Audio DiffMaker

[Ducatista47]

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.

To clarify, Audio DiffMaker works in the audio realm, not the electrical or the electronic one. The end result, while it is easily displayed as well, is also produced in the audio realm. It finds differences between renditions detected by a microphone, a device (in the case of a decent one) several times more sensitive and discriminating that human hearing. But still an accepted analog for it. Listening to the difference, or the absence of one, is the test of whether you can hear it or not.

I think it is well thought out and simple but clever. The possible phobic reaction of people invested in making money or seeking validity in their purchases and preferences is not a refutation of the software. Science, as they say, is not a religion. It is true whether you believe in it or not!

[hsosdrum]

Within the range of human hearing, even the best microphone on Earth is definitely not more sensitive and discriminating than human hearing itself, not by a long shot. Regardless, the DiffMaker device can only quantify information that is represented by an alternating current—that's why it requires a microphone to convert the acoustic pressure variations from a speaker into an AC voltage. And every transduction step (the mic is a transducer) substantially changes the signal it receives. That's why no two microphones, even the very best ones, sound the same. Microphones may be accepted analogs for human hearing, but only because humans haven't yet invented anything that can do a better job. Just because a technology is the best available doesn't mean that it's as good as it needs to be to get the job done right.

Again, all the DiffMaker system can do is extract differences between different alternating currents (after it creates them by converting acoustic events via a microphone); it can't make any correlation between the differences it detects and the differences a listener may (or may not) detect.

[Wagner]

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

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement
I believe it is not true
100% spurious in my opinion

If you insist that it is the truth, then please direct me to the paper or protocol that proved it
(not a reading list of articles or forum posts written by a bunch of folks who agree with you)

The laboratory results (and it's credentials) is all I am interested in

Thanks
Thomas

[Mr. Widget]

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement
I believe it is not true
100% spurious in my opinion

If you insist that it is the truth, then please direct me to the paper or protocol that proved it
(not a reading list of articles or forum posts written by a bunch of folks who agree with you)

The laboratory results (and it's credentials) is all I am interested in

Thanks
Thomas

Thomas, you have such a lovely way of expressing your opinions. Whether one agrees or disagrees... it just brightens one's day to read so many of your posts.

Does your audio hobby make you happier in life or more miserable? Reading your posts makes me think you are very unhappy. If that is the case, I guess there isn't much you can do about it, however if you are not miserable, perhaps you could better express yourself.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Within the range of human hearing, even the best microphone on Earth is definitely not more sensitive and discriminating than human hearing itself, not by a long shot.

I get your overarching point and in general tend to agree, however are you certain about the best mic/best ear comparison? The unit of one decibel is by definition the smallest sound increment that a human with normal hearing will perceive. A quality microphone will register small fractions of a decibel.


Widget

[DS-21]

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.

In theory that is exactly right.

In practice...has that ever actually happened (at least within the last quarter-century or so)? I'm curious if you have an example you can point to, because I cannot think of one, short of willfully incomplete measurement sets (i.e. speakers equalized to the same nearfield axial response but with different dispersion patterns).

[Mr. Widget]

In theory that is exactly right.

In practice...has that ever actually happened (at least within the last quarter-century or so)? I'm curious if you have an example you can point to, because I cannot think of one, short of willfully incomplete measurement sets (i.e. speakers equalized to the same nearfield axial response but with different dispersion patterns).

How about amplifiers? There are many that seem to measure essentially identically but in my experience do not sound the same. Now I know people who I hold in high esteem who claim there is no sonic difference in quality amplifiers. I have to respectfully disagree with that statement.

I have experienced numerous cases where people both interested and disinterested in high fidelity have recognized differences in amps when no one present knew which test subject was being auditioned.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

How about amplifiers? There are many that seem to measure essentially identically but in my experience do not sound the same. Now I know people who I hold in high esteem who claim there is no sonic difference in quality amplifiers. I have to respectfully disagree with that statement.

I have experienced numerous cases where people both interested and disinterested in high fidelity have recognized differences in amps when no one present knew which test subject was being auditioned.
Widget

That scenario sound like a good use of Audio Diffmaker.

[Mr. Widget]

That scenario sound like a good use of Audio Diffmaker.

As I understand it the Diffmaker will show the difference in frequency response which should be insignificant. So I don't think it will corolate with the perceptual difference.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

As I understand it the Diffmaker will show the difference in frequency response which should be insignificant. So I don't think it will corolate with the perceptual difference.

Widget

It will, with a proper microphone, demonstrate any sonic difference you could actually hear. That is probably why it was designed to have the user listen to the results. I believe something that is different but 90dB down cannnot possibly affect what we hear. There are people saying that jitter 112dB down leads to audible artifacts; I am not one of them. It does appear that selling clocking devices for thousands of dollars appeals to some; certainly not me, even if I were wealthy.

I have harbored a suspicion for some years that I have spent too much on amplification, and a DAC. At least I realize it. Most listeners with as much invested in their electronics would probably not want to know. You and I both know that the big differences are in speakers and headphones, and source material. Face it, most audiophiles will have little interest in myth busters like this software. Finding out you have been "worshiping a false god" is a relief for some but most find it upsetting. It becomes pretty obvious after doing this hobby for a long time that individual listeners like their preferred distortion. While there is nothing wrong with that, they do not, generally, want to admit it. They prefer to believe words like "better" are not subjective.

