B and C have separate noises in channel. B and C are different to each other in this regard. A doesn't have these noises. It's like B and C were recorded from speakers with someone in the background making subtle noises.
A) Sounds like an original sound file you could buy. B) Sounds like in room recording with more distance and height, more noise/recording noise, more room sound compared to "A". some one is moving around in the beginning and in the end. it sounds like a motor vehicle is passing by, maybe a lorry/big truck, outside of the room (deep rumble sound in the far bagground at 3min 22sec). C) Sounds like in room recording just like "B" also with more noise in the recording just like "B". The vocal singer sounds more clear and maybe little farther away compared to "B". some one is moving around in the beginning and in the end. If i have to pick one, i like "B" little more then the other, if you forget the background noise and the lorry sound. And im very curious to hear what this is.
I believe A is the original, as the sense of presence, stereo positioning, etc. is all there. Of the other two, I prefer B, as it feels warmer and more direct. C seems a bit hollow somehow.
I am in the minority. I choose B with C a close second. A sounds compressed, vocals have a slight honkyness to them. B has the most clarity, I hear the sparce percussion more here. The most dynamic range on B. C is close to B with a little more compression. Thanks Danny.
I prefer track A because it sounds like the artist is up front and primary. B seemed to have echo and C would have been my second choice. Glad you are doing something like this!!
I think Danny tipped his hand by mentioning ASR. My guess is the difference between B and C is either a speaker cable or power cable, something ASR typically doesn’t see as relevant.
My guess is he deleted the catalytic converter. I started smelling sulfur from my speakers under a heavy load, now that I removed the catalytic converter they play louder and sound better.
Great video, I'm all in. Downloaded and listened to the files on Bose headset (wired) direct from Dell PC. With old ears and damaged hearing and guess what ? They all sounded the same to me. 😀 You should have included a category of "no difference" for us old codgers.
Danny, apparently you can't help yourself. Inviting the ASR folks is an excellent move, but you didn't have to poke the bear. I found your suggesting that they are afraid to listen and compare to be an unneccessary and deliberate insult. You could have just invited them to join in the challenge: listen, compare and comment. I think that we all would welcome their participation. After listening and reading the comments here, I have a few ideas about what we are hearing. A is the original recording. B and C are recordings of playback through your system. B and C do have more 'space' - you can sense the room acoustics. I'm not sure just how much analysis I can provide, my hearing is not as refined as many in this hobby and my tinnitus is at the level of "is this ringing in my ears bothering you?". My best guess is that this is being played through your excellent NXtremes, possibly played through different DACs. My system for the comparison: desktop computer > coax SPDIF > Schiit Modi 3 > Schiit Jotunheim > ZMF classic (RP-50 mod) and ZMF Auteur headphones. Normal desktop speakers are Magnepan MMG.
I couldn't listen to track A for some reason, it wouldn't play, but tracks B and C sounded exactly the same to me... But of course that could just be because I was listening to them on my phone, (with headphones of course), but of which probably doesn't have enough actual resolution in its audio processing and/or output circuitry to even let any subtle differences between these tracks actually be heard... This is a nice song though, i just wish I had a (MUCH) higher end method of audio playback to actually hear it on, because I bet it can be breathtaking on speakers that can actually reproduce all of the nuances of it properly!
Now you have me questioning my initial review hmmm, you're right it does sound more natural and uncompressed, but as a whole, to me A just sounds more balanced to my ears.
My comments on the files A, B, and C. Background on me first. 58 years old so I'm certain my hearing has dropped off above 15K, built my speakers and cables, running files through J-River into a Schitt Modi DAC into a 120 watt per/channel receiver. File A, without a doubt was the quietest file. Little if any perceptible noise between notes, almost clinical. Loved it. File B. definitely a hum of some sort under the music. The voice sounded like it had more reverberation almost a concert hall type of sound. It sounded good but the noise detracted my enjoyment of the music. It also seemed just a bit more sibilant. File C. Less noisy than B but still noise between notes. I liked A the best. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
It was really hard for me between A and B, after going back and forth I settled on B since I could pick up more information especially at the beginning of song.
B was louder than A. C was louder than B. B had more background hiss than A. C had more background hiss than B. Does B have more compression than C? Does C have more compression than B? A sounded the best of all three it had more clarity, and I can hear more of the background clearly.
Soundstage was wider (a lot) in track A than what it was in B or C; also, dynamic range was bigger in track A. I played the three of them in my main system with a PrimaLuna tube amplifier and Klipsch Forte IVs. After listening in ultralinear I switched to Triode, same impressions but, obviously, the sound was more focused on mid range.
Interesting you chose the most difficult instruments to record and play back - the human voice, and, of course, the piano! Equipment used: NAIM ND5 XS 2 streamer/ DAC via USB input using a USB drive Cayin Soul 170i integrated tube amplifier, using Telefunken 12AX7/ECC83 smooth-plates, Raytheon 6GU7 (with adaptors, in place of 6SN7s), and Tung Sol KT170 tubes Q Acoustic Concept 500 loudspeakers Comments: I chose A as the most natural. It was smooth sounding, flowing, with a nice in room (my room) presence to her voice. Her voice was intimate - as if she was singing to me! B and C contained random noises (start and finish of track and through recording as well), especially C, while in B, her voice was not always dead centre - did someone walk past the speaker, or momentarily wave their hand between the drivers and the microphone? B and C also had a slight sharpness to the piano, especially C. Also, in B and C, there was a small amount of echo (reverberation?), and her voice was set (slightly) further back in the soundstage compared to A - acoustics are not quite right in B and C. Although this might sound like hypocrisy, sometimes the piano sounded more realistic in B and C - more dynamic perhaps, but then the sharpness (as mentioned) upset the listening experience. Still, all three recordings were, in their own right, excellent, but as the best listening experience, I still chose A, even though (at times), the piano could be regarded as more realistic in B and C. I suppose I could say that the piano sounded sweeter in A, and therefore, easier to listen to, while her voice was definitely in my room in all three recordings, but more so in A.
Yes. This will be fun. Gonna try it in my high damped studio room. With Hegel h90,dls speakers and a sub. Supra cables. And in my bedroom,little Huston mini amp,Wiim mini into a topping d50 s to a diy speakers(morel&sb acustic. ) no treatment besides bed =) ty for this challenge 😊
A - low backround noise, only higher above 18kHz - no echoes - seem to be like studio recording or near field rec., B - I think Microphone recording from room - there is space echo - but quite good for listening, C - similar to B but little bit more mid spectrum - maybe higher distance from microphone - and at 20 kHz - there is strong up to -20 dB noise signal .. I like A and B too - ( using foobar2000 with enhanced spectr. analyzer , USB ESS9018 sound card + mid class Sony earphones) and I´m currious for end results .. 🙂
A - Sounds like the original recording B - Has distinctively more noise and almost sounds like a recording of speakers in a room (A good one I might add) C - Similar amount of noise to B, but a different sound. Could also be speakers in a room, but different configuration or maybe even different speakers. Listening on my desktop system, DIY SB Acoustics Bromo Kit, powered by small class D smsl ao200 and topping balanced dac.
