opaqueice;219008 Wrote: > The most obvious candidate is bad level matching - maybe audiodiffmaker > doesn't do a great job with that. You can test that by changing the > level of one of the files with another program (Audacity, say) and then > run diffmaker on that modified file plus the other, and see if the > difference file is the same as before (it should be if diffmaker works > properly).
Hmm. I take one of the recordings I made earlier, of the black box section I think, but it shouldn't matter. I then run this into Audition, lower the level by 10dB and compare it with the original. Audition is set to dither at 16bits. Diff needs amplifying by 60dB to reach 0dBFS and is a hissy copy of the original, with the bass jacked up massively. It is, however, perfectly easy to follow the song and hear the words, though there is also plently of signal-dependent noise. This is not what I expect to be the results of nulling out a digital 10dB attenuation, and starts to indicate to me that this program is not as useful as it is cracked up to be. There is, of course, the possibility that Adobe were incompetent in their implemenation of digital loss so jury's out. I then record the output of my SB1 again. Okay so I didn't match levels, I should have recorded two in succession I guess. I compare this with yesterdays. I expect this to give me a null. My section is 30s, a sort of null occurs at 17s and then the diff signal becomes bassy copy of the music. Almost as if the sampling rate changed slightly and one copy is phasing in and out. Okay so maybe Sound Devices should do better, but it's just not reasonable to expect a recorder to drift less than half a clock cycle over 30 seconds - that's less than one part in a million. Audio Critic's pal's software has to have a way to correct for that else the program isn't really useful in the real world. The impression I had gotten from the Audio Critic's cocky promotion of the prog was that this program would correct for linear distortions in time and in amplitude. I guess I can't complain too much, can't beat the $ price, but it has wasted some of my time... opaqueice;219008 Wrote: > > If it's none of those it's probably really there. Incidentally that's > not necessarily so surprising, even from the audio critic's point of > view (which I more or less share).). Yeah, no problem. We're all entitled to our religious viewpoints, I'm not even saying mine is right, it worked okay for me. Listening rather than reading specs bought me a stereo I've enjoyed for the last 15-20 years and the key bits even survived the change from records to CDs. What seems to be killing my enjoyment now is the rotten mastering of current pop/rock CDs :( I'd merely picked up on this program because it did seem to be really promising as a way of chasing down true nulls and/or proving the existence of subtle differences. But it seems to find too many differences to be useful to me. I'm not ready for sonic differences in mains leads etc and I was hoping to apply this to some of the more outlandish claims, or find there is something there even though that sort of thing isn't audible to me. Or maybe I am not licensed to drive diffmaker, maybe I need to believe in the invariance of electronic pathways before it'll play... At least I got a null with two copies of the same thing so I can't be doing too much wrong! Thanks for the pointers. I'll give it one more try recording the same thing twice immediately one after the other. I want to get at least one bona fide null out of this program before I toss it! -- ermine ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ermine's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12613 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=37352 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
