Fancy Interconnects? How about a potato, or even mud?

[Pano]

Drum roll, please!

OK ladies and gents, here it is. At last all will be revealed
The files I posted are.......

A= potato left, banana right
B= original file
C= loop with good quality copper cable (Canare GS-6)
D= mud (bucket of mud on left, trough of mud on right)

File D got corrupted somehow, thus the dropouts. Sorry about that. I didn't go back out into the mud to re-record it.

Basically there just isn't much difference between the original file and a line level signal DA/AD loop sent thru copper wire, a potato, a banana or mud. Can't say that a further, better test would not reveal those differences, but I doubt they would be huge. The only person who did very well at the test was Mooly. And we don't know if that was luck.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to listen. I hope that this opens your ears a little as to just what differences - or not - might exist between the sounds of different conductors. That is not the reason I tried this goofy test, I just stumbled upon it. Hope you enjoyed it.

 

[pinkmouse]

That was both informative and fun. Ta!

 

[SY]

I'd bet C is the conversion loop, B is the original.

Well done!

 

[Pano]

Oh, that's right. My apologies to nannoo. I was quite shocked when he posted that. Thought he had found me out.

 

[AudioLapDance]

Yes, but I just got back from 3 long days on the road, and had trucks to unload and meetings to sleep thru.

Will post before too long. I need to get home and check the secret key - I don't remember which is which.

I stopped reading here.

Used foobar ABX and thought A sounded different (darker?)

A - CD
B - mud
C - potato
D - copper

Awesome fun!!1!

Tee-hee lets see!

Edit: Doh!

 

[Pano]

LOL. Thanks for that.

 

[CopperTop]

But how many people here will, in the months to come, still part with real money (say more than $50) on a set of cables?

 

[Pano]

Good question. I'd like to do the recordings again, better. It could stand as a reference and a "Oh, yeah? You think you can hear the difference?" challenge.

 

[AudioLapDance]

For those who want to give it a try:

Tracks are (in alpha. order) CD, copper, mud, potato

The MP3s

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...-how-about-potato-even-mud-2.html#post3497722

The short flac clips

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...-how-about-potato-even-mud-6.html#post3500302

The reveal is
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Go look for it your self! (that'll keep some of your peekers from peeking!)



Using foobar ABX is awesome (thanks Sy) and very humbling! My experiments on trying to spot the horrible high bitrate MP3 were ... gutting! Not as easy as I assumed!

foobar2000: Components Repository - ABX Comparator

Double click to install, then highlight two clips and right click and utilities and 'abx'




You can play the two files (A and B) and then X and Y (randomized A or B) and then say A is X or A is Y. Wash and Repeat until you move from lucky/unlucky guessing to statistically significant preferences (~10-15 tries).

It can restart from the 'beginning' (good to target specific sounds) or switch between perfectly synchronized tracks (good for overall, "wholeistic' ).

PS Listening to Porcupine Tree: If you like Floyd you'll probably like some of the Porc!

PSS I love the idea of the steel wool! I'll send my inverting chipamp into woolly-bully (wool becomes part of feedback network!)

PSSS How about some high-res files! (Where to host?!?)

 

[fas42]

What's interesting is that the mp3 coding artifacts are more significant than the interconnect differences. I only had a listen to the flac versions a few days ago and was thrown somewhat by there being a different set of differences, . Anyway, waited until the dust settled to mention this.

Running B & C mp3 and B & C flac simultaneously in Audacity, this is still the case, the B flac is clearly 'better' than the C flac, but the B mp3 is markedly inferior to the C mp3. I've run a quick differencing between flac and mp3 for one version, and the levels are much higher than I would have expected for high rate mp3, up to roughly only 20dB down from the original, which is the same order of of differences of versions with different interconnect method.

What appears to be encoding artifacts are relatively clear in the first section, not part of the flac samples, and this is what I largely based my judgements on ...

This is worth some more investigation, by myself ... it may shed some further interesting light on things ...

 

[SY]

Yes, things are always clearer after you peek.

My congrats to everybody who gave this a sincere try with no excuses. That's true open-mindedness and trusting your ears.

 

[benb]

File D got corrupted somehow, thus the dropouts. Sorry about that. I didn't go back out into the mud to re-record it.

Basically there just isn't much difference between the original file and a line level signal DA/AD loop sent thru copper wire, a potato, a banana or mud. Can't say that a further, better test would not reveal those differences, but I doubt they would be huge. The only person who did very well at the test was Mooly. And we don't know if that was luck.

Statistically speaking, with enough people guessing, there's bound to be one or two who get everything right.

