Topic: Stock FR2LE vs. Busman T-Mod FR2LE true side by side comparison

[tenesejedd]

Here we go.

Rastasean recently sent me his FR2LE because he suspected something may be wrong with his recorder. Turns out everything seems to be working fine. While I had it in my possession, I took the opportunity to do a side by side comparison with my Busman T-Mod 2LE.

I set up my Avantone CK-1s with the cardioid caps in front of my home stereo. I chose two songs to record and recorded both songs on each recorder, thus getting a true side by side comparison. Here are the details of my comparison.

Playback: CD>Sony PS3>Pioneer receiver> Technics speaker cabinets (10" sub and 3" tweeter)
Source: Avantone CK-1 Cardioid>Canare Starquad> FR2LEs @ 24bit 44k

Granted that playing a CD through a stereo is a limitation in this comparison as it is not a true live recording scenario (in which we would be using these recorders). I listened to the recordings using my desktop computer > my KRK RP6 studio monitors. I have formulated my opinions about the two recordings, but I will refrain from sharing until others have had an opportunity to give it a listen.

Songs recorded:
Breathe - Pink Floyd Live Pulse album
Cold Hard Facts - Del McCoury Band

I felt these two songs were very well recorded on CD and thought it would give a good comparison of rock vs. acoustic bluegrass.

The file names are ambiguous so as to not reveal which recorder was used. Give it a listen and PM me for the answer. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts.

Files located here:

http://www.box.net/shared/avzfeld2id

Thanks to rastasean for sending me is 2LE to run this test and also for supplying the web space to post these files

-Christos

[willndmb]

thanks

i only gave them a fast listen to and will give a more detail listen to tomorrow
but
i hear small differences (as i did with the other comp posted by will) but not enough to make me get my stock unit modded

[rowjimmytour]

I picked "A" for Breathe because to my ears sounded more sonic pleasing but I did do this test on my computer w/ crappy speakers. The second sample Cold Hard Facts I picked "B" but really had a hard time hearing much difference. Only picked "B" because it sound more punchy to me and it seemed like the lyrics came in more clear.

[page]

I picked "A" for Breathe because to my ears sounded more sonic pleasing but I did do this test on my computer w/ crappy speakers.

Wav > optical out > Zero 24/196 DAC > ER-6

I aligned them in Audacity (shave off like 4 seconds I think on A) and kept flipping back and forth. Thought I heard a difference and wrote that down, then looked at the frequency analysis. It didn't confirm by any means, but it gave credence to my guess.

Didn't listen to the bluegrass part, maybe tomorrow.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Thanks for posting this.  I can't seem to download these with firefox on linux..  I click on the download link and nothing happens

[tenesejedd]

Thanks for posting this.  I can't seem to download these with firefox on linux..  I click on the download link and nothing happens

Sorry this isn't working for you. Send TS member 'rastasean' a pm and he may be able to help. He is the one who supplied the web space for me to post these files.

[Ozpeter]

Firefox doesn't seem to see the files but Google Chrome does (first useful thing I've found for it to do!).  However, I won't download due to the file size.  Good idea to try an objective test, though.

A thought - have you checked whether the levels are exactly the same?  If the mod makes a difference in input sensitivity, of course the louder sample will sound "better".

[willndmb]

firefox worked fine for me on a mac
the differences i heard i don't think where from levels
it was more in the vocals then anything for me
i can't recall off hand which i liked for the first song, but the 2nd i liked B a little more

[Will_S]

In sighted listening, I wasn't 100% sure I heard any differences but was somewhat able to convince myself that A was more transparent in both cases.

Then I chopped each file up into pieces and tried to match them back up blindly.  I couldn't.

Interesting to see page's comments on the frequency analysis...using the Fourier Spectrum Analysis in Sound Studio, the files looked very very similar (edit: but not identical).  Can you (page) post or PM screenshots when all is said and done?

Listening done MacBook > wireless > optical out > Onkyo HTR500 > ADS LS710 speakers or Grado SR80 headphones.

As a sanity check of sorts, I compared what I heard with my headphones plugged into my MacBook vs. being driven by my receiver.  Night and day preference for the receiver.  So I'm not deaf, but may not be as golden-eared as some.

[aleatoric]

Got a link regarding what the busman T-mod is all about?  Google provided nothing.  Thanks. 

[rastasean]

Got a link regarding what the busman T-mod is all about?  Google provided nothing.  Thanks. 

http://www.busmanaudio.com/mods.html

Fostex FR2-LE
Vintage and Transparency $175.00 USD

[aleatoric]

Cool!  I emailed Chris to get the low down.  Anyone know how his mod compares to the Oade Super mod?

http://www.oade.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OBA&Product_Code=FOSFR2LESMOD-GND&Category_Code=FOSFR2LE-SMOD

[rowjimmytour]

firefox worked fine for me on a mac
the differences i heard i don't think where from levels
it was more in the vocals then anything for me
i can't recall off hand which i liked for the first song, but the 2nd i liked B a little more

Firefox and mac worked fine for me also

[Mike R.]

Firefox on Linux (Fedora worked fine for me.

Listening through not-very-special PC audio hardware and Grado SR-80 headphones.  I found each pair of recordings very very similar.  I can't pick a preference much less try to identify which is which.

[grtphl]

I couldn't hear a difference through my stereo, but I also was simply changing tracks, and didn't set them up in an audio program to switch sources during the songs, so the second of silence I got when changing sources may have taken me out of the zone.

[Church-Audio]

Here we go.

Rastasean recently sent me his FR2LE because he suspected something may be wrong with his recorder. Turns out everything seems to be working fine. While I had it in my possession, I took the opportunity to do a side by side comparison with my Busman T-Mod 2LE.

I set up my Avantone CK-1s with the cardioid caps in front of my home stereo. I chose two songs to record and recorded both songs on each recorder, thus getting a true side by side comparison. Here are the details of my comparison.

Playback: CD>Sony PS3>Pioneer receiver> Technics speaker cabinets (10" sub and 3" tweeter)
Source: Avantone CK-1 Cardioid>Canare Starquad> FR2LEs @ 24bit 44k

Granted that playing a CD through a stereo is a limitation in this comparison as it is not a true live recording scenario (in which we would be using these recorders). I listened to the recordings using my desktop computer > my KRK RP6 studio monitors. I have formulated my opinions about the two recordings, but I will refrain from sharing until others have had an opportunity to give it a listen.

