AMSI or not AMSI?
M forever
processing (for allegedly "enhanced performance in surround systems")
and if or how it affects the sound of the non-AMSI-processed recording
to a new level, I posted two tracks which are the same recording -
Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
release without AMSI.
The tracks can be downloaded from here:
Exhibit A
http://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhVMVgxUUJjR0E9PQ
Exhibit B
http://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhRT01CSWRFQlE9PQ
Which one sounds "better"? What are the differences? And, if you have
an opportunity to play the files through a surround system, is there a
noticeable difference in performance and improvement in sound?
These are new links because the tracks Steve and Stephen already
commented on were in 256kbps and in the meantime, I re-ripped them in
320kbps.
Below I will include their comments and my responses from the other
thread.
M forever
> 'A' sounds like descriptions of the typical Galleria sound (if there
> really is such a thing I couldn't say): bright, washed-out,
> light-weight. 'B' seems clearer, fuller, less background noise but
> seemed higher in level at first switch. After a couple of minutes, I
> start hearing 'sames' instead of 'differents' and all bets are off. I
> might recommend B over A for a first-time purchase but I wouldn't change
> one for the other. The descriptions above were my initial impressions
> and were forgotten once the music-making was under way.
>
> The performance builds well, but I really disliked the opening woodwinds
> for lack of precision and shape. The latter is likely K's (or
> Beethoven's) idea of placidity or calm and I'm willing to accept it as a
> legitimate view of the score. I just didn't enjoy the sound first time
> around.
>
> The overall dynamic scheme may show some compression or gain-riding but
> I thought the climax well-handled. You'd think something could be done
> about the obvious edits (for instance at 2:02)
>
> I listened on the computer through an M-Audio Fasttrack Pro and Grado SR
> 80 headphones.
>
> Amazon shows one copy left at $67.99. Other sellers are more reasonably
> priced.
M forever
> I'll guess "A" is Galleria and "B" is AMSI. I hear a slightly
> brighter EQ in the frequency range of the woodwinds and high strings.
> Not a whole lot of difference between the two...just to me a more
> consistent (not "better") sound throughout the frequency range on "A".
>
> Computer -> Pro Tools Digidesign 003 Rack -> Sennheiser HD 595 headphones
Oscar Williamson
Gerard
> To take the recent (and ongoing) discussion about DG's "AMSI"
> processing (for allegedly "enhanced performance in surround systems")
> and if or how it affects the sound of the non-AMSI-processed recording
> to a new level, I posted two tracks which are the same recording -
> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
> release without AMSI.
I wonder why it was necessary to ask (with your usual "kindness") if I was sure
that the CD was an AMSI version, if you have it yourself.
But: why compare it to a Galleria version?
Most of those Gallerias are not exactly state of the art (re)masterings.
DG has reissued the Beethoven symphony recordings by Karajan (made in that same
era) different times better (soundwise) than what can be found on Galleria CDs -
there seems to be even a SACD reissue of the symphonies.
Wouldn't it be more fair to compare with a better (re)issue than a Galleria one
(if that is available)?
If not available: compare another recording that has been issued with AMSI and
without (but better than what's usual with Galleria)?
Steve de Mena
I have a Stravinsky Pulcinella Suite with Marriner and the Academy on
3 issues - Decca Ovation, Decca "The Classic Sound" and Decca German
Eloquence (AMSI). I could probably rip a movement from all three.
Steve
Gerard
Possibly such a comparison is more fair. (Assuming that the "Classic Sound"
version is among the best possible; but maybe it's not very different from the
Ovation version - is it?)
Strange that I've never seen one of those; or maybe I've seen the Eloquence
version, and I have passed that time.
These recording was my imprint on this music, and in my memory it's still the
one I like the best.
I was thinkig about another Decca recording I have on a AMSI Eloquence CD:
Simple Symphony, by and by Britten.
This has been recorded in a very reverberant hall (the Maltings, Snape) - and
the AMSIfication is exaggerating this, and by that spoiling the splendid
recording.
Gerard
BTW you don't have to do this for my 'pleasure' - my PC is not connected to a
good sound system, so I will not be able the hear differences in detail.
M forever
> M forever wrote:
> > To take the recent (and ongoing) discussion about DG's "AMSI"
> > processing (for allegedly "enhanced performance in surround systems")
> > and if or how it affects the sound of the non-AMSI-processed recording
> > to a new level, I posted two tracks which are the same recording -
> > Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> > Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
> > release without AMSI.
>
> I wonder why it was necessary to ask (with your usual "kindness") if I was sure
> that the CD was an AMSI version, if you have it yourself.
Because I didn't realize I had it. I have too much stuff and it is not
well organized.
> But: why compare it to a Galleria version?
> Most of those Gallerias are not exactly state of the art (re)masterings.
> DG has reissued the Beethoven symphony recordings by Karajan (made in that same
> era) different times better (soundwise) than what can be found on Galleria CDs -
> there seems to be even a SACD reissue of the symphonies.
