer audio. That is when I realized much of the sound of computer audio that I could not enjoy was from USB. This was using my old rips, previous to the OS mod. When copying the disks using a SATA writer that sound was gone. That sound is confusion and lack of resolution in the lower midrange to the upper bass.
Not that there is any correlation but that improvement is what got me interested, along with randytsuch's speculation, on playing with XP. Of course, I wanted to make a difference and I hope I have been as careful as I think I have been with trying to assess if there really is a difference. WHICH is why I have tried to get some corroboration from other SDTrans users since I think the effect is likely not to be audible within a noisier environment.
I will send julf a disk; will make it over the weekend and mail it Monday, but I feel pretty confident he will not hear what I think I am hearing since he is not using an SDTrans or a linear supply equipped desktop using WTF and BIOS settings to compliment the software, otherwise known as slowed down, which is pure speculation, obviously. To repeat, never tried it with my old audio computer since I took it apart when I got the SDTrans and am using parts of it for the ripping computer AND most importantly since I do not care if it works there since I have made my commitment to the SDTrans and do not plan on ever returning to computer audio. And I work with only what I intend to use. One, of each, player for the two formats I use - LP and REDBOOK, that is enough for me.
I would be the first to say this could all be in my head, and initially I thought it might be.
I do not think what I am hearing would have any impact on systems that are already working as they were designed to work. What I am perceiving would have little use in high speed data transfer because what I am working with is not high speed data transfer. I would not consider REDBOOK some kind of example of extreme performance.
The data lines you both work with are working as expected and as designed are what I would consider finished products. At the same time, at the risk of inspiring increased blood pressure I would still think it possible there is something different about digital audio just as there are measures taken, some might think, or did at one time, foolishness, for audio amplifiers that are very different than what is expected for industrial and scientific amplifiers that are not used for music reproduction.
I cannot see why there could not be something about "digital" used for audio purposes that requires different methods than for industrial applications. It is not as if this experiment would cost anyone much money to try. I do tend to think that if anything sandyk might have been on the right track but stopped short with just using linear supplies. I think there is more noise generated by the operating system that the power supplies. Once the OS is calmed down the difference in noise levels given by linear supplies becomes more of a factor.
I do wonder if what I am hearing is because of the quiet environment of the SDTrans? Could be within the confines of a typical desktop the gains would be masked entirely which is why I bring this up in the SDTrans thread. Maybe one could hear the difference with a very specialized desktop likely requiring linear supplies on all rails and using something like WTF, the LINUX based player which is a minimal OS/player. You can read about it in DIGITAL SOURCE and is the best sounding computer player I ever worked with but I think it is limited by the need for a USB cable. It can work with some soundcards and that was something I never tried. One would need a soundcard where you can get to the IIS and use the PS AUDIO HDMI scheme to get the signal to the DAC. I am not very keen on computer audio after hearing what the SDTrans can do.
I have never tried this with WTF or any other system so I am speculating. I realize this will sound like backtracking but it is not since the whole project was inspired by what I was hearing with the SDTrans. When I used a USB SD card writer I was hearing the same kind of sound that made me give up on computer audio. That is when I realized much of the sound of computer audio that I could not enjoy was from USB. This was using my old rips, previous to the OS mod. When copying the disks using a SATA writer that sound was gone. That sound is confusion and lack of resolution in the lower midrange to the upper bass.
Not that there is any correlation but that improvement is what got me interested, along with randytsuch's speculation, on playing with XP. Of course, I wanted to make a difference and I hope I have been as careful as I think I have been with trying to assess if there really is a difference. WHICH is why I have tried to get some corroboration from other SDTrans users since I think the effect is likely not to be audible within a noisier environment.
I will send julf a disk; will make it over the weekend and mail it Monday, but I feel pretty confident he will not hear what I think I am hearing since he is not using an SDTrans or a linear supply equipped desktop using WTF and BIOS settings to compliment the software, otherwise known as slowed down, which is pure speculation, obviously. To repeat, never tried it with my old audio computer since I took it apart when I got the SDTrans and am using parts of it for the ripping computer AND most importantly since I do not care if it works there since I have made my commitment to the SDTrans and do not plan on ever returning to computer audio. And I work with only what I intend to use. One, of each, player for the two formats I use - LP and REDBOOK, that is enough for me.
