Re: Better than ABX?
- From: "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:55:32 -0400
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:H3w7k.3785$F97.863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OZGdncdRvbSx5sPVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b329da40-106d-4074-bc68-6f60f80c68e8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In that it doesn't depend so much on your hearing with highly masking
signals.
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=35&blogId=1
"Record the output of an audio component when playing any piece of
music, or even a test signal. Then change something in the system-a
cable, an amplifier, any other component, or apply an audiophile tweak
of any kind. Next, record the output again with the same piece of
music or the same test signal. Then, using Bill Waslo's "Audio
DiffMaker" software (which has not been commercially released yet but
can be downloaded in a trial version), align the two recorded tracks
to the same gain level and timing. Finally, subtract one from the
other and listen to the difference recording. If it is basically
silent, then the change has clearly done nothing. No sound in the
difference recording means that the change has made no difference. If
the track is not silent, then a difference may have been made by the
change, and further investigation is warranted."
Scott
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hafler devised a null bridge device for audio measurements. While
the original purpose was to allow the user to make an adjustment to
minimize distortion when an XL series amplifier is paired to a particular
speaker, the null bridge concept has more general application.
The null bridge is a passive device, which removes once source of errors.
The procedure does require a second amplifier, but cleverly, the null is
independent of the quality of it. Because it is realtime, it imposes no
clock requirements.
But for DiffMaker to work, sub sample clock accuracy is required in the
player as well as the recorder. The most time accurate recorders are made
for production sound work; however, I don't believe that even these are
good enough. A consumer player is certainly not good enough. This means
that the diff software take the difference of samples made at different
times. Could the user slide one time line along to get a short term
match? I don' t know anything about the short term stability of consumer
players. In time scale, short term stability is stuck between jitter and
long term stability. The user would have to adjust both amplitude and
time axis to get a match.
http://libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
"Added compensation for sample rate drift in decks and soundcards."
It's all done in software but I agree, some components will create
difficulties.
ScottW
Impressive. What quality level of AD/DA would you consider necessary?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Better than ABX?
- From: ScottW
- Re: Better than ABX?
- References:
- Better than ABX?
- From: ScottW
- Re: Better than ABX?
- From: Soundhaspriority
- Re: Better than ABX?
- From: ScottW
- Better than ABX?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Note to Obama
- Next by Date: Re: Wikipedia Badly Needs Correction
- Previous by thread: Re: Better than ABX?
- Next by thread: Re: Better than ABX?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
