Different approach. I'm using my main system and feeding the line out of the PC into my main amp, no headphones this time. Flat response, playback level 'moderate' to 'low moderate'. Concentration level... ultra intense 
(I've just had a beer and its all gone to pieces I'll try again later)
(I've just had a beer and its all gone to pieces
I'll try again later)Attachments
Only one way to find out I was listening to the percussion that had a right channel bias around 48 seconds in.
Did another run after having eaten. A bit tenuous maybe.
I'd like to say that there is one of the two that seems to have more life and better timbre in the HF and yet saying that of course begs the question why I can't get it right every time. I think the concentration needed is an absolute killer, as soon as you even move a fraction, what you thought you heard is changed.
I can say which of the two I prefer if Pavel wishes.
I was listening to the percussion that had a right channel bias around 48 seconds in.Did another run after having eaten. A bit tenuous maybe.
I'd like to say that there is one of the two that seems to have more life and better timbre in the HF and yet saying that of course begs the question why I can't get it right every time. I think the concentration needed is an absolute killer, as soon as you even move a fraction, what you thought you heard is changed.
I can say which of the two I prefer if Pavel wishes.
Attachments
I've just had a beer and its all gone to pieces
Does that mean that you had a few runs with less correct picks, and you didn't show them?
Obvious sample bias in that case.
Just find an excuse to leave out all the cases with less than 50%
"Oh, I won't count that one, I messed it up"
"I didn't concentrate hard that time"
And so on.
Not that you would do that
, but it's remarkable how many people don't understand statistics.Or even realize that if one cherry-picks results then they are worthless.
A bit of a problem for Pavel since the results here are self reported.
Always a risk that someone will do a few trials until they hit an impressive score, not too hard even if only luck, and then post the screen shot of that trial "Look, I can hear the difference easily"
Best wishes
David
Last edited:
After the beer I did one quick test and it was a 4/8. I haven't done loads of runs and only picked the best. If you look at the three I posted earlier today then they were all consecutive. And so to the runs via the main amp and speakers.
I find the concentration absolutely intense (draining and tiring) to do these things properly... particularly when they are so close as here.
(can't help recalling Scott (I think it was Scott) saying that if it takes this much effort to pick the 741 or whatever from the best of the best then is it all worth it... something like that anyway)
The effects of the beer are only just receding now, it was a strong one
I find the concentration absolutely intense (draining and tiring) to do these things properly... particularly when they are so close as here.
(can't help recalling Scott (I think it was Scott) saying that if it takes this much effort to pick the 741 or whatever from the best of the best then is it all worth it... something like that anyway)
The effects of the beer are only just receding now, it was a strong one
Attachments
Sure, I will give you formal ABX results tomorrow, red wine and good company tonight....
Last night's impressions on quick listen on said cheap (modified) earbuds was one track was cleanish (and boring), the other quite 'dirty' (and boring)....
Neither turned me on, the dirty one drove me 'out of the room'.
Dan.
More like if it is that much effort calling people deaf or liars if they don't instantly hear it is not justified.
Only one way to find out
Did another run after having eaten. A bit tenuous maybe.
I'd like to say that there is one of the two that seems to have more life and better timbre in the HF and yet saying that of course begs the question why I can't get it right every time. I think the concentration needed is an absolute killer, as soon as you even move a fraction, what you thought you heard is changed.
I can say which of the two I prefer if Pavel wishes.
Very good Karl, however I am not sure if one 6/8 positive result from many unsuccessful attempts is statistically enough. Because between many trials it is possible to get 6/8 for once. So my question is, is the result repeatable?
I would also appreciate if you guys who have a positive result would post the whole test protocol. The reason is that it has a digital signature and can be then validated at
foobar2000 ABX Log Signature Tool
Do not get me wrong Karl, but I have just achieved 6/8 from pushing just always "X" in every of 8 votes.
Code:
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.7
2017-11-02 17:33:59
File A: cc.wav
SHA1: 4f7cea25c5c93af637dc3dd7ad416402aa40eac4
File B: oo.wav
SHA1: eb0584e9e01746a0ee00ef60decf8eaca5832fcb
Used DSPs:
Resampler (PPHS)
Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO
17:33:59 : Test started.