> Wouldn't it be more fair to compare with a better (re)issue than a Galleria one
> (if that is available)?
> If not available: compare another recording that has been issued with AMSI and
> without (but better than what's usual with Galleria)?
Nobody is stopping you from posting test tracks.
BTW, Galleria recordings aren't by definition inferior. Galleria is
just one of DG's countless repackagings. They are simply reissues of
older recordings. Some of them sounded really good, depending on the
quality of the original recordings. If those sounded good, the
Galleria version sounded good, too. There were some screwups like the
transfer of Giulini's Mahler 9 which was corrected in the Originals re-
re-release. Contrary to what you and a lot of other people believe,
thereisn't much "remastering" going on anyway. Maybe some processing
on a superficial level, in some cases a new transfer from the analog
master, but not a whole lot of dramatic "remastering". In other words,
in most cases I don't think you would be able to tell the Galleria and
a release of the same recording in another series apart.
M forever
That's one of the disadvantages of beig unemployed, I guess. If you
have access to a good sound system somewhere, you can still burn the
files to CD though.
M forever
Why don't you tell us when Steve posts the tracks?
In the meantime, what do you think about the tracks I posted? I don't
think the basic quality of the recording matters that much. What we
are looking at here is the *comparison* to establish whether AMSI
alters the recording noticeably when played on a stereo system with 2
channels.
> Strange that I've never seen one of those; or maybe I've seen the Eloquence
> version, and I have passed that time.
> These recording was my imprint on this music, and in my memory it's still the
> one I like the best.
>
> I was thinkig about another Decca recording I have on a AMSI Eloquence CD:
> Simple Symphony, by and by Britten.
> This has been recorded in a very reverberant hall (the Maltings, Snape) - and
> the AMSIfication is exaggerating this, and by that spoiling the splendid
> recording.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
M forever
Are all Eloquence releases AMSI treated?
Gerard
You seem not to be able to guess.
> If you
> have access to a good sound system somewhere, you can still burn the
> files to CD though.
BS.
Do you think people are going to burn this kind of stuff?
Yes, somebody like you thinks so.
Gerard
Nonsense.
If you want to compare a rotten tomato, you dont' use another rotten tomato to
compare it with.
CharlesSmith
I've listened to your original 256kbps downloads before noticing the
update. I've no previous views on AMSI, and I don't usually have
problems with Karajan on DG from this era, so I'm a fairly innocent
listener. I've listened on the home Hi-Fi, files played through the V-
DAC. So no blind listening - all very subjective.
I prefer B. It sounds cleaner to me. For example when we sink
peacefully into the cushions of sound at 1 min I can still hear that
I'm listening to specific instruments making that sound. On A its
cushions all the way. I'm also finding oddities in the stereo on A, eg
the horns at 3mins seem to float about. Throughout I have the sense of
listening to 2 distinct channels, wheras on B, eyes closed, I have a
better sense of an orchestra in front of me. Of course it's all an
illusion, but B seems to create that illusion more successfully.
So I would express the view that A is more artificial. Does that make
it the AMSI?
Charles
Gerard
Of course not by definition.
They are inferior by fact.
>
> Galleria is
> just one of DG's countless repackagings. They are simply reissues of
> older recordings.
Not really. Many of them have been reissued on CD only on the Galleria label
(the older recordings being on LP).
>
> Some of them sounded really good, depending on the
> quality of the original recordings. If those sounded good, the
> Galleria version sounded good, too.
Not true (where the "original recordings" were on LP).
>
> There were some screwups like the
> transfer of Giulini's Mahler 9 which was corrected in the Originals
> re-
> re-release. Contrary to what you and a lot of other people believe,
> thereisn't much "remastering" going on anyway. Maybe some processing
> on a superficial level, in some cases a new transfer from the analog
> master, but not a whole lot of dramatic "remastering". In other words,
> in most cases I don't think you would be able to tell the Galleria and
> a release of the same recording in another series apart.
It's not very relevant what you think.
M forever
So what do you do for a living?
> > If you
> > have access to a good sound system somewhere, you can still burn the
> > files to CD though.
>
> BS.
> Do you think people are going to burn this kind of stuff?
> Yes, somebody like you thinks so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burning a CD is no big deal. It takes a few moments and costs next to
nothing.
And yes, some people told me in the past when I did those blind
listening games that they burned the files to a CD so they could take
them to their "prime" system.
Which in your case doesn't matter since you don't have a "prime"
system anyway.
M forever
You just don't want to participate because you have nothing of value
to say anyway. As you may have noticed, I extended you the courtesy
of taking you (somewhat) seriously recently, just to see if one can
have a normal constructive exchange with you.
Did I make a mistake in trying that?
> > > Strange that I've never seen one of those; or maybe I've seen the
> > > Eloquence version, and I have passed that time.
> > > These recording was my imprint on this music, and in my memory it's
> > > still the one I like the best.