A definitely sounded the best. Since B and C sounded like a recording of different speakers, judging just between those 2, I would pick B. B sounded more open with a larger sound stage as well as more detail in the vocals. The piano also sounded more detailed. C to me sounded muddy with a lack of details. The sound stage was also kind of suppressed and didn’t fill the room as good. Super interesting challenge and I look forward to the results!
Pretty sure A is the source track, B and C are played thru speakers and recorded with microphones where C is recorded while driving 16MPH in a convertible. Nice song by the way...!
Track A feels more intimate, more personal. She's standing so close, every articulation of her mouth hyperclear, the hairs on the back of my neck stand at attention. I'd add B/C are progressively father into the room. Like I'm sitting mid club in B and at the back of the room in C. This is a great experience you've created for us Danny. Loving to read everyone's interpretations.
First of all great video/challenge Danny. For me, Track A sounded like the original recording, B and C sounded like recorded playbacks. Track B was the most emotional to me, it sounded like the vocals were incredibly separated and preserved, it gave me an impression of the vocalist standing by the piano and the separation made it an incredible experience. Track C sounded like B but the separation was gone, the vocals were not as forward and the piano seemed a little layered over the vocals compared to Track B. Track B it is for me!
A has a quieter background and more clarity. B has more echo/reverb but also background noise and hiss and vocal is boxy. C has background noise/hiss also. Vocals are brighter and more air but too forward. A is my favourite and I notice its a 16/44.1 CD file where as the others are Wav files and seem to have higher sample/bit rate. Listened through Audirvana rendered on a SoTM Streamer plugged into a Chord Qutest, Denon Pre-amp - 2 x Roksan Power Amps and PMC 24 speakers.
Wow, very interesting. With headphones especially, track A has less background hiss and a quieter noise floor. B and C definitely sounded different from A, but my ears might not be good enough to put my finger on it exactly. More like 'in a cave' sound, which I guess means that B and C were recorded in a room and A is the actual, original track. Honestly can't decide which track I like the best, though I can hear they are different. Listening through a Willsenton RS and Quad S-2 speakers.
A definitely sounds best on my system. B and C do sound recorded while being played in a room. I am listening on my main rig with open baffle speakers. Thanks
A: the piano and vocals have more weight and you feel closer. B: is similar to a, but you feel a bit father back. Vocals and piano have less weight. C: you feel farthest back from the vocals/piano. Boa also and piano sound thinnest. Soundstage does seem wider though. Yes there are “noises” in B and C. Makes me think that the “a” mic was placed in the sweet spot, then “b” 3 feet back from the sweet spot and for c, 6 feet from the sweet spot.
I preferred C and B was a close second. A was very forward for me at times a little shrill almost harsh. This was on my Epic Speakers from Toids EPIC Speaker build. I preffered A on my CSS 1 TD but they are a little reserved on the tweeter highs.
First impression is that the noise floor is higher as I go from A to B to C. I have each file loaded in a separate VLC window and so can switch between them near instantly. I'm using my desktop system as follows: Computer via USB to a Schiit Jotumheim with the Multibit DAC, then balanced outputs to two Schiit Gjallarhorn monoblocks and finally to a pair of Klipsch RP-600Ms that have your crossover upgrade. I need to do some more listening to see what else might jump out at me. Edit: A is richer, more full with higher clarity and range. I'm guessing there's more difference between the tracks other than A being an AIFF file with the other two being WAVs. Otherwise, C should not have the significantly higher noise floor over B.
I finally got a chance to listen to these, albeit after the results were released. At risk of being wrong, here are my impressions WITHOUT having watched the follow-up video: A is the studio recording. More specifically, it sounds like the Rounder re-release as opposed to the original Virt release (the tracks were remixed); the difference is in the beginning where the sustain pedal can be heard with the wood groaning noise - its less pronounced in the original Virt mix. The thumbnail is also a hint. Also, if I didn't know better, I'd think it had some volume leveling or other manipulation done versus the CD track; there is a harshness on some of the loud parts that sounds like mild compression. Could be my playback (aif on a windows PC), but I didn't hear it in the tracks that follow. B sounds like an in-room recording of an open baffle speaker, mostly likely Danny's NX-tremes. There is minor room noise at the beginning and end, and the sound of circulating air (though not specifically a nearby air vent). C sounds like an in-room recording of a different speaker. As Vienna goes up in her vocal range toward high notes the stereo image shifts to the right, as if the signal is moving through a cross-over from one driver to another that are not both horizontally aligned with the microphone and/or have slightly different frequency response characteristics. As soon as the frequency drops, it moves back proportionally to the left. Now to go see how right or wrong I am 🙂
I'm keen to find out, what the differences are or is ! Would not surprise me if it was tube amp, solid state, class D A, more rounded/rolled off. B, more open space. C, Bit more hissy/fuzzy on the top end... Funny I could be way out, could even be different source on all 3.
A: Voice slightly left of center, but most natural presentation. Most intimate voice image. Scary close and detailed. Wonderful! Nice spatial clues around piano behind voice. Hands down the best sound compared to B or C. B: Unnatural echo-like effect around voice. As if recorded in different room from A track. Not as much space around piano as A. C: Similar to B, but less irritating. Listening on GR X-Statics 54 inches from back wall and GR twin double stack servo subs. Sonicaps with Myflex bypass caps. Decent 12 Ga Speaker wire soldered to cross-over at speaker end. ROKU Ultra playing files from USB stick. Stabilant 22 applied to all cable connectors. Note: X-statics really came alive after over one year of break-in time.
I'm thinking that A is the source file and B is the NX extremes playback in a room, not sure if it's yours or Ron's, and CC is the new old school style brutes. The breathyness and ambiance of B is pretty amazing and those aspects are more tame in C, which would make sense considering the difference in acoustic design of each speaker. File A has about zero breathyness and space in comparison.
Using Hifiman Sundara headphones: Track A is more intimate as more close up. The other two tracks are more spaced apart w the vocal being up above. Vocal on track B is slightly to the right while on Track C it is above center.
Figure headphones are likely the better way to do it. That way you aren't listening to TWO rooms (Danny's and yours) if these tracks were recorded from speakers using microphones (which I suspect). A YT reviewer named Thabamar always recommends people use headphones when listening to his comparison videos to take their rooms out of the equation (but not the lossy compression of UA-cam of course).
I thought A was the most natural and clear. B was the worst in my opinion. On headphones it sounded like it had phase issues, and on my x-statiks the vocals seemed to drift around in space. C as a little closer to A, but just not quite as clear. and at times seemed slightly grainy. A also had the most locked in sound stage for vocals on the speakers, but sounded less wide on headphones. All in all, I preferred A
Interesting comparison. I focused on the quality of vocals and piano. Track A is obviously the cleanest, best-defined sound. The vocals are natural. The attacks on each piano note are crisp and fast. Tracks B and C are progressively blurrier. I found it interesting that these had a sound I responded to as "warmer," and more similar to the kind of sound I've been listening to for the past [deleted] years, using almost exclusively AR speakers. My current AR-11s have been upgraded with new tweeters and better crossover components from Danny. It has made quite a difference, and improved my listening experience while making me acutely aware of the inherent limitations of this speaker design. So the interesting bottom line is that the sound of Track B felt more familiar, while Track A was more exciting, and the possibilities with more modern speakers more exciting yet! I wonder what I would hear making these comparisons on NX-Oticas.
