To say two files sound the same is not the equal to them being physically the same. "Sounding the same" is an experience of human consciousnesses. Better to say that identical files if played correctly on the same system should move the air in front of the speakers the same way, and that if we had completely reliable hearing as we may prefer to believe, then they should sound the same.
Just to be clear -- digital data is absolutely the only thing in a digital data file.
Identical files, are ...identical....
Anything "spooky" is unrelated to the files if they are identical...
Two identical files contain the same information.
If they sound different, it's something external to the files.
That's what I was saying.
I have decided to find an IQ test which has the same questions each time i take it. Then I take the test over and over and each time I get higher IQ results. I'll use the last test result for my IQ number.
-RNM
-RNM
You should hit your perfect score on the second run than!
No excuse for getting a question wrong after you know in advance what it is. 🙂
Not that this is related to digital data...
Last edited:
Very interesting thread. This is my first post as I feel I might finally be able to offer a piece of information rather than just learn information over the years. Below is a link to an ABX tool that takes a single wave file and generates very slight types of distortions for you to learn your ability to hear these distortions and if you know what types of distortions you can hear and the level then you know if an op-amp is colouring the sound or not.
https://www.quantasylum.com/content/Home/tabid/40/Post/342/ABX-Testing-and-Distortion
https://www.quantasylum.com/content/Home/tabid/40/Post/342/ABX-Testing-and-Distortion
Ha, I did that with the IQ test you posted a while back.
The first time I got part way through, went to the kitchen and made a feed, came back and answered the remaining questions, including a couple of random answers and got 130 result.
Half an hour later I repeated the test including random answering on a couple of questions and got result 152.
Next time should put me at genius level. 😎 .
Dan.
Elektor recommended PMI OP27 (1st) and Signetics NE5534 (2nd). Back then, '85/'86, the Elektor lab of the Beek branch did interesting tests/articles at times, JD may have more intel to share. (or André Schmeets, also member of diyA)
The 1st part of my previous post was me. Too much time on my hands during tech-uni years, the woman I lived with then said it kept me from touching her or myself too much. (back then I was very much into coming up with the most involving/engaging headphone amp, included trying out every combo of crc/clc and active shunt/series regulation. Also did the string-theory on feedback resistors, different brands/types and power ratings)
Pardon the delay, the daily fool had to prepare daily dinner, one way of failing any sanity test.
(irrevelant for irrelevant, unitary for unity ? someone has been sniffing from the kitchen sink cabinet again)
Last edited:
The question is: did/does the series string of opamps assist in identifying and/or measuring differences?
Quick update on how it is all panning out, and there are two significant changes to what I initially described.
1/ I had in the past been experimenting with a low impedance version of the tone control and this is in fact the configuration the board is in at the moment. That said, it actually works to our advantage because it presents a much tougher load on the opamps. The changes are only a matter of scaling of some of the frequency determining networks and the overall response between the two versions is unchanged. The actual diagram is below.
2/ The response change I proposed by adding a little boost and cut seemed very little when viewed on a scope and so I gave it a bit more 😉
Methodology has been to record first a frequency sweep of 20 to 22.05kHz (frequency range on the red book test disc) with a view to using that as a means of setting a mirror image curve for the second run.
Having made the frequency sweep five consecutive runs were made where the only change was the opamps. Each file was clearly named by device type and then saved.
All five files plus the frequency sweep were then burned to CDR.
Now the files were replayed and recorded again, firstly using the frequency sweep to set the tone controls to give a mirror image response to that used initially. This was verified by eye using a scope. In the upper frequency ranges there was some visible 'ripple' in the response although it amounted to only 0.5db or so.
The two swept images show the initial bass cut through to normal midband and on to accentuated treble. The odd step type artefacts are precisely that, artefacts of having the sweep displayed as being bunched up in Audacity. The second image of the sweep shows the essentially flat response from the mirrored settings. This was as mentioned verified with a scope which was the gold standard for doing this.
I won't post any files today, I want to see what I make of them first and I have to rename them and so on.
1/ I had in the past been experimenting with a low impedance version of the tone control and this is in fact the configuration the board is in at the moment. That said, it actually works to our advantage because it presents a much tougher load on the opamps. The changes are only a matter of scaling of some of the frequency determining networks and the overall response between the two versions is unchanged. The actual diagram is below.
2/ The response change I proposed by adding a little boost and cut seemed very little when viewed on a scope and so I gave it a bit more 😉
Methodology has been to record first a frequency sweep of 20 to 22.05kHz (frequency range on the red book test disc) with a view to using that as a means of setting a mirror image curve for the second run.
Having made the frequency sweep five consecutive runs were made where the only change was the opamps. Each file was clearly named by device type and then saved.
All five files plus the frequency sweep were then burned to CDR.
Now the files were replayed and recorded again, firstly using the frequency sweep to set the tone controls to give a mirror image response to that used initially. This was verified by eye using a scope. In the upper frequency ranges there was some visible 'ripple' in the response although it amounted to only 0.5db or so.
