It depends on what you look for. Cheaper device can be more powerful in showing the flaws in certain area. A good speaker can really show the quality of the soundstage.
It's very configurable. You can set the target freq response to what you want which could be the original freq response. Then it will sort out the phase. There is a choice of types of phase correction.
It takes about 3 months of playing around before you start to understand all the options.
My best experience was accidentally creating a filter which clipped only in the band containing Tracy Chapman's voice.
Insert wife next door story here.
Why Worry About Cheating
There are many situation where it doesnt mstter wheter the respondents are cheating or not.
Mohammed li believed that modern opamp circuitry can be made identical to tube circuitry. So here we can ask which one is the tube circuitry.
Of course we still need to improve the validity of the responds before concluding that opamp sounds identical to tube... (Or whatever the conclusion gonna be)
Then for abx we can use 2 setz of test with identical duts but different songs. Or one set of abx test with different song for the third presentation.
Like in many area of skills, it is easier for those who are on the top to judge the quality of those below them.
The true gps dhould be able to know if a respondent is only cheating from his comments about the difference of the sound.
And especially if you are here for a long time, you may already have a list with those whose ears you trust and those whose ears you dont trust.
Why? Because we will not just run to build an amp just because one unknown person declares that the amp is the best he ever heard. Of course, those who build only one or two amps might not understand 😉
There are many situation where it doesnt mstter wheter the respondents are cheating or not.
Mohammed li believed that modern opamp circuitry can be made identical to tube circuitry. So here we can ask which one is the tube circuitry.
Of course we still need to improve the validity of the responds before concluding that opamp sounds identical to tube... (Or whatever the conclusion gonna be)
Then for abx we can use 2 setz of test with identical duts but different songs. Or one set of abx test with different song for the third presentation.
Like in many area of skills, it is easier for those who are on the top to judge the quality of those below them.
The true gps dhould be able to know if a respondent is only cheating from his comments about the difference of the sound.
And especially if you are here for a long time, you may already have a list with those whose ears you trust and those whose ears you dont trust.
Why? Because we will not just run to build an amp just because one unknown person declares that the amp is the best he ever heard. Of course, those who build only one or two amps might not understand 😉
I think I will disagree. I believe that direct will never win if the respondents are men from the street. But one truth IMO is that direct sound will always be the least fatiguing.
I have always wondered if Mooly could reveal the respondents who chosed banana (direct) in the first poll, but thought that it wasn't fair or ethical.
Yes I know what you mean and I agree with that. But the same set of data can be different in the eyes of different jury. It's like human resource management tools in the hand of unqualified HR person, can be dangerously misleading. Qualified personnel (such as the director himself) is usually more accurate even if equipped with simpler tool.
I could say something along the lines of, those most suspicious of others are sometimes the ones most inclined to do the wrong thing themselves - but I won't ... 😉 😛
The point is, this is a useful learning exercise ... if people do it with the right attitude then everyone benefits ...
Yes, this is an interesting aspect - bizarrely, if the playback is really high quality then you, the listener, can be too distracted by the positive aspects of the sound, you find yourself constantly tuning into the musical content; you then find it harder to maintain focus on trying to pick where 'things are wrong', where the sound is different ...
I've had trouble trying to get caught up.
I started using the onboard Realtek in a Linux Mint 12 system and couldn't hear the tones in the test files. So I spent the day assembling a CS4398 DAC.
Ruby vs Opal was a bit of a problem as I had to adjust the volume down on Ruby to get what I thought was a fair comparison.
Right now I'm too tired to really tell much, so I'll listen to the files again tomorrow morning when it is quiet and the heat pump isn't running so much.
I started using the onboard Realtek in a Linux Mint 12 system and couldn't hear the tones in the test files. So I spent the day assembling a CS4398 DAC.
Ruby vs Opal was a bit of a problem as I had to adjust the volume down on Ruby to get what I thought was a fair comparison.
Right now I'm too tired to really tell much, so I'll listen to the files again tomorrow morning when it is quiet and the heat pump isn't running so much.
Doesn't this really just mean that there is nothing serious wrong with the sound? God forbid we might actually find ourselves enjoying music instead of picking apart the technical presentation of it. 🙄
Psychoacoustics plays such a big roll in this ... a really poor system, old car radio, say, can work because we can mentally bypass all the limitations, and "just hear the music" -- and an excellent system takes one again to a good place, where one always enjoys what one hears. Trouble is, there's a mighty big hole in the middle, where systems often magnify every 'defect' in the recording, they make one terribly aware of ambitious machinery trying to create an illusion, and failing very audibly. So, trick is to stick to one side or other of that 'hole' ..