Indeed.
So how about a double-blind test to find out?
So what you are saying in that this effect only occurs in systems that are not very demanding? Wouldn't high speed/high performance systems be *more* susceptible?
We seem to be going around in circles.
Could you please go back and re-read the explanations by Marce and me about the difference between analog and digital, and then tell us what parts you don't agree with, and why. Just saying "maybe it is possible that it isn't so" doesn't get us anywhere.
So it is like there is a special version of integer numbers just for audio, where 2 + 2 isn't always 4?
And I have suggested a number of easy experiments to verify your findings.
And the effect of that noise is easy to verify. Rip a CD with your optimized system, rip the same CD with a noisy system, and compare the two - either by doing a bit-for-bit comparison or by subtracting one from the other and looking at the result.
So you don't think the difference is audible with a dedicated music player like a squeezebox touch?
So what's the point of sending the disk then, if you are already resorting to the classic "ah, but your system is not resolving enough" subterfuge? In any case I was planning to use my Squeezebox Touch, feeding the DAC over an optical connection (to ensure no noise from the source, as there is no galvanic contact). Let me know if you don't think that is a valid test environment.
So it doesn't matter if there is a difference or not, as you have already made up your mind?
What is your definition of a "computer"? How is the SDTrans not a computer?
Just to verify - what you plan sending me is a disk with two versions of each track - one ripped in your optimized environment, and one ripped by a "noisy" computer?
The SDTrans has a microcontroller about as powerful as one used in mundane home appliances. Nothing like a full on CPU. I would suspect it was chosen for its low speed which equals quieter. A very simple switch and the SDTrans contains no DC-DC converters or switching power supplies.
What if this is what is at work? The noise I claim that has been reduced has nothing to do with accurate transmission of the numbers. It is always there in the devices you work with but for industrial uses does no harm to the integrity of the file? Yet, in a quiet digital audio environment it is audible. It does no harm to the integrity of the numbers in this situation either. I have not said I hear a tonal improvement with the rips. Yes, I do hear a great improvement with the use of the SATA writer vs. USB. With the rips there is a clarity improvement which is from the abatement of the noise. I feel sure there is some of it left but I am not perceiving it. I figure there will have to be some way to lessen it further for me to hear what is left.
No backtracking - just speculation.
I can put both old and new on the disk. Should I make the order random so you can play the blind game?
The double blind test - or any other blindness test, is one of those things that sounds like it could work. First off the tested will not be relaxed - we are not talking about the differences between an AM radio broadcast and FM - they are subtle. I find with polarity, depending on the recording, one hears it immediately or it takes a little time for it to become apparent. With polarity it is the search for the best position with multi channel recordings since there could be a variety of polarities within the recording. With the DAM DAC it is easy to jump back and forth.
With the SD cards I have them on separate cards. The disk I will make for you I will put both rips on and then listen to this disk myself before sending it as a test for myself. If I place them in random order I will try to forget which is what (of course, I will write it down) and see if I can select which is which before sending to you. If I fill up the disk I will forget which is which pretty quickly so this should be a good check.
I want you to hear the difference if it is there. My concerns about computer environment is not silly. Look at what those folks at COMPUTER AUDIOPHILE come up with! I think much of it is as misguided as you think of my rips! But I do know that linear supplies for a music computer works every time. Especially in conjunction with running the CPU as slow as you can and at as low a voltage as you can. Certainly there can be no argument about noise emissions from a CPU and the motherboard. There are all kinds of regulations your masters in Brussels have come up with for regulating this noise. The audio computer benefits from even lower emissions.
If you can make it work in your system I would recommend you try WTF as your music player. You are a LINUX for audio partisan? I think you would find it very good.
