Diffmaker Is The One.
Yes, I have used Diffmaker recently, and don't find it difficult to use except for long processing time to derive the difference signal.
This has produced some odd results on a cable that I have tested lately, and I am in the process of configuring a better test setup to produce a more accurate difference signal resultant.
I fully agree that this software is eminently suitable to extract the 'distortion' that QP's cause or (remove) in a typical system.
Llistening to the distortion residual of a standard N&D test set can be very revealling, and so is listening to the Diffmaker difference signal.
I was going to suggest this test once Cal gets hold of the QP's, but that is looking to be a lost cause.....maybe his postie subscribes to this forum ?. 🙁
Eric.
Yes, I have used Diffmaker recently, and don't find it difficult to use except for long processing time to derive the difference signal.
This has produced some odd results on a cable that I have tested lately, and I am in the process of configuring a better test setup to produce a more accurate difference signal resultant.
I fully agree that this software is eminently suitable to extract the 'distortion' that QP's cause or (remove) in a typical system.
Llistening to the distortion residual of a standard N&D test set can be very revealling, and so is listening to the Diffmaker difference signal.
I was going to suggest this test once Cal gets hold of the QP's, but that is looking to be a lost cause.....maybe his postie subscribes to this forum ?. 🙁
Eric.
For the QP's to be reliably heard, I expect that the difference is not that far down.
Eric.
Variability on diffmaker?
Hey Pano, about the variability on Diffmaker: it would help to have a stable reference point for it to detect the track's starting point.
I'm thinking that an easy way to help Diffmaker with this is to take a reference signal, be it pink noise, or music, recorded for peak content under the -10dB range, and then mix in a high level pulse (maybe -3dB relative to max level or 0dB) at the beginning of the track.
With this high level trigger, diffmaker would possibly be able to derive the difference with more accuracy and a higher degree of correlation. Since we could use the same test tracks over and over, we could even record the output from diffmaker many, many times over.
Then, by averaging the many recorded output signals together, it may be possible to further increase the s/n ratio between system noise and the "quantum noise byproduct" (QNbyP).
This additional processing would work only if the QNbyP is somewhat coherent and not completely random. Since the Bybee is said to be stripping out "noise", it is indeed possible it would be of the random variety, but random noise is usually not so offensive...we add it in and call it dithering in some circles!
(Bill Waslo's opinion on this procedure might be useful here.)
Either way, taking this "Bybee noise" and comparing it to the diff-noise from a resistor or capacitor or inductor or a cable, etc. may be a very revealing exercise.
In this way it may be possible to more quickly determine the nature of this QNbyP, and perhaps even get an idea of the attributes of the noise that the Bybee is stripping out, and whether they are anywhere near as noxious as the "noise character" of an electrolytic cap for example.
The truth is I have no idea if the Bybee works at all, but I sure would love to find out. I think if we were to subject the devices to a test like this, it might just help put a damper to the endless debate of yes, I can hear it vs no you can't.
Does anyone out there want to lend some Bybee's for test?
Hey Pano, about the variability on Diffmaker: it would help to have a stable reference point for it to detect the track's starting point.
I'm thinking that an easy way to help Diffmaker with this is to take a reference signal, be it pink noise, or music, recorded for peak content under the -10dB range, and then mix in a high level pulse (maybe -3dB relative to max level or 0dB) at the beginning of the track.
With this high level trigger, diffmaker would possibly be able to derive the difference with more accuracy and a higher degree of correlation. Since we could use the same test tracks over and over, we could even record the output from diffmaker many, many times over.
Then, by averaging the many recorded output signals together, it may be possible to further increase the s/n ratio between system noise and the "quantum noise byproduct" (QNbyP).
This additional processing would work only if the QNbyP is somewhat coherent and not completely random. Since the Bybee is said to be stripping out "noise", it is indeed possible it would be of the random variety, but random noise is usually not so offensive...we add it in and call it dithering in some circles!
(Bill Waslo's opinion on this procedure might be useful here.)
Either way, taking this "Bybee noise" and comparing it to the diff-noise from a resistor or capacitor or inductor or a cable, etc. may be a very revealing exercise.
In this way it may be possible to more quickly determine the nature of this QNbyP, and perhaps even get an idea of the attributes of the noise that the Bybee is stripping out, and whether they are anywhere near as noxious as the "noise character" of an electrolytic cap for example.
The truth is I have no idea if the Bybee works at all, but I sure would love to find out. I think if we were to subject the devices to a test like this, it might just help put a damper to the endless debate of yes, I can hear it vs no you can't.
Does anyone out there want to lend some Bybee's for test?
I have, using some musical selections, comparing the Bybees to the cheap reference resistors. Other than a little burst of music at the beginning (comes from the time alignment process), I can't hear a thing when the difference files are played.
Anyone who wants copies of the reference files, the Bybee files, and the difference files are welcome to those.
I've done that and it does help - usually. I use 2 cycles of 440Hz at -6dB at the head and tail of the file. The burst at the head of the file seems to be what helps.
The trouble I have is when the sampling rates differ a bit. Might just be a few PPM, but that screws things up.