>
> > > I was thinkig about another Decca recording I have on a AMSI
> > > Eloquence CD: Simple Symphony, by and by Britten.
> > > This has been recorded in a very reverberant hall (the Maltings,
> > > Snape) - and the AMSIfication is exaggerating this, and by that
> > > spoiling the splendid recording.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
M forever
It is blind in the sense that you don''t know which file is what.
> I prefer B. It sounds cleaner to me. For example when we sink
> peacefully into the cushions of sound at 1 min I can still hear that
> I'm listening to specific instruments making that sound. On A its
> cushions all the way. I'm also finding oddities in the stereo on A, eg
> the horns at 3mins seem to float about. Throughout I have the sense of
> listening to 2 distinct channels, wheras on B, eyes closed, I have a
> better sense of an orchestra in front of me. Of course it's all an
> illusion, but B seems to create that illusion more successfully.
>
> So I would express the view that A is more artificial. Does that make
> it the AMSI?
Maybe - or maybe not. I can't say at this point. Maybe some other
people want to comment, too. So far, the files have been downloaded 8
times each, but we have had comments from only 4 people.
And no - I can't see who downloads the files, just how many times they
have been requested.
Steve de Mena
>> I have a Stravinsky Pulcinella Suite with Marriner and the Academy on
>> 3 issues - Decca Ovation, Decca "The Classic Sound" and Decca German
>> Eloquence (AMSI). I could probably rip a movement from all three.
>>
>
> Possibly such a comparison is more fair. (Assuming that the "Classic Sound"
> version is among the best possible; but maybe it's not very different from the
> Ovation version - is it?)
>
> Strange that I've never seen one of those; or maybe I've seen the Eloquence
> version, and I have passed that time.
> These recording was my imprint on this music, and in my memory it's still the
> one I like the best.
It is the best! The Decca Ovation (OOP - see http://amzn.to/dpbJ1l )
also has a nice Bizet Symphony in C. (And Prokofiev Classical). The
"Classic Sound" release isn't that common. (see http://amzn.to/8YCkvw )
German Eloquence - http://amzn.to/99Wejj
>
> I was thinkig about another Decca recording I have on a AMSI Eloquence CD:
> Simple Symphony, by and by Britten.
> This has been recorded in a very reverberant hall (the Maltings, Snape) - and
> the AMSIfication is exaggerating this, and by that spoiling the splendid
> recording.
I didn't know that English Music for Strings CD was released on German
Eloquence. Is it the whole CD or the Simple Symphony and some other
works. (I love that CD too)
Steve
Steve de Mena
OK, I wasn't going to do it....at least not today. Lots going on.
Difference not that much between the three. Decca Ovation slightly,
very slightly, duller than others.
Steve
Steve de Mena
I wondered the same thing. There are some AMSI SACDs also, about 8-10
titles. I have a few... too lazy to go into other room and check them
right now.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> M forever wrote:
Respighi - Ancient Airs and Dances - Seiji Ozawa-BSO. DG Galleria.
Inferior? No.
Steve
Gerard
It is nonsense to burn a mp3 copy while you have the original on CD.
>
> And yes, some people told me in the past when I did those blind
> listening games that they burned the files to a CD so they could take
> them to their "prime" system.
> Which in your case doesn't matter since you don't have a "prime"
> system anyway.
More nonsense.
Gerard
You can not.
You cannot have /any/ "normal constructive exchange".
Gerard
I don't know what you mean by that last question.
The Eloquence CD (466 273-2) contains the pianoconcerto, the Simple Symphony
(there simply is no better performance), and the Young Person's Guide.
I had the YPG and the Symphony on LP in better (glorious) sound.
For some AMSIficated English music for strings there's also an Eloquence (467
076-2) with the String serenade by Elgar (and Tchaikovsky and Dvorak), with
Marriner.
Gerard
> On 6/6/10 2:08 AM, Gerard wrote:
> > M forever wrote:
Maybe not. Maybe because these have been issued on CD before (and the same
mastering has been used for the Galleria CD)?
(But ... not inferior compared to what exactly?)
Thornhill
> To take the recent (and ongoing) discussion about DG's "AMSI"
> processing (for allegedly "enhanced performance in surround systems")
> and if or how it affects the sound of the non-AMSI-processed recording
> to a new level, I posted two tracks which are the same recording -
> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
> release without AMSI.
I have the Haitink "Das Lied" in its AMSI and Philips Duo versions.
The AMSI version is much more reverberant (artificial reverb) and the
dynamic range has been compressed to make it sound louder.
If AMSI was anything more than a computer gimmick, Universal would
apply it to more recordings.
Gerard
>
> If AMSI was anything more than a computer gimmick, Universal would
> apply it to more recordings.
I think you're right.
It has been applied only to a cheap CD series (nobody could complain about
wasted money, because only a few dollars or euros were involved; "and if you
don't like the result, than stop buying our product please"). And then it died.
Australian Eloquence does not use it. I suppose they deliver good (better)
remasterings.