The two swept images show the initial bass cut through to normal midband and on to accentuated treble. The odd step type artefacts are precisely that, artefacts of having the sweep displayed as being bunched up in Audacity. The second image of the sweep shows the essentially flat response from the mirrored settings. This was as mentioned verified with a scope which was the gold standard for doing this.
I won't post any files today, I want to see what I make of them first and I have to rename them and so on.
Attachments
Mark, I don't understand what you mean... Honestly I don't understand the connection between my quoted words with the comments. May be my English is so bad?
People are always judgemental, too fast in making assumptions. It often surprise me how people react to a bunch of letters/words I wrote 😀
Are you interpreting my words: "I have no burden, because I know who I am"?
Are you sure you know what I meant with those words? Read this:
Or your own words:
I have no burden. I just tell the truth. If that will make me like a fool so what?? It is not a test of/for me, it is more a test for you 🙂
People may think that I'm cheating (which I don't understand why and how). But so what? Do you know what I know? Note this: You can bring all the geniuses and forensic experts here and you will NOT find any trace of dishonesty in my part!
In order to believe you, I need to understand what you are saying, which I don't. What is the problem here? Is it technical or psychological? Can you tell with clear words?
Don't use diplomatic words. Make it plain and clear. Did I say I'm an outlier in psychology? I meant I'm an outlier psychologically. For example, I may sound arrogant, but that's because I don't try to look humble.
Sy,
Yes trying to be diplomatic. 🙄 The answers given about not being interested in proving the point or even checking the data files for accuracy says it all.
I need to ask you a couple of questions about some plastics for food use, will send you a PM when I get a chance to think how to ask the questions. Working with someone new on some applications to replace stainless steel with engineering plastics but I don't know what is appropriate for food contact.
Yes trying to be diplomatic. 🙄 The answers given about not being interested in proving the point or even checking the data files for accuracy says it all.
I need to ask you a couple of questions about some plastics for food use, will send you a PM when I get a chance to think how to ask the questions. Working with someone new on some applications to replace stainless steel with engineering plastics but I don't know what is appropriate for food contact.
(think I just admitted I can tell a difference between a contemporary opamp and a 5534, though most apparent in phono stages. but please don't pin me down on that one, preaching ain't my thing, about as meaningful as a $30k Constellation phono stage)
Jay,
the question is whether you are more interested in holding your position and believing that you have exceptional hearing or whether you want to explore if your assumptions are correct? If you have a true curiosity to get to the bottom of your assumed exceptional hearing and see if they are indeed exceptional you have to be able to question your own results. If you aren't willing to test your assumptions and make corrections and learn from anything you find then you are indeed just postulating something that is nothing but your personal subjective opinion. More than one person has now told you the files you were using for comparison were identical in every respect, baring Max's quantum entanglement there seems to be agreement about there being no scientific possibility that the files can sound different. Now what Max is finding by his USB stick test nobody has any idea, I would conjecture that there is an external change in his playback system he is just not accounting for. If the conjecture that Foobar is changing the spl level from the first file played to the second file played that should be easy to prove by just playing the same file sequentially and seeing if that is the case and the spl level is changing. If the same file is giving different results that would discount any use of Foobar for comparative testing, the software would be useless for that purpose.
the question is whether you are more interested in holding your position and believing that you have exceptional hearing or whether you want to explore if your assumptions are correct? If you have a true curiosity to get to the bottom of your assumed exceptional hearing and see if they are indeed exceptional you have to be able to question your own results. If you aren't willing to test your assumptions and make corrections and learn from anything you find then you are indeed just postulating something that is nothing but your personal subjective opinion. More than one person has now told you the files you were using for comparison were identical in every respect, baring Max's quantum entanglement there seems to be agreement about there being no scientific possibility that the files can sound different. Now what Max is finding by his USB stick test nobody has any idea, I would conjecture that there is an external change in his playback system he is just not accounting for. If the conjecture that Foobar is changing the spl level from the first file played to the second file played that should be easy to prove by just playing the same file sequentially and seeing if that is the case and the spl level is changing. If the same file is giving different results that would discount any use of Foobar for comparative testing, the software would be useless for that purpose.
Last edited:
Thanks Mark, definitely a book I will get.
To reciproke: 😛redictably irrational, by Dan Ariely
Jan
Yes. That external thing is that funny, slimy thing doing the listening commonly know as 'a human' 😎
Jan
Why do you think I have an interest in believing that I have an exceptional hearing? You are making a wrong assumption there.
Which assumptions? That FoobarABX has bug? I have done a little effort and it supported that the bug is there. Of course, and I'm sorry, I cannot waste my time, I don't have motivation to install software in this laptop just to find out what is going on until I'm 100% sure. 99% is sufficient for me right now.
I am able to question my own results. I thought I could hear 0.1dB differences. Now I doubt that. I will use different software next time. Not today.
