Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1

In the end how many of the well-known quacks actually went hand-to-hand with Randi? I saw much more smoke than actual listening.

That's what quacks do.

Quote
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

That's not the story that we get from independent sources like:
gizmodo.com looks at the Randii challenge

Quote
Btw, the last statement i´ve read about the "Challenge" was this:
http://web.randi.org/home/jref-status

so, it seems that the Challenge isn´t in force since that, or exists a newer declaration?

Doesn't matter.  The golden ears bailed, per independent sources.
2
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Biography Discussion
Last post by ocram35 -
Hi WilB - big fan of your superb job! It enhances so much my music experience, to have these nice comments and one can immerse into the artist and the album. Thanks so much!

I have actually two tabs, one for album review, and one for biography, and I run there two frames, one preferring last.fm info, and then AMG. Love to compare their texts. So I have a good solution to see both.

There is one small issue though. Whenever only one source is available, of course I see the same text twice.This leads to my question - is there an opportunity to have a third preference in sources? It could be called "both if available".

I can send you screenshots how the two texts look quite nice, and give a good reading experience, with the two frames.

In any case, many thanks for your constant refinements and improvements!
3
At risk of getting my head bitten off again, here's another question that might appeal more to your reasoning:

Is there any Windows software (preferably free, or a trial version) where I can load a PCM and a DSD track simultaneously and subtract one from the other to display any difference (or NO difference!) between the two?
teac hi-res editor

I downloaded it and tested it and it ran without serious problems in Windows 10/64.  It does seem to have some subtle issues. I round tripped the RMAA6 24/96 test file through DSD 2.8 land and it came back changed a little. There were  some subtle 0.2 dB frequcny response roll offs, and visible transient distortion of the raw test signal.  Probably worth listening to.
4
The results are perfect recovery. If the loss is too large to cover this way, then typically it is replaced with a carefully executed mute, which if short and infrequent enough will slip by your ears unnoticed.
Almost, except that individual samples with errors that cannot be corrected are interpolated. This is what usually happens with light damage which does not cover the case when the laser can no longer track.

Yup, that, too. Slipped my mind.  The  modern times real world circumstances by which this happens escapes me.

While audiophiles seem to have focused their attention on sound quality and more particularly DAC and output buffer quality,  the technical battle that absorbed the most resources and provided the most audible benefits for say, the first decade of the CD was tracking performance.  Not being able to play the disc at all or not being able to play it without audible breaks resulted in a lot of product returns, and retailers take that pretty seriously.  Sound quality can be a judgement call, but not playing is pretty cut and dried.

Surprisingly, good examples of the original CDP 101 tracked pretty well, and even handled CD-Rs well enough. However many early samples had defective chips related to the tracking servos, that failed pretty early in life. The shared mono DAC with 1/2 sample delay between the channels was audible if you had a center channel, and response roll-offs above 13 KHz due to the analog filters could be heard, given the right program material.

The first generation DACs generally had barely audible failings, and the better quality second generation DACs were essentially audibly perfect. That left things like cost and size as the areas of actual real progress. The perfection of delta-sigma technology which was pretty well done by the mid-90s took care of that.

An exception was high end CD players which were separated into two boxes, one with the transport and one with the DAC. This was a lot easier to sell to audiophiles than to justify technically and it did lead to audible problems with interfacing the two boxes.  There is a well known right way to do this, but a lot of the high end products whose circuits I reviewed cheaped-off and did it wrong.
5
Well, maybe t2 is "best" (whatever that means), but nevertheless it is a fake 'cos it states to contain 1411 kbps but it's "only" ~160...
Dunning Kruger is in full swing.
6
Top: JScript Panel v1.2.0.1 - cover disappears when I click something but doesn't crash - gif is 15 seconds...
Bottom WSH Panel Mod v1.5.6 - works fine???



7
The results are perfect recovery. If the loss is too large to cover this way, then typically it is replaced with a carefully executed mute, which if short and infrequent enough will slip by your ears unnoticed.
Almost, except that individual samples with errors that cannot be corrected are interpolated. This is what usually happens with light damage which does not cover the case when the laser can no longer track.
8
Well, maybe t2 is "best" (whatever that means), but nevertheless it is a fake 'cos it states to contain 1411 kbps but it's "only" ~160...
9
@audioxp

Okay.

Here is how those files were generated:
Code: [Select]
t1.wav:  lossless -> Opus 64k
t2.wav:  lossless -> sinc lowpass 17k
t3.wav:  lossless -> FDK AAC VBR 4
t4.wav:  lossless -> LAME MP3 128k -> Opus 64k
t5.wav:  lossless -> FDK AAC VBR 0 (HE-AACv2)
t6.wav:  lossless -> lossywav -q P

t2 is actually the best one of the bunch (should be audibly lossless, at least for adults  ;) )

Now. I hope that you understand that I was being sarcastic when I wrote:
Quote
You can skip the analysis in Opus (CELT MODE) files and HE-AAC files. They are all real full quality encodes!

Source file:
https://archive.org/download/unsorted_files/t_original.wav
10
@2012 t6 is also flagged as OK. (for me, this spectrum looks "best" :-) as if it was the original source...)