Maybe the European(German) Eloquence guys feel ashamed; they stopped issuing new
CDs (a few excepted) and they refused to deliver the (better and much larger)
Australian series.
O
<a03a9329-e4ff-40a9...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, M
forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To take the recent (and ongoing) discussion about DG's "AMSI"
> processing (for allegedly "enhanced performance in surround systems")
> and if or how it affects the sound of the non-AMSI-processed recording
> to a new level, I posted two tracks which are the same recording -
> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
> release without AMSI.
>
> The tracks can be downloaded from here:
>
> Exhibit A
>
> http://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhVMVgxUUJjR0E9PQ
>
>
> Exhibit B
>
> http://download.yousendit.com/OHo2SkhRT01CSWRFQlE9PQ
>
>
> Which one sounds "better"? What are the differences? And, if you have
> an opportunity to play the files through a surround system, is there a
> noticeable difference in performance and improvement in sound?
>
> These are new links because the tracks Steve and Stephen already
> commented on were in 256kbps and in the meantime, I re-ripped them in
> 320kbps.
>
> Below I will include their comments and my responses from the other
> thread.
You've all been Hatto'd. The two tracks are identical. They have the
exact same number of bytes: 9,069,594.
-Owen
MiNe 109
O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> You've all been Hatto'd. The two tracks are identical. They have the
> exact same number of bytes: 9,069,594.
Do you have time to measure the first set? I thought there was a level
difference at the very least.
Stephen
O
109 <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
I"ve only looked at the 2 tracks M Forever posted named:
Fidelio - Karajan 1965 - A.mp3
Fidelio - Karajan 1965 - B.mp3
They are absolutely identical. There is no difference in the tracks.
It appears M Forever only posted them for "entertainment" purposes.
-Owen
Dave Cook
> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
I really can't put my finger on any obvious difference between the
two. Both seem to have a lot of reverb. If played without pause,
there doesn't seem to be any sonic shift at all going from A to B.
Dave Cook
Bob Harper
> On 6/6/10 12:58 AM, Gerard wrote:
>
>>> I have a Stravinsky Pulcinella Suite with Marriner and the Academy on
>>> 3 issues - Decca Ovation, Decca "The Classic Sound" and Decca German
>>> Eloquence (AMSI). I could probably rip a movement from all three.
>>>
>>
>> Possibly such a comparison is more fair. (Assuming that the "Classic
>> Sound"
>> version is among the best possible; but maybe it's not very different
>> from the
>> Ovation version - is it?)
>>
>> Strange that I've never seen one of those; or maybe I've seen the
>> Eloquence
>> version, and I have passed that time.
>> These recording was my imprint on this music, and in my memory it's
>> still the
>> one I like the best.
>
> It is the best! The Decca Ovation (OOP - see http://amzn.to/dpbJ1l )
> also has a nice Bizet Symphony in C. (And Prokofiev Classical). The
> "Classic Sound" release isn't that common. (see http://amzn.to/8YCkvw )
> German Eloquence - http://amzn.to/99Wejj
Not specifically about AMSI vs. non-AMSI, but yes, that Pulcinella Suite
is superb--and a real exception to Holt's Law! It was originally an Argo
LP, and was a demo disc in more than one hi-fi store.
Bob Harper
O
<dave...@nowhere.net> wrote:
There is no difference. They are bit for bit identical. I just hex
dumped both files and diff'd them. If the bits are the same, then the
sound is *exactly* the same. It cannot be otherwise. There is
absolutely no difference between those files.
-Owen
Dave Cook
> There is no difference. They are bit for bit identical. I just hex
> dumped both files and diff'd them. If the bits are the same, then the
> sound is *exactly* the same. It cannot be otherwise. There is
> absolutely no difference between those files.
Right you are, I didn't even think to check. They have the same md5
sum:
$ md5sum *.mp3
9d96c6ccef03cfdfb1bddf8936dcb8e3 Fidelio - Karajan 1965 - A.mp3
9d96c6ccef03cfdfb1bddf8936dcb8e3 Fidelio - Karajan 1965 - B.mp3
Dave Cook
Steve de Mena
The last question was asking if the AMSI CD was a reissue of the whole
"English Music for Strings" Decca LP or CD (which had extra track(s)),
or of it just contained the Simple Symphony and other recordings not
from the original. I have the String Serenade Marriner AMSI CD you
mention.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Steve de Mena wrote:
>> On 6/6/10 2:08 AM, Gerard wrote:
>>> M forever wrote:
AFAIK the DG Galleria CD is the only CD reissue of this recording.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> Thornhill wrote:
>
>>
>> If AMSI was anything more than a computer gimmick, Universal would
>> apply it to more recordings.
>
> I think you're right.
> It has been applied only to a cheap CD series (nobody could complain about
> wasted money, because only a few dollars or euros were involved; "and if you
> don't like the result, than stop buying our product please"). And then it died.