Only listenin on my laptop with sony noise cancelling headphones in passive mode. B sounded clearer after listening to A with more air and space and more intelligible lyrics. there seemed to be less difference from B to C. but listening in sequence A,B,A,B,C I was getting a bit of listening fatigue and it became more difficult to distinguish and may have been easier on my proper system back home and not in a hotel room on headphones.
It seems like A is the original recording, while B anc C are recorded from speakers in a room (with noise) at different distances from the speakers (C more distant). Listened with a cheap pair of PC headphones. Aside from the noise, B is my preferred one.
If I know Danny the way I think I do, I think c is a stock speaker, it was noisy, boomy and out of control in the upper ranges, b. I think cables were added. The noise floor have dropped quite a bit and there was much clarity and detail and all aspects of the song, however, the upper trebles and spatial cues for completely smeared and distorted still. Speaker. Speaker a. This clearly had an upgraded crossover in it. More clarity and detail in the lower and mid-base regions. The singer's voice had much more transparency in realism to it. All in all, all three songs were played on the same equipment as they sounded the same. The impressions I felt were the sense of realism. I played all tracks in a fully treated room. Using. A pair of Danny's nx oticas , with fully upgraded crossovers. An elekit 8600S 300B tube amp. With two triple stacks of Danny's servo subs. Plus an additional three subwoofers behind the listening position. All being fed by Danny's cables.
First, I could listen to all three tracks and have no issue enjoying the music. I heard a progressive increasing noise floor from A to B to C. I voted for A mostly because of the less distraction of noise. I also believe it is the source track being it is an AIFF 16bit 44.1 track. The other two tracks sound like in-room recordings and were 24bit 48 wav tracks. JRiver reported a slight volume difference between the tracks, B being the lowest, then C at +0.2 dB and A at +0.4 dB louder than B. I used JRiver's DSP to level-match the volumes as I switched between them. Picking between B and C I would go for B.
A - The original recording (less hisss noise, little bit darker sounding) - My 3rd choice B - Recorded from speakers (vocal is more clear and near to us, also it's like higher resolution sound) - My 1st choice C - Recorded from speakers (less attractive than B but more alive than A) - My 2nd choice
As a couple others have said, Track A is likely the original recording. Or close to it. Listening to the original seemed to confirm this. B and C sound like speakers playing into a room - obvious but subtle background noises. Track B vocals have slight chestiness to them. B and C have an almost "live" recording sound to them. I skim ASR forums some and find Amir's measuring methodology and opinions valid and sound.
Great concept! I am definitely NOT a "flat earther". Interesting listening to the 3 tracks. I did 2 listening test, one through headphones and then speakers. Through speakers I preferred A, but through headphones it was difficult to choose between B & C. I would suggest A is the original file and B & C are recorded from speakers. There was an ambience in B & C and C was a bit more sibilant/bright plus the vocal was a bit more set back in the sound stage than in A, that's what lead me to that decision.
Track A sounds like the CD. Tracks B & C are recordings made with a stereo mic of a playback system with a lot of room ambiance, noise, and phase issues. Not sure what the point is. Playing back a recording on my system of a recording of playback system is quite an odd way to evaluate anything given all the variables.
At C I hear something falling/clicking in the background I don't hear on B. B has more noise than A. Both B and C sounds like it was recorder by playing music through speakers. A is the original file (it's also not a WAV file like B and C)
Why not host a double blind test? You would make history. You'll be the first high-end cable supporter to agree to participate in a double blind test. I'd love to see you and Gene work on something like that.
We have many times and we welcome doing it many more times. However, you can't do cable comparisons "double blind". The guy swapping the cables will always see which is which. It also doesn't matter if they see or not. Single blind comparisons work just fine.
We do single blind all the time, we even built a special device for it. Double-blind is quite difficult to realize and is not typically used in audio tests.
File A seems to be a direct file while B and C are recordings from speakers in a studio setting. I am listening from a tablet, BT to a Powernode to a pair of B&W Bookshelf speakers. Not an Audio expert and I don't play one on TV 😃. I prefer A.
I found track A to be the most pleasant and easy to listen too, what I mean is both tracks B and C did not sound natural and took more effort to listen too than track A, BTW I listened to the tracks via my laptop using my vintage Sennheiser HD545 Headphones. Cheers and thanks for the challenge.
I preferred C. I believe that A is the original Studio recording. Then B and C are recorded in a room playing the track on a very good system. In B I hear a bit of room boom, and a bit of overload on the microphone. On C I hear the room, but it sounds more like a live performance, not a studio recording.
I'm listening on studio monitor headphones, so I can't speak on soundstage or instrument separation. What I can speak on is sound quality, A: Least noise, warm and balanced sound, not overly in your face, everything sit's nicely in the mix, not as detailed as B and C, though too much detail is not always a good thing. B: More noise than A, more forward sounding, more detailed, airy and spacious sounding, loud passages get a bit much though. C: The noisiest recording, very upfront and detailed, too the point of being too much for my taste. Slightly warmer than B with less reverb. Loud passages are too upfront, though I can't tell which is worse B or C. A is the winner for me even though it has slightly less detail.
Tough one this, each has some merit. A is overall my favourite. Focussed, detailed vocal, very studio sounding. B & C sound to have a semi live acoustic, due to some room ambiance, maybe? The piano sounds softer and a little more natural, which is pleasing. However, the overall effect is to rob some dynamics & detail, with B sounding somewhat hollow, and the stereo image on C being notably diffuse. One could reasonably argue they have a more naturalistic presentation, but this is outweighed by the deficiencies.
Track 1 sounds compressed (but then, don't they all?). Track 2 sounds high-cut (less treble extension). There's more treble again in Track 3, but something's the matter, a thin-sounding sibilance or something else triggering my migraine sensitivity…
B had some apeal at first since the stage sounded larger and the voice was further back, but after I switched a few times between A and B, A sounded more natural and cleaner/more detailed. C I didn't like at all, it sounded harsh, almost like she sang through a tube. I realized A must be the original recording, and in the others I heared room recordings from speakers. Also A being a different format gave it away when I thought about it.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I can’t download anything on my computer without it being played back on my computer system which isn’t very great. He really needs to put up streaming samples that we can somehow get onto a different stereo not sure how that would work though
Grado 150s, RME Babyface A - Data Compressed, flat no dimension B - Better but still lacking in dimension C - Best, now I can actually hear the reverb ect
Track A had the lowest noise floor, and the vocals were at the front of the soundstage. Track B had a fair amount of hiss and the soundstage was very flat -- two dimensional. Track C had even more hiss, but wider (albeit unnatural sounding -- like the Phantom Center setting in Dolby ProLogic) soundstage and a bit of depth. Track A gets my vote; even at 16bit, it sounds like what a great recording/mix SHOULD sound like for solo vocals over a piano.
B is by far my favorite. Unfortunately, I couldn't download the tracks to my phone which would have given me the opportunity to use a dongle dac into my headphones. So listened straight from my computer to my audioquest night owls. Still the differences were dramatic. B was by far my favorite. I would say the music has remarkably more presence, longer decay. A wonderful reverb effect with the voices. Warmer, more lush. Any easier listening experience especially with that zipper sound. Something annoying about it in A. The cymbal hits were too tight in A and the lower notes nearly absent. C fell out of the comparison as I felt the contrast was greatest between a and b. I would buy whatever you used in the playback of B.