Songs recorded:
Breathe - Pink Floyd Live Pulse album
Cold Hard Facts - Del McCoury Band

I felt these two songs were very well recorded on CD and thought it would give a good comparison of rock vs. acoustic bluegrass.

The file names are ambiguous so as to not reveal which recorder was used. Give it a listen and PM me for the answer. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts.

Files located here:

http://www.box.net/shared/avzfeld2id

Thanks to rastasean for sending me is 2LE to run this test and also for supplying the web space to post these files

-Christos

Great job with setting the test up imo this is how you conduct a test of two devices objectively.

Chris

[chris319]

Got a link regarding what the busman T-mod is all about?  Google provided nothing.  Thanks. 

http://www.busmanaudio.com/mods.html

Fostex FR2-LE
Vintage and Transparency $175.00 USD

What exactly does the $175 buy you?

[jacobmyers]

Oh, fun! I'll have to download those when I'm on my "real" computer. Thanks for posting them. I love this stuff!

[aleatoric]

Got a link regarding what the busman T-mod is all about?  Google provided nothing.  Thanks. 

http://www.busmanaudio.com/mods.html

Fostex FR2-LE
Vintage and Transparency $175.00 USD

What exactly does the $175 buy you?

I am wondering too.  I emailed Chris asking this.  When he gets back to me I will post.  I am also wondering how the Busman mod stacks up against the Oade mod's that are out there.  Maybe that topic is worthy of another thread though. 

[page]

What exactly does the $175 buy you?

I am wondering too.  I emailed Chris asking this.  When he gets back to me I will post.  I am also wondering how the Busman mod stacks up against the Oade mod's that are out there.  Maybe that topic is worthy of another thread though. 

It's my understanding he does the same thing Oade does and rebuild/rewire everything up to the A/D stage. Its the same physical pre-amp, but he replaces any opamps along the way and uses the van den hul wiring in place of the stock path.

Will: I'll see if I can re-create it. I synced stuff up so I'd at least come close. If your looking, I noticed it seemed to be in the upper echelons where I noticed minor differences. Could be any number of reasons, hence my remark that it doesn't confirm.

What I've seen, between this test, Will's, and mine, are that the more gain and sensitivity you are utilizing, the more you will notice a difference. It's not to say you will audibly notice a difference (as low level noise is still low level noise), but spectrally it seems to become more apparent of a difference. ymmv.

[Church-Audio]

What exactly does the $175 buy you?

I am wondering too.  I emailed Chris asking this.  When he gets back to me I will post.  I am also wondering how the Busman mod stacks up against the Oade mod's that are out there.  Maybe that topic is worthy of another thread though. 

It's my understanding he does the same thing Oade does and rebuild/rewire everything up to the A/D stage. Its the same physical pre-amp, but he replaces any opamps along the way and uses the van den hul wiring in place of the stock path.

Will: I'll see if I can re-create it. I synced stuff up so I'd at least come close. If your looking, I noticed it seemed to be in the upper echelons where I noticed minor differences. Could be any number of reasons, hence my remark that it doesn't confirm.

What I've seen, between this test, Will's, and mine, are that the more gain and sensitivity you are utilizing, the more you will notice a difference. It's not to say you will audibly notice a difference (as low level noise is still low level noise), but spectrally it seems to become more apparent of a difference. ymmv.

I have never been one to subscribe to the whole mod thing.. For one reason its pretty hard to rework a circuit board... The traces are permanent and replacing opamps... Never really ever heard a difference in my own gear. Maybe a bit less noise 2-3 db maybe little less distortion but you really are at the mercy of the existing circuit design you cant go making large changes to a circuit that has already been built unless you want to get into adding another circuit board altogether IMO. There are some cases where I have repaired soundboards and replaced the old TLO72 opamps with Ne5532 or OPA2227 and changed a few coupling caps to better values and maybe replaced a few carbon resistors here and there.. But in the end the difference was pretty good. But we are talking a console that was made 30 years ago not something that is pretty modern..

I would be very interested in finding out what some of these companies actually change to perform the mods they do.. But we will never know because that is what they are charging for the sum total of parts is maybe $30 its the labor and the knowledge that your paying for in a mod. I hope that some of these guys would do an objective test here at least in the before mod and after mod on the websites they own so others could hear the differences and decide if they are worth the $$$ being charged for the mod.

I applaud the guy that started this thread because I feel this is one of the only ways to objectively evaluate a mod and possibly be able to hear if there are in fact any differences... One other note.. I think it would be very valuable if the guys doing this mod could produce SNR graphs and FFT graphs and distortion graphs of the before and after mod so that besides listing we could physically see the differences of the before and after I wonder why nobody does this?
Chris

[Church-Audio]

Chris has a point about noise and distortion testing; that should certainly be measured and stated, and if there is an improvement, it's an obvious selling point.

That said, some other comments about use of FFT to analyze the differences are less likely to find differences, for the simple reason that you can't see the noise on an FFT while there is a high-level signal present (you may or may not be able to hear it), and you can't see things like distortion or transient response differences on a length of program material on an FFT.  Really all you can see there is frequency response, and if the frequency response is different between the two files I'd suspect something is amiss with the test or the original or modded box.  It really shouldn't be an issue for a preamp to test flat 20Hz - 20kHz, quality of that response notwithstanding.

Anyway, there are lots of tests you can do that can be analyzed and will strongly suggest whether differences should be audible, but the manufacturers ought to do that for you.

FFT might be useful for example if we were introducing a better anti aliasing filter or if you wanted to see wide spectrum noise floor of course only useful if we have averaged it out Anyway as a frequency response test you might still be able to see effects of your circuit changes in the sonic finger print of the DUT. Providing you used a very high sample rate and a large average and even larger window. But to the average person this might not mean much.. I also like looking at the full spectrum for distortion measurements certainly a good place to use FFT. To see the even and odd harmonic distortion content. When we look at a wave form under super high resolution we can see differences will these differences translate into better audio??? Who knows but one thing for sure it would be nice to see graphs.

