Latest Thread Images

Featured Sponsor Listings

Could you here the Difference?

Feb 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 45
killkli

killkli

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Posts
444
Likes
11
It seems that my last thread is not attracting enough.
Not many people reading.
So here's more attracting title :).
 
 
I put two files here, they are from the same song, the same part.
The source is the same.
 
They have different kind of distortion I added, each simulated some amps which I have measured.
 
Please vote your preference, see which is better sounding.
 
I have my own answer, but guy's taste may vary or confirm my theory.
 
Also, there is a "can't here the difference." answer, which I missed in my last poll thread  ^^||
 
 
The song was Vision from Jen Chapin's "reVisions: Songs of Stevie Wonder."
 
http://www.mediafire.com/?84tc38t6zade1f4  File A
http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/69529078/file.html mirror
 
http://www.mediafire.com/?z371ijpcrcfj1q2  File B
http://www1.zippyshare.com/v/73585337/file.html mirror
 
Feb 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM Post #3 of 45
Voted. 
 
Next test, WAV rather than FLAC, please. 
 
Feb 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM Post #4 of 45
Voted.
 
By the way, "here" instead of "hear"? You have got to be kidding me, that couldn't possibly have been a typo.
 
popcorn.gif

 
Feb 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM Post #6 of 45


Quote:
jrg1990 said:
They sound the same to me, i'm not familar with the music though so could be I don't know what to listen for.
Click to expand...


If there were no differences to you, then there're no differences  :)

 
Quote:
razorjack said:
Voted.
 
By the way, "here" instead of "hear"? You have got to be kidding me, that couldn't possibly have been a typo.
 
popcorn.gif
Click to expand...


Oops..... I'm sorry..... No spelling check for the title >_<.
Moreover, I disabled my chrome's built-in spelling check function, since it always keeps bothering me XD.
 
 
 
Feb 20, 2012 at 10:38 PM Post #8 of 45
Just a personal preference for reference files - I bring them into my music editing suite, and it doesn't support flac playback. 
 
Feb 21, 2012 at 1:57 AM Post #9 of 45
I listened, I voted.  I'm anxiously awaiting more results.  It's been a while since my stats class, what sample size will we need for accurate results?
 
Feb 21, 2012 at 5:33 AM Post #10 of 45


Quote:
scannon18 said:
I listened, I voted.  I'm anxiously awaiting more results.  It's been a while since my stats class, what sample size will we need for accurate results?
Click to expand...



8 votes so far ^^||
Not bad compared to the one before.
Yet indeed this would need more results.
 
4 can't tell the difference @@.
Ha ha....
 
Feb 22, 2012 at 1:14 AM Post #11 of 45
Well. I'll have a little illustration here:
 
One simulated SS amp. One simulated Tube amp.
This test is to see which was more preferable.
 
This should be done under no knowledge of which was which.
Without know what it's for, and just telling which was better would be best but no much interest coming in......
 
 
Hope this would help to get more sample.
 
 
 
Feb 22, 2012 at 8:12 AM Post #12 of 45
A was EQed with more body in(I don't think I can band ID properly) 500 to 1k region somewhat? Gives that flute that oomph and vocals more body in one of the tracks. Anyways I think simulating the amps is of little use. A better simulation will be to play and record the track true real SS and tube amp. Because with tube amp you get a lot more factors which can't be simulated through EQ.
 
Feb 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM Post #13 of 45
It seems to be mainly distortion, rather than EQ. If you subtract the signal of one file from the other, the difference sounds shifted up by one octave, which suggests 2nd harmonics. But it is a small difference, so it is not surprising many people voted that the files sound the same.
 
 
Feb 22, 2012 at 8:37 AM Post #14 of 45


Quote:
firev1 said:
A was EQed with more body in(I don't think I can band ID properly) 500 to 1k region somewhat? Gives that flute that oomph and vocals more body in one of the tracks. Anyways I think simulating the amps is of little use. A better simulation will be to play and record the track true real SS and tube amp. Because with tube amp you get a lot more factors which can't be simulated through EQ.
Click to expand...



No, it's not EQ.
This was done by raising the tone of original track by an octave,which makes the original data into 2nd distortion.
Then lower the distortion date's dB by desires % of distortion I wish to achieve.
 
But I also put some changes in the distortion data. They have different patterns, and this pattern was acquired via measured cross frequency distortion rate of tube amp and SS amp.
 
So the difference of the two file are:
1. The distortion % is different. Tube's distortion is 10 times greater then SS amp, which was the usual result.
2. The distortion patterns are different across frequency. 
 
I didn't simulate 3nd and higher order distortion since I want to simplify the problem.
 
The current result is quite illustrating.
 
 
 
Feb 22, 2012 at 8:42 AM Post #15 of 45
Quote:
killkli said:
This was done by raising the tone of original track by an octave,which makes the original data into 2nd distortion.
Click to expand...

 
That does not simulate intermodulation distortion.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top