Track track a is the original recording I guarantee it. Track B is a recording with better cables, could be speaker cables or power cables or both. Track C is a recording with likely generic basic speaker cables and or generic power cords
After listening to the tracks, I liked track 1 the most. Upon analyzing the sound, it appears that the left channel has a PEQ @ app. 160 Hz with a relatively broad intervention (ranging from 100 Hz to 300 Hz), while the right channel has a similar PEQ @ 130 Hz but with a narrower intervention (from 100 Hz to 160 Hz). In my perception, the most noticeable difference lies in the low-mid area. Track A sounds the best, as it has a good amount of low-mid energy. However, track B lacks sufficient low-mid energy, and track C lacks even more in the low-mid range. Low mid energy can masks or reveal many things in a soundtrack.
C is more diffused, A is the original, Personally i prefer B as it has a more open/clear sound. Id say B & C are recorded from a mic in front of some of your speakers and if this is the case Im gonna have to buy some.
To me A sounds cleanest with lowest noise floor, vs C seems most open and dynamic. I am not familiar with the track, so I am not sure what is noise and what is artifact. C seems to contain some background noise that may well be part of the recording.
Listened to the tracks with: Topping E30 Topping L30 Beyerdynamic 1990pro Track A sounds the cleanist Track B has higher noise floor and background noises Track C is the dirtiest, Background noises are louder and it has some injected sound throughout the whole song at about 20Khz Yes I am a member at ASR
[A] It sounds like original. Less infomration, clean sound, may be noise reduction? [B] I vote B. Soudns good. Open baffle speakers? Soundstage si good, noise is noticable but not disturbing. [C] Not bad. Closed baffle speakers?
Are the left and right channels reversed on track B? I agree with many commenters that A is the original file and B and C are miced speakers. Close miced with omni mics? Left/right crosstalk gives a subtle tight doubling effect (short delay time) with a little phasiness. Subtle room sound. On headphones, since I can't hear my room, this could be considered an enhancement to the original sound. Speaker B seems to be an excellent speaker.
A sounds like source material, B sounds like a recording of an OB speaker and C sounds like a recording of a box speaker... I'm sure that's wrong, but hey, I gave it a shot.
Okay, I will preface this by saying I ordered the LGK 2.4 (fully assembled) a couple of weeks ago so while I await those to be built I listen to this on my Klipsch RF-82 II's. I hate these things... as I always second guess myself. But I'm just going with what sounds good to me. It's tight between B and C for me. I'm pretty sure I heard someone knocking things at the beginning in the background, I'm going with C. Sounds like she's in front of me. - Gregg
Listened through headphones. (Not anywhere near studio grade quality, but decent ones.) I liked B & C better than A. A was clearly very different than B & C, and came across as a bit harsh over the headphones (I had to turn it down at times). Between B & C it was a bit hard to pick. I think ultimately C is my favorite. B seemed to have a little less crispness and detail, like there was just a little *too* much reverb from the room or something. C seemed to strike a good balance for me where it wasn't as harsh as A but there was a little less of the room.
I'm writing this without reading any comments. Gut impressions after switch-between listening. Track A is my favorite for these reasons: less background hiss, more clarity overall (including bass clarity), and more upfront vocal presence. (edit: It sounds louder but also more intimate) Tracks B and C sound like they have more dynamic range and room to breathe, but it sounds simulated in some way. Background hiss is very evident at the start of the track, and everything feels far away. Vocals sound near in A, further back in B, and even further back in C. I think the mixes and/or recordings are different because there are sounds at the very beginning of C that are not on A. (A) sounds accurate, real, and dare I say digital. B and C sound soft and less confrontational. (edit 2: on all tracks I heard similar blips of static or a tick/click. Very very brief artifacts.)
A is a lil too forward and notes run together for my taste C my kind of presentation. but i detect a tad bit of sibilance and seems more midrange focused almost shouty during louder parts B my kind of presentation more balanced and weight to notes
Ranked from best to worst: A, B, C. A sounds like a studio recording. B and C must be recorded from speakers where B is to keeping most of the qualities of A.
Track A - Is missing the background noise happening during the recording. It seems to have some sort of noise filter applied and a compression that muddies the vocals during the louder passages. The overall sound is dull compared to the other 2 tracks. Track B - Sounds wider with more the vocals and piano more natural sounding. Track C - Sounds like there's no sort of processing done to clean up the vocal and piano tracks and balance them against each other. There's less/no clean up for the louder more distracting background noises. Vocal and piano seem to be compressed like in Track A making the vocals seem harsh, but still clearer than in Track A. Track B sounds best to me.
I listened using headphones, but would like to listen to them again with my home setup. The only thing I can really say to keep things short is: Track A sounded like a recording... Track B sounding like a recording... Track C sounded like music, a performance... Tracks A and B - I was concentrating on all the details, quality, imaging, etc. Track C - All the concentrating went away and I just listened to the beautiful performance... Thanks for the opportunity to critique. By the way, I love your channel 🙂
Using headphones as you did is really the best way to judge tracks recorded with microphones. That way you aren't listening to TWO rooms interacting with the sound but only one.
Listening through my phone > THX DAC> Campfire Audio Saber IEMs. I like track B best. A is polished but muffled. Over-filtered to my ears. C is a little too bright at times and I think I would get fatigued by listening to that production of the song too much. Beyond that, great, great song Danny. Thanks!
A. - Has a bit more of the lower mids and is much quieter than B or C. However, I'm not sure that the vocals are as clean as B or C. B. - Has more of the lower mids than C, but less that A. This track has the clear vocals and a little more heft than C. It's close but I think I prefer this track: B is the winner
Download The Tracks Here: drive.google.com/drive/folders/14armN1-5lrGTlBVPwdXgkh1sC9hPR8ob?usp=drive_link
why do you delete my useful reply?
My comment also got deleted, why? sketchy
Thanks Danny. This was fun.
B and C have separate noises in channel. B and C are different to each other in this regard. A doesn't have these noises. It's like B and C were recorded from speakers with someone in the background making subtle noises.
What a great song - I ordered the 5 CD pack. Never heard of this artist before so thank you Danny.
I felt as though C > B > A. The sound stage improved for me as I went through the playlist.
A) Sounds like an original sound file you could buy.
B) Sounds like in room recording with more distance and height, more noise/recording noise, more room sound compared to "A".
some one is moving around in the beginning and in the end.
it sounds like a motor vehicle is passing by, maybe a lorry/big truck, outside of the room (deep rumble sound in the far bagground at 3min 22sec).
C) Sounds like in room recording just like "B" also with more noise in the recording just like "B".
The vocal singer sounds more clear and maybe little farther away compared to "B".
some one is moving around in the beginning and in the end.
If i have to pick one, i like "B" little more then the other, if you forget the background noise and the lorry sound.
And im very curious to hear what this is.
I believe A is the original, as the sense of presence, stereo positioning, etc. is all there. Of the other two, I prefer B, as it feels warmer and more direct. C seems a bit hollow somehow.
Loved the music! I ordered the 5-CD package!
I am in the minority. I choose B with C a close second. A sounds compressed, vocals have a slight honkyness to them. B has the most clarity, I hear the sparce percussion more here. The most dynamic range on B. C is close to B with a little more compression. Thanks Danny.