[tenesejedd]

Here is a portion of a PM that Chris Busman sent me about a year ago when I was going to get my recorder modded by him. Here is describes the two mods available and what they entail.

Well I have 2 mods. Vintage- a warmth mod. Helps to give more bass and low-mid frequency response while keeping the high end clean, sounds great with bright mics.
Transparent - is clean, fast and detailed throughout the frequency band. This sounds great with all types of mics and is my favorite of the two.

Both mods change out all op amps to the A/D. All input capacitors are changed for very high quality caps and the phantom DC blocking caps are also changed for much higher quality caps. All of this makes for a much quieter more musical sound that will make your recordings the best they can be.


this may shed a little light on the discussion at hand.

[illconditioned]

Chris has a point about noise and distortion testing; that should certainly be measured and stated, and if there is an improvement, it's an obvious selling point.

That said, some other comments about use of FFT to analyze the differences are less likely to find differences, for the simple reason that you can't see the noise on an FFT while there is a high-level signal present (you may or may not be able to hear it), and you can't see things like distortion or transient response differences on a length of program material on an FFT.  Really all you can see there is frequency response, and if the frequency response is different between the two files I'd suspect something is amiss with the test or the original or modded box.  It really shouldn't be an issue for a preamp to test flat 20Hz - 20kHz, quality of that response notwithstanding.

Anyway, there are lots of tests you can do that can be analyzed and will strongly suggest whether differences should be audible, but the manufacturers ought to do that for you.

FFT might be useful for example if we were introducing a better anti aliasing filter or if you wanted to see wide spectrum noise floor of course only useful if we have averaged it out Anyway as a frequency response test you might still be able to see effects of your circuit changes in the sonic finger print of the DUT. Providing you used a very high sample rate and a large average and even larger window. But to the average person this might not mean much.. I also like looking at the full spectrum for distortion measurements certainly a good place to use FFT. To see the even and odd harmonic distortion content. When we look at a wave form under super high resolution we can see differences will these differences translate into better audio??? Who knows but one thing for sure it would be nice to see graphs.

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

This is not a "full spectrum" test, but it is surprising what defects you can discover, even though they are difficult to hear.

So, in conclusion, some sanity checks are always useful.

  Richard

[Will_S]

Chris has a point about noise and distortion testing; that should certainly be measured and stated, and if there is an improvement, it's an obvious selling point.

That said, some other comments about use of FFT to analyze the differences are less likely to find differences, for the simple reason that you can't see the noise on an FFT while there is a high-level signal present (you may or may not be able to hear it), and you can't see things like distortion or transient response differences on a length of program material on an FFT.  Really all you can see there is frequency response, and if the frequency response is different between the two files I'd suspect something is amiss with the test or the original or modded box.  It really shouldn't be an issue for a preamp to test flat 20Hz - 20kHz, quality of that response notwithstanding.

Anyway, there are lots of tests you can do that can be analyzed and will strongly suggest whether differences should be audible, but the manufacturers ought to do that for you.

FFT might be useful for example if we were introducing a better anti aliasing filter or if you wanted to see wide spectrum noise floor of course only useful if we have averaged it out Anyway as a frequency response test you might still be able to see effects of your circuit changes in the sonic finger print of the DUT. Providing you used a very high sample rate and a large average and even larger window. But to the average person this might not mean much.. I also like looking at the full spectrum for distortion measurements certainly a good place to use FFT. To see the even and odd harmonic distortion content. When we look at a wave form under super high resolution we can see differences will these differences translate into better audio??? Who knows but one thing for sure it would be nice to see graphs.

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I think this relates to another important point.  Some mods, which address an immediately obvious shortcoming (even if you couldn't fix this particular fault), do make sense.  For example, the stock Marantz PMD660 has great ergonomics but brickwalls easily and is very noisy, so a mod there makes a lot of sense.  Likewise it's relatively easy, and definitely useful, to add standalone digital out capability to the UA5.

I just don't hear anything obviously wrong with a stock FR2LE that argues for spending 175+ and voiding the warrantee.  Maybe there would be a worthwhile effect on the noise floor for nature recording, I need to re-listen to the samples focusing exclusively on the noise floor.  From the quoted description, the vintage mod sounds like an equalizer you can't adjust or turn off.  It might make for a pleasing sound to some folks, but I'd rather have more control.

[Will_S]

Will: I'll see if I can re-create it. I synced stuff up so I'd at least come close. If your looking, I noticed it seemed to be in the upper echelons where I noticed minor differences. Could be any number of reasons, hence my remark that it doesn't confirm.

What I've seen, between this test, Will's, and mine, are that the more gain and sensitivity you are utilizing, the more you will notice a difference. It's not to say you will audibly notice a difference (as low level noise is still low level noise), but spectrally it seems to become more apparent of a difference. ymmv.

Aaah, I was looking at the integrated result over the whole file.  Kind of in line with mshilarious' comment, wouldn't expect a big difference there unless one unit was seriously defective.  I'll repeat it looking at a part that's as much just background noise as possible.

[tenesejedd]

Will: I'll see if I can re-create it. I synced stuff up so I'd at least come close. If your looking, I noticed it seemed to be in the upper echelons where I noticed minor differences. Could be any number of reasons, hence my remark that it doesn't confirm.

What I've seen, between this test, Will's, and mine, are that the more gain and sensitivity you are utilizing, the more you will notice a difference. It's not to say you will audibly notice a difference (as low level noise is still low level noise), but spectrally it seems to become more apparent of a difference. ymmv.

Aaah, I was looking at the integrated result over the whole file.  Kind of in line with mshilarious' comment, wouldn't expect a big difference there unless one unit was seriously defective.  I'll repeat it looking at a part that's as much just background noise as possible.

If I recall correctly, i deleted several seconds of silence at the beginning of each recording of "Breathe." If that is the case and if you are interested, I can post those short clips for you folks to analyze.

Let me know

[digifish_music]

Noise is easy!  Set the two units at the same settings, and terminate the inputs with a low-value resistor (150 ohms is standard for a mic preamp, but anything in the neighborhood will do).  Record the noise on both units and compare.  Trying various different gain levels may or may not be different.