On my system, it doesn't sound like low freq rumbling, it sounds like a square edged low freq compression artifact.
Both tracks have it, one has more than the other. The one with less sounds more dynamic on my system.
I was using a software volume control for that test and it wasn't at maximum. This might have something to do with the difference in perceived sound.
Last edited:
Time to reveal the results of the latest two part test.
I think the time has come to reveal the results and they are "interesting" as were all your comments... so thanks first of all to everyone that took part. (I will also close the polls now)
A) Was the original CD played on the Marantz player and the analogue output taken straight into the Dell laptop.
B) Was that same CD track recorded optically direct onto MiniDisc using the optical output of the Marantz. The recording was then played back to create the file.
Y) Was the the same procedure as B above but not the same file. It was recorded again but under the same conditions.
Z) Was just the signal looped through the MiniDisc recorder electronics.
So its interesting to observe that the recorded file in both cases was deemed preferable. The compression used by MiniDisc is ATRAC (in this case ATRAC 3)
One respondent thought it a "night and day difference" and preferred "Y over Z any day", and that A had a "higher pitched noise than B" And that is a valid listening test result.
Others weren't so sure and started doubting that they could hear any difference.
One voter was spot on in their observations, saying
Listening test 1 vote for A.
Listening test 2 vote for Z.
Just listened 1 time each, so maybe too little effort put in but sounded like A=Z and B=Y.
So well done to BYRTT, you shall remain anonymous... oops 😀
Pavel picked the original file as preferable by listening and could detect various artifacts in the others 🙂
What was interesting was seeing at least one of those who voted for cassette last time around voting for MD playback here.
I think these kind of tests have at least some validity based on results over a few different threads.
I think the time has come to reveal the results and they are "interesting" as were all your comments... so thanks first of all to everyone that took part. (I will also close the polls now)
A) Was the original CD played on the Marantz player and the analogue output taken straight into the Dell laptop.
B) Was that same CD track recorded optically direct onto MiniDisc using the optical output of the Marantz. The recording was then played back to create the file.
Y) Was the the same procedure as B above but not the same file. It was recorded again but under the same conditions.
Z) Was just the signal looped through the MiniDisc recorder electronics.
So its interesting to observe that the recorded file in both cases was deemed preferable. The compression used by MiniDisc is ATRAC (in this case ATRAC 3)
One respondent thought it a "night and day difference" and preferred "Y over Z any day", and that A had a "higher pitched noise than B" And that is a valid listening test result.
Others weren't so sure and started doubting that they could hear any difference.
One voter was spot on in their observations, saying
Listening test 1 vote for A.
Listening test 2 vote for Z.
Just listened 1 time each, so maybe too little effort put in but sounded like A=Z and B=Y.
So well done to BYRTT, you shall remain anonymous... oops 😀
Pavel picked the original file as preferable by listening and could detect various artifacts in the others 🙂
What was interesting was seeing at least one of those who voted for cassette last time around voting for MD playback here.
I think these kind of tests have at least some validity based on results over a few different threads.
Interesting, so the results I got suggest that I couldn't hear the effect of ATRAC compression, but I could hear the difference between the Marantz electronics and the Minidisc player ones. (and I think I preferred the Marantz)
I used ABX testing again and scored 100% out of 10 trials for A vs B, but only 70% for Y vs Z, which I doubt is statistically significant in 10 trials.
I used ABX testing again and scored 100% out of 10 trials for A vs B, but only 70% for Y vs Z, which I doubt is statistically significant in 10 trials.
Mooly, definitely, and thank you for the tests you have prepared.
To me there is a FACT that some listeners do prefer degraded files. I am still convinced that it indicates to weak point in their hardware. Anywhere, from SW and soundcards to headphones and speakers.
And frankly, I do not like tubes. Have not heard tubes transparent enough yet.
Yes, the MiniDisc in loopthrough is a bit like pressing the record key on a cassette deck deck in that the signal goes through all the electronics and is then passed on direct to the output. I haven't scoped this but I think the signal will be "brickwall" filtered in this mode such that the direct signal still has the sharp 20kHz roll off and that a squarewave applied to the input will not be a sqaurewave at the output. It will look similar to that off CD replay... if that makes sense.
I know my Dell laptop is a major limitation in quality (its A-D process etc) but the results still seem worthwhile and have meaning.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.