I've had good luck recording a SPDIF input, but not an analog in recording.
I've had mixed results. The Bybee stuff was smooth as can be- nulls near 100dB with the M-Audio card. But with a different A/D-D/A converter (Echo), I could never get a decent null in dummy tests, even what I ran the settings as Bill suggested.
Yes, I can confirm that the Diff file playback through my laptop via headphones is silent except for bursts of music at beginning & end as SY said.
Are the Test Shown Reliable ?.......
So how does this work ?.
.....and how to test it reliably ???.
Eric.
Noise suppressor for electronic signals - Google Patent Search
So how does this work ?.
.....and how to test it reliably ???.
Eric.
Noise suppressor for electronic signals - Google Patent Search
Last edited:
update:
A new term - tizziness.
John, I have no problem with people using language to describe what they hear, and I have to say tizziness has an onomatopoeic appeal to it. I'm sure that, in your mind, it correctly describes the sound you hear.
If you'd like to tightly define it (or even just define it) its use can add value to the discussion.
But to just state it, and then claim it is the definitive description of what you hear? Sorry, no cigar...
A new term - tizziness.
John, I have no problem with people using language to describe what they hear, and I have to say tizziness has an onomatopoeic appeal to it. I'm sure that, in your mind, it correctly describes the sound you hear.
If you'd like to tightly define it (or even just define it) its use can add value to the discussion.
But to just state it, and then claim it is the definitive description of what you hear? Sorry, no cigar...
I have heard the terms 'tizzy' and 'tizziness' used since I can remember, and I also have used those terms since I can remember....to me a perfectly valid descriptor of hashy, uncontrolled and false highs.
For example cymbals reproducing as 'tisssh' rather than the correct 'tiiiing' sound, and vocals in particular female vocal sounds reproducing with unnatural and excessive 'essing' can be described as 'tizzy'.
Peeking or not, I also hear this sonic characteristic in pretty much all systems I have heard ranging from Walkmans through shelf systems and including very expensive systems.
Systems exhibiting this behaviour cause listening fatigue and ear ringing when listening at any level, and more especially at high acoustic levels.
Elimination of this unnatural reproduction characteristic is indeed the differentiator and goal of truly high class live and reproduction systems...once heard and identified as unnatural sound it is heard everywhere.
Although I have not personally heard QP's, I have no doubt that the changes attributed to QP's are in particular, changes in the highs reducing typical system 'tizziness'.
In my post above I give reference to a device claiming 'noise suppressior for electronic signals'....anybody know anything more about this device and if it has been commercialised yet ?.
Eric.
For example cymbals reproducing as 'tisssh' rather than the correct 'tiiiing' sound, and vocals in particular female vocal sounds reproducing with unnatural and excessive 'essing' can be described as 'tizzy'.
Peeking or not, I also hear this sonic characteristic in pretty much all systems I have heard ranging from Walkmans through shelf systems and including very expensive systems.
Systems exhibiting this behaviour cause listening fatigue and ear ringing when listening at any level, and more especially at high acoustic levels.
Elimination of this unnatural reproduction characteristic is indeed the differentiator and goal of truly high class live and reproduction systems...once heard and identified as unnatural sound it is heard everywhere.
Although I have not personally heard QP's, I have no doubt that the changes attributed to QP's are in particular, changes in the highs reducing typical system 'tizziness'.
In my post above I give reference to a device claiming 'noise suppressior for electronic signals'....anybody know anything more about this device and if it has been commercialised yet ?.
Eric.
hashy, uncontrolled, false highs is the latest definition of Tizziness from mrfeedback
Sounds like most of the 1970's to me.
Sounds like most of the 1970's to me.
Eric, when I hear "tissssh" from a cymbal, I'm assuming / understanding that I am hearing the rivets of a sizzle cymbal rattling as they are meant to do.
I understand what you are trying to say, but the clear implication of your premise is there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the equipment if it is imposing this signature onto the signal.
Thats a little tough to believe since the effect is apparently (although somewhat contentiously) best heard in high end equipment. High End implies that its equipment that audiophiles broadly agree is at the head of the field. And likely therefore not to exhibit sonic errors best fixed by soldering in a random resistor, ceramic and quantum blessed or otherwise.
I don't see that adding a random (and it is random in the sense that it is not designed to correct the specific error - it corrects EVERYTHING according to reviews and the manufacturer) device is the best solution to fixing a problem that had not been identified until the aforementioned random device arose...
Cynical? Perhaps, but I've yet to read a review that says anything like "I had an odd sizzling, tizziness in the high end of my equipment, so I considered all the technical possibilities and settled on the Bybee quantum device as the obvious solution"
They always read along the lines of " I have a Megadeath 200 fed by a Quasi-interpolating self deferential Handbuilt X77 (with the Dr Rosenburg upgrade) and titanium enhanced, triple cryo-ed, silver plated, unobtainium speaker cables to the Towa-o-Powa electrodynamic speakers. I soldered in the (name of device here) and suddenly angel sang and devils danced up my spine etc."