It helps if you calibrate the gain on both units to make sure the noise comparison isn't thrown off by any difference there.  Feeding a test tone or other simple signal into both of them should suffice.

Guy posted a good analysis of a noise comparison for some other unit here . . . that thread is nearby, I just have to remember where . . .

Tickets are gone I can say what I think, without instantly dropping to -5000

I think it's about time these modding companies provided technical measurements to back up their claims, otherwise it is just snake-oil. If you can hear something then it will be measurable. However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

This whole area reminds me of this...

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

digifish

[illconditioned]

It is not scientific, but I have found a great way to test mics is to just record ambient stuff (like family members talking, clanking dishes, running water, etc).  Even better if you can have music playing (in the background) at the same time.

Then listen on good headphones (like Sony 7506). Does is sound "real"?  Do the voices sound nice.  Do the ambient noises sound correct.  Does the music playing sound pleasant to listen to?

Some mics capture ambient sounds well, others sound muffled or less lively.  Some mics don't sound that lively, but capture music well.  A very good mic works on both types of sources.

Some examples:
- DPA4060: drop dead incredible realism, but don't sound nice on music, sounds too "harsh".  *My opinion*.
- Sennheiser KE4: sounds great on music, but not as realistic as above, somehow "colored".
- Countryman B3 & Nevaton MKE400: very realistic, and sound great on music.  Just sounds "natural".

This might be what people are getting at when they compare "warm" vs "transparent" mods of gear.

  Richard

[Will_S]

  Listening to just the "silence" on both tracks, I can't hear any differences at normal playback level, but when I really crank them I can hear (and see on the spectral analysis) a definite difference - although at least for Pink Floyd a small part seems to be differences in the actual room noise.  Also at least for the Del song, the noise floor sounds different across the samples, but I wouldn't say one is obviously much louder than the other, just tonally different.  More on that in a bit, hopefully more folks will post about what they can hear first before I post what may well be a spoiler.

I wonder to what extent a lower noise floor can contribute to a perception of increased transparency on louder musical passages...obviously at some point noise can obscure detail but how quiet is quiet enough for taping amplified music in a noisy room?

[illconditioned]

I should mention that the noise floor on the (stock) FR2-LE is very good.  I saw a Nature recording article/blog that recommended it.  This differs from other gear, like the Edirol UA5, and *maybe* the original R4, that had a higher noise floor.

Sensible thoughts aside, I modded my FR2-LE myself the day I got it.  I used the new National Semi LM4562 audio opamp.  This seems to have great specs and got a lot of press.  I just bought the opamps (SOIC size) and replaced four chips.  No cap or other changes at all...

  Richard

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I observed those same issues when testing a stock ua5, as well as other gear.  The results make it clear that a lot of gear probably shouldn't be run above certain levels (unless you want the distortion).

However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

"IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real." - so can you measure the difference between a v3 and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  Can you measure the difference between an AERCO and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  How many hours would it take to develop and refine the test methodolgy and how much would it add to the cost of a mod?

[willndmb]

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I observed those same issues when testing a stock ua5, as well as other gear.  The results make it clear that a lot of gear probably shouldn't be run above certain levels (unless you want the distortion).

However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

"IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real." - so can you measure the difference between a v3 and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  Can you measure the difference between an AERCO and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  How many hours would it take to develop and refine the test methodolgy and how much would it add to the cost of a mod?

exactly what i was thinking a mod is only as good as your ears
to me there have been 2 fr2le comps done and although i can hear small differences the 175 i don't think is worth it to my ears
someone else might think otherwise or even hear otherwise

[page]

Listening to just the "silence" on both tracks, I can't hear any differences at normal playback level, but when I really crank them I can hear (and see on the spectral analysis) a definite difference

Thats what I got out of the various comps done as well. I could tell a difference if I recorded silence and run the gain/trim at full blast and then amped the resulting file another 20db or so, but besides that it's *really* tough for me to tell a difference for amplified material. Not impossible, but tough.

[Church-Audio]

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I observed those same issues when testing a stock ua5, as well as other gear.  The results make it clear that a lot of gear probably shouldn't be run above certain levels (unless you want the distortion).

However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

"IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real." - so can you measure the difference between a v3 and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  Can you measure the difference between an AERCO and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  How many hours would it take to develop and refine the test methodolgy and how much would it add to the cost of a mod?

I wish I could sell stuff with out testing... but I cant... I think with today's software its pretty easy to test things and get accurate results besides I am sure if you were in the "mod" business you would want the extra advertising that good test results would provide and btw there is no labour involved in testing gear simply hooking it up to a audio interface and hitting go on the software pretty easy. I am not saying tests are everything but NOISE AND DISTORTION are minimums I would want to see on any mod. That wont tell you what necessarily sounds better but it will tell you a lot about the mods being done and if they are detrimental to the specs of the device being moded. There are always two sides to the story.. I feel if your going to charge for mods why not have this data available some of us actually do read the spec sheets... I dont let that be the last thing that makes my mind up but It does go along way towards convincing me to buy or not buy a piece of gear.
As for graphs most of us cant understand anyway? I would strongly disagree there are LOTS of us that understand graphs and specs.


I am not going to name names... But here is a preamp made by a VERY well known company the graph in Blue is my preamp the graph in purple is the "well known" preamp what one would you rather own? Don't get me wrong I am not trying to sell preamps.. But sometimes graphs can be a good thing.
Chris

[rowjimmytour]

Graphs don't tell you how something sounds to your ears.  I hear differences in these files and that is a good thing since I do the mods.



Why don't you quit telling others what to do Chris.  You have done enough to ruin my business already with your constant comments whenever tests come up of my gear.

If I made graphs then you would say I doctored them somehow so just quit it just like you did when I made some critical sound sample tests with the R4 mods a long time ago.

Hell busman my ears tell me that after you did the mod on my ole' UA5 it sounded a hell of a lot better and the test you did on the R4 convinced me to buy a R4 w/ mod. Thanks for all you and for my $$ I will stick w/ the mod gear.
Peace

[SparkE!]