It didn't die (witness the new Mahler Sinopoli reissue)
It also sounds like there isn't a consistent definition of "AMSI"
because some people report extra reverb/compression on the AMSI
release and others seem to be basically the same sound profile as
non-AMSI reissues.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Does this apply to the initial posting of the lower quality MP3s?
Those didn't sound identical. Didn't grab the reposted ones.
Steve
M forever
> > <davec...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 2010-06-06, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> >>> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
>
> >> I really can't put my finger on any obvious difference between the
> >> two. Both seem to have a lot of reverb. If played without pause,
> >> there doesn't seem to be any sonic shift at all going from A to B.
>
> > There is no difference. They are bit for bit identical. I just hex
> > dumped both files and diff'd them. If the bits are the same, then the
> > sound is *exactly* the same. It cannot be otherwise. There is
> > absolutely no difference between those files.
>
> > -Owen
>
> Does this apply to the initial posting of the lower quality MP3s?
> Those didn't sound identical. Didn't grab the reposted ones.
Yes, it does! The two files A and B are exactly the same, in both
versions. The only difference is in the file names.
I din't post two identical files to "set a trap", BTW. That is a
common procedure in blind listening tests. The reason I decided to do
so in this was because I couldn't detect a really tangible differences
between the two versions myself at first when I listened to excerpts
side by side.
Then I thought I started detecting subtle differences - only to
realize I had accidentally clicked on the same file twice.
I find that very interesting. Why is it that we hear two identical
tracks as being slighty different, even if we directly A-B them, and
even if there is no expectation specifically attached to them? Meaning
in this case, nobody knew which one was supposedly better.
Could it be that when we listen to a recording which does not sound
quite "realistic" to us that we start making adjustments for the sound
quality in our heads after a short while, and that when we restart the
track, we also start over making these adjustments - because we think
what comes next might or should be different? In other words, do the
differences people they thought they detected between the two
identical files stem from the fact that they came from listening to
one for which they had already made these "mental adjustments" to the
next one and at that point, they started "recalibrating" what they
heard?
The only "trap" I set here is actually that I left the file sizes
identical. It would have been very easy to conceal that by simply
adding different file info to each file, or equipping them with
different ID tag versions, or by just posting a lengthy excerpt
instead of the complete track and making one version very slightly
longer than the other.
I decided against that because I wanted to see who would actually
proceed directly to listening and who would try to figure out ways to
cheat.
I actually expected O to walk into that trap, and he did.
BTW, it is actually possible for two mp3 files of the same length but
very slightly different audio content to have the exactly the same
size because of the fixed bitrate and the way mp3 fill up the silences
to the next complete block.
Steve de Mena
> On Jun 6, 9:58 pm, Steve de Mena<st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> On 6/6/10 6:17 PM, O wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article<4c0c4344$0$1568$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, Dave Cook
>>> <davec...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2010-06-06, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
>>>>> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
>>
>>>> I really can't put my finger on any obvious difference between the
>>>> two. Both seem to have a lot of reverb. If played without pause,
>>>> there doesn't seem to be any sonic shift at all going from A to B.
>>
>>> There is no difference. They are bit for bit identical. I just hex
>>> dumped both files and diff'd them. If the bits are the same, then the
>>> sound is *exactly* the same. It cannot be otherwise. There is
>>> absolutely no difference between those files.
>>
>>> -Owen
>>
>> Does this apply to the initial posting of the lower quality MP3s?
>> Those didn't sound identical. Didn't grab the reposted ones.
>
> Yes, it does! The two files A and B are exactly the same, in both
> versions. The only difference is in the file names.
Oh, that's amusing. I really thought I heard some very slight EQ
differences. HA!
Steve
M forever
Everyone did, including myself. That's what I find so interesting. It
is really very hard to more or less "objectively" judge these things
even if we are not inluenced by expectations except maybe the
expectation that there should be *some* difference.
Oscar Williamson
>
> > Yes, it does! The two files A and B are exactly the same, in both
> > versions. The only difference is in the file names.
>
> Oh, that's amusing. I really thought I heard some very slight EQ
> differences. HA!
>
> Steve
Same. Very very slight, nothing I would swear over, though, certainly
nothing that would have caused me to upgrade. Now that the cat's out
of the bag I would like to hear the different file, the two posted are
the same, right? Which one was posted, Galleria or AMSI?
M forever
wrote:
That was the Galleria one. Like I said, I couldn't reliably tell the
difference myself - and yes, maybe the recording isn't good enough to
begin with. Unfortunately I will be very busy all through the next
week do I may not be able to prepare another upload with a real A-B
comparison and I may not have the AMSI and non-AMSI versions of a
better recording. But maybe someone else does and can upload an A-B
comparison of some better source material.
Oscar Williamson
>
> That was the Galleria one. Like I said, I couldn't reliably tell the
> difference myself - and yes, maybe the recording isn't good enough to
> begin with. Unfortunately I will be very busy all through the next
> week do I may not be able to prepare another upload with a real A-B
> comparison and I may not have the AMSI and non-AMSI versions of a
> better recording. But maybe someone else does and can upload an A-B
> comparison of some better source material.