What if this is what is at work? The noise I claim that has been reduced has nothing to do with accurate transmission of the numbers. It is always there in the devices you work with but for industrial uses does no harm to the integrity of the file? Yet, in a quiet digital audio environment it is audible. It does no harm to the integrity of the numbers in this situation either. I have not said I hear a tonal improvement with the rips. Yes, I do hear a great improvement with the use of the SATA writer vs. USB. With the rips there is a clarity improvement which is from the abatement of the noise. I feel sure there is some of it left but I am not perceiving it. I figure there will have to be some way to lessen it further for me to hear what is left.
No backtracking - just speculation.
I can put both old and new on the disk. Should I make the order random so you can play the blind game?
The double blind test - or any other blindness test, is one of those things that sounds like it could work. First off the tested will not be relaxed - we are not talking about the differences between an AM radio broadcast and FM - they are subtle. I find with polarity, depending on the recording, one hears it immediately or it takes a little time for it to become apparent. With polarity it is the search for the best position with multi channel recordings since there could be a variety of polarities within the recording. With the DAM DAC it is easy to jump back and forth.
With the SD cards I have them on separate cards. The disk I will make for you I will put both rips on and then listen to this disk myself before sending it as a test for myself. If I place them in random order I will try to forget which is what (of course, I will write it down) and see if I can select which is which before sending to you. If I fill up the disk I will forget which is which pretty quickly so this should be a good check.
I want you to hear the difference if it is there. My concerns about computer environment is not silly. Look at what those folks at COMPUTER AUDIOPHILE come up with! I think much of it is as misguided as you think of my rips! But I do know that linear supplies for a music computer works every time. Especially in conjunction with running the CPU as slow as you can and at as low a voltage as you can. Certainly there can be no argument about noise emissions from a CPU and the motherboard. There are all kinds of regulations your masters in Brussels have come up with for regulating this noise. The audio computer benefits from even lower emissions.
If you can make it work in your system I would recommend you try WTF as your music player. You are a LINUX for audio partisan? I think you would find it very good.
Forgot to say I know of the existence of the SQUEEZEBOX but have no idea how it works or how it sounds.
The optical connection sounds promising and I know I have read many who think it is very good so it should work just fine. I have seen many aftermarket power supplies for the device which must mean there is something to that. Have you made your own power supply for your SQUEEZEBOX?
Would you tell me what you are using for a player?
The optical connection sounds promising and I know I have read many who think it is very good so it should work just fine. I have seen many aftermarket power supplies for the device which must mean there is something to that. Have you made your own power supply for your SQUEEZEBOX?
Would you tell me what you are using for a player?
Noise can of course affect the sound coming out of the DAC - but that would be because of the noise affecting the DAC process or the signal once it is in the analog domain. That is not what we are talking about here.
For the noise to affect the ripping process (as opposed to the DAC), that noise would somehow have to end up being stored in the file, or affecting the contents of the file. Where in that file would that be, or how could the actual data in the file be affected?
No, thanks, but I prefer to do the randomization myself, using a program that calculates the results automatically.
Nothing prevents you from taking all the time in the world and switching back and forth as many times as you want when making a double blind test.
Counting on you to forget the order is not even half-blind. Here is what I suggest - put the tracks on the SD card in predictable order, with predictable names (such as "track 1 - new"), but please put 2 copies of each track on the SD - so that for every track, there is a total of 4 copies - 2 identical "old" copies and 2 "new" copies. That way I can, when I am done, randomly delete and rename (to "track 1 - X") either the "old" or "new" copy, and return the SD card to you. Then you can, just by listening, try to determine which is which. By having duplicate copies and deleting some, I won't do any extra copying/processing that could affect the files. Does that sound like a good test?
Absolutely.
Those concerns might be valid for playing music (especially with the CPU and DAC close to each other), but irrelevant when ripping.
Do you have a link?
I have a custom power supply, but I am not using it much as I found it makes no difference. Happy to use it in this case. The Squeezebox Touch is a low-power, ARM-based embedded computer that runs it's own, built-in player software.
If you do not hear a difference in the power supplies I am not sure what to think!
With the way an SD disk stores files which is LITERALLY the process of loading the tracks might take longer than I had intended so I might be a little delayed.