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

[Church-Audio]

Graphs don't tell you how something sounds to your ears.  I hear differences in these files and that is a good thing since I do the mods.



Why don't you quit telling others what to do Chris.  You have done enough to ruin my business already with your constant comments whenever tests come up of my gear.

If I made graphs then you would say I doctored them somehow so just quit it just like you did when I made some critical sound sample tests with the R4 mods a long time ago.

The last thing I am trying to do is "ruin" your business. I actually send alot of customers YOUR WAY... I do think however for any mods tests should be done.. If not how do you know what effect the changes you make actually have? Also to my knowledge this is the first time I have ever said anything about any of your products and actually I was commenting in general about mods not specifically your mods but any one that does mods should have performed some kind of electrical tests I also mentioned the fact that I liked the way this test was performed that was not at all meant as a slam against you........ I am not out to hurt your business obviously alot of people like your mods... Do some tests show how they are better

S/N, Distortion ect... you will sell even more mods then you do now... Anyway I wish you nothing but good luck with your business. I am not in the mod business and dont have plans on ever going into it. If I did I would however have graphs and provide sample files. But that's just my opinion. I am sorry you feel like I am ruining your business.


As for the comments I have made about your gear in the past PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post examples of me saying anything negative about your gear... you wont find any.

I also think its great that you provide this service to the community because its not something that is easy to do mods in general * good mods * require alot of research and the willingness to ( possibly ) screw something up in the name of making it better during the experimental stage. Anyway I am sorry you were so offended by my comments but I still stand by every word.

Chris

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

[Church-Audio]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

We are not trying to compair apples to oranges. We are comparing post mod to premod. Surly there would be some differences that could be measured. I hope that manufactures of the gear you use dont stop testing it. Because that would be a sad day in deed. Testing is how we determine if our designs actually work then when they are tested we then send them off to people like you to listen to and be the final judge. I personally dont build and design any product with out first testing it and then listen to it. If it fails any one of these two steps it never goes on to be a product. If we are talking about electronics you can certainly measure things and see if improvements were made to a circuits design.. That is a fact not fiction and if you have the before and after to compair it to you would be surprised what can be learned from tests. I do agree that your EARS are the final test for any gear but I still think tests do have a place in audio they always have and always will. My passion about audio is showing in this thread I meant no disrespect to Chris or to anyone that does mods. I simply and personally dont believe one should do mods with out performing some kind of electrical tests on the end results in addition to critical listening tests.


I once worked for a speaker company.... in the lab performing tests on the speakers they sold.... One day we dropped the measurement mic in the snow (we would measure the speakers outside on a pole) it was wet and obviously damaged.. I asked my fellow worker what should we do he said " this was not the first time this has happened" Obviously testing for this company was not a priority. Now that I am not longer with them they have finally spent $100,000 on a chamber and real test gear.

My point is this when you make a living changing someones circuit design you ought to have more then your "word" that things have been improved you should also have facts and specs to back it up and objective listening tests.
That only helps you sell more product.
Chris

[SparkE!]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You're not serious are you?  Do you really think that engineers should redesign stuff without using any test equipment to quantify and verify the improvements that they are trying to achieve? As long as you are doing the tests (as any responsible audio engineer will do), it takes very little effort to document the results of those tests.  It will save you money in the long run and it gives you a way to quantitatively show the improvements you've made.

Again, this is a marketing issue.  It's just one more way to show your customer that your product is worth the money you charge.  5 minutes of bench time to do a test will pay for itself over and over and over again.  Like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.  Do the test once.  Publish the picture a 1000 times.  You'll sell more units as a result.

[digifish_music]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You are going off on a tangent. My original challenge had nothing to do with what sounded better or indeed that it was audible at all...just that it was measurable.

The cost and time involved in making frequency response graphs, noise/distortion measures OR simply recording Sine, square and saw wave signals from an oscilloscope are negligible AND will clearly show the effects of a mod, if they exist.

digifish

[digifish_music]

We are not trying to compair apples to oranges. We are comparing post mod to premod. Surly there would be some differences that could be measured. ...
That only helps you sell more product.
Chris

Well said that man, +T (in spirit)

[digifish_music]

We are not trying to compair apples to oranges. We are comparing post mod to premod. Surly there would be some differences that could be measured. ...
That only helps you sell more product.
Chris

Well said that man, +T (in spirit)

Actually, while on this subject I seem to remember Mr 5 Fish Studios was poking around his mic preamp with an oscilloscope measuring the fidelity of the waveforms it reproduced & other objective measures...









etc...

none of that required any extraordinary effort for a circuit designer/modifier, it's all just part of the process.

digifish

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You're not serious are you?  Do you really think that engineers should redesign stuff without using any test equipment to quantify and verify the improvements that they are trying to achieve? As long as you are doing the tests (as any responsible audio engineer will do), it takes very little effort to document the results of those tests.  It will save you money in the long run and it gives you a way to quantitatively show the improvements you've made.

Again, this is a marketing issue.  It's just one more way to show your customer that your product is worth the money you charge.  5 minutes of bench time to do a test will pay for itself over and over and over again.  Like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.  Do the test once.  Publish the picture a 1000 times.  You'll sell more units as a result.

It sure is a marketing issue.. Specs and graphs have been used for years to dupe folks into making bad purchases.  If graphs and specs could tell us what sounds best, we could be a lot more objective and save a lot of time.

There are a lot of amplifiers with great specs that sound lousy.  Same for speakers.  Folks in the hifi world have laughed about that for many *decades*.  I'll bet we could fill a 25 page thread with stories of gear with great specs but lousy sound.

I'd venture the same can be said of pre-amps.  Just because it has great specs or a pretty graph doesn't mean it sounds better than an m148, psp2 or v3.  Or how about microphones?  There sure are a lot of them with great specs.  Maybe I should sell my MGs, Schoeps and DPAs and replace them all with a cheap multi-pattern from my local guitar center?  The specs sure look great.

In comp tests comparing the v3 a/d to v3 > r09, the r09 was very often preferred.  What tests, SPECIFICALLY, would quantify why that is the case?