The least contentious aspect of this tool is most likely the ability to demonstrate when something does nothing at all.

Edit: This AES workshop report by Ethan Winer proposes that our tool box for measuring audio is more comprehensive than we usually realize. 3:25 to 5:40 lays out his reasons for respecting the power of null analysis, but I find the entire video a reasoned presentation. I accept his conclusion that "If there really was something about audio fidelity that science was not aware of, it would have been revealed years ago by nulling". He also clearly knows and explains the issues involving listening and preference that do not rely on fidelity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvir...&nohtml5=False

[1audiohack]

While I haven't yet looked beyond the front page link provided I believe this could be a very powerful tool. There is a difference mode in TEF that lets you compare measurements if the parameter set is identical. This is great for testing drivers or comparing acoustical treatment and much more but it is a visual graph comparison only.

I also believe that listening to things with a microphone is instructive. Most measurement systems used at a hobby level employ a $50. omnidirectional mic. They nearly don't even care which way they are pointed.

Try listening to your system through a quality cardioid measurement mic and headphones in real time while moving and pointing the mic around the room. This will give you some idea of just how much filtering the gray matter computer between your ears is doing, and help you focus on what and where improvements can be made. This is much like soloing a channel on a mixing desk.

I believe that any tool that can bring audio one more step out of the abyss of subjectivity and into objectivity is a good tool.

I agree with Widget that we do not yet have all the tools.

Barry.

[Mr. Widget]

I have harbored a suspicion for some years that I have spent too much on amplification, and a DAC. At least I realize it.

I have had $20K amplifiers in my home system that I didn't think sounded as good as $4,000 amps. So, yes, I would agree it is easily done. But then there are other reasons to choose one piece of gear over another. I had a shoot out between the Parasound Halo JC-2 preamp and the ML No 326S. I couldn't hear a definitive difference between these two excellent performing preamps... I bought the more expensive one because I preferred the responsiveness of the remote volume control and it's general UI.

Edit: This AES workshop report by Ethan Winer proposes that our tool box for measuring audio is more comprehensive than we usually realize. 3:25 to 5:40 lays out his reasons for respecting the power of null analysis, but I find the entire video a reasoned presentation. I accept his conclusion that "If there really was something about audio fidelity that science was not aware of, it would have been revealed years ago by nulling". He also clearly knows and explains the issues involving listening and preference that do not rely on fidelity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvir...&nohtml5=False

I'd love to have a chat with him, but based on what I've gleaned from a quick overview I'm not convinced. I am far from the "Rhythm and Pace" school of thought... I have no idea what reviewers are talking about when they dive deep into the subjective gobbledygook, but I have experienced sonic differences that surprised me based on my understanding of the science.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Try listening to your system through a quality cardioid measurement mic and headphones in real time while moving and pointing the mic around the room. This will give you some idea of just how much filtering the gray matter computer between your ears is doing, and help you focus on what and where improvements can be made. This is much like soloing a channel on a mixing desk.

Or even look at the plots of two measurements taken a few cm apart. Run them through the Diffmaker and you'll see/hear a huge difference and it is the same system in the same room.???

I firmly believe we do not hear the way we measure. Measurements are great, don't get me wrong... when I subjectively knew there was something "wrong" in my room, it took objective measurements and averaging technology to localize what I was hearing and allow me to correct it. I tried futilely to take the problem on with only my ears.


Widget

[DS-21]

How about amplifiers? There are many that seem to measure essentially identically but in my experience do not sound the same. Now I know people who I hold in high esteem who claim there is no sonic difference in quality amplifiers. I have to respectfully disagree with that statement.

I have experienced numerous cases where people both interested and disinterested in high fidelity have recognized differences in amps when no one present knew which test subject was being auditioned.

I've yet to hear competent* amplifiers sound different from one another with voltage output carefully matched**, but if there is something to hear, that's what Mr. Waslo's software will uncover by playing back only the difference signal. It's neat software. Very useful for exposing spectral colorations caused by high source impedance amps, or upper midrange power compression on speakers with those little garbage AMT tweeters.

*"competent" = low noise floor, flat FR, source impedance sufficiently low enough that it doesn't materially affect the frequency response of the driven speaker, sufficient power to drive the intended speakers to the desired SPL peaks.

**most "differences" arise from minute level variances, and demos rarely feature match levels with a voltmeter...

[Mr. Widget]

Very useful for exposing spectral colorations...

I understand that, and most quality amps or other line stage devices have little if any spectral differences or colorations. The differences I am listening for are not deviations in frequency or tonal colorations, I am listening for the much more elusive spatial cues in stereophonic recordings.

There are also qualities that are much harder to describe, but often lower quality (not lower cost) electronics sound congested and tend to sound more compressed with less dynamic detail... or detail in general. (Not to be confused with a slightly elevated midrange which can subjectively sound like an increase in detail... we see this often in speakers.)

To continue the speaker analog... compare a beryllium diaphragmed driver with a more conventional one. The frequency response could be identical, but the acceleration factor and distortion levels are not and the subjective difference is very real.


Widget