You should have realized I would be concerned about the tracks being manipulated. Only way to do it would be to copy the tracks to some other drive and then place them individually on the disk.
You might be able to arrange them, first, on the "other" drive and hope they copy in the same order as you intended but I have found that is not always the case. Once on an SD disk you can only delete them, you cannot move them around.
As you would have guessed I would suspect by the time all of this is done the noise I perceive would be on every track. We'll see ...
WTF can be found here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/287712-wtfplay-project-linux-based-pc-playback-system.html
AS much as I like the JPlay folks this thing sounded much better to me. Both JPlay and WTF have evolved since I last used either of them so I am not sure how they would compare today but just getting rid of 64 bits WINDOWS has to be enough to make WTF superior to a WINDOWS based player. It is not fancy or gadgety. It is the kind of software you would expect of the kind of engineer who worked for Mercedes Benz in the '60's to have produced - no-nonsense and solid. Instead it is the work of an Eastern European living on the isle of Eire ... who works with LINUX as a professional.
Worth a try? You can run it LIVE with CD or USB. I installed it onto a SATADOM drive since USB was disabled in BIOS and the music computer had no need of a CDROM.
With the way an SD disk stores files which is LITERALLY the process of loading the tracks might take longer than I had intended so I might be a little delayed.
You should have realized I would be concerned about the tracks being manipulated. Only way to do it would be to copy the tracks to some other drive and then place them individually on the disk.
You might be able to arrange them, first, on the "other" drive and hope they copy in the same order as you intended but I have found that is not always the case. Once on an SD disk you can only delete them, you cannot move them around.
As you would have guessed I would suspect by the time all of this is done the noise I perceive would be on every track. We'll see ...
WTF can be found here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/287712-wtfplay-project-linux-based-pc-playback-system.html
AS much as I like the JPlay folks this thing sounded much better to me. Both JPlay and WTF have evolved since I last used either of them so I am not sure how they would compare today but just getting rid of 64 bits WINDOWS has to be enough to make WTF superior to a WINDOWS based player. It is not fancy or gadgety. It is the kind of software you would expect of the kind of engineer who worked for Mercedes Benz in the '60's to have produced - no-nonsense and solid. Instead it is the work of an Eastern European living on the isle of Eire ... who works with LINUX as a professional.
Worth a try? You can run it LIVE with CD or USB. I installed it onto a SATADOM drive since USB was disabled in BIOS and the music computer had no need of a CDROM.
How about "ah, maybe the power supply doesn't make any difference in the case of this hardware that I know nothing about"?
Why is the order of copying relevant?
That's why I asked for 2 copies of each file - so that all I have to do is delete.
There is a Nobel Price waiting...
Thanks! Apart from "[only] runs on Intel Core2 Duo and newer CPUs" it is pretty much what stuff like what the Squeezebox Touch runs. I tend to prefer ARM for audio, as ARM processors are used in low-power, noise sensitive applications, unlike Intel architectures.
By the way, pay heed to what phofman writes - he knows his linux audio stuff.
Following the discussion about bit perfect copying to and reproducing from different media (in this case SD cards) I came across the following opinion on https://hydrogenaud.io
Reply #9 – 14 June, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Contrary what most "scientifically-minded" people will tell you, a mass-copying test is NOT a good way to "prove" this - more like the opposite.
This is because the supposed ones and zeroes do not actually exist. There are no ones an zeroes - there are only things which are INTERPRETED as ones and zeroes (this is part of the method "coding"). On a CD for example, not all "valleys" are identical - rather, if something is to be interpreted as one or zero depends on a "threshold value" - and there usually then is a large safety buffer to make sure, that this threshold value works reliable. But this also means: What is interpreted as ones and zeroes, can degrade, just as the paper on a book from which you read letters, can degrade, thus resulting in misinterpreting the coded symbols (i.e. you misreading the letters, because they become difficult to distinguish).
