AudioSmile Challange - Can you detect the AudioSmile DEQ?

[RobHolt]

Hi Tenson

I understand you and I will give it a go.

The AES set a copy limit for transferring masters back about 8 years ago, this was for archiving purposes and is still common practice in backing-up digital. They said you could transfer up to 6 or 8 times before the 'generation losses' were noticeable.
This process is for digital domain only transfers.

Noticeable in what way?

If you take copy one and copy eight and they both null perfectly you don't have a problem. You cannot hear what doesn't exist, though I realise that sounds radical on a hi-fi forum

Point taken on the Meridian 206 transport but remember the age of the thing which must be 20 years without a service.
Is there any actual proof that something like an old CDM4 is actually better than a modern multimedia drive?
I mean actual hard measurements as opposed to the often recited belief.

 

[robM]

Noticeable in what way?

If you take copy one and copy eight and they both null perfectly you don't have a problem. You cannot hear what doesn't exist, though I realise that sounds radical on a hi-fi forum

Point taken on the Meridian 206 transport but remember the age of the thing which must be 20 years without a service.
Is there any actual proof that something like an old CDM4 is actually better than a modern multimedia drive?
I mean actual hard measurements as opposed to the often recited belief.

AES set the standard for transfers and copy limits. I'm sure they didn't just pick a figure out of thin air but did actual tests.

Why do you think companies found it hard to get a half decent sound out of a multi-media drive when Philips stopped production of the CDM4/pro etc? The first batch of high-end players to use multi-media drives were not that good.

Don't talk about recited belief..... this is a hifi forum

 

[RobHolt]

Still only giving me opinion.

The first batch of multi-media drives are now also antiques of course.

Can resolve this by comparing the digital output of say a modern Sony cdp with an old CDM4 machine.

 

[robM]

yes you could.

So are you saying all CD transports today output the same data?
And if NOT then what 'is' the difference between them and why don't they output the same information? And if they DO output the same data then why on earth do some cost £500 and others £5000?

eagerly awaiting for your answer.

 

[RobHolt]

Yes I am, after the error correction and assuming the things aren't faulty. Jitter levels will differ between drives but look at the recent results for players from the big Japanese and Chinese producers and even here we see universally good performance these days. We can all discuss jitter until the cows come home and there will never be agreement as to what if any effect this has on sound, assuming it isn't dreadful.

As to why some cost £500 and others £5000, well like a lot of domestic audio electronics price is little indicator or performance. The £5k machines no doubt have a nice case and the appropriate badge on the front.

 

[cooky1257]

FWIW, I for one can hear very clear differences between Sony DVP7700, Teac T1 and Meridian 206 into BM Dac1. The T1 is the best overall though the 206 has a nice musical bounce to it with solid bass.

 

[robM]

Well I am with cooky1257 on this one. I have owned a lot of very different transports and processors and they all sound different and the expensive ones have all sounded A LOT BETTER better than he cheaper ones.

 

[darrylfunk]

i do kinda agree with robm and cooky but it doesnt explain how i heard a pt da capo destroy a linn karik numerik combo with a toshiba plastic cd player.
the karik was a much better transport.
so what made the biggest difference ?
yes the karik sounded better when put through the da capo.
so its deffo difficult to decide what part of digital combos make the biggest changes in presentation.

 

[robM]

darryl

It goes to show that digital transports do not output the same data.
Some are better than others without a doubt, even though the 'maths' and robholt might say otherwise.

 

[Tenson]

All it shows is that you did a sighted listening test and came to a biased subjective conclusion. Even if they don't output exactly the same data, the important factor is whether the difference is audible.

RobM, you are pretty much arguing semantics. You claimed the DEQ is not a 'quality' bit of kit. So, tell me which samples are passed through two stages of modded DEQ and which is a direct rip

 

[cooky1257]

All it shows is that you did a sighted listening test and came to a biased subjective conclusion. Even if they don't output exactly the same data, the important factor is whether the difference is audible.

Well in my case Simon it is a repeatable bias, a repeatable subjective conclusion;-) I don't know enough about the gubbins inside them or what each player may do to the data as it is read/fed but these aren't subtle differences, far more obvious than the differences between your test tracks for example.

 

[robM]

RobM, you are pretty much arguing semantics. You claimed the DEQ is not a 'quality' bit of kit. So, tell me which samples are passed through two stages of modded DEQ and which is a direct rip

Semantics

 

[RobHolt]

Well I am with cooky1257 on this one. I have owned a lot of very different transports and processors and they all sound different and the expensive ones have all sounded A LOT BETTER better than he cheaper ones.

This finding is not a surprise in the wacky world of audio.

When I get time next week I'll attempt a null test with DVD player and the Meridian.

 

[robM]

This finding is not a surprise in the wacky world of audio.
When I get time next week I'll attempt a null test with DVD player and the Meridian.

And if you find they give the same result you'll say that they should sound the same?

 

[RobHolt]

And if you find they give the same result you'll say that they should sound the same?

Of course.
it must be the only answer, other than magic.

 

[Paul Ranson]

I found it easy to form a preference. Which of course doesn't mean much. So far nobody agrees with me...

It would have been more interesting, I think, to have used unmodified units.

Paul

 

[spica]

as it says...

[ Poll Results: Which Song Samples are passed through the modified DEQ? ]

i couldn't say that those i prefer are those that are passed through the modified DEQ, am unable to vote, as those i prefer.. may possibly not be those passed through the modified DEQ

i can't trust another's hearing

 

[RobHolt]

I don't follow.

Surely the common assumption must be that extra processing and ADC/DAC conversion should make the sound worse. That is what those with golden ears proclaim on the various forums.
Therefore the tracks that sound best to you should be those that haven't been through additional processing.

I think Simon is therefore asking you to select those you liked the least, if indeed you detect such a difference.

 

[Tenson]

Yes I think really I should have made it an ABX test, but it seems a little late to re-start the game now!

Just vote for those you think sound worst, as I suspect most people would assume those are the ones having gone through the extra stages of the DEQ.

At the end, if it turns out you voted for the CD rips then it either means you preferred the sound of the DEQ (great!) or the difference was imagined.

 

[scott_01]

Usher Demo CD - Track 10 (anybody know it's name?)

A version of 'The Ghetto' by Donny Hathaway.

A decent version can be found on the 'Blaxploitation' compilation. Alternatively try his albums.

Thanks for putting this up.

On the samples. I have voted, for :

Y was hardest to hear a difference on and it could well be me making it up. I was sure I could hear something in X and Z. That said, they were small ones for me. I've just changed carts and will post a drop of them on another thread in the next week or so.