Before you go that far, you have to make sure if audible differences do exist between distorted and undistorted (I believe SY would agree). So far no proof, Frank! 🙁
May be if the undistorted file is of better quality, we will complain more on the unnatural sound of distorted file. But still many tube fans really enjoy this modifying effect of H2.
Jay, I very specifically differentiate between distortion of the source material, and that added by the playback mechanism - the source I accept as 'pure', no matter how "dirty" it actually is, by some person's measure; and I then work to minimise any audible added distortion in playback.
To me a far better test would be an original track, made known to be such, and then 3 variations of that, say, a copy of the original and two distorted versions of that original, at different levels of a particular type of distortion applied. The job is then to rank the 3 in order of level of distortion.
To me a far better test would be an original track, made known to be such, and then 3 variations of that, say, a copy of the original and two distorted versions of that original, at different levels of a particular type of distortion applied. The job is then to rank the 3 in order of level of distortion.
Pano, to be frank, this guy has been on my blocking list forever, but this doesn't really work, since the disturbances he causes are still there.
So, to be even more frank, the guy is a pest and a nuisance.
But, his irrational drivel is symptomatic for the unwashed masses that fill the pockets of snake oil merchants, that is, if they have the money to pay for it. So perhaps there should be a place for him and his ilk on a site like this. A special place, for special people.
Pavel, that would be very interesting, but before you do so, may I suggest applying the same H2 profile to a piece of music with relatively pure sinusses? It would be interesting to know if in that case there still would be a preference for the distorted signal.
As always, I am extremely generous with other peoples time, please don't blame me for it.
I believe that you are not YET familiar with the sound of this "theoretical" distortion. This is my first experience also. Actually it precisely represent typical tube sound.
An accurate and most controlled test shouldn't be made easy. Pavel was right, in that this is not about which one is the original and which one is the distorted one but which one you prefer. Unfortunately, imo, the file is not representative enough because there is probability that with a better recording, suitable music, I (or people) would prefer the original.
Last edited:
Stop talking, start doing. Refer to the title of this website.
Thread crapping is super annoying.
Thread crapping is super annoying.
Here are the files:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o80cj5ikdzqaj4w/flute.zip?dl=0
Same question, which one do you prefer.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o80cj5ikdzqaj4w/flute.zip?dl=0
Same question, which one do you prefer.
No statistical proof to say I could identify them on listening. Foobar gave a 4:8 and a 2:8 result.
Audibly and I would say both files have a slightly coarse sound, perhaps a little like listening to a deliberately underbiased class ab amp. Quite a bit of low level background noise and rumble at the start too.
Audibly and I would say both files have a slightly coarse sound, perhaps a little like listening to a deliberately underbiased class ab amp. Quite a bit of low level background noise and rumble at the start too.
Linn classical recordings may sound sharp, which is not same as distorted.
Anyway, there is a lot of distortion in one of the files. Comparison of the original and diff file spectra, with the center at the same time point, would show it. Human perception is different that we may expect from popular simplifications.
Anyway, there is a lot of distortion in one of the files. Comparison of the original and diff file spectra, with the center at the same time point, would show it. Human perception is different that we may expect from popular simplifications.
Attachments
Pavel, will have to do the mono to stereo conversion again, and make sure the laptop is up to speed. I noted in Audacity last night, on a quick listen using its player on the mono that nothing stood out - effectively identical with that software.
Okay, have learnt my lesson! 😀 xyz is the less "interesting" track, 123 has a touch more spice about it - thus, xyz is the original, 123 is the added harmonics.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.