If you figure out how to do a test that shows why an m148, v3 or psp2 sounds so good, we're all ears.  But until then, it just seems like random venting about testing.   Don't insist this can be easily meaningfully tested when you cannot tell us how.  Simplistic graphs of frequency response or noise floor are of limited interest when considering the big picture of 'what sounds best'.

Tests for the sake of tests mean nothing.

[digifish_music]

I am not going to name names... But here is a preamp made by a VERY well known company the graph in Blue is my preamp the graph in purple is the "well known" preamp what one would you rather own? Don't get me wrong I am not trying to sell preamps.. But sometimes graphs can be a good thing.
Chris

While I agree with you, I think this graph is a little sneaky in that it extents to 10? to 90 kHz...but -22? dB at 20 kHz is a little droopy and I do record bats from time to time, so I will take the blue

[Church-Audio]

I am not going to name names... But here is a preamp made by a VERY well known company the graph in Blue is my preamp the graph in purple is the "well known" preamp what one would you rather own? Don't get me wrong I am not trying to sell preamps.. But sometimes graphs can be a good thing.
Chris

While I agree with you, I think this graph is a little sneaky in that it extents to 10? to 90 kHz...but -22? dB at 20 kHz is a little droopy and I do record bats from time to time, so I will take the blue

Its not sneaky I measure all of my preamps from 20hz to 90k so I can see if there is any oscillation issues. The purple line even at 20k is down almost 22db! Yikes..

[Ozpeter]

I've always been surprised in my relatively short membership here to see how much mods are discussed but how little their actual validity is discussed.  It's good to see some consideration being given to it here.

Could I throw in another line of thought?  That is, perhaps we need to consider what end result we're looking for here.  Do people buy modified versions of gear so that they can feel confident that what they are using is the best?   Is it so that when they play their recordings to other people, the listeners will be more impressed by the recording to noticable degree than they would otherwise?  Is it because they prefer the sound of the modified unit, regardless of whether it's actually more or less high fidelity?

I think it's necessary to specify the objective before getting too deep into the pros and cons and considerations of measurement vs subjective evaluation.  If you're simply going for what you personally like, then of course the measurements might be irrelevant.

My take on the whole thing is that most of the gear discussed here reaches levels of audio accuracy such that making any improvement suffers from the law of diminishing returns.  The chances of clearly enhancing the record/play accuracy (in other words, we're not talking about taste but about correctness, probably measurable) of the equipment by a mod are slim.  There are examples of obviously poor designs out there - for instance the mic input of a Zoom H2 is obviously and inexplicably noisy - and if somebody came up with a mod of a unit like that to get rid of the noise, it would be blindingly obvious and would show clearly on test results.  Other mods probably produce very subtle changes, and given that in real world conditions, mic selection and placement etc will have a much bigger effect on the end result, one has to suspect that we're talking about owner satisfaction rather than practical outcome.  And of course owner satisfaction is something most of us here pour quite disproportional amounts of our hard earned cash into!

[SparkE!]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You're not serious are you?  Do you really think that engineers should redesign stuff without using any test equipment to quantify and verify the improvements that they are trying to achieve? As long as you are doing the tests (as any responsible audio engineer will do), it takes very little effort to document the results of those tests.  It will save you money in the long run and it gives you a way to quantitatively show the improvements you've made.

Again, this is a marketing issue.  It's just one more way to show your customer that your product is worth the money you charge.  5 minutes of bench time to do a test will pay for itself over and over and over again.  Like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.  Do the test once.  Publish the picture a 1000 times.  You'll sell more units as a result.

It sure is a marketing issue.. Specs and graphs have been used for years to dupe folks into making bad purchases.  If graphs and specs could tell us what sounds best, we could be a lot more objective and save a lot of time.

There are a lot of amplifiers with great specs that sound lousy.  Same for speakers.  Folks in the hifi world have laughed about that for many *decades*.  I'll bet we could fill a 25 page thread with stories of gear with great specs but lousy sound.

I'd venture the same can be said of pre-amps.  Just because it has great specs or a pretty graph doesn't mean it sounds better than an m148, psp2 or v3.  Or how about microphones?  There sure are a lot of them with great specs.  Maybe I should sell my MGs, Schoeps and DPAs and replace them all with a cheap multi-pattern from my local guitar center?  The specs sure look great.

In comp tests comparing the v3 a/d to v3 > r09, the r09 was very often preferred.  What tests, SPECIFICALLY, would quantify why that is the case?

If you figure out how to do a test that shows why an m148, v3 or psp2 sounds so good, we're all ears.  But until then, it just seems like random venting about testing.   Don't insist this can be easily meaningfully tested when you cannot tell us how.  Simplistic graphs of frequency response or noise floor are of limited interest when considering the big picture of 'what sounds best'.

Tests for the sake of tests mean nothing.

There are so many fallacies in your logic that I'm not going to try to argue with you.  You obviously purchase electronics based on emotional factors.  I prefer to base my purchasing decisions on specifications and whether or not the vendor's spec sheets demonstrate a basic understanding of what the various specifications really mean.

[Church-Audio]

In the end this is a very passionate subject with good points being made and a good discussion on audio is always cool in my book.. The last point I will make is this. What harm would come from providing test results? If there is no harm then why not do it? 

Chris

[SparkE!]

I've always been surprised in my relatively short membership here to see how much mods are discussed but how little their actual validity is discussed.  It's good to see some consideration being given to it here.

Could I throw in another line of thought?  That is, perhaps we need to consider what end result we're looking for here.  Do people buy modified versions of gear so that they can feel confident that what they are using is the best?   Is it so that when they play their recordings to other people, the listeners will be more impressed by the recording to noticable degree than they would otherwise?  Is it because they prefer the sound of the modified unit, regardless of whether it's actually more or less high fidelity?

I think it's necessary to specify the objective before getting too deep into the pros and cons and considerations of measurement vs subjective evaluation.  If you're simply going for what you personally like, then of course the measurements might be irrelevant.