And about the mud dropouts - maybe there were some dry spots in the mud. Reminds me of cassettes.

For many years I've thought of getting these "Golden Ears" training CDs, which (had I studied them for months) might conceivably have helped with identifying the tracks in this thread:
Moulton Laboratories :: Golden Ears
But I've wondered, do I really want to hear THAT well?

But how many people here will, in the months to come, still part with real money (say more than $50) on a set of cables?

Actually, I've done so, more than once, and would do it again, but you just can't get a 250 foot roll of 12-gauge zip cord for under $50.

Okay, maybe that's cheating, as a 250ft roll results in several long stereo runs of cable.

Good question. I'd like to do the recordings again, better. It could stand as a reference and a "Oh, yeah? You think you can hear the difference?" challenge.

Is there a hit counter for threads, and a list of where the readers are referred from? I can see this thread getting mentioned on other forums and becoming popular/legendary.

And there will still be people who say that silver cables will sound better than either the copper cables OR the original signal. Just don't ask them to identify which is which in a blind test.

 

[AudioLapDance]

...My congrats to everybody who gave this a sincere try with no excuses. That's true open-mindedness and trusting your ears.

Why in the past? Just go to post 129 and don't peek (yes you Mr. Peeker, oh you're such a peeker! Pffffft!)

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...how-about-potato-even-mud-13.html#post3510048

What's interesting is that the mp3 coding artifacts are more significant than the interconnect differences. I only had a listen to the flac versions a few days ago and was thrown somewhat by there being a different set of differences, ...

What was the encoding rate for the MP3s again? Which program?


flac all the way baby! Even for portable --> I got Sansa Clip Plus (cheap) because it has a micro SD slot and they're so cheap I have two 32 Gb cards loaded with all my favs in flac.

 

[fas42]

Yes, things are always clearer after you peek.

My congrats to everybody who gave this a sincere try with no excuses. That's true open-mindedness and trusting your ears.

The artifacts are clear only in the listening, looking at the waveforms tells you nothing useful at all.

And what is still definitely very curious, to me, is why the mp3 of the original version reproduces relatively poorly, and consistently is so. This could be precisely how Pano did the encoding, how Audacity decoded it, the combination of the quality of the playback chain with the decoded track -- this is where things can be learnt ...

 

[benb]

What was the encoding rate for the MP3s again? Which program?

The rate is 320k from post #3, but I see no mention of the encoding program. Pano will surely post that soon enough.

The artifacts are clear only in the listening, looking at the waveforms tells you nothing useful at all.

And what is still definitely very curious, to me, is why the mp3 of the original version reproduces relatively poorly, and consistently is so. This could be precisely how Pano did the encoding, how Audacity decoded it, the combination of the quality of the playback chain with the decoded track -- this is where things can be learnt ...

But looking at waveforms is easy and fun!

And yes, the mp3 encoding and decoding programs are DEFINITELY important, as different ones can do different things to the sounds. At least, for those with ears good enough to notice...

 

[Pano]

I'll do more recordings this weekend and post FLAC and MP3s. I have one song request so far, any others?

 

[Pano]

MP3s were encoded with my wave editor, Goldwave. AFAIK, it calls LAME to do the encoding. I could use something else, if it's important. But I'll post FLAC or zipped wave files of the next test.

 

[Mooly]

Great fun, thanks Pano

I just used ears and the resolving power of the Mooly amp

 

[fas42]

MP3s were encoded with my wave editor, Goldwave. AFAIK, it calls LAME to do the encoding. I could use something else, if it's important. But I'll post FLAC or zipped wave files of the next test.

LAME is good, probably as good as it gets ... but, there are numerous settings that can be twiddled, to get the last ounce of quality, for a particular track. I went through an exercise a year or two ago, playing with these, aiming for maximum invisibility, and then playing back on a half decent machine, better than a PC. Close, but no cigar - there were still little tell tale artifacts, which varied per the combination of settings ...

FLAC is fine, better than zipped WAV in terms of end sizes.

 

[gpapag]

Pano
Thank you for all your effort.

For me, it verified once more my indifference to, incompatibility with pure signal chain/subtle details/hi-end.

For SY, it strengthened his BT weapons arsenal. (next time please, add some of SY’s bottle corks -wetted/dry- in the signal chain).

The strongest impact of your tests I guess was on SE.
It totally transformed him. In his new avatar he looks much older, albeit more calm.
Was it that it made him wiser? I don’t know.
And that enigmatic smile! Did he started thinking of adding some new cable versions? The high priced immersed into banana-potato-tomato juice for a month, the lower priced just sprayed with the same aroma?

George