Okay thanks. No big deal, just curious.
MiNe 109
<3856b513-b008-4551...@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
I had a slight suspicion when those edits were equally audible in both.
> Then I thought I started detecting subtle differences - only to
> realize I had accidentally clicked on the same file twice.
> I find that very interesting. Why is it that we hear two identical
> tracks as being slighty different, even if we directly A-B them, and
> even if there is no expectation specifically attached to them? Meaning
> in this case, nobody knew which one was supposedly better.
> Could it be that when we listen to a recording which does not sound
> quite "realistic" to us that we start making adjustments for the sound
> quality in our heads after a short while, and that when we restart the
> track, we also start over making these adjustments - because we think
> what comes next might or should be different? In other words, do the
> differences people they thought they detected between the two
> identical files stem from the fact that they came from listening to
> one for which they had already made these "mental adjustments" to the
> next one and at that point, they started "recalibrating" what they
> heard?
I believe something like that is happening.
> The only "trap" I set here is actually that I left the file sizes
> identical. It would have been very easy to conceal that by simply
> adding different file info to each file, or equipping them with
> different ID tag versions, or by just posting a lengthy excerpt
> instead of the complete track and making one version very slightly
> longer than the other.
>
> I decided against that because I wanted to see who would actually
> proceed directly to listening and who would try to figure out ways to
> cheat.
> I actually expected O to walk into that trap, and he did.
I actually tried to find samples on Amazon to compare! Found the
Galleria but not the Eloquence.
While the "cleaner background" stuff is embarrassing enough (although so
common I don't have a problem with it as such), I would have wanted to
hear a difference in ambience in the AMSI version.
Stephen
M forever
> In article
> <3856b513-b008-4551-a795-bc15e7f9e...@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I don't understand - what does all that have to do with edits? I don't
think AMSI processing (or the lack thereof) would hide edits. You
mentioned you heard an edit at 2:02 - I don't hear that. Yes, there is
a slight "plop" there but my impression is that the winds just come in
with an attack on that note - not that that is caused by an edit.
> > Then I thought I started detecting subtle differences - only to
> > realize I had accidentally clicked on the same file twice.
> > I find that very interesting. Why is it that we hear two identical
> > tracks as being slighty different, even if we directly A-B them, and
> > even if there is no expectation specifically attached to them? Meaning
> > in this case, nobody knew which one was supposedly better.
> > Could it be that when we listen to a recording which does not sound
> > quite "realistic" to us that we start making adjustments for the sound
> > quality in our heads after a short while, and that when we restart the
> > track, we also start over making these adjustments - because we think
> > what comes next might or should be different? In other words, do the
> > differences people they thought they detected between the two
> > identical files stem from the fact that they came from listening to
> > one for which they had already made these "mental adjustments" to the
> > next one and at that point, they started "recalibrating" what they
> > heard?
>
> I believe something like that is happening.
Me too, and I think that is something which is really interesting and
worth exploring more.
> > The only "trap" I set here is actually that I left the file sizes
> > identical. It would have been very easy to conceal that by simply
> > adding different file info to each file, or equipping them with
> > different ID tag versions, or by just posting a lengthy excerpt
> > instead of the complete track and making one version very slightly
> > longer than the other.
>
> > I decided against that because I wanted to see who would actually
> > proceed directly to listening and who would try to figure out ways to
> > cheat.
> > I actually expected O to walk into that trap, and he did.
>
> I actually tried to find samples on Amazon to compare! Found the
> Galleria but not the Eloquence.
>
> While the "cleaner background" stuff is embarrassing enough (although so
> common I don't have a problem with it as such), I would have wanted to
> hear a difference in ambience in the AMSI version.
What do you mean by the "embarrassing cleaner background stuff"?
> Stephen
>
>
>
> > BTW, it is actually possible for two mp3 files of the same length but
> > very slightly different audio content to have the exactly the same
> > size because of the fixed bitrate and the way mp3 fill up the silences
> > to the next complete block.- Hide quoted text -
Gerard
OK. I think I have answered that question.
I don't know if there is another Decca reissue of that Decca LP (in the series
Legends, or Classic Sound, or Historic) - it could (should) be a real jewel.
Gerard
I forgot about Holt's law.
But for the rest: fully agreed.
Gerard
> On 6/6/10 8:12 AM, Gerard wrote:
> > Thornhill wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If AMSI was anything more than a computer gimmick, Universal would
> > > apply it to more recordings.
> >
> > I think you're right.
> > It has been applied only to a cheap CD series (nobody could
> > complain about wasted money, because only a few dollars or euros
> > were involved; "and if you don't like the result, than stop buying
> > our product please"). And then it died.
>
> It didn't die (witness the new Mahler Sinopoli reissue)
There has been also an reissue of Schubert recordings with Brendel (in a box).
But for the rest this German Eloquence series has died seriously. One new item
within 2 years is not very alive.
