Yeah, but we aren't talking about listening to generation after generation of bit perfect digital copies here. We are talking about converting analog to digital and then back again to analog
Maybe I wasn't clear enough? This test sent music out the sound card's analog output back into its analog input. It did indeed test multiple conversion generations. BTW, I have all 21 files if anyone cares or doesn't trust what I'm claiming. Each file is slightly different than the previous which is easily verified with a null test. I just didn't want to waste the space and bandwidth on my site to host all the in-between generations.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough? This test sent music out the sound card's analog output back into its analog input. It did indeed test multiple conversion generations. BTW, I have all 21 files if anyone cares or doesn't trust what I'm claiming. Each file is slightly different than the previous which is easily verified with a null test. I just didn't want to waste the space and bandwidth on my site to host all the in-between generations.
No, you weren't clear enough and you still aren't. What is the source that was feeding the sound card in the first place? Were you playing a CD on your computer and routing that signal out of the analog output of the sound card back into the card's analog input? How did you save that first file? And whatever format you saved it in (presumably to your hard drive), you sent that digitized file back to your sound card to be converted back to analog and then looped it through again and you did this 20 times with a $25 sound card and all the files sounded the same?
Again, he provided the attached wav files and you even included them in post #119.
you sent that digitized file back to your sound card to be converted back to analog and then looped it through again and you did this 20 times with a $25 sound card
Ethan - "This test sent music out the sound card's analog output back into its analog input. It did indeed test multiple conversion generations." "played it out my SB sound card with a wire from the output back into the input and recorded that. I then replaced the original mix file with the first recording and recorded that as the second pass." "But when I was done I had created 20 generations" "I did this same test with a $25 SoundBlaster"
I don't know exactly what the test is supposed to distinguish.
Listening to these through Stax headphones, I found the sound different with the first pass. Forgive me the subjective verbiage, but a distinct lack of ambient fullness, oddly enough in the synth drum, as if the space of the performance retracted a bit and got harder.
Each cut thereafter gets a little "hairier" with edge and compressed sounding, with less ambience.
Of course, this is KNOWING which is which, no DBT, and using the most vile subjective language, but none of them sound like the first one, and they do seem to get progressively worse, edgier, less full and less ambient.
Haven't read the recent bloodshed, so I don't know whose blood is supposed to be shed here, have no interest either way, and don't care if anyone agrees or not, just my 2 cents (maybe 1 cent). Lined them up and listened a couple of times.
Just to put some perspective to this: I am very taken by some Audio Consulting products. They are (super) expensive. Serge has got few dealers. (With his idiosyncratic thinking he follows absolute clarity ideals, not at all comparable to some of those SET quality distortion boxes mentioned here.) Still the amount of dealers is not that important, price/quality of sound is!
(And I will still recommend the Berning ZH270 which gets a comparable result for a quarter of the price.)
Sure, but this is a $25 SoundBlaster sound card. It's not even a current SB card, but one I bought six years ago. Modern high-end converters are much cleaner, and I imagine it'd be difficult to pick out a one-generation copy. I have a newer medium-level sound card (Focusrite Scarlett), so I'll do that test again when I get a chance, and post the original and copy here without saying which is which. In fact, I'll run a few passes in a row. I haven't done this test with this card, but I imagine it will be cleaner than my old SB card.
BTW, so far nobody in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup recalls the converter manufacturer's test I mentioned where they did ten passes.
Each file is slightly different than the previous which is easily verified with a null test. I just didn't want to waste the space and bandwidth on my site to host all the in-between generations.
One of the high-end converter manufacturers did a test a few years ago where they passed audio through an A/D/A stage and nobody heard the difference. Then they passed it through more stages. As I recall, even after ten passes people couldn't tell.
Sure. But I'm not willing to pay $12,000 to hear it, or even the postage back and forth to audition it. If anyone near me has an Audio Note CD-4.1x please let me know.
Outstanding answer, Ethan !!
I love such stuff.
This is another example (by Peter Aczel):
"There exist DACs and preamps at ten times the price of the Benchmark, but they aren’t any better. Let the high-end police come and take me away in handcuffs. "
Source: http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=40&blogId=1
(the quote appears in the Conclusion part)
"(As a side note, although not quit its equal, the Monarchy NM24 tube DAC came very close to the Audio Note DAC 2.1.x at a fraction of the price. It took some serious listening to hear that the Audio Note portrayed a little more finese and a little less edge and slightly more tonal saturation)."