I prefer track A because it sounds like the artist is up front and primary. B seemed to have echo and C would have been my second choice. Glad you are doing something like this!!
I think Danny tipped his hand by mentioning ASR. My guess is the difference between B and C is either a speaker cable or power cable, something ASR typically doesn’t see as relevant.
My guess is he deleted the catalytic converter. I started smelling sulfur from my speakers under a heavy load, now that I removed the catalytic converter they play louder and sound better.
@@billjackson3257 hey thanks man! where can i get one of them there whatchamahcallits? ✌🤣👍
Great video, I'm all in. Downloaded and listened to the files on Bose headset (wired) direct from Dell PC. With old ears and damaged hearing and guess what ? They all sounded the same to me. 😀 You should have included a category of "no difference" for us old codgers.
Danny, apparently you can't help yourself. Inviting the ASR folks is an excellent move, but you didn't have to poke the bear. I found your suggesting that they are afraid to listen and compare to be an unneccessary and deliberate insult. You could have just invited them to join in the challenge: listen, compare and comment. I think that we all would welcome their participation.
After listening and reading the comments here, I have a few ideas about what we are hearing. A is the original recording. B and C are recordings of playback through your system. B and C do have more 'space' - you can sense the room acoustics. I'm not sure just how much analysis I can provide, my hearing is not as refined as many in this hobby and my tinnitus is at the level of "is this ringing in my ears bothering you?". My best guess is that this is being played through your excellent NXtremes, possibly played through different DACs.
My system for the comparison: desktop computer > coax SPDIF > Schiit Modi 3 > Schiit Jotunheim > ZMF classic (RP-50 mod) and ZMF Auteur headphones. Normal desktop speakers are Magnepan MMG.
I couldn't listen to track A for some reason, it wouldn't play, but tracks B and C sounded exactly the same to me... But of course that could just be because I was listening to them on my phone, (with headphones of course), but of which probably doesn't have enough actual resolution in its audio processing and/or output circuitry to even let any subtle differences between these tracks actually be heard...
This is a nice song though, i just wish I had a (MUCH) higher end method of audio playback to actually hear it on, because I bet it can be breathtaking on speakers that can actually reproduce all of the nuances of it properly!
Do any of these files involve cable lifters?? Just wondering 😂
A is a standard IEC cable on the ADC, B is the GR one, C is the GR one on stand-offs, no doubt.
B is my favorite. Less compression, more naturally sounding. I subscribe to both channels. Note: Listening nearfield on my JBL 305P MKII.
Now you have me questioning my initial review hmmm, you're right it does sound more natural and uncompressed, but as a whole, to me A just sounds more balanced to my ears.
My comments on the files A, B, and C. Background on me first. 58 years old so I'm certain my hearing has dropped off above 15K, built my speakers and cables, running files through J-River into a Schitt Modi DAC into a 120 watt per/channel receiver. File A, without a doubt was the quietest file. Little if any perceptible noise between notes, almost clinical. Loved it. File B. definitely a hum of some sort under the music. The voice sounded like it had more reverberation almost a concert hall type of sound. It sounded good but the noise detracted my enjoyment of the music. It also seemed just a bit more sibilant. File C. Less noisy than B but still noise between notes. I liked A the best. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
A grand piano is a complex instrument - dynamics and overtones from the percussion of the hammers on strings is greater than many folks realize.
It was really hard for me between A and B, after going back and forth I settled on B since I could pick up more information especially at the beginning of song.
B was louder than A. C was louder than B. B had more background hiss than A. C had more background hiss than B. Does B have more compression than C? Does C have more compression than B? A sounded the best of all three it had more clarity, and I can hear more of the background clearly.
Soundstage was wider (a lot) in track A than what it was in B or C; also, dynamic range was bigger in track A. I played the three of them in my main system with a PrimaLuna tube amplifier and Klipsch Forte IVs. After listening in ultralinear I switched to Triode, same impressions but, obviously, the sound was more focused on mid range.
Interesting you chose the most difficult instruments to record and play back - the human voice, and, of course, the piano!
Equipment used:
NAIM ND5 XS 2 streamer/ DAC via USB input using a USB drive
Cayin Soul 170i integrated tube amplifier, using Telefunken 12AX7/ECC83 smooth-plates, Raytheon 6GU7 (with adaptors, in place of 6SN7s), and Tung Sol KT170 tubes
Q Acoustic Concept 500 loudspeakers
Comments:
I chose A as the most natural. It was smooth sounding, flowing, with a nice in room (my room) presence to her voice. Her voice was intimate - as if she was singing to me!
B and C contained random noises (start and finish of track and through recording as well), especially C, while in B, her voice was not always dead centre - did someone walk past the speaker, or momentarily wave their hand between the drivers and the microphone? B and C also had a slight sharpness to the piano, especially C. Also, in B and C, there was a small amount of echo (reverberation?), and her voice was set (slightly) further back in the soundstage compared to A - acoustics are not quite right in B and C. Although this might sound like hypocrisy, sometimes the piano sounded more realistic in B and C - more dynamic perhaps, but then the sharpness (as mentioned) upset the listening experience.
Still, all three recordings were, in their own right, excellent, but as the best listening experience, I still chose A, even though (at times), the piano could be regarded as more realistic in B and C. I suppose I could say that the piano sounded sweeter in A, and therefore, easier to listen to, while her voice was definitely in my room in all three recordings, but more so in A.
Yes. This will be fun. Gonna try it in my high damped studio room. With Hegel h90,dls speakers and a sub. Supra cables. And in my bedroom,little Huston mini amp,Wiim mini into a topping d50 s to a diy speakers(morel&sb acustic. ) no treatment besides bed =) ty for this challenge 😊
A - low backround noise, only higher above 18kHz - no echoes - seem to be like studio recording or near field rec., B - I think Microphone recording from room - there is space echo - but quite good for listening, C - similar to B but little bit more mid spectrum - maybe higher distance from microphone - and at 20 kHz - there is strong up to -20 dB noise signal .. I like A and B too - ( using foobar2000 with enhanced spectr. analyzer , USB ESS9018 sound card + mid class Sony earphones) and I´m currious for end results .. 🙂
A - Sounds like the original recording
B - Has distinctively more noise and almost sounds like a recording of speakers in a room (A good one I might add)
C - Similar amount of noise to B, but a different sound. Could also be speakers in a room, but different configuration or maybe even different speakers.
Listening on my desktop system, DIY SB Acoustics Bromo Kit, powered by small class D smsl ao200 and topping balanced dac.
Excellent ears. I totally agree.
A definitely sounded the best. Since B and C sounded like a recording of different speakers, judging just between those 2, I would pick B. B sounded more open with a larger sound stage as well as more detail in the vocals. The piano also sounded more detailed. C to me sounded muddy with a lack of details. The sound stage was also kind of suppressed and didn’t fill the room as good. Super interesting challenge and I look forward to the results!
Pretty sure A is the source track, B and C are played thru speakers and recorded with microphones where C is recorded while driving 16MPH in a convertible. Nice song by the way...!
Track A feels more intimate, more personal. She's standing so close, every articulation of her mouth hyperclear, the hairs on the back of my neck stand at attention.