>
> It also sounds like there isn't a consistent definition of "AMSI"
> because some people report extra reverb/compression on the AMSI
> release and others seem to be basically the same sound profile as
> non-AMSI reissues.
>
> Steve
Possible.
Whatever it is, it is something nobody needs.
Gerard
Maybe, and than considering that Galleria material is no good material (in many
cases), but just another "rotten tomato".
If one wants to hear a difference between an AMSI version and a GOOD version,
one should compare the AMSI version with a GOOD version.
Ludwig
> Steve de Mena wrote:
> > On 6/6/10 8:12 AM, Gerard wrote:
> > > Thornhill wrote:
>
> > > > If AMSI was anything more than a computer gimmick, Universal would
> > > > apply it to more recordings.
>
> > > I think you're right.
> > > It has been applied only to a cheap CD series (nobody could
> > > complain about wasted money, because only a few dollars or euros
> > > were involved; "and if you don't like the result, than stop buying
> > > our product please"). And then it died.
>
> > It didn't die (witness the new Mahler Sinopoli reissue)
>
> There has been also an reissue of Schubert recordings with Brendel (in a box).
> But for the rest this German Eloquence series has died seriously. One new item
> within 2 years is not very alive.
Actually there seem to have been many issues in the last two years:
see the list ordered by release date (most recent first) at
http://www.klassikakzente.de/eloquence .
Gerard
Just more reason for not wasting (and for being glad not to have wasted) any
CD-R on your "tests" with mp3 copies of recordings I already have on CD.
Gerard
Hah! Thanks.
In that case I suppose the Germans keep those issues for themselves. They have
not been distributed (to CD stores) in Holland - nowhere to find.
MiNe 109
<03a67745-4950-48ce...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
If the "plop" were an editing fault, I would hope a remastering would
eliminate it. If not, well, it's just an ugly moment in the performance.
> > > Then I thought I started detecting subtle differences - only to
> > > realize I had accidentally clicked on the same file twice.
> > > I find that very interesting. Why is it that we hear two identical
> > > tracks as being slighty different, even if we directly A-B them, and
> > > even if there is no expectation specifically attached to them? Meaning
> > > in this case, nobody knew which one was supposedly better.
> > > Could it be that when we listen to a recording which does not sound
> > > quite "realistic" to us that we start making adjustments for the sound
> > > quality in our heads after a short while, and that when we restart the
> > > track, we also start over making these adjustments - because we think
> > > what comes next might or should be different? In other words, do the
> > > differences people they thought they detected between the two
> > > identical files stem from the fact that they came from listening to
> > > one for which they had already made these "mental adjustments" to the
> > > next one and at that point, they started "recalibrating" what they
> > > heard?
> >
> > I believe something like that is happening.
>
> Me too, and I think that is something which is really interesting and
> worth exploring more.
I believe those who do blind testing for audio have to structure the
sequence of A vs B to avoid bias based on the order of presentation.
> > > The only "trap" I set here is actually that I left the file sizes
> > > identical. It would have been very easy to conceal that by simply
> > > adding different file info to each file, or equipping them with
> > > different ID tag versions, or by just posting a lengthy excerpt
> > > instead of the complete track and making one version very slightly
> > > longer than the other.
> >
> > > I decided against that because I wanted to see who would actually
> > > proceed directly to listening and who would try to figure out ways to
> > > cheat.
> > > I actually expected O to walk into that trap, and he did.
> >
> > I actually tried to find samples on Amazon to compare! Found the
> > Galleria but not the Eloquence.
> >
> > While the "cleaner background" stuff is embarrassing enough (although so
> > common I don't have a problem with it as such), I would have wanted to
> > hear a difference in ambience in the AMSI version.
>
> What do you mean by the "embarrassing cleaner background stuff"?
It's embarrassing to have expressed an opinion that one file had a
cleaner background when the files were identical. However, my
embarrassment is tempered by the fact that the differences did not
persist as I continued listening and that I did not find those
differences musically significant.
Stephen
O
<2ebd2639-9cf5-4f33...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Oscar Williamson <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
You would trust this guy to do what he said after he deliberately set
out to deceive?
-Owen
O
<3856b513-b008-4551...@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, M
forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:58 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> > On 6/6/10 6:17 PM, O wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article<4c0c4344$0$1568$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, Dave Cook
> > > <davec...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> On 2010-06-06, M forever<ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Karajan's 1965 performance of the Fidelio overture - one from the DG
> > >>> Eloquence CD with AMSI processing and one from the earlier Galleria
> >
> > >> I really can't put my finger on any obvious difference between the
> > >> two. Both seem to have a lot of reverb. If played without pause,
> > >> there doesn't seem to be any sonic shift at all going from A to B.
> >
> > > There is no difference. They are bit for bit identical. I just hex
> > > dumped both files and diff'd them. If the bits are the same, then the
> > > sound is *exactly* the same. It cannot be otherwise. There is
> > > absolutely no difference between those files.
