Audio DiffMaker

[Ducatista47]

This could end a lot of arguments. I don't like to argue but I do want to know what works and what doesn't. With this tool any system change can be evaluated. Room treatment, components, wire, a single capacitor or resistor, anything. Precise level matching is unnecessary and the result is heard, not plotted. As Kathleen Hanna said, "I wanna go!"

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

[Wagner]

When to use Audio DiffMaker?
Testing for audible effects of

• Changing interconnect cables (compensation for cable capacitance may be required)
• Different types of basic components (resistors, capacitors, inductors)
• Special power cords
• Changing loudspeaker cables (cable inductance may need to be matched or compensated)
• Treatments to audio CDs (pens, demagnetizers, lathes, dampers, coatings...)
• Vibration control devices
• EMI control devices
• Paints and lacquers used on cables, etc.
• Premium audio connectors
• Devices said to modify electrons or their travel, such as certain treated "clocks"
• Different kinds of operational amplifiers, transistors, or vacuum tubes
• Different kinds of CD players
• Changing between power amplifiers
• General audio "tweaks" said to affect audio signals (rather than to affect the listener directly)
• Anything else where the ability to change an audio signal is questioned

Paints and lacquers used on cables etc.?! Why, I've been wanting to scientifically end that argument FOREVER!

I TOTALLY missed it in my January, 2008 copy of *AudioXpress?

Thank you!

* Off topic, sorry, but does anyone here still subscribe to (or contribute articles to) AudioXpress since they went "digital" and dropped the paper option entirely? I did (dropped it), pretty shabby how they implemented it - I would like to hear how the "digital" "e-zine" is working out for them (or if it's even still up and running) and more importantly how you like it if you stuck with it. Was down to about 25 pages at the end anyway and the articles were, let's say, not what they used to be so I am very curious. PM commentary/converstation is fine if you feel so inclined
Thanks
T.W.

[LowPhreak]

If this thing really works I'd say, "halleluyah!" Then I'd say, "well it's about time."

Thanks for the post, Ducati.

[Mitchco]

One can find several DiffMaker tests on Archimago's blog. Here is one: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05...site-dmac.html

I have used DiffMaker as well:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/co...ty-comparison/
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/bl...t-results-156/
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/bl...l-results-155/

DiffMaker has a few bugs, but the workarounds are in the above posts. DiffMaker is fun and educational - especially listening to the difference file.

[Ducatista47]

Mitchco, thank you for posting your efforts in this arena, and verifying for us that it works as explained. I lit up when I read about this tool. AES engineers, instead of salesmen or manufactures trying to send their daughters through college by selling ten units, very refreshing.

I suppose the horse crap will continue unabated, but now I can feel better about ignoring it. I have made most audio mistakes at one time or another, but at this late date in my life I think I am BS free and validation is so, so sweet.

[Mr. Widget]

What am I missing here? It appears this simply subtracts one signal from the other and you are left with the difference.

How does that help determine which is better?


Widget

[Ducatista47]

What am I missing here? It appears this simply subtracts one signal from the other and you are left with the difference.

How does that help determine which is better?


Widget

It is not to determine the subjective which is better, rather the objective does it do anything? And if so, what? Further, is it audible or is the change, for instance, 90dB down or out of the range of human hearing?

The latter point is of interest to me as well. I am friends with an audio guru who sometimes seems to get hung up on technology that boasts superiority of only theoretical benefit. Ladder DACs over Delta-Sigma DACs comes to mind, as does digital volume controls throwing away data (which begins at 56dB attenuation). I recall that you were bothered by the idea of brick wall filtering. It all happens past human hearing, so I do not share your concern. I recall Greg Timbers stuffing a sock or something in the Everest's Super Tweeter and hearing no difference at all.

[Mr. Widget]

It is not to determine the subjective which is better, rather the objective does it do anything? And if so, what? Further, is it audible or is the change, for instance, 90dB down or out of the range of human hearing?

The latter point is of interest to me as well. I am friends with an audio guru who sometimes seems to get hung up on technology that boasts superiority of only theoretical benefits. Ladder DACs over Delta-Sigma DACs comes to mind, as does digital volume controls throwing away data (which begins at 56dB attenuation.)

But the objective, "Does it do anything?" can easily be yes, while subjectively we may not hear a difference. Alternatively, the comparison may be frequency, or THD, or something else... where the difference could be measurably insignificant, but we may not be comparing a factor that objectively and subjectively causes an audible difference.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

My point exactly. Differences you can't hear are of no consequence in listening to sound. Conversely, the idea that we can hear differences that cannot be measured has been proved to be complete fantasy.

[Mr. Widget]

I recall that you were bothered by the idea of brick wall filtering. It all happens past human hearing, so I do not share your concern. I recall Greg Timbers stuffing a sock or something in the Everest's Super Tweeter and hearing no difference at all.

I do not recall the context of the filter conversation, but I guess I was speculating on possible audible differences of DACs...

On the "sock test", that was a quick observation in a hotel room listening to them for the first time. Having lived with the same speakers now for some time, I can attest to the fact that the super tweeters are audible. Whether or not they are necessary is a different conversation.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

We can agree that they are necessary for sales in the Japanese market!

[Mr. Widget]

My point exactly. Differences you can't hear are of no consequence in listening to sound.

I would think no reasonable person would disagree... hence when a wire manufacturer shows how their winding improves the performance in the MHz range, it makes me scratch my head.

Conversely, the idea that we can hear differences that cannot be measured has been proved to be complete fantasy.

You think? How can you come to that conclusion? I would suggest that if two items under test are measurably identical but in a controlled experiment humans can consistently perceive a difference then the measurements are incomplete.


Widget

[hsosdrum]

Anything can cause a subjective change in the way something sounds, since our brain can be influenced by much more than just the nerve impulses it receives from the auditory system. Since sound is created in the brain, anything that influences how the brain perceives sound is, indeed, changing that sound, even if that difference is not the result of a change in the nerve impulses generated by the auditory system.

Unless one is willing to admit that double-blind testing is the only way to accurately determine if something makes a sonic difference, there's absolutely no way to determine if any perceived sonic difference is the result of differences in auditory system nerve impulses or the result of something completely different, such as the listener having a vested emotional interest in there being a difference because they spent a shitload of money, or because they like the brand, or because the thing just looks so cool, etc.

Even if this DiffMaker device does reveal a difference between two electrical signals, there's no conclusive way to correlate that difference with any perceived sonic difference. The perceived sonic difference could be caused by something that has nothing to do with the difference being revealed by the DiffMaker device.

[Ducatista47]

You think? How can you come to that conclusion? I would suggest that if two items under test are measurably identical but in a controlled experiment humans can consistently perceive a difference then the measurements are incomplete.
Widget

I would suggest that consistency proves nothing other than the how much listeners want there to be a difference, at least in the absence of a measurable result. I'm with Ethan Winer and the AES on this one. I still respect your opinion about it.

[Mr. Widget]

I would suggest that consistency proves nothing other than the how much listeners want there to be a difference, at least in the absence of a measurable result. I'm with Ethan Winer and the AES on this one. I still respect your opinion about it.

I guess I should have added blind or double blind. I absolutely agree that preconceived ideas are extremely powerful influences on the subjective "truth".


Widget