Playground for practical listening exercises

[Spannko]

Yep, not even close. iPad Mini 6 is miles better!

[Defender]

I would have wished to not know which is which to make sure I am not drawn into subjectiveness.
I also prefer A

[lejonklou]

I agree that A is a lot nicer to listen to.

If the Mac Mini is brand new, matthias is right in that it will likely improve with time. The iPhone 16 Pro Max first sounded bright and hard, but had changed dramatically when we tested it again weeks later (now it's as good as the iPad mini 6).

I'm unsure whether it's due to hardware break-in or whether it's because it does seem to work constantly when new, organizing and shuffling files around. On the other hand, having the iPhone or iPad do complicated things while listening to music doesn't seem to affect the musical performance. So maybe it's the hardware breaking in after all.

[matthias]

IIRC, the Mac Mini is technically based on the iPad Pro, so it might perform similar.

[springwood64]

Yes the Mac Mini is brand new. I don't plan to use it as a control point, as the iPad is much more convenient. However I was curious. I was surprised by how different it sounds.

I'll test it again in a few months time.

I'm intrigued by this 'burn in' of a control point.

Am I right in thinking that the only attribute that can be varying is the timing? If so, a time-aligned difference of the two recordings could reveal the degree and nature of the time variance? It's curious...

[lejonklou]

Am I right in thinking that the only attribute that can be varying is the timing? If so, a time-aligned difference of the two recordings could reveal the degree and nature of the time variance? It's curious...

What do you mean, Pete?

[matthias]

I'm intrigued by this 'burn in' of a control point.

It is the source of Källa's output signal.

[springwood64]

Am I right in thinking that the only attribute that can be varying is the timing? If so, a time-aligned difference of the two recordings could reveal the degree and nature of the time variance? It's curious...

What do you mean, Pete?

Källa receives a stream of UDP network packets as its input, with protocols on top managing the timing and flow control.

The data comprising the music stream would (I think?) be identical for tracks played to Källa by two different control points, but the flow control network packets may not be the same. They could depend on timing of the originating control point processes and the network responses from Källa.

A network capture tool (eg https://developer.apple.com/documentati ... cket-trace) would be able to capture the entire squence of two track playbacks in the form of network packets exchanged between Källa and the control points. It would then be possible to compare the two recordings to identify what differs.

Time alignment of the two recordings would require identifying the relative time for each data packet from the first packet in the squence, and mapping the two packet squences against the same elapsed timeline. Once that is done, it would be possible to see what differs.

That's a great job for an AI ;)

[ThomasOK]

I prefer A as well.

[lejonklou]

Källa receives a stream of UDP network packets as its input, with protocols on top managing the timing and flow control.

The data comprising the music stream would (I think?) be identical for tracks played to Källa by two different control points, but the flow control network packets may not be the same. They could depend on timing of the originating control point processes and the network responses from Källa.

A network capture tool (eg https://developer.apple.com/documentati ... cket-trace) would be able to capture the entire squence of two track playbacks in the form of network packets exchanged between Källa and the control points. It would then be possible to compare the two recordings to identify what differs.

Time alignment of the two recordings would require identifying the relative time for each data packet from the first packet in the squence, and mapping the two packet squences against the same elapsed timeline. Once that is done, it would be possible to see what differs.

That's a great job for an AI ;)

Thank you for the suggestion, Pete!

Protokoll (the communication protocol that runs on Källa) requests the packets from the control point. So the packet size and timing is mainly under Källa's control, not the control point's. This makes Källa sound a lot better, but doesn't completely eliminate the musical differences between control points.

If we call that inter-packet timing, we also have intra-packet timing to consider. It's possible that control points vary in their timing when looking inside each packet and that this has an effect on sound quality. It's possible we could learn something from studying that, but I'm unsure of whether we could do anything about it.

[springwood64]

Which do you prefer (apologies for some of the extraneous sounds)?

A: https://photos.app.goo.gl/H66JRnrHMBvN8YYaA

B: https://photos.app.goo.gl/4htfyHs9k2M9o7HN6

[beck]

I prefer ?

[markiteight]

B. I couldn't make any sense of A at all. It sounded like the drummer kept changing charts every few measures 'till he found the one the rest of the band was playing. I'm just listening through my lappytoppy's internal speakers at low volume so I may be missing some musical cues that tie the percussion in with the rest of the band, but I didn't have the same issue with clip B.

[beck]

I would choose the setup that makes your feet move or makes you hum the melody. : )

[ThomasOK]

Yeah, definitely B. It made it obvious that the piece wasn't avant-garde as I thought when I listened to A. Which is another way of saying that on A they weren't playing together.

[Spannko]

B for me too

[tokenbrit]

A was tight in a bad way as in stiff or drunk
B was tight in a good way as in crisp & cool

[lejonklou]

B for me too.

I kept searching for something good in A, which did feel rather avantgarde as Thomas wrote, and maybe it was a little less stressed? B was pushing forward, but making sense. A was laid back and weird.

[beck]

There are a lot of good things to be said about B. Great sound and seperation. Great timing from the musicians and so on……….

My question is what do we do if this in the end fails to capture our imagination?

Give up on hifi? Maybe?

I would search in another direction knowing that perfection is not possible.

[lejonklou]

What are you talking about, beck?

[beck]

……. that B does not give me what I am searching for

[matthias]

……. that B does not give me what I am searching for

I think I know what you mean.......

[Tendaberry]

A clear case of "I prefer B"

[beck]

I think you have a great system Pete. Enjoy it or if you are not quite happy keep searching. : )

[lejonklou]

……. that B does not give me what I am searching for

I think I know what you mean.......

I think I do too, there is something not quite fulfilling with B which I think is partly there in A.

But the purpose of the clips is to choose which clip we think is better and which is worse. And then I think B is better.

Could it be that this is a comparison not of one detail changed but rather a composite of several changes?