My take on the whole thing is that most of the gear discussed here reaches levels of audio accuracy such that making any improvement suffers from the law of diminishing returns.  The chances of clearly enhancing the record/play accuracy (in other words, we're not talking about taste but about correctness, probably measurable) of the equipment by a mod are slim.  There are examples of obviously poor designs out there - for instance the mic input of a Zoom H2 is obviously and inexplicably noisy - and if somebody came up with a mod of a unit like that to get rid of the noise, it would be blindingly obvious and would show clearly on test results.  Other mods probably produce very subtle changes, and given that in real world conditions, mic selection and placement etc will have a much bigger effect on the end result, one has to suspect that we're talking about owner satisfaction rather than practical outcome.  And of course owner satisfaction is something most of us here pour quite disproportional amounts of our hard earned cash into!

Wow!  Welcome to the discussion.  I think you actually "get it" and I think you've summed up many of my thoughts on the subject quite well.

The most important thing to me is that there needs to be a reason for doing a mod if it is to be worth doing at all.  It needs to resolve some sort of deficiency in the original design.  If you can't even say what it is that you resolved, what logical person would buy your gear?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

If released without an NDA, most spec sheets and graphs are purely for marketing purposes.  Benchmarketing is the term.  And you do not share data which casts your product in an unfavorable light.

[SparkE!]

If released without an NDA, most spec sheets and graphs are purely for marketing purposes.  Benchmarketing is the term.  And you do not share data which casts your product in an unfavorable light.

Which begs the question why the purveyors of these mods are so unwilling to share their graphs.

[Will_S]

I've always been surprised in my relatively short membership here to see how much mods are discussed but how little their actual validity is discussed.  It's good to see some consideration being given to it here.

QFT!  Just look at the Marantz PMD661 thread (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,112681.0/all.html).  So for as I know no one has even held one in their hands, let alone listened to it, but half the posts are about getting it modded by Oade or Busman.

Anyway, whether it be publishing specs or a comparison files of recordings made in a controlled environment, I think everyone benefits if an effort is made to more objectively represent the audible effects of a mod. So even without published specs, I can listen to this comparison and see just how much lower the noise floor is on one version vs. the other.

[digifish_music]

QFT!  Just look at the Marantz PMD661 thread (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,112681.0/all.html).  So for as I know no one has even held one in their hands, let alone listened to it, but half the posts are about getting it modded by Oade or Busman.

...

...and that is indeed odd. There are a lot of odd things about this place, like no one seems to mod the SD700 series preamps, but then very few people seem to use the MixPre. The choice of mics (while they are nice) is also esoteric to this forum...

digifish

[newplanet7]

I think the whole thing with the 661 thread is that people are thinking of the 660
and how it had to be modded.

I know that is what I was referring to in my post about the 661.

H A W T!

Hopefully Busman will be up for modding this one too.
Or even better maybe it won't need a mod.

I love my busman 660 so this should be stellar.
I've been wanting to go balls deep into 24bit for a while.
This should do it for me.

Nice find and great thread.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

There are a lot of odd things about this place, like no one seems to mod the SD700 series preamps

Two words for that:  Cost + complexity

It ain't no ua5.  Plus it sounds great stock.

[willndmb]

i think everyone agrees that a mod is only as good as it sounds to your ears (and what you record)
myself - the fr2le mods i don't hear much difference in
the ua5 mods i did -  does that mean the ua5 mod is better ?? someone else might hear it the other way around

so can we get back to the topic and please post if you hear a difference and then if you can tell which samples go together
thanks

[it-goes-to-eleven]

so can we get back to the topic and please post if you hear a difference and then if you can tell which samples go together
thanks

I still can't download the samples.  Would someone please post a graph that shows the difference?

[Church-Audio]

so can we get back to the topic and please post if you hear a difference and then if you can tell which samples go together
thanks

I still can't download the samples.  Would someone please post a graph that shows the difference?

Nobody here is saying "GRAPHS" are all you need to judge a products viability.. What some of us are saying,  is no company out there makes changes to a product with out doing tests on it to see what the benefits are on the product. And yes I think part of the tests must be the use of your ears. But since sound is very subjective we also need measurements to fall back on and both measurements and listening test should present a very clear picture of the quality of the modifications being performed and prevent people from just spinning the wheel of parts substitution and calling it a day.

Chris

[Will_S]

so can we get back to the topic and please post if you hear a difference and then if you can tell which samples go together
thanks

To reiterate my own results:  in sighted listening I was not sure I could hear a difference, but preferred A in both cases.  I then chopped each file up and tried to put the pieces back together blindly, and couldn't.

Which leads me to believe:
Any difference I thought I could hear in the sighted comparison was very subtle.
I may well have been imagining it.  (This would be my firm conclusion if it turns out one A track is stock and the other is modded.)
Alternately, blind testing might create some sort of "stress" that interferes with perception of subtle details.  (If A is from the same source for both, that would be consistent with, but by no means prove, this hypothesis.  Certainly there's a decent chance I could "guess" both correctly regardless of what I could actually hear.)
Playback on ADS L710 speakers and Grado SR80 headphones.

I still can't download the samples.  Would someone please post a graph that shows the difference?

You can download them here (one big 169.5 MB zip file) if the original link doesn't work for you:
http://homepage.mac.com/satterwill/FR2LEcompTNJedd.zip

[illconditioned]

In the end this is a very passionate subject with good points being made and a good discussion on audio is always cool in my book.. The last point I will make is this. What harm would come from providing test results? If there is no harm then why not do it? 

Chris

In addition to providing evidence, tests also detect defects, whether in design or manufacture.  How many people have seen those posts with a crazy clipped waveform, and the recordist saying it "sounds OK".

As far as mods go, *most* of them have noticeable effects, like reducing the noise floor or making it sound a bit clearer.  But I'm convinced 90% of the sound comes from the mics, so one should probably focus on that.

  Richard

[Church-Audio]

In the end this is a very passionate subject with good points being made and a good discussion on audio is always cool in my book.. The last point I will make is this. What harm would come from providing test results? If there is no harm then why not do it? 

Chris

In addition to providing evidence, tests also detect defects, whether in design or manufacture.  How many people have seen those posts with a crazy clipped waveform, and the recordist saying it "sounds OK".

As far as mods go, *most* of them have noticeable effects, like reducing the noise floor or making it sound a bit clearer.  But I'm convinced 90% of the sound comes from the mics, so one should probably focus on that.