> >
> > > -Owen
> >
> > Does this apply to the initial posting of the lower quality MP3s?
> > Those didn't sound identical. Didn't grab the reposted ones.
>
> Yes, it does! The two files A and B are exactly the same, in both
> versions. The only difference is in the file names.
>
> I din't post two identical files to "set a trap", BTW.
Of course you did. You would have been all over Deacon had he voiced
two separate opinions.
> That is a
> common procedure in blind listening tests. The reason I decided to do
> so in this was because I couldn't detect a really tangible differences
> between the two versions myself at first when I listened to excerpts
> side by side.
> Then I thought I started detecting subtle differences - only to
> realize I had accidentally clicked on the same file twice.
> I find that very interesting. Why is it that we hear two identical
> tracks as being slighty different, even if we directly A-B them, and
> even if there is no expectation specifically attached to them? Meaning
> in this case, nobody knew which one was supposedly better.
> Could it be that when we listen to a recording which does not sound
> quite "realistic" to us that we start making adjustments for the sound
> quality in our heads after a short while, and that when we restart the
> track, we also start over making these adjustments - because we think
> what comes next might or should be different? In other words, do the
> differences people they thought they detected between the two
> identical files stem from the fact that they came from listening to
> one for which they had already made these "mental adjustments" to the
> next one and at that point, they started "recalibrating" what they
> heard?
It is common knowledge that people who eyewitness an accident will
often have vastly different accounts of what happened. Why should that
be surprising for audio tests?
>
> The only "trap" I set here is actually that I left the file sizes
> identical. It would have been very easy to conceal that by simply
> adding different file info to each file, or equipping them with
> different ID tag versions, or by just posting a lengthy excerpt
> instead of the complete track and making one version very slightly
> longer than the other.
I realized that there was a possibility (though not very likely) that
the files could have the exact same length, you may have used some
software which cut the sound at precisely the same amount of data.
>
> I decided against that because I wanted to see who would actually
> proceed directly to listening and who would try to figure out ways to
> cheat.
The only "cheat" here was you.
> I actually expected O to walk into that trap, and he did.
If the truth is a trap, then I plead guilty.
>
> BTW, it is actually possible for two mp3 files of the same length but
> very slightly different audio content to have the exactly the same
> size because of the fixed bitrate and the way mp3 fill up the silences
> to the next complete block.
Which is why I then hexdumped the files and diff'd them. No doubt
about that. Maybe next time you can speed up one of the files?
-Owen
Oscar Williamson
>
> > Same. Very very slight, nothing I would swear over, though, certainly
> > nothing that would have caused me to upgrade. Now that the cat's out
> > of the bag I would like to hear the different file, the two posted are
> > the same, right? Which one was posted, Galleria or AMSI?
>
> You would trust this guy to do what he said after he deliberately set
> out to deceive?
>
> -Owen
On Jun 7, 6:48 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
> > Same. Very very slight, nothing I would swear over, though, certainly
> > nothing that would have caused me to upgrade. Now that the cat's out
> > of the bag I would like to hear the different file, the two posted are
> > the same, right? Which one was posted, Galleria or AMSI?
>
> You would trust this guy to do what he said after he deliberately set
> out to deceive?
>
> -Owen
All I posted in my reply was A = and B =. I assumed the files were
different based on the original post. I didn't say how different or
how much. I did feel it was disingenuous not to post both and at
least give the caveat that there may be no difference at all as a
third option. The only reason I guess as I did was because Mr.
Schaffer said there were two unique files posted. I listened and
listened and listened and came to the conclusion that there was little
noticeable difference. I still voted anyway, based on the trust that
the files were unique.
weary flake
> In article <smcelroy2-6DF06...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, MiNe
> 109 <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <060620101149303789%ow...@denofinequityx.com>,
> > O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You've all been Hatto'd. The two tracks are identical. They have the
> > > exact same number of bytes: 9,069,594.
> >
> > Do you have time to measure the first set? I thought there was a level
> > difference at the very least.
>
> I"ve only looked at the 2 tracks M Forever posted named:
>
> Fidelio - Karajan 1965 - A.mp3
> Fidelio - Karajan 1965 - B.mp3
>
> They are absolutely identical. There is no difference in the tracks.
> It appears M Forever only posted them for "entertainment" purposes.
In general, M seems to believe that because sound can fool people into
imagining differences, then the other way around doesn't occur. But
maybe some people fool themselves into thinking mp3s sound the same as
lossless sources, and then rest their case.
By AMSI, I'm guessing what we're talking about is some sort of
fake surround effect, and arguing about the effectiveness of such;
such efforts seem to take for granted that synthetic surround
sound is something desirable, just because it is so common in
older hollywood movies (replacing a mono source with fake
surround sound is common in DVDs of older mainstream movies and
TV shows). I hate it.
Steve de Mena
Yes, it's on a nice Decca "Classic Sound" CD, supplemented with his
recording of his Prelude and Fugue, Op.29.
Steve