I could not find any source corroborating the phase shift of skin effect. Everything suggests it is resistive and in effect increases the resistance but with no reactive component. I would imagine that a reactive component would show pretty quickly on things like eye-pattern tests. I think it would also make a transmission line impossible since there is no conjugate effect on the inter-conductor capacitance of the wire.
I spent the time to go back and listen gain, via Sennheiser HD650 and a Scarlet 2i2, nada, nothing different at all. I do like your use of extensive prose which is typical in these situations, nothing subtle just up and down the list "obvious" huge differences.
Comparing the waveforms on top of each other looks like diffmaker would find nothing but the noise floor difference either. I'm not wasting the time to find out.
So for me no difference my vote is the same as anyone else's.
Well my friend i most certainly heard the differences I listed......I had no idea which one was supposed to sound better......or if one was even supposed to sound better.
Don’t hate the 5% 😛
Time to circle the wagons again around the "P" word but there is no point in that anymore.
Of course the difference was noted in the titles of the files and the expected result was discussed at length for, I think, weeks. So literally what you said can't be true.
I really didn’t pay that much attention to that particular event......Dan asked me to compare them in a pm a couple days ago and that’s what I did.....no coaching, no bias.
You system was well warmed up before you started? You A/B compared a few seconds of one file vs the other file, then the next few seconds in file A to the next few seconds in file B, carefully working your way through both files? You know how to blind test yourself? Etc.?
In other words, you can say, for example, from 0:15 to 0:17 in file A, the vibrato on the 2nd violin (or whatever) sounds different in X,Y, and Z ways as compared to the same exact section of file B? And if I listen in that exact same spot in both files, I should be able to hear it too?
The reason I ask is because I made a point to ignore the whole file listening thing. However, given the controversy, if you are sure there are specific audible differences I would be willing to take a listen. If I do that, I would like to know what you think there is to listen for, but I would want the files renamed before I listen, if I am going to do it. I don't want to know which is which.
Last edited:
She was primed and loaded!
Listened to track one softly to make sure there was no speaker damaging bs....then turned it up to -0 db (my usual reference point) took notes.....listened to track 2 comparing notes.....then listened again to verify. Had no idea which was what or even the same.
Listened to track one softly to make sure there was no speaker damaging bs....then turned it up to -0 db (my usual reference point) took notes.....listened to track 2 comparing notes.....then listened again to verify. Had no idea which was what or even the same.
Mark do you have your speaker cables up on myrtle lifters, your connectors wrapped with bags of brilliant pebbles, quantum dots on your DAC's, pictures of your DAC's in the freezer, all your outlets cryo treated? This is the same level of claim being tested.
None of that stuff. How were the files made? Is this that same bit about making a 24-bit file out of a 16-bit file or something else?
EDIT: if one was passed through goop digitally, and one wasn't passed through goop, I would expect them to sound the same. If they ware looped through data converters at different times, then maybe some difference on that account. That is to say, based on any and all differences at the time of analog looping, if that is what was done. Still probably not a goop thing, but could be different in some way depending on quality of converters and or environmental EMI/RFI at the time.
Last edited:
If the listener's head position changed by an inch, I would expect the sound not to be the same even when the source is the same. Something to put into the equation when doing the listening comparison.
Ok, one sleep later and much ado.....
Thanks Benb for your reply. Yes, attenuation by 50% is what I would like so as to ensure that there are no funky rounding errors etc, but OTOH it does not actually matter if the original data is changed slightly by attenuation/interpolation during conversion to 24bit, ie if the any file type converted to 24bit wav track sounds slightly different to the original then so what ?. The purpose of this loopback recording scheme is to capture differences according to interconnect cables so the the actual 'damage' done by the soundcard DAC/CABLE/ADC is not mission critical either, ie SC dist/noise serves to mask changes caused according to cables, so of course quieter/cleaner SC is better but SC noise itself does not critically alter the experiment.
Agreed, AE just dirties stereo mix, not pleasing or useful in stereo playback environment.. I have 44k16bit copy now so yes I can do the same process, hopefully today.....ime the review differences you noted still apply and take good recordings to the next level and also serve to restore clarity and intelligibility in old recordings.
Prove it. Again all we have is your overused word, and again how great your hearing is. Still not buying it.
That just brings the whole "What evidence..." stuff from several closed threads back into play. This is a no win exercise, all the design of experiments for testing subtle differences stuff will be trotted out while ironically the claims are that the differences are not subtle. Casual sighted listening back and forth of the files is no evidence of anything, my evidence of the file contents says there is nothing there. Those who care can keep this up I'm done with it.
Yes, Straight through WiFi just like I stream tidal.
I was asked for a subjective opinion and that’s what I gave.....I believe I labeled it ‘subjective’ in my first post about it. You fellers can work out the details. 😛
Edit....not ignoring y’all but going to bed, be back tomorrow 🙂
Nope, stop making things up and gilding the lily, this testing is about the audibility of loopback generational copy using a 16yo Tascam USB Sound Card pure and simple,.and you can't hear any differences apparently. This test is actually screening before moving on to testing audibility of interconnect cables, so your null result is a data point but also identifies you and/or your rig as unsuitable for further subjective assessments, thank you for making the effort and thank you for you time. When sensible and non emotive your technical guidences are of course valuable and much appreciated.
Mark, you ought to have no trouble with all of the above. No need to complicate things, just load both tracks into you music player close your eys and hit 'next track'....after a few trials you ought to be able to identify one track as dull/compressed etc and the other bright/lively etc for example and go from there if you want to ABX self test. Bob's assessments are good, yours might be interesting too.
Dan.
Funny.
Bob PM'd me and we were discussing some other stuff and I slipped this in....
So you see, no coaching or suggestions, just my opinion that 'any old fart' ought to be able to pick some kind of differences, evidently hearing between 'old farts' varies.
Dan.
It takes 28:02 to listen to the two tracks being discussed, I'm betting this fiction effort took you much longer.
Dan.
You're the one making things up now. Why don't you get more "votes" the bit perfect file test got none.
The process is referred to as HEDD and obviously, being studio hardware, has a bypass. There are a multitude of plugins that are doing similar to what HEDD does and these days the quality of Plugs has improved so HEDD has a lot of competition. Certainly the quality of the converters is of primary consideration, the HEDD is icing on the cake which may or may not be used.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.