Downloaded for the third times from different links. Same problem. I gave up.
I dont understand how you have to press your ear to speaker. Theres background noise but i couldnt focus on it because the foreground tone hurts my ear! Even my wive came from another room wondering what sound it was.
I dont understand how you have to press your ear to speaker. Theres background noise but i couldnt focus on it because the foreground tone hurts my ear! Even my wive came from another room wondering what sound it was.
Downloaded for the third times from different links. Same problem. I gave up.
I dont understand how you have to press your ear to speaker. Theres background noise but i couldnt focus on it because the foreground tone hurts my ear! Even my wive came from another room wondering what sound it was.
I dont understand how you have to press your ear to speaker. Theres background noise but i couldnt focus on it because the foreground tone hurts my ear! Even my wive came from another room wondering what sound it was.
I've pointed out that this wasn't a controlled test of ATRACK, shown you why the 3kHz interference might be 20dB more significant than you think in affecting the clarity of the highs and told you the right way of doing the test - a compression, decompression pass in software.
You are simply making the unjustified assertion that the flaws in the test procedure are not significant.
Most people seem to be able to hear the 3kHz interference. You can't simply assert that it can't possibly make a difference.
When I mess up the highs in my amp, I know it's not from compression - I don't use compressed audio.
I could listen to the music in these tests and I might convince myself that any changes in the highs really were from the compression algorithm this time but that could so easily be a spurious result so it's fairly pointless.
As an undergrad, I received a prize from Cambridge University for a project on wavelet compression of images. Running the results through an old VCR and then claiming it wasn't significant wasn't part of the procedure.
Keep your insults to yourself please. They are unnecessary.
To me it sounds like there's some gain stage involved in your playback chain; once you go below -60dB peak signal the sound levels are very, very low on my PC monitor setup, this is ears next to the driver stuff.
Inspired by this latest round of files, I'm wondering how the DAC, etc does behave itself with low level material - so I generated some cycling at 1Hz ramped tones of 1kHz to make it easier to pick things. Veeerry interesting - you can hear the digital/analogue circuitry misbehaving at around the -70 to -80dB peak levels, strange warbling tones nothing to do with what's encoded can be heard ... and, the tonality, character, alters depending upon the sampling rate! Some more investigating to be done ... 🙂
Inspired by this latest round of files, I'm wondering how the DAC, etc does behave itself with low level material - so I generated some cycling at 1Hz ramped tones of 1kHz to make it easier to pick things. Veeerry interesting - you can hear the digital/analogue circuitry misbehaving at around the -70 to -80dB peak levels, strange warbling tones nothing to do with what's encoded can be heard ... and, the tonality, character, alters depending upon the sampling rate! Some more investigating to be done ... 🙂
Ruby ....
Sounds like a L -R phase difference between the two clips.
I have a DSP that can do something similar.
If this is the case , ruby has a more pleasant phase 😀 .
ps - ruby won on both winamp/foobar (no dsp's -quite apparent on both)
OS
Sounds like a L -R phase difference between the two clips.
I have a DSP that can do something similar.
If this is the case , ruby has a more pleasant phase 😀 .
ps - ruby won on both winamp/foobar (no dsp's -quite apparent on both)
OS
Last edited:
sounds the same except that Opal gets louder at around 23sec from the start and seems almost redline at some point.
Do
Do
Ruby sounds like "stereo wide" , can hear different (separate) things (L /R)
easily.
Opal almost sounds "mono" ,bland ... there still is L/R info , but not
as easily distinguished (as ruby).
Wherever I sit, I can hear Ruby's channels (and the separate L/R sounds) ,
I have to sit right in the middle and "try" to hear this with opal.
Are these the same clips ? Or some devious psychoacoustical trickery ?
OS
Its a closed poll. Ruby is cassette tape. Opal is sony cd player. I had spent times to check lr phasing, didnt notice what you noticed.
This is interesting ... clear "proof" that software matters - as in the digital processing occurring prior to the signal being fed to the DAC changes things ...
What seems to be key is that the signal is varying in amplitude - ramping up from silence to a very low peak amplitude, then ramping down again - this stimulates spurious 'distortion' tones. Originally I was doing this in Audacity, and playing in Audacity, and thought my DAC was in terrible shape, the warbling artifacts were quite severe. A thought - I wonder whether Nero outputs a slightly different level to the DAC, if that is significant at all. And received quite a shock - my warbling artifacts almost completely disappeared!! And now heard a very clean, ramping 1kHz tone ... the misbehaviour is no longer there ...
Created another ramping tone peaking 10dB lower again, still very clean in Nero, but lots of burbling, very noticeable, intrusive tones when using Audacity. So, media players do matter ...
Have pushed it to ramping from silence to -90dB, still detectable and very clean, using Nero, just some innocuous hiss overlying it. That earlier, low frequency throbbing I thought was the fan has also vanished. Note, this is using a 176/24 version of the track.
So, what appears to happen is that the DAC area of the circuitry in some fashion becomes unstable, becomes sensitive to interference perhaps, making it much noisier in a distinctive fashion - hence poorer playback. This misbehaviour can be undone without powering down - will see if more of a pattern emerges ...
So, what appears to happen is that the DAC area of the circuitry in some fashion becomes unstable, becomes sensitive to interference perhaps, making it much noisier in a distinctive fashion - hence poorer playback. This misbehaviour can be undone without powering down - will see if more of a pattern emerges ...
Last edited:
Frank, how can you open the sigtest.wav? Is Foobar or Nero a must? It seemed to need special codec.
If your media players sound different then it's possible you are not getting bit perfect audio down to the sound card.
In windows, the device can sometimes be opened in an exclusive mode and sometimes in a shared mode depending on the client applications.
In the shared mode, the audio will get resampled to the rate of the shared audio device.
This might be what you are experiencing.
It's not really an artifact of the player - the player is probably outputting bit perfect audio - more an artifact of the underlying sound system and the device sharing.
In windows, the device can sometimes be opened in an exclusive mode and sometimes in a shared mode depending on the client applications.
In the shared mode, the audio will get resampled to the rate of the shared audio device.
This might be what you are experiencing.
It's not really an artifact of the player - the player is probably outputting bit perfect audio - more an artifact of the underlying sound system and the device sharing.
You need to setup your card driver for 24 bit. You need to say foobar which bit depth it should use (attached). You may not allow SW ta make EQ or volume equalizing. Most of the anecdotal stories here reflect wrong PC audio setup. Result of any more serious test would be invalid then, like my 48kHz/24bit tests.
Attachments
Same clips 😀
Now that clip has very prominent L and R separation of instruments as was common in the early days of stereo. Now think what the channel separation of a cassette head and tape gives, and yet still the cassette can seemingly win out in that area too.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.