I'd add B/C are progressively father into the room. Like I'm sitting mid club in B and at the back of the room in C. This is a great experience you've created for us Danny. Loving to read everyone's interpretations.
First of all great video/challenge Danny.
For me, Track A sounded like the original recording, B and C sounded like recorded playbacks.
Track B was the most emotional to me, it sounded like the vocals were incredibly separated and preserved, it gave me an impression of the vocalist standing by the piano and the separation made it an incredible experience.
Track C sounded like B but the separation was gone, the vocals were not as forward and the piano seemed a little layered over the vocals compared to Track B.
Track B it is for me!
A has a quieter background and more clarity. B has more echo/reverb but also background noise and hiss and vocal is boxy. C has background noise/hiss also. Vocals are brighter and more air but too forward. A is my favourite and I notice its a 16/44.1 CD file where as the others are Wav files and seem to have higher sample/bit rate. Listened through Audirvana rendered on a SoTM Streamer plugged into a Chord Qutest, Denon Pre-amp - 2 x Roksan Power Amps and PMC 24 speakers.
Wow, very interesting. With headphones especially, track A has less background hiss and a quieter noise floor. B and C definitely sounded different from A, but my ears might not be good enough to put my finger on it exactly. More like 'in a cave' sound, which I guess means that B and C were recorded in a room and A is the actual, original track. Honestly can't decide which track I like the best, though I can hear they are different. Listening through a Willsenton RS and Quad S-2 speakers.
Track A = AIFF, Track B = WAV, Track C = WAV, C has more depth, detail, ambiance than the others.
Track A - original
B & C - replayed through hi-fi. All the ambience is coming from the room.
A definitely sounds best on my system. B and C do sound recorded while being played in a room. I am listening on my main rig with open baffle speakers. Thanks
A: the piano and vocals have more weight and you feel closer.
B: is similar to a, but you feel a bit father back. Vocals and piano have less weight.
C: you feel farthest back from the vocals/piano.
Boa also and piano sound thinnest.
Soundstage does seem wider though.
Yes there are “noises” in B and C.
Makes me think that the “a” mic was placed in the sweet spot, then “b” 3 feet back from the sweet spot and for c, 6 feet from the sweet spot.
C for me. Reminded of me listening to analog tape and C is "without Dolby" :) Higher noise floor but much more revealing.
How fun 👍
Would it be useful to have a snippet of what people are listening with?
Track A was way more stable, the other two got strange jumps in stereo image
I preferred C and B was a close second. A was very forward for me at times a little shrill almost harsh. This was on my Epic Speakers from Toids EPIC Speaker build. I preffered A on my CSS 1 TD but they are a little reserved on the tweeter highs.
First impression is that the noise floor is higher as I go from A to B to C. I have each file loaded in a separate VLC window and so can switch between them near instantly. I'm using my desktop system as follows: Computer via USB to a Schiit Jotumheim with the Multibit DAC, then balanced outputs to two Schiit Gjallarhorn monoblocks and finally to a pair of Klipsch RP-600Ms that have your crossover upgrade. I need to do some more listening to see what else might jump out at me.
Edit: A is richer, more full with higher clarity and range. I'm guessing there's more difference between the tracks other than A being an AIFF file with the other two being WAVs. Otherwise, C should not have the significantly higher noise floor over B.
I’m going to guess it’s the speakers behind you with slightly different parts in cross overs
I finally got a chance to listen to these, albeit after the results were released. At risk of being wrong, here are my impressions WITHOUT having watched the follow-up video:
A is the studio recording. More specifically, it sounds like the Rounder re-release as opposed to the original Virt release (the tracks were remixed); the difference is in the beginning where the sustain pedal can be heard with the wood groaning noise - its less pronounced in the original Virt mix. The thumbnail is also a hint. Also, if I didn't know better, I'd think it had some volume leveling or other manipulation done versus the CD track; there is a harshness on some of the loud parts that sounds like mild compression. Could be my playback (aif on a windows PC), but I didn't hear it in the tracks that follow.
B sounds like an in-room recording of an open baffle speaker, mostly likely Danny's NX-tremes. There is minor room noise at the beginning and end, and the sound of circulating air (though not specifically a nearby air vent).
C sounds like an in-room recording of a different speaker. As Vienna goes up in her vocal range toward high notes the stereo image shifts to the right, as if the signal is moving through a cross-over from one driver to another that are not both horizontally aligned with the microphone and/or have slightly different frequency response characteristics. As soon as the frequency drops, it moves back proportionally to the left.
Now to go see how right or wrong I am 🙂
Track A sounds like the original recording and B and C were recorded in a room.
I'm keen to find out, what the differences are or is ! Would not surprise me if it was tube amp, solid state, class D
A, more rounded/rolled off. B, more open space. C, Bit more hissy/fuzzy on the top end... Funny I could be way out, could even be different source on all 3.
A: Voice slightly left of center, but most natural presentation. Most intimate voice image. Scary close and detailed. Wonderful!
Nice spatial clues around piano behind voice. Hands down the best sound compared to B or C.
B: Unnatural echo-like effect around voice. As if recorded in different room from A track. Not as much space around piano as A.
C: Similar to B, but less irritating.
Listening on GR X-Statics 54 inches from back wall and GR twin double stack servo subs. Sonicaps with Myflex bypass caps. Decent 12 Ga Speaker wire soldered to cross-over at speaker end. ROKU Ultra playing files from USB stick. Stabilant 22 applied to all cable connectors.
Note: X-statics really came alive after over one year of break-in time.
I'm thinking that A is the source file and B is the NX extremes playback in a room, not sure if it's yours or Ron's, and CC is the new old school style brutes. The breathyness and ambiance of B is pretty amazing and those aspects are more tame in C, which would make sense considering the difference in acoustic design of each speaker. File A has about zero breathyness and space in comparison.
He mentions ASR, so it has to be a cable A/B, not different speakers.
Using Hifiman Sundara headphones: Track A is more intimate as more close up. The other two tracks are more spaced apart w the vocal being up above. Vocal on track B is slightly to the right while on Track C it is above center.
Theres quite a difference in volume levels between tracks, maybe volume match next time, looking forward to it
Very cool.
😂 Will give it a go, but I'd have to listen on headphones as my systems are out for service. And I have yet to integrate it into my analog.
Figure headphones are likely the better way to do it. That way you aren't listening to TWO rooms (Danny's and yours) if these tracks were recorded from speakers using microphones (which I suspect). A YT reviewer named Thabamar always recommends people use headphones when listening to his comparison videos to take their rooms out of the equation (but not the lossy compression of UA-cam of course).
@@rosswarren436 This may lead headphone listeners to prefer track B or C while speaker listeners prefer track A.
@@jackwickman2403 interesting observation.
I thought A was the most natural and clear. B was the worst in my opinion. On headphones it sounded like it had phase issues, and on my x-statiks the vocals seemed to drift around in space. C as a little closer to A, but just not quite as clear. and at times seemed slightly grainy. A also had the most locked in sound stage for vocals on the speakers, but sounded less wide on headphones. All in all, I preferred A
Spider weaves a web...