Superlatives flow, and previously unheard things jump forth. Veils lift faster than Salome on a Saturday bender.
The descriptions are invariably an object lesson in post-hoc rationalisation.
Now, why is that?
I understand what you are trying to say, but the clear implication of your premise is there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the equipment if it is imposing this signature onto the signal.
Thats a little tough to believe since the effect is apparently (although somewhat contentiously) best heard in high end equipment. High End implies that its equipment that audiophiles broadly agree is at the head of the field. And likely therefore not to exhibit sonic errors best fixed by soldering in a random resistor, ceramic and quantum blessed or otherwise.
I don't see that adding a random (and it is random in the sense that it is not designed to correct the specific error - it corrects EVERYTHING according to reviews and the manufacturer) device is the best solution to fixing a problem that had not been identified until the aforementioned random device arose...
Cynical? Perhaps, but I've yet to read a review that says anything like "I had an odd sizzling, tizziness in the high end of my equipment, so I considered all the technical possibilities and settled on the Bybee quantum device as the obvious solution"
They always read along the lines of " I have a Megadeath 200 fed by a Quasi-interpolating self deferential Handbuilt X77 (with the Dr Rosenburg upgrade) and titanium enhanced, triple cryo-ed, silver plated, unobtainium speaker cables to the Towa-o-Powa electrodynamic speakers. I soldered in the (name of device here) and suddenly angel sang and devils danced up my spine etc."
Superlatives flow, and previously unheard things jump forth. Veils lift faster than Salome on a Saturday bender.
The descriptions are invariably an object lesson in post-hoc rationalisation.
Now, why is that?
'noise suppressior for electronic signals'
Its a variation on the ferrite bead principle, ie it convers the electrical field energy to heat, its no magical device.
Just a different composition than standard (should say common) ferrite materials, aluminium oxide being the main ceramic base holing the other materials in the required lattice.
Tis a bit of a conundrum why they are using corundum as the base ceramic!
Its a variation on the ferrite bead principle, ie it convers the electrical field energy to heat, its no magical device.
Just a different composition than standard (should say common) ferrite materials, aluminium oxide being the main ceramic base holing the other materials in the required lattice.
Tis a bit of a conundrum why they are using corundum as the base ceramic!
Rattle cymbals are used in orchestral music, but I am yet to see them used in rock'n'roll...snare rattles yes, cymbal rattles no.
Live rock/pop cymbals produce a sharp initial attack followed by a sustained decaying quite pure ringing sound...on a good system this is reproduced accurately, on lesser systems this is reproduced as as an initial 'TISSSSHHH' and no sustained decay.
Yes, to my ear a system that cannot reproduce cymbals accurately is not worth having...ditto on a good system snare rattles can be heard distinctly whereas on a lesser system the snare ratles are lost in the general cacophony....this also extends to repro of vocals, in particular female vocals.
On a lesser system nuances are masked by 'essing' on sibilants, on worthy systems little traits like speech impediments are clearly audible.
Hmmm, to my mind 'High End' does not always to equate to premium sonic performance....silly and needlessly expensive construction techniques all too often are touted as 'desirable' and 'high end'.
That said there is plenty of 'avant garde' audio gear that is bettered by common and affordable mainstream audio gear.....the hyping by magazine reviewers is the difference.
All devices and systems are prone to harmonic and intermodulation errors...reduce the noise sources and the errors can subjectively change and/or reduce.
Spend a few hours searching for and reading every forum owners review and opinion that you can find....actual owners/users findings vary according to equipment and listening experience/skill, but in general are subjectively positive, with cost/benefit the question...and perhaps correctly so.
No, they do NOT 'always' read as above.
Yes, reducing noise and distortions can allow previously unnoticed nuances to become readily apparent....that part is not rocket science.
Nah, more so revealling of listeners lack of listening skill/experience....reading between the lines there are usually valid snippets.
Eric.
If so, and he really hasn't seen them used in rock, he needs to get out to live shows more often.
Cymbal sound on most rock recordings is a mess- the EQ, compression, and noise gating that are standard in that genre are pretty evident on a decent system, but decent systems are not taken into account during production and mastering.
Cymbal sound on most rock recordings is a mess- the EQ, compression, and noise gating that are standard in that genre are pretty evident on a decent system, but decent systems are not taken into account during production and mastering.
you missed the point Eric - the bybee devices are seemingly a solution in search of a problem - this in every review I've read. The "problem" is only identified after the money has been spent, ergo the rationalisations.
I'd add that this is often the case in audiophile circles judging by the self-reporting posted liberally everywhere (as you note). The post-hoc identification is not just a Bybee phenomenon, its seemingly close to universal.
Its the audio equivalent of feeling good about your health, taking a couple of vitamin supplements for the hell of it, and suddenly feeling that you can run just a little quicker.
I'd add that this is often the case in audiophile circles judging by the self-reporting posted liberally everywhere (as you note). The post-hoc identification is not just a Bybee phenomenon, its seemingly close to universal.
Its the audio equivalent of feeling good about your health, taking a couple of vitamin supplements for the hell of it, and suddenly feeling that you can run just a little quicker.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.