I'm happy to acknowledge that at times digital operations, and digital to analogue and vice versa operations will introduce errors, so a copy won't be perfect. But this is where the devil enjoys climbing on board - just enough 'incorrectness' is introduced into the equation, a subtle buildup of flaws occurs; and we have audible differences popping out the end.
Frank, would you mind trying foobar ABX of Bolton x Blomley? Thank you.
We have had 2 results by now. Mine (negative and not shown) and Karl's (close to negative, at least).
Last edited:
Sorry, that's not going to work for me. You may not recall, but I've mentioned a few times that foobar degrades the sound too much for me - a combination of my PC circuitry, and how foobar does its job causes the sound quality to be too poor to be useful.
Amazingly, there is no obvious, better alternative: I've looked several times, and there is always a problem with what's available. Just recently I came across a brand new attempt to put one together, looks promising - but I haven't seriously tried to get it working yet.
Edit: one of the underlying problems with foobar is that it generates new, resampled copies of the files for the tests - it doesn't actually use the original files ... duuuuhhhh !!
Amazingly, there is no obvious, better alternative: I've looked several times, and there is always a problem with what's available. Just recently I came across a brand new attempt to put one together, looks promising - but I haven't seriously tried to get it working yet.
Edit: one of the underlying problems with foobar is that it generates new, resampled copies of the files for the tests - it doesn't actually use the original files ... duuuuhhhh !!
Last edited:
Oh, I see. So the foobar degrades the sound more than SRC --> DAC --> something --> ADC path.
I just burned the two tracks to cd and listened on my main system.
Same result for me, two quite different recordings, same descriptions.
Dan.
Last edited:
I used Foobar to burn from the playlist.
I forgot about the 48k SR, thanks for pointing it out.
Foobar must be doing the SRC, I didn't look at dither etc settings.
This brings up a good point...fellas, why are the test files not in 44k, so we can all listen on CD ?.
Dan.
I forgot about the 48k SR, thanks for pointing it out.
Foobar must be doing the SRC, I didn't look at dither etc settings.
This brings up a good point...fellas, why are the test files not in 44k, so we can all listen on CD ?.
Dan.
Because my A/D is clocked for 48kHz and 96kHz. It uses HW SRC for 44.1kHz, which results in much worse SFDR - simply said worse sounding.
Well...
I had another go, this time using the built in speakers on my 8 yr old Acer laptop and with volume low. It all went pear shaped in trial three because I thought I was on to something in my own mind and got over excited 😀
As a very (very very) amateur pianist who has also in the past tuned my own piano using beats and intervals I thought I would try and detect anything in that department. I used just the first couple of seconds of the track.
I would like to say
(we've been here before methinks) that I was hearing something but once again maybe this just "proves" the randomness of, well, randomness and that patterns can emerge. On the other hand 😱 perhaps a little enharmonicity is creeping into Pavels loaded preamp 😛)
I had another go, this time using the built in speakers on my 8 yr old Acer laptop and with volume low. It all went pear shaped in trial three because I thought I was on to something in my own mind and got over excited 😀
As a very (very very) amateur pianist who has also in the past tuned my own piano using beats and intervals I thought I would try and detect anything in that department. I used just the first couple of seconds of the track.
I would like to say
(we've been here before methinks) that I was hearing something but once again maybe this just "proves" the randomness of, well, randomness and that patterns can emerge. On the other hand 😱 perhaps a little enharmonicity is creeping into Pavels loaded preamp 😛)Attachments
I'm sorry to say it, but I think you all are wasting your time. There are so many errors in producing those 'test' files, that it wery well might be that artifacts, created by the errors might be masking the real differerence between both devices under test.
Actually I agree with you on these test files.
I am not really surprised that YOUR discrete preamp, as it is properly designed and has 40ma of output quiescent current cannot be changed sonically, even with a 50 ohm load, but what about an IC with 1/2 ma Iq? Yes, that is what some 'expensive' IC's have nominally as output quiescent current. That is the equivalent to a 4K load on one of these IC's compared to your discrete preamp. So, no wonder!
Now PMA, do you now feel that discrete is unnecessary and that some of the latest IC's do the job of making line and phono stages just as well?
I am not really surprised that YOUR discrete preamp, as it is properly designed and has 40ma of output quiescent current cannot be changed sonically, even with a 50 ohm load, but what about an IC with 1/2 ma Iq? Yes, that is what some 'expensive' IC's have nominally as output quiescent current. That is the equivalent to a 4K load on one of these IC's compared to your discrete preamp. So, no wonder!
Now PMA, do you now feel that discrete is unnecessary and that some of the latest IC's do the job of making line and phono stages just as well?
Attachments
Last edited:
Anyone from EU here? I had to go through downup proxy, standard access says page unavailable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.