Interesting comparison. I focused on the quality of vocals and piano. Track A is obviously the cleanest, best-defined sound. The vocals are natural. The attacks on each piano note are crisp and fast. Tracks B and C are progressively blurrier. I found it interesting that these had a sound I responded to as "warmer," and more similar to the kind of sound I've been listening to for the past [deleted] years, using almost exclusively AR speakers. My current AR-11s have been upgraded with new tweeters and better crossover components from Danny. It has made quite a difference, and improved my listening experience while making me acutely aware of the inherent limitations of this speaker design. So the interesting bottom line is that the sound of Track B felt more familiar, while Track A was more exciting, and the possibilities with more modern speakers more exciting yet! I wonder what I would hear making these comparisons on NX-Oticas.
Only listenin on my laptop with sony noise cancelling headphones in passive mode. B sounded clearer after listening to A with more air and space and more intelligible lyrics. there seemed to be less difference from B to C. but listening in sequence A,B,A,B,C I was getting a bit of listening fatigue and it became more difficult to distinguish and may have been easier on my proper system back home and not in a hotel room on headphones.
Track A: 3-D soundstage and solid vocal location
It seems like A is the original recording, while B anc C are recorded from speakers in a room (with noise) at different distances from the speakers (C more distant). Listened with a cheap pair of PC headphones. Aside from the noise, B is my preferred one.
If I know Danny the way I think I do, I think c is a stock speaker, it was noisy, boomy and out of control in the upper ranges, b. I think cables were added. The noise floor have dropped quite a bit and there was much clarity and detail and all aspects of the song, however, the upper trebles and spatial cues for completely smeared and distorted still. Speaker. Speaker a. This clearly had an upgraded crossover in it. More clarity and detail in the lower and mid-base regions. The singer's voice had much more transparency in realism to it. All in all, all three songs were played on the same equipment as they sounded the same. The impressions I felt were the sense of realism. I played all tracks in a fully treated room. Using. A pair of Danny's nx oticas , with fully upgraded crossovers. An elekit 8600S 300B tube amp. With two triple stacks of Danny's servo subs. Plus an additional three subwoofers behind the listening position. All being fed by Danny's cables.
First, I could listen to all three tracks and have no issue enjoying the music. I heard a progressive increasing noise floor from A to B to C. I voted for A mostly because of the less distraction of noise. I also believe it is the source track being it is an AIFF 16bit 44.1 track. The other two tracks sound like in-room recordings and were 24bit 48 wav tracks. JRiver reported a slight volume difference between the tracks, B being the lowest, then C at +0.2 dB and A at +0.4 dB louder than B. I used JRiver's DSP to level-match the volumes as I switched between them. Picking between B and C I would go for B.
A - The original recording (less hisss noise, little bit darker sounding) - My 3rd choice
B - Recorded from speakers (vocal is more clear and near to us, also it's like higher resolution sound) - My 1st choice
C - Recorded from speakers (less attractive than B but more alive than A) - My 2nd choice
As a couple others have said, Track A is likely the original recording. Or close to it. Listening to the original seemed to confirm this. B and C sound like speakers playing into a room - obvious but subtle background noises. Track B vocals have slight chestiness to them. B and C have an almost "live" recording sound to them. I skim ASR forums some and find Amir's measuring methodology and opinions valid and sound.
Okay, ill do it 🤓
Ooooooo.... sneaky, sneaky.
Great concept! I am definitely NOT a "flat earther". Interesting listening to the 3 tracks. I did 2 listening test, one through headphones and then speakers. Through speakers I preferred A, but through headphones it was difficult to choose between B & C.
I would suggest A is the original file and B & C are recorded from speakers. There was an ambience in B & C and C was a bit more sibilant/bright plus the vocal was a bit more set back in the sound stage than in A, that's what lead me to that decision.
Track A sounds like the CD. Tracks B & C are recordings made with a stereo mic of a playback system with a lot of room ambiance, noise, and phase issues. Not sure what the point is. Playing back a recording on my system of a recording of playback system is quite an odd way to evaluate anything given all the variables.
At C I hear something falling/clicking in the background I don't hear on B. B has more noise than A. Both B and C sounds like it was recorder by playing music through speakers. A is the original file (it's also not a WAV file like B and C)
Why not host a double blind test? You would make history. You'll be the first high-end cable supporter to agree to participate in a double blind test. I'd love to see you and Gene work on something like that.
We have many times and we welcome doing it many more times. However, you can't do cable comparisons "double blind". The guy swapping the cables will always see which is which. It also doesn't matter if they see or not. Single blind comparisons work just fine.
We do single blind all the time, we even built a special device for it. Double-blind is quite difficult to realize and is not typically used in audio tests.
Though you've never done a 'double blind' test yourself, you do love to bring it up, don't you Jacky boy?
File A seems to be a direct file while B and C are recordings from speakers in a studio setting. I am listening from a tablet, BT to a Powernode to a pair of B&W Bookshelf speakers. Not an Audio expert and I don't play one on TV 😃. I prefer A.
I found track A to be the most pleasant and easy to listen too, what I mean is both tracks B and C did not sound natural and took more effort to listen too than track A, BTW I listened to the tracks via my laptop using my vintage Sennheiser HD545 Headphones. Cheers and thanks for the challenge.
Should I wait until my amp comes back from the shop or should I just Roon them to a Bluesound endpoint?
I preferred C. I believe that A is the original Studio recording. Then B and C are recorded in a room playing the track on a very good system. In B I hear a bit of room boom, and a bit of overload on the microphone. On C I hear the room, but it sounds more like a live performance, not a studio recording.
I'm listening on studio monitor headphones, so I can't speak on soundstage or instrument separation. What I can speak on is sound quality,
A: Least noise, warm and balanced sound, not overly in your face, everything sit's nicely in the mix, not as detailed as B and C, though too much detail is not always a good thing.
B: More noise than A, more forward sounding, more detailed, airy and spacious sounding, loud passages get a bit much though.
C: The noisiest recording, very upfront and detailed, too the point of being too much for my taste. Slightly warmer than B with less reverb. Loud passages are too upfront, though I can't tell which is worse B or C.
A is the winner for me even though it has slightly less detail.
Tough one this, each has some merit.
A is overall my favourite. Focussed, detailed vocal, very studio sounding.
B & C sound to have a semi live acoustic, due to some room ambiance, maybe? The piano sounds softer and a little more natural, which is pleasing. However, the overall effect is to rob some dynamics & detail, with B sounding somewhat hollow, and the stereo image on C being notably diffuse. One could reasonably argue they have a more naturalistic presentation, but this is outweighed by the deficiencies.
How about some more open baffle speakers? Come on Danny!
Track 1 sounds compressed (but then, don't they all?). Track 2 sounds high-cut (less treble extension). There's more treble again in Track 3, but something's the matter, a thin-sounding sibilance or something else triggering my migraine sensitivity…
B had some apeal at first since the stage sounded larger and the voice was further back, but after I switched a few times between A and B, A sounded more natural and cleaner/more detailed. C I didn't like at all, it sounded harsh, almost like she sang through a tube. I realized A must be the original recording, and in the others I heared room recordings from speakers. Also A being a different format gave it away when I thought about it.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I can’t download anything on my computer without it being played back on my computer system which isn’t very great. He really needs to put up streaming samples that we can somehow get onto a different stereo not sure how that would work though
Grado 150s, RME Babyface
A - Data Compressed, flat no dimension
B - Better but still lacking in dimension
C - Best, now I can actually hear the reverb ect
Track A had the lowest noise floor, and the vocals were at the front of the soundstage. Track B had a fair amount of hiss and the soundstage was very flat -- two dimensional. Track C had even more hiss, but wider (albeit unnatural sounding -- like the Phantom Center setting in Dolby ProLogic) soundstage and a bit of depth. Track A gets my vote; even at 16bit, it sounds like what a great recording/mix SHOULD sound like for solo vocals over a piano.