The truth about my hearing is not important. The point is about my hypothesis.
I don't understand the process you are suggesting. Wait, may be you don't understand... In FoobarABX we select 2 files and run the ABX utility... The first file we select will appear to have lower SPL, that's the assumption. Or it is not what tonitonitoni said? 😕
My experience with other people is that I probably can't do what you ask, simply because nothing I could say in few short words can be sufficient to give you a good, clear, intuitive feel for something that tends to be particularly non-intuitive to human brains. This has been my experience so far, anyway. Doesn't mean I refuse to try, but it's probably not the best way to move forward.
If you really want to know more, and I would strongly encourage you to find out more, the best I could do is probably point you to some literature, videos, and other material, all of which can help you get to be much more knowledgeable about human mental nature. If you give this a try and you start becoming more familiar with the subject, then would could have some deeper conversations about it which might help even more.
To start with, if you feel like it, I would search youtube and TED Talks for videos by Daniel Kahneman, Jonathan Haidt, Dan Ariley, Dan Gilbert, and perhaps a few others.
Good books of the more entertaining type include those by Dan Ariley. More serious books, but still aimed at general audiences include Thinking Fast and Slow, The Happiness Hypothesis, and The Righteous Mind. There are others of course, but this is usually where I recommend for interested people to start. In terms of value, some time spent learning in this area should provide you with some valuable knowledge that will be useful many times over the course of your life (could be several times a day, actually), so it is well worth any effort expended. You have my full support if you want to give it a try.
Mooly, if there is an issue with your planned method it may be that you are proposing to run in and out of the digital domain, apparently twice??
What is the proposed final arbiter? Listening to the last "burn" file?
I'd want an FFT that shows the difference or easy to see graphs for three results:
- the original file
- opamp "A"
- opamp "B"
Ideally, one might wish to listen to a brief musical selection that clearly indicates audible differences. For example a vocal with some cymbals in the mix... listening for sibilence and tone in the highs - but this may not be a definitive means, just something that may serve to provide an audible evidence of measured results.
In general the reciprocal tone control idea returning to flatness is problematic - but assuming ZERO change in the settings (again fixed 1% resistors?) then perhaps a comparison
of two different strings of opamps under identical conditions would be meaningful.
_-_-
What is the proposed final arbiter? Listening to the last "burn" file?
I'd want an FFT that shows the difference or easy to see graphs for three results:
- the original file
- opamp "A"
- opamp "B"
Ideally, one might wish to listen to a brief musical selection that clearly indicates audible differences. For example a vocal with some cymbals in the mix... listening for sibilence and tone in the highs - but this may not be a definitive means, just something that may serve to provide an audible evidence of measured results.
In general the reciprocal tone control idea returning to flatness is problematic - but assuming ZERO change in the settings (again fixed 1% resistors?) then perhaps a comparison
of two different strings of opamps under identical conditions would be meaningful.
_-_-
Last edited:
Jay,
What I think was found was that though you assumed you were creating two different files with a change in spl level those files were found to be in fact identical files, no real spl difference between files. So to me that tells me that all of your previous testing that has been associated with the use of Foobar is irrelevant and so fatally flawed as to be useless. If you have used no other test software you have proven nothing to the group here or even to yourself. You may want to wishfully think you are hearing things that you don't but I for one discount everything you are saying about what you think you hear. As far as thinking you can hear different opamps, perhaps you can and perhaps in most cases that isn't really true. If you are looking and visually seeing the opamps while doing the test then expectation bias can not be discounted and your test protocols are completely discounted. You need to start over with your testing when you find some new software and you need to learn how to use standards and qualifiers, you most obviously don't understand scientific testing methods and that is what Sy is alluding to in his simple replies.
I'll bow out now, you can have all the conversation you want to with Mark about your humanistic faults or not, that is really irrelevant to your hearing claims, just a consequence or your insistence that you are correct and we are all misunderstanding you English.
What I think was found was that though you assumed you were creating two different files with a change in spl level those files were found to be in fact identical files, no real spl difference between files. So to me that tells me that all of your previous testing that has been associated with the use of Foobar is irrelevant and so fatally flawed as to be useless. If you have used no other test software you have proven nothing to the group here or even to yourself. You may want to wishfully think you are hearing things that you don't but I for one discount everything you are saying about what you think you hear. As far as thinking you can hear different opamps, perhaps you can and perhaps in most cases that isn't really true. If you are looking and visually seeing the opamps while doing the test then expectation bias can not be discounted and your test protocols are completely discounted. You need to start over with your testing when you find some new software and you need to learn how to use standards and qualifiers, you most obviously don't understand scientific testing methods and that is what Sy is alluding to in his simple replies.
I'll bow out now, you can have all the conversation you want to with Mark about your humanistic faults or not, that is really irrelevant to your hearing claims, just a consequence or your insistence that you are correct and we are all misunderstanding you English.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.