Another opportunity to compare two files made by different rippers



s14 D.S.-LOG wav file comparisons

Files:

- Love Over Gold-s.wav (63.48 MB)
- Love Over Gold.wav (63.48 MB)

Total 126.96 MB

Go to https://www.filemail.com....aspx?id=JSGEZJCNIEKREMK to download the files.


Thanks to Alex

Martin Colloms

My results are obtained in a calibrated hi end audio chain with very good ladder dac converters
with multiple listener/comparisons , also the original CD via SPDIF and the corresponding LP on a very good player.

MartinC

What does the original CD or vinyl have to do with the quality of the rips?

done the latest listening the new Kethel LOG rips

this time downloaded to zip file, and unzipped straight to usb stick, bit checked on the stick as perfect

interestingly here the perception of difference was more affected by replay level than is usual

you need it loud enough so the threshold for a particular level of perception/ sensitivity to low level detail and reverberance is passed

for now I will not disclose which is which ..................

thus they are e and c for now

e is sharper , more metallic with moderately extended sibilance and a trace of treble fizz
guitar is less expressive , less atmospheric, imaging is flatter, bass guitar is more generic than characterful
there is some loss of viability and dynamic.

c is sweeter , more harmonious, richer , deeper , more three dimensional, better image depth, greater separation in the image ,

more tuneful , more involving and expressive , less sibilant slurring , more focused and clearer articulation

If c is 100% then e is somewhat worse , say 85 to 88%

not massive but interesting nonetheless.

Martin Colloms

[quote=en1omb;13850]Just got round to comparing the first two different LOG rips. I didn't think my system would be good enough to reveal the differences but I am pretty sure I heard them. The thing that stood out for me was that the S version sounded sharper on the piano, just a bit more on point. Not much in it though.
en1omb
Hi
Would you be interested in seeing if you can hear a difference with a new Windows Safe Mode , Uncompressed Zip version with what you already have ? The non "s" version suffered a little deterioration of low level HF detail via the Filemail servers and the long haul path from Australia.(not N.Z. )
I followed that up after seeing a similar report,downloaded the Filemail track and compared it directly with the original. The track was "Love Over Gold"?
Regards
Alex

Hi,

I think the issues indicated by my post may have been missed.

If the data has traversed at the minimum 20 optical repeaters, and more switched mode power supplies in network equipment - the impact on the final received file will have been vastly different to the sound obtained from a CD.

That is, a 5% change in perceived sound quality from switch mode supply to linear supply - improved change for the linear power supply - assuming that there are 20 switches and routers in the path from Australia to UK - we would experience 20 x 5% = 100% difference. (simplified calculation)

So, if you played the downloaded file next to a CD version, the CD version would be twice as good.

The number of network devices between UK and Australia is much more than 20.

What i am trying to indicate is that if you accept that a modified power supply in the CD player ROM drive in Australia can impact the bits – improve the sound – that is, improve would have to mean does not deteriorate the sound from the original, you must also accept that a switch mode power supply causes a deterioration in sound.

Hence the multitude of power supplies in the transfer of the bits to the UK must also affect the sound. The effect is compound – so the 100% difference is being optimistic.

Hence we need to question the issue that the power supply changes the data in the files (which are all identical) and examine the theory that the final USB stick is the issue – and the location of the files and timing of the data read is the problem.

Regards,

Richard

Hi,

I am not disputing that people are hearing a difference. The scientific fact that there is a difference would have to be confirmed through DBT just to make sure. We could use the people who can hear a difference to be the listening subjects - so all people are happy.

What i am trying to explain is that :

If a person can hear the difference between a CDROM copied wav file that has a standard power supply, and then a modified power supply, and we assume that the modified power supply does NOT deteriorate the sound, then the standard power supply must be impacting the sound more.

The fact that the file when it traverses the internet will go through an assumed number of 20, optical repeaters - which is the same mechanism as a CDROM - laser produced photons being converted into an electrical signal, then the deterioration effect must be 20x.

If the difference is 5% (better sound) between refined power supply, and standard power supply, then the internet transfer must affect the final sound of the wav files by 100%.

Has anyone listened to the same track on CD and transferred file - if they have, then a 100% difference will be heard.

Despite the discussion on the differences in sound, the fact that the data files have been transferred across the internet using many switch mode power supplies to copy the bits, or optical repeater power supplies, seems to be ignored, and for me, is a glaring fact that would dispute that there is a difference.

Put another way – why can people not hear the impact of internet equipment power supplies on the wav files, as they are assuming that the difference between them is solely due to the original CDROM power supply ONLY.

If the answer to this is that all the files are affected the same by the internet – then compare the CD with the wav files from the internet – if the CD is not at least twice as good as the wav files, then you must contend that scientific methods need to be used to determine that there is a difference.

Regards,

Richard.

Hi Alex,

I think this area of discussion is that the power supply has an effect - but wav files traversing the internet will be the major effect, if this effect exists.

I think that DBT are a must - to put everyone at the same level - then all can discuss the reasons why, as opposed to a disagreement that the effect exists.

I would like to see the DBT testing and results - once established, if the effect is established to be true, then more people would be willing to find out why the changes are perceived to bit perfect files.

Regards,

Richard.

Hi Alex,

Ok - if the files had not traversed the internet, then i would not be able to propose an argument against the effect existing.

No ones capability is disputed in hearing differences.

Given the (hopefully) logical argument i have provided, that the double figure multitude network devices do not seem to have affected the sound using my simple mathematical calculation, then we must use the optimal scientific method to establish that the effect exists.

I thought that DBT would also eliminate the unintentional bias ? - as such, these should be used regardless how well intentioned people are, when they are involved.

If we establish scientifically that the effect exists, then no one can dispute it, and we can all then discuss the reasons for the effect.

Regards,

Richard.

Edited by user 25 April 2012 23:49:12(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I would not worry about having to do the DBT. I have confidence in the reviewers involved and also your findings. Otherwise we will all be back to compressed Ipods ....

Is there a way of checking the results side by side showing the binary 0 + 1`s.

Does not the binary code load instructions to the processor ? If so can any thing get lost in translation. I ask because if you want a bit for bit copy off a CD, it can either do it in one go which satisfies the error correction or will take multiple passes to get bit for bit ?