Hmmm, it seems that my first impressions are probably the ones I should take most note of!!
Tony.
I have seen slightly more distortion in the right channel on this card. Phase, I don't know. Don't see it with most tests, but I can double check.
The sound card isn't perfect, of course. But the point is: How different is the copper from other, lesser, materials?
The sound card isn't perfect, of course. But the point is: How different is the copper from other, lesser, materials?
Well, there was at least 6 feet of copper wire leading to and from the mud, so maybe that influenced your choice. 😉
I've been testing to get the cleanest loops I can, and have found that Direct Sound and MME can by glitchy with this M-Audio card. ASIO is always excellent, but I don't have software that will record via ASIO. Playback no problem. Gotta find something to record with.
This may give an indication why ASIO Audio Interface - Audacity Wiki Not sure if you have the tools to compile audacity yourself?
Tony.
Tony.
Haven't had time... 🙂
I suspect you've also put off a few people by posting other's results. I would have kept quiet about everything until the final reveal.
May be. I was hoping to encourage listening by posting that some people did well on the listening test. 🙁
Tried following up Pano's comment on comparing copper with other materials - so, how about steel wool?
Scary stuff ... the nulling between copper and steel wool is impressively good, can get as good as -60dB at the peak of the original waveform, if fine tuning of amplitudes is used. If the difference file is amplified 50dB, then every area where there is a significant deviation can be seen to be merely an echo of the original waveform -- this implies that subtle timing wobbles are more of an issue, at the visual level, than other things ...
Scary stuff ... the nulling between copper and steel wool is impressively good, can get as good as -60dB at the peak of the original waveform, if fine tuning of amplitudes is used. If the difference file is amplified 50dB, then every area where there is a significant deviation can be seen to be merely an echo of the original waveform -- this implies that subtle timing wobbles are more of an issue, at the visual level, than other things ...
Looking a little further, there's a glitch in the mud sample -- but it's at a point where it may be hard to pick up audibly. Pano, are you conscious that you edited that version in some way that possibly discarded a tiny bit of the track?
The tracks should be trimmed only at the beginning and the end, nothing in between. But there could be a mistake somewhere.
Diff Maker often reports a sample rate drift for these files, I doubt it's a real drift. I think what happens is glitches that cause offsets, and Diff Maker see those as drift. I've been trying to fix that. If I could get both playback and record thru ASIO a lot of those glitches should go away.
Diff Maker often reports a sample rate drift for these files, I doubt it's a real drift. I think what happens is glitches that cause offsets, and Diff Maker see those as drift. I've been trying to fix that. If I could get both playback and record thru ASIO a lot of those glitches should go away.
I'm not sure but I think Malcolm Hawksford said that thinner cables should be used:
The Essex Echo 1995: Electrical Signal Propagation & Cable Theory | Stereophile.com
That article appears to make at least two mistakes, which may be sufficient to render its conclusions invalid:
1. failure to distinguish between phase and group velocity - his speed calculations look suspiciously low,
2. failure to recognise that the 'energy storage' is simply internal inductance.
Hawksford seems to have a knack for writing articles which look impressive and 'scientific' yet his arguments often don't hold water.
1. failure to distinguish between phase and group velocity - his speed calculations look suspiciously low,
2. failure to recognise that the 'energy storage' is simply internal inductance.
Hawksford seems to have a knack for writing articles which look impressive and 'scientific' yet his arguments often don't hold water.
No more listening or guesses. Looks like this has run out of steam.
I'll publish the new key tonight.
I'll publish the new key tonight.
For me, it's too close to call on my PC-speakers (which are quite good), and I am too busy with other stuff to move the test to the large system.
At any rate, the differences between the uncompressed files appears smaller than between these files and the MP3's that where posted in the beginning of this thread; between FLAC and MP3 I could differentiate with some measure of confidence.
Quite remarkeable all this.
At any rate, the differences between the uncompressed files appears smaller than between these files and the MP3's that where posted in the beginning of this thread; between FLAC and MP3 I could differentiate with some measure of confidence.
Quite remarkeable all this.
Thanks. Are you saying you find more difference between FLAC and MP3 than between the materials - or something else?
Here is the key for the second round.
A: steel wool
B: copper
C: wine
E: mud
F: original
Coffee, Coke and Salt water were dropped.
Here is the key for the second round.
A: steel wool
B: copper
C: wine
E: mud
F: original
Coffee, Coke and Salt water were dropped.
Yes Pano, if these 57 year old ears don't lie to me (but of course I knew which file was what). Perhaps that's a nice other test.
I recently immersed my interconnects in hydrofluoric acid (along with some rocks I was trying to dissolve the quartz off of). After a few minutes, the sound took on an ethereal quality, and ultimately the sound of the interconnects vanished completely, and the music followed suit.
However, I still heard the music in my head.
However, I still heard the music in my head.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.