Hm, don't like the sound from FW 1.6 (Edit Fixed now)

    Today I found the time to test it all gain.


    I played some riffs in to my looper pedal and recorded it with 1.52 and 1.60 - all sounds the same.

    (All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with soundside.de)


    Great Profiles --> soundside.de

    Edited once, last by Armin ().


    It's now been several days since I made this call. Unfortunately we have not got a single responce to it. It seems to be that since this call nobody can hear a difference between the versions. The thread is dead.


    If I had made this call at first place, this thread would have been dead much earlier. Anybody doubt that?

    Quote from ckemper

    What does pfffffff mean?
    You can reproduce a problem and you are able to record a demonstration clip and send it to us?
    That would be very helpfull at this point.
    We cannot identify any problem.
    Meanwhile the thread you are linking to is pretty much as dead as this one.
    What does this tell you?

    Der Link, den pacocito angegeben hat, sollte, glaube ich, nur zeigen, dass das Thema an anderer Stelle weiterdiskutiert wird. Das soll nicht heißen, dass er weiterhin meint, einen Soundunterschied zu hören. Das "pffff" soll wohl andeuten, dass er ein wenig genervt von dem Thema ist.


    The link pacocito has provided was meant to show that the topic has been moved on to a different thread - at least to my understanding. And the "pfffff" is supposed to mean that he doesn't really approve of it.

    Quote from ckemper

    What does pfffffff mean?
    You can reproduce a problem and you are able to record a demonstration clip and send it to us?
    That would be very helpfull at this point.
    We cannot identify any problem.
    Meanwhile the thread you are linking to is pretty much as dead as this one.
    What does this tell you?


    Sorry about my "pffffff". I was not trying to be offensive. It was just a way to express the disappointment I feel because together, we can not find the source of the problem or reproduce it.


    Not all users who have found the issue are participating in the thread or have the necessary infrastructure to reamp. I'm in contact with some people in other non english spoken forums and some of them had the same problem after upgrading but we have no clips. I can reamp now because I borrowed an spdif audio interface, but I did a system reset while testing both versions and the problem seems to be fixed.


    We are here to help and not to question the outstanding quality of the product you are developing. In fact, I'm so happy with the product that I'm sharing my happiness and clips in every guitar forum, social network or guitarrists meeting I participate.


    I will be alert in future releases of the firmware and will try to record some demos if the issue reappears.


    Thank you for your time.


    Regards,
    Paco

    Edited once, last by pacocito ().

    Quote from ckemper


    It's now been several days since I made this call. Unfortunately we have not got a single responce to it. It seems to be that since this call nobody can hear a difference between the versions. The thread is dead.


    If I had made this call at first place, this thread would have been dead much earlier. Anybody doubt that?


    Since I seem to be the only one that provided reamped clips from before and after. Could you tell me what you think that could have happened in my case? When you checked the tracks and the screenshots I provided that demonstrated a difference you said that you had a hint with those. I understand that my case could be completely unrelated to what others were experiencing but still I would like to know your thoughts.

    Quote from MadH

    Since I seem to be the only one that provided reamped clips from before and after. Could you tell me what you think that could have happened in my case? When you checked the tracks and the screenshots I provided that demonstrated a difference you said that you had a hint with those. I understand that my case could be completely unrelated to what others were experiencing but still I would like to know your thoughts.


    We tried hard to recreate these results, but no success.
    With such minor differences in an optical representation and often contradicting result, we all had to qualify the tools for those tests at first place.
    I am aware of many reasons why an optical representation of waveforms or spectrums could vary, while the sound is the same. I could go into detail, if you are interested.


    What counts is that all clips do not reveal a perceptual sonic difference.

    Quote from ckemper

    We tried hard to recreate these results, but no success.
    With such minor differences in an optical representation and often contradicting result, we all had to qualify the tools for those tests at first place.
    I am aware of many reasons why an optical representation of waveforms or spectrums could vary, while the sound is the same. I could go into detail, if you are interested.


    What counts is that all clips do not reveal a perceptual sonic difference.


    I would really appreciate if you could explain in detail since my knowledge on the subject is limited. I am only referring to the visual representations since I understood that you cannot hear any differences on any of the tracks.


    When I compared the reamps for "1.5.4" vs "1.6.0 after the reset", I could easily see differences in the visual representation but I assumed those were normal and probably due to the antialiasing changes. What I don't understand is why we can see differences when comparing the reamps done with "1.6 before the reset" and "1.6 after the reset" specially when 2 reamps done with "1.6 after the reset" were visually identical.

    MadH,
    You were one of those that claimed to have identified a difference.
    I assume that you cannot hear a difference between your tracks.
    That is the best proof.


    Now about the technical background:
    A digital recording consists of 44100 (or more) separate numbers per second. The space inbetween is not sampled, and it doesn't need to. That's the Nyquist Theorem.
    If you do that same recording again, those numbers are sampled (sic!) at different locations. This will create a different picture but sounds the same.


    There are ways to make the visual representation equal, but there is no need for that in music software. They are not necessarly made for comparing tracks visually.
    This is what I meant when I said we have to qualify our tools.
    Same story for the matching EQs.

    Quote from ckemper

    MadH,
    You were one of those that claimed to have identified a difference.
    I assume that you cannot hear a difference between your tracks.
    That is the best proof.


    I mentioned in previous posts that I was able to hear differences in my clips from before and after the reset but those were more subtle in comparison to when I was playing and that maybe a part of it could be due to the latency changes like you mentioned. I understand that you do not notice any difference and that's ok with me.



    Quote from ckemper

    Now about the technical background:
    A digital recording consists of 44100 (or more) separate numbers per second. The space inbetween is not sampled, and it doesn't need to. That's the Nyquist Theorem.
    If you do that same recording again, those numbers are sampled (sic!) at different locations. This will create a different picture but sounds the same.


    There are ways to make the visual representation equal, but there is no need for that in music software. They are not necessarly made for comparing tracks visually.
    This is what I meant when I said we have to qualify our tools.
    Same story for the matching EQs.


    Thanks a lot for taking your time with this. I understand that when you are doing analog to digital conversion the samples can be taken at different points in time so the resulting waves from the same source could be displayed slightly differently while still sounding the same.


    Is your explanation still valid considering that I reamped all the tracks using only spdif? When I was comparing the tracks I discarded that as the possible reason because I thought that this could not happen when using a digital signal as source.

    This thread was still open on my computer, It's time for an aftermath and a last word.


    The 1.60 is officially released weeks ago and - you guess it - there was no word about sound differences or the need for a system reset. Most of the Profilers are updated up to now, that is thousands of test situations. Not a single user was able to send us clips that show a noticable sound difference. Instead you can find clip modified by EQs to compensate for something that's not there. The EQ's were clearly noticable btw.


    Me and my team, we have a 15 years experience in dealing with software bugs. We trace every single bug report and we have good procedures to do so. We also reconsider if something was changed in the software that could have caused a bug or tonal change. In this case it was the aliasing improvement. It was easy to test, that it will not change the overall sound.


    It was astounishing too see in this thread that my statement - that there is no bug - was not accepted by a large number of people. Instead, many took it as an insult, since they could not fail and so many people could not fail.


    Time has proven now that this was a witch-hunt. This is contemporarily called swarm intelligence. Swarm intelligence is not a high intelligence, it's about following the guys that's in front of you, if you see many moving in the same direction. There is a number of swarms in the world of humans and animals known to have failed.


    I hope we all learn from this story.


    CK