Now, what this means for your masscopying test, is that the longer you run the test, the more probable it is that you WILL find errors! Problem is: The errors will not be "generation loss", but instead simply degradation or defects of the media TO which things are copied. Thus, transport of digital data is NOT guaranteed safe. Not even if a first comparision reports identical data for the source and the target. The reason for this, is that the actual health of the MEDIA gets abstracted away by the coding: What you see with a file-comparision on a computer isn't the health of the carrying media (i.e. hard drive) but simply if the code-interpretation CURRENTLY worked reliable.
To summarize: Generation loss may not exist, but media degradation as well as transport hazards affect digital data just as much as analogue data is affected by it. The difference is simply: With digital coding, you dont see the degration, until its too late - minor difference get abstracted away by the coding, so that things reliably get correctly interpreted as ones and zeroes... even if the media isn't in top shape anymore - but when the media degraded enough, you will instantly get maximum damage in your coded data. Phrased differently: Digital coding either works perfectly, or fails totally - and the path from one to the other is hidden by the coding.
Last Edit: 14 June, 2009, 10:19:34 AM by Lyx
Also it has been suggested to check if two files are bit perfect identical to use a simple Windows command.
Reply #1 – 14 June, 2009, 04:59:14 AM
If you go to Windows' command line prompt via the 'cmd.exe' application, there is a file comparator called 'comp.exe'
i.e.
C:\Windows\Username\comp.exe FileA.wav FileB.wav
It does a byte-for-byte comparison of two given files and outputs if there are any differences.
If it instead comes back with "Files Compare OK" that means File A and File B are the exact same, byte-for-byte.
This command-line app exists in Windows 9x/2000/XP. I don't have access to Vista offhand to know if it also exists there.
Rick, this might be something quick and dirty that might work.
Reply #9 – 14 June, 2009, 10:17:43 AM
Contrary what most "scientifically-minded" people will tell you, a mass-copying test is NOT a good way to "prove" this - more like the opposite.
This is because the supposed ones and zeroes do not actually exist. There are no ones an zeroes - there are only things which are INTERPRETED as ones and zeroes (this is part of the method "coding"). On a CD for example, not all "valleys" are identical - rather, if something is to be interpreted as one or zero depends on a "threshold value" - and there usually then is a large safety buffer to make sure, that this threshold value works reliable. But this also means: What is interpreted as ones and zeroes, can degrade, just as the paper on a book from which you read letters, can degrade, thus resulting in misinterpreting the coded symbols (i.e. you misreading the letters, because they become difficult to distinguish).
Now, what this means for your masscopying test, is that the longer you run the test, the more probable it is that you WILL find errors! Problem is: The errors will not be "generation loss", but instead simply degradation or defects of the media TO which things are copied. Thus, transport of digital data is NOT guaranteed safe. Not even if a first comparision reports identical data for the source and the target. The reason for this, is that the actual health of the MEDIA gets abstracted away by the coding: What you see with a file-comparision on a computer isn't the health of the carrying media (i.e. hard drive) but simply if the code-interpretation CURRENTLY worked reliable.
To summarize: Generation loss may not exist, but media degradation as well as transport hazards affect digital data just as much as analogue data is affected by it. The difference is simply: With digital coding, you dont see the degration, until its too late - minor difference get abstracted away by the coding, so that things reliably get correctly interpreted as ones and zeroes... even if the media isn't in top shape anymore - but when the media degraded enough, you will instantly get maximum damage in your coded data. Phrased differently: Digital coding either works perfectly, or fails totally - and the path from one to the other is hidden by the coding.
Last Edit: 14 June, 2009, 10:19:34 AM by Lyx
Also it has been suggested to check if two files are bit perfect identical to use a simple Windows command.
Reply #1 – 14 June, 2009, 04:59:14 AM
If you go to Windows' command line prompt via the 'cmd.exe' application, there is a file comparator called 'comp.exe'
i.e.
C:\Windows\Username\comp.exe FileA.wav FileB.wav
It does a byte-for-byte comparison of two given files and outputs if there are any differences.
If it instead comes back with "Files Compare OK" that means File A and File B are the exact same, byte-for-byte.
This command-line app exists in Windows 9x/2000/XP. I don't have access to Vista offhand to know if it also exists there.
Rick, this might be something quick and dirty that might work.