B is by far my favorite. Unfortunately, I couldn't download the tracks to my phone which would have given me the opportunity to use a dongle dac into my headphones. So listened straight from my computer to my audioquest night owls. Still the differences were dramatic. B was by far my favorite. I would say the music has remarkably more presence, longer decay. A wonderful reverb effect with the voices. Warmer, more lush. Any easier listening experience especially with that zipper sound. Something annoying about it in A. The cymbal hits were too tight in A and the lower notes nearly absent. C fell out of the comparison as I felt the contrast was greatest between a and b. I would buy whatever you used in the playback of B.
Track track a is the original recording I guarantee it.
Track B is a recording with better cables, could be speaker cables or power cables or both.
Track C is a recording with likely generic basic speaker cables and or generic power cords
I enjoyed Track A best -- it seems less harsh than B and C -- diff betwixt an AIF vs WAV file?
After listening to the tracks, I liked track 1 the most. Upon analyzing the sound, it appears that the left channel has a PEQ @ app. 160 Hz with a relatively broad intervention (ranging from 100 Hz to 300 Hz), while the right channel has a similar PEQ @ 130 Hz but with a narrower intervention (from 100 Hz to 160 Hz). In my perception, the most noticeable difference lies in the low-mid area. Track A sounds the best, as it has a good amount of low-mid energy. However, track B lacks sufficient low-mid energy, and track C lacks even more in the low-mid range. Low mid energy can masks or reveal many things in a soundtrack.
C is more diffused, A is the original, Personally i prefer B as it has a more open/clear sound. Id say B & C are recorded from a mic in front of some of your speakers and if this is the case Im gonna have to buy some.
Challenge accepted!
To me A sounds cleanest with lowest noise floor, vs C seems most open and dynamic. I am not familiar with the track, so I am not sure what is noise and what is artifact. C seems to contain some background noise that may well be part of the recording.
Listened to the tracks with:
Topping E30
Topping L30
Beyerdynamic 1990pro
Track A sounds the cleanist
Track B has higher noise floor and background noises
Track C is the dirtiest, Background noises are louder and it has some injected sound throughout the whole song at about 20Khz
Yes I am a member at ASR
[A] It sounds like original. Less infomration, clean sound, may be noise reduction? [B] I vote B. Soudns good. Open baffle speakers? Soundstage si good, noise is noticable but not disturbing. [C] Not bad. Closed baffle speakers?
Are the left and right channels reversed on track B? I agree with many commenters that A is the original file and B and C are miced speakers. Close miced with omni mics? Left/right crosstalk gives a subtle tight doubling effect (short delay time) with a little phasiness. Subtle room sound. On headphones, since I can't hear my room, this could be considered an enhancement to the original sound. Speaker B seems to be an excellent speaker.
A sounds like source material, B sounds like a recording of an OB speaker and C sounds like a recording of a box speaker... I'm sure that's wrong, but hey, I gave it a shot.
Okay, I will preface this by saying I ordered the LGK 2.4 (fully assembled) a couple of weeks ago so while I await those to be built I listen to this on my Klipsch RF-82 II's.
I hate these things... as I always second guess myself. But I'm just going with what sounds good to me.
It's tight between B and C for me. I'm pretty sure I heard someone knocking things at the beginning in the background,
I'm going with C. Sounds like she's in front of me.
- Gregg
You will be pleasantly surprised when I reveal what was what.
She has a beautiful voice 🙂 After 25 years in the US Army my hearing is not the best but I like A?
B is dull, A is a bit bright , C is clean. Using my PC with WinAmp v2.80 to my Old Harmon/Kardon desktop 2.1 speakers with a flat EQ
Listened through headphones. (Not anywhere near studio grade quality, but decent ones.) I liked B & C better than A. A was clearly very different than B & C, and came across as a bit harsh over the headphones (I had to turn it down at times). Between B & C it was a bit hard to pick. I think ultimately C is my favorite. B seemed to have a little less crispness and detail, like there was just a little *too* much reverb from the room or something. C seemed to strike a good balance for me where it wasn't as harsh as A but there was a little less of the room.
I'm writing this without reading any comments. Gut impressions after switch-between listening.
Track A is my favorite for these reasons: less background hiss, more clarity overall (including bass clarity), and more upfront vocal presence. (edit: It sounds louder but also more intimate)
Tracks B and C sound like they have more dynamic range and room to breathe, but it sounds simulated in some way. Background hiss is very evident at the start of the track, and everything feels far away. Vocals sound near in A, further back in B, and even further back in C.
I think the mixes and/or recordings are different because there are sounds at the very beginning of C that are not on A.
(A) sounds accurate, real, and dare I say digital. B and C sound soft and less confrontational. (edit 2: on all tracks I heard similar blips of static or a tick/click. Very very brief artifacts.)
A is a lil too forward and notes run together for my taste
C my kind of presentation. but i detect a tad bit of sibilance and seems more midrange focused almost shouty during louder parts
B my kind of presentation more balanced and weight to notes
Ranked from best to worst: A, B, C.
A sounds like a studio recording. B and C must be recorded from speakers where B is to keeping most of the qualities of A.
Track A - Is missing the background noise happening during the recording. It seems to have some sort of noise filter applied and a compression that muddies the vocals during the louder passages. The overall sound is dull compared to the other 2 tracks.
Track B - Sounds wider with more the vocals and piano more natural sounding.
Track C - Sounds like there's no sort of processing done to clean up the vocal and piano tracks and balance them against each other. There's less/no clean up for the louder more distracting background noises. Vocal and piano seem to be compressed like in Track A making the vocals seem harsh, but still clearer than in Track A.
Track B sounds best to me.
I found the center imaging in A strongest and presenting a very emotionally engaging vocal. C’s center image was distracting, abruptly wandering.
I listened using headphones, but would like to listen to them again with my home setup. The only thing I can really say to keep things short is: Track A sounded like a recording... Track B sounding like a recording... Track C sounded like music, a performance... Tracks A and B - I was concentrating on all the details, quality, imaging, etc. Track C - All the concentrating went away and I just listened to the beautiful performance... Thanks for the opportunity to critique. By the way, I love your channel 🙂
Using headphones as you did is really the best way to judge tracks recorded with microphones. That way you aren't listening to TWO rooms interacting with the sound but only one.
Listening through my phone > THX DAC> Campfire Audio Saber IEMs. I like track B best. A is polished but muffled. Over-filtered to my ears. C is a little too bright at times and I think I would get fatigued by listening to that production of the song too much.
Beyond that, great, great song Danny. Thanks!
A. - Has a bit more of the lower mids and is much quieter than B or C. However, I'm not sure that the vocals are as clean as B or C.
B. - Has more of the lower mids than C, but less that A. This track has the clear vocals and a little more heft than C. It's close but I think I prefer this track: B is the winner