17:34:07 : 01/01
17:34:10 : 02/02
17:34:14 : 03/03
17:34:18 : 03/04
17:34:22 : 04/05
17:34:25 : 05/06
17:34:28 : 05/07
17:34:32 : 06/08
17:34:32 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 6/8
Probability that you were guessing: 14.5%
-- signature --
00242199a3361cda19842b5d92b0a96d7784197a
Last edited:
Attached are measurements of distortion of the amp under test. One can also see that it is almost purely crossover distortion, which disappears when the output is not loaded. Also please take into account that tested are original data vs. D/A - amp - A/D chain with no so called high-end components used.
Attachments
Thanks Scott, I stand corrected
Thanks Pavel. I really tried with these and all I can say is that post #23 shows a 7/8 and then a 6/8 and after lunch I managed another 6/8
Could I do the same tomorrow... I really don't know at this point.
The statisticians can work out the relevance of that and what it means
Nothing at all to prevent someone doing that. All I would say is that it would be mentally impossible for me to keep the concentration going beyond two or three in a row. I tend to select a portion of the track and then select 'play A' over and over, then B and trying to latch on to something that can be identified as different such as attack or timbre or image width and solidity.
And then again 'Play A' over and over and then play X.... was it the same or not ? Vote, and even there, looking up at the screen destroys the impressions you have formed.
To do it properly is intense when things are so close.
Mark made a very good point the other day on the focus effect. Many times people even admit to listening for a single hit of a drum rim or cymbal to catch a fleeting anomaly. To me this is not listening to music.
Last edited:
There is definitely a lot of deaf people in these forums
The difference is very appreciable, with one with less life and another with many highs. W10 Pro (very optimized to play multimedia) and JRiver.
********* ********* **********
Since the last test that you proposed my system has improved a lot in sound quality. Days ago the electrical wires (very old) that connect the grid to the building burned. They joined phase and neutral, having 400 volts at home! My monitor and other hard was burned.
Since then the sound is much better.
The difference is very appreciable, with one with less life and another with many highs. W10 Pro (very optimized to play multimedia) and JRiver.
********* ********* **********
Since the last test that you proposed my system has improved a lot in sound quality. Days ago the electrical wires (very old) that connect the grid to the building burned. They joined phase and neutral, having 400 volts at home! My monitor and other hard was burned.
Since then the sound is much better.
Last edited:
Have to agree 100% there, and that is exactly what I am doing which is listening for some fleeting 'something' to try and pick up on.
I find it truly remarkable that a ripped WAV file and a CD-DAC-Power Opamp driving a real load both seem to provide seemingly identical results subjectively. Oh, and not forgetting the A to D process to get it back again.
That is remarkable to me.
I find it truly remarkable that a ripped WAV file and a CD-DAC-Power Opamp driving a real load both seem to provide seemingly identical results subjectively. Oh, and not forgetting the A to D process to get it back again.
That is remarkable to me.
There is definitely a lot of deaf people in these forums
The difference is very appreciable, with one with less life and another with many highs. W10 Pro (very optimized to play multimedia) and JRiver.
********* ********* **********
Since the last test that you proposed my system has improved a lot in sound quality. Days ago the electrical wires (very old) that connect the grid to the building burned. They joined phase and neutral, having 400 volts at home! My monitor and other hard was burned.
Since then the sound is much better.
Post your valid ABX protocol, otherwise your comments are absolutely useless and not appreciated in this thread. We have enough threads for self-proclaimed golden ears.
By the way, a week before the fire I updated my W10 Pro 1511 compilation to the last, Creators... 1703 I think. The sound was much worse!!! I reinstalled the 1511 copy.
W10 Pro 1511 has better sound than Linux Mint 18.2 Sonya. And LM has better sound than W10 Pro 1703 (and yes, optimized to play multimedia like 1511).
With my loved and cheap tweaked ODAC (USB DAC).
W10 Pro 1511 has better sound than Linux Mint 18.2 Sonya. And LM has better sound than W10 Pro 1703 (and yes, optimized to play multimedia like 1511).
With my loved and cheap tweaked ODAC (USB DAC).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.