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

  • Something has changed, surprise, surprise!
    It is the reduced aliasing.
    And this fact by nature of things changes the spectrum slightly.
    If you need 100% identical spectrum analysis, you need to compare identical sounds.
    Again: Anti-Aliasing slightly changes the spectrum, otherwise this would be proof of
    no anti-aliasing taking place.


    BTW: Same happens in image editing and can easily be measured in Standard Deviation or Median Deviation,
    even if you can't tell the difference between two images visually.


    Just my 2 cents,
    Martin

  • guitarnet70: No, ... no Green Scream - just the treble booster


    MadH: well, when two snapshots match completely, you can see just one of the lines and that is exactly what I find in the screenshot in which I compared the snapshots of the "dry" versions.


    I just did it on my own.


    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%205.26.56%20PM.png]


    The differences are minimal in your case. Probably the amount of gain in the profile has some effect on it.

  • I downloaded Mad h and Joerch recordings, and when you match the timing perfectly, well as high as i could go with Wavelab, and then i invert the phase on one side, and then play in mono, they do not null, there is a difference there !!!

  • I just did it on my own.


    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%205.26.56%20PM.png]


    The differences are minimal in your case. Probably the amount of gain in the profile has some effect on it.


    A small change in the signal between 600-900hz - but I doubt a bat could hear it. The interesting thing for me is the variance in your red line above 10-12k. It looks like the result of Spectral Band Replication. Did you use a lossless audio format for the comparison? (wav, aiff, etc. are good; mp3, AAC, Ogg are not). I'm just curious.

  • I noticed a difference while playing. My perception was that it sounded (and felt) different. Usually I am pretty good at this and it is a problem some times because it makes me to spend too much money on expensive cables, etc... I also understand that sometimes these things are just temporary perceptions and that even the same clip can be perceived as sounding different when listening to it more than once. That's why I made both clips reamping. Although I can hear the differences in my clips, I noticed it more while playing as it somehow felt different.


    I probably don't have tools as good as you have to do a more accurate analysis but continuing with the "scientific" approach I just compared both of my tracks with Ozone 5. Here is what I get:


    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/74444515/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-16%20at%201.26.06%20PM.png]
    The green line is 1.5.4 and the magenta line is 1.6.0. The pretty much overlap in average but you can see that are not identical. The red line is the differential matching EQ that Ozone calculates to make the 1.6.0 track to sound like 1.5.4 track on average. If Ozone does not lie and I am doing it correctly you can see for example that the high end on 1.6.0 is not the same since the differential matching EQ is progressively going down in that area.


    Thanks for that perfect prove!
    You see the green line below the purple line just because the volume of the second track might have been a fraction of a decibel lower.
    If not we wouldn't have seen the green line at all. A perfect match.


  • Thanks for that perfect prove!
    You see the green line below the purple line just because the volume of the second track might have been a fraction of a decibel lower.
    If not we wouldn't have seen the green line at all. A perfect match.

    If it were just a matter of levels, wouldn't the red line then still be perfectly straight?

  • Thanks for that perfect prove!
    You see the green line below the purple line just because the volume of the second track might have been a fraction of a decibel lower.
    If not we wouldn't have seen the green line at all. A perfect match.


    CK, if it was a perfect match the red line would be completely flat (or almost) like on the graph I posted for joerch. You can see in the graph that as you increase the frequency the db difference increases as well. On average It is not more than 1 db in my example but that is definitely audible. Also I have to say that depending on what sections of the tracks you compare this differences vary (up and down). This graph only shows the average of the total clip.

  • Noooo, this must be only your imagination. There is no difference. Even Andy from Ampfactory can tell you it is the same... :rolleyes: :S X( ?( :thumbdown: :whistling:


    I received two posts from users yesterday, that could not hear a difference in MatH's A/B comparison, but they stated they didn't want to post it on this thread.
    That surprized me, but I understand now. :(

  • MadH have you tried the same test with two files recorded with the same firmware in two passes?`


    My bet is that you would have the very same tiny difference as well. You are not testing a static transfer function but a dynamic system. The varying latency could be one reason of two takes not beeing absolutely identical (or null out in a phase reverse test).


    It's the same in a DAW when you bounce VSTis with free-running oszillators. Two bounces of the very same VSTi wil never pass the phase-invert test as they will never be identical on byte-level. Two bounces of an audio track however will cancel out as they will always be identical.

  • [quote='DanielRigler',index.php?page=Thread&postID=65239#post65239]Noooo, this must be only your imagination. There is no difference. Even Andy from Ampfactory can tell you it is the same... :rolleyes: :S X( ?( :thumbdown: :whistling:


    I received two posts from users yesterday, that could not hear a difference in MatH's A/B comparison, but they stated they didn't want to post it on this thread.
    That surprized me, but I understand now. :(


    Lol, I don't know what to answer about that :) . The only thing I can say is that me and others noticed differences. Someone mentioned that this was noticed on the private beta as well (but I don't know if that is true or not). I took the time to create the clips to make it as objective and accurate as possible. I think the clips that I posted demonstrate that there is differences. If not the red line on the graph would be completely flat. Besides that I cannot do anything else. ?(

  • Thanks for that perfect prove!
    You see the green line below the purple line just because the volume of the second track might have been a fraction of a decibel lower.
    If not we wouldn't have seen the green line at all. A perfect match.

    With all respect, ckemper, but here I am pretty sure that you misunderstand the graph. MadH is in matching mode of the Ozone 5 EQ - that means, that the red line indicates, what the EQ has to do in order to match one EQ to the other one. The fact that the red line shows ups and downs is a proof that it is NOT a perfect match.


    Yet, there might be reasons and the change in sound might be more subtle and almost inaudible and so forth .- but taking MadH's Ozone 5 snapshot as a proof for a perfect match is wrong.


    One more thing: When you mention the two users who were "afraid of posting that they don't hear a difference" you seem to imply that their ears and listening environments are "correct" - it might also be the other way round.

  • I (thankfully) don't hear or feel a difference and I feel bad for those that do as I know how these ghosts can drive one crazy. I wonder if this is one of those situations where people who play the same profile get something different out of the kpa. Hasn't that happened in the past in some situations like if someone had corrupt settings or a corrupt profile?


    Disclaimer: I am mostly deaf, completely tonedeaf and not too experienced. I am just some random person on the internet posting my personal opinion.

  • A small change in the signal between 600-900hz - but I doubt a bat could hear it. The interesting thing for me is the variance in your red line above 10-12k. It looks like the result of Spectral Band Replication. Did you use a lossless audio format for the comparison? (wav, aiff, etc. are good; mp3, AAC, Ogg are not). I'm just curious.


    Is this a match?

  • Is this a match?

    Yes, this is what I would call a perfect match. However, since I am the one who did the recording, I may point out that the match was only possible when I compared the "dry" (only stack active) versions of 1.6 and 1.5.4. If you have a look at the comparison of the "wet" (stomps and effects active) version, that's not a perfect match. (You can find the snapshot in an older post).

  • Sorry to change the subject slightly, but all I'd like to know right now is are we staying with how it is right now, or will there be any changes in future firmwares, cos I have a song to record :) And now I don't know weather I should stick to the apparently new and (to me, barely noticeably) changed tone, or will there be an attempt to "fix" it and make it sound like 1.5.4 did, in which case I should use that one?


    I know beta is not exactly to be used for recording, but if this is the tone we will stay with, i'll use the 1.6 one. Or if not, i'll use the old 1.5.4 one... so, what to do? should I just wait?