keith_correa
Well-Known Member
FWIW, spectrograms of all the files.
Do Audio CD copying "DEGRADES" the sound? A Blindfold Test
- Thread starter anirban420
- Start date
FWIW, spectrograms of all the files.
sandeepsasi
Well-Known Member
I was surprised to see delay among the time-domain wave forms, though delaying the entire waveform will have no impact on sound quality.
drive.google.com
Assuming that the S/W settings were the same for all rips, the fact that there is differing amounts of silence at the start of each file was a new learning for me. I already discussed about this with @anirban420 over PM.
cmp12.png
Assuming that the S/W settings were the same for all rips, the fact that there is differing amounts of silence at the start of each file was a new learning for me. I already discussed about this with @anirban420 over PM.
blackscorpio
Active Member
just for the kicks, have you tried comparing these images, using image compare software, to see if they are same or different.
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
No need to use comparator software - one's eyes are enough!just for the kicks, have you tried comparing these images, using image compare software, to see if they are same or different.
Sean de Silva
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
No need to use comparator software - one's eyes are enough!
So we can’t trust our ears to hear, but can trust our eyes to read the sound!
Right now it’s Anirban who’s doing a hiding Houdini!
I guess negligible difference is what modern audio hobby mostly depends on. expensive capacitors, Gold plated Connectors, Anti Vibration Chassis, etc. etc. etc.
bhaskarcan
Well-Known Member
That's a state of mind IMHO. I believe, this audio hobby is driven by "concepts". If you agree to a "concept", you'll hear the sound difference that the "concept" brings. Or vice versa.
Anyway, here also bulk of the vote went to the "All sound same" option only because the type of source is unknown. Our concept says that the original copy should sound better. If that would have been known, I'm sure we would've heard it's superiority without any doubt.
"The negligible difference" couldn't establish the best sounding file, BTW.
keith_correa
Well-Known Member
Let me go a little OT here and pose some questions: Assume you're playing a CD track. How do you know that your CD player is reading and as a corollary, playing exactly what the track on the CD contains? Now play that track again on the same equipment. How do you know that the read/play of that track was exactly the same as the previous time you played the track?
Do the majority even think about all this? I did (because I'm anal!) and that's the reason I went off CD's because there are too many weak links in an affordable (for me) CD/CDP which are beyond me to even attempt to correct.
Do the majority even think about all this? I did (because I'm anal!) and that's the reason I went off CD's because there are too many weak links in an affordable (for me) CD/CDP which are beyond me to even attempt to correct.
anirban420
Well-Known Member
Sorry for the late. I was very busy today. Moreover, Electricity was off for a long time in our home. Its time to reveal the file details. It will be in the following post.
anirban420
Well-Known Member
Results:
01.wav - Copy 9
02.wav - Copy 6
03.wav - Copy 10
04.wav - Copy 0
01.wav - Copy 9
02.wav - Copy 6
03.wav - Copy 10
04.wav - Copy 0
anirban420
Well-Known Member
I am uploading the EAC log of the eleven rips in the same folder where the test files were. It will be found in the log folder. Also, I am uploading the result as Results.txt. I am reposting the link herewith in the following DOWNLOAD button. These files will be valid till 15th June. After that, I will delete everything. Any discussion is welcome.
DOWNLOAD
DOWNLOAD
anirban420
Well-Known Member
One more thing. Copy 9 (01.wav) and Copy 10 (03.wav) had read errors while ripping.
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
Glad to be one of the two FMs to rate Copy 0 (04.wav) as the best sounding. I know this doesn’t mean that ‘it was the best sounding’ - not if the poll is used as an indicator since an overwhelmingly large two-thirds of the respondents felt they were the same or any minute differences were hard to tell.
For those who might be interested in knowing what I heard, the answer is best encapsulated in my signature. I didn’t listen analytically, but just went with my feelings/mind-body’s response as I prefer doIng these days (since @prem helped me learn ‘listening to music’ early during the lockdown period). Usually the best response is achieved from well-tuned, easy-flowing sound that moves you. So it’s listening to oneself while listening to the music.
After the first pass listening of the four samples, 04.wav clearly did this the best for me. And 02.wav the next best. In the second pass I just listened to these two again to confirm the impression.
I know this disclosure could invite logical refutation, possibly some snide remarks too. So to clarify again, I have just explained why ‘I liked 04.wav the most’... I am not claiming ‘it was the best’. In fact, if we go by the poll results (and believe majority is right), all the four sounded the same.
@anirban420, appreciate the painstaking rigour you have followed in this research.
For those who might be interested in knowing what I heard, the answer is best encapsulated in my signature. I didn’t listen analytically, but just went with my feelings/mind-body’s response as I prefer doIng these days (since @prem helped me learn ‘listening to music’ early during the lockdown period). Usually the best response is achieved from well-tuned, easy-flowing sound that moves you. So it’s listening to oneself while listening to the music.
After the first pass listening of the four samples, 04.wav clearly did this the best for me. And 02.wav the next best. In the second pass I just listened to these two again to confirm the impression.
I know this disclosure could invite logical refutation, possibly some snide remarks too. So to clarify again, I have just explained why ‘I liked 04.wav the most’... I am not claiming ‘it was the best’. In fact, if we go by the poll results (and believe majority is right), all the four sounded the same.
@anirban420, appreciate the painstaking rigour you have followed in this research.
Last edited by a moderator:
spirovious
Well-Known Member
I did I find 03 & 04 very close listening back to back.Somehow l felt 03 was sounding cleaner.Didn't have original CD to compare, so voted accordingly.
I had also voted for 04 to be the best.
Reason : The soundstage was better and the vocals had more meaty sound.
02 : Nearly same as above but the soundstage was a bit narrow compared to 04.
Rest two files sounded more like 128kbps mp3. Narrow soundstage and thin sounding. The difference between 01 file and 02 was very marked and apparent. It took some tries to ascertain the differences between 02 file and 04.
This is the best i can put it in words. Apologies as I am very poor at describing sounds.
Reason : The soundstage was better and the vocals had more meaty sound.
02 : Nearly same as above but the soundstage was a bit narrow compared to 04.
Rest two files sounded more like 128kbps mp3. Narrow soundstage and thin sounding. The difference between 01 file and 02 was very marked and apparent. It took some tries to ascertain the differences between 02 file and 04.
This is the best i can put it in words. Apologies as I am very poor at describing sounds.
bhaskarcan
Well-Known Member
So can we take from your comment above that from copy 0 onto copy 6 the sound quality remains CD like and needs multiple listening to ascertain the difference between 0 n 6.
But from copy 6 to copy 9/10 there's drastic deterioration, as far as that 9/10 sound as bad as 128kbps mp3?
Check out our special offers on Stereo Package & Bundles for all budget types.
Similar threads