  Richard

Richard your heavily into electronics... Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test. I forgot your supposed to use your ears for everything.. Yes like anyone can hear the difference between 0.4 % distortion at 1k and 1% distortion at 1k.

I look at mods the same way doctors look at treating a patient... "do no harm" meaning make sure what ever your doing only improves things not make them worse. Good mods performed well can make a big difference in some products. Bad mods performed badly can damage the circuit over time and lead to instability of a product. To not test a device after you have modified it seems like taking a patient that has a heart problem taking your stethoscope putting it up to the heart for 4 seconds and saying YES this patient has a heart problem, we must operate now! Hmmmm well I want to be put on an EKG and I want some tests done before you go ripping my chest apart to "see whats wrong" and after you have put the pacemaker in, I want to make sure MORE tests are done to make sure it works Call me crazy....

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test.

You are spreading FUD.... and you are doing so about a product you really know very little about.

I notice you still have not told us how you would test a v3 vs. m148 to quantify why so many people prefer the m148.   For someone who feels so strongly about testing, I am surprised you can't tell us specifically how to do it in a meaningful way.

Listening is testing.  Just because someone does not submit their tests for your approval does not mean there was no testing.

Where can we review the test results for your products?

[Church-Audio]

Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test.

You are spreading FUD.... and you are doing so about a product you really know very little about.

I notice you still have not told us how you would test a v3 vs. m148 to quantify why so many people prefer the m148.   For someone who feels so strongly about testing, I am surprised you can't tell us specifically how to do it in a meaningful way.

Listening is testing.  Just because someone does not submit their tests for your approval does not mean there was no testing.

Where can we review the test results for your products?

For my products you simply have to ask... Here is the noise floor of my 9100 preamp this test was conducted at full gain and is from 20hz to 90khz the self noise is -102db The bump at 60 is from my test area and not something that would happen in the wild. Yeah I do have tests for all of my products whats your point?

What is FUD? lol.....

I think you would be surprised what I know about gear I am quite sure in 20 years of doing live sound and studio sound I have learned a few things about how gear works.. lol.... Anyway I can see your getting upset no need to take this personal. Everyone here is entitled to his or her own opinion not just you.

PS.... I dont recall ever saying that testing was the ONLY way and that you still dont have to use your ears....

Chris

[rastasean]

So I avoided this thread until I could hear the samples provided.

The breath sound file B seems to have slightly more bass but its not too noticeable.

During playback on A I thought I heard a phone ring at ~3:28 (thereabouts) but it was also in B so I suppose it was just a part of the song. I think it was A which had slightly higher frequencies--or something--over B.

Song two was a pretty nice song and I enjoyed it. the instruments sound seemed to be the same from A to B (and for that matter B to A) but the lyrics were a little more clearer in...I think A. 

I did not spend too much time on testing these but I did listen to all four songs in the entirety.

Do I want the 2LE mod? No, I don't think so just because I'll spend the money on mics, clamps, poles, cables, concert tickets, etc. Actual tangible things.

I'm glad this test is generating the feedback since thats what Christos and I wanted. We wanted to know yalls opinions on how they sound and how the mods can/cannot make a difference.

[digifish_music]

Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test.

You are spreading FUD.... and you are doing so about a product you really know very little about.

I don't know what FUD is either, but Chris has not once said anything in this thread to degrade you or your products (not that I am even sure what products you sell) and for the record, nor do I remember in any detail what products Chris sells ('cottage industry' mics and preamps if I remember), for full disclosure in this category I have one pair of 'Sound Professionals' binaural mics that I liked so much I made my own copy of...

However, Chris's call for more measurements pre/post mod is simply not arguable. It really should be done.

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

digifish

[rastasean]

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

I'm interested in who thinks A or B is better of the pink floyd and A or B of Del song is better.

VOTE PEOPLE! ....even though this is no poll....just say what you like better and WHY

[Will_S]

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

I'm interested in who thinks A or B is better of the pink floyd and A or B of Del song is better.

VOTE PEOPLE!

The original poster should add a poll.  I see a few people who've stated a preference and others who say they hear a difference, but haven't stated what they prefer.

To temporarily sidetrack back to the specs argument, I can think of one situation where publishing specs may be a bad idea from the seller's perspective, even when the mod achieves the desired modification to the preamp's sound.  I think part of the reason behind "warm" or "vintage" mods is that some folks like the sound of the right kinds of harmonic distortion (think tubes, vinyl, ...).  So a "warm" mod that genuinely sounds better to many folks could nevertheless have a worse distortion spec.

Now, I agree that a savvy buyer should realize that, and not be scared off by a poor distortion spec if they are looking for a warm sounding preamp (and never mind whether it's a wise move to want a preamp modded such that it always adds euphonic distortion, let's just accept that some folks would like how that sounds).  But there's certainly a risk from the seller's perspective that a prospective buyer will just think distortion=bad and rule out buying the amp/mod even if it really does offer the sound he is after.

[rastasean]

The original poster should add a poll.  I see a few people who've stated a preference and others who say they hear a difference, but haven't stated what they prefer.

To temporarily sidetrack back to the specs argument, I can think of one situation where publishing specs may be a bad idea from the seller's perspective, even when the mod achieves the desired modification to the preamp's sound.  I think part of the reason behind "warm" or "vintage" mods is that some folks like the sound of the right kinds of harmonic distortion (think tubes, vinyl, ...).  So a "warm" mod that genuinely sounds better to many folks could nevertheless have a worse distortion spec.

Now, I agree that a savvy buyer should realize that, and not be scared off by a poor distortion spec if they are looking for a warm sounding preamp (and never mind whether it's a wise move to want a preamp modded such that it always adds euphonic distortion, let's just accept that some folks would like how that sounds).  But there's certainly a risk from the seller's perspective that a prospective buyer will just think distortion=bad and rule out buying the amp/mod even if it really does offer the sound he is after.

So you think the mods are just based on perspective and they are fairly subjective? That may be true but can't it be shown how they are warmed up or made vintage? I'm not a scientist but I would like to be shown HOW it can happen.
The description of mods on Busman's site are lacking quite a bit of technical information, IMO.

[Will_S]

The original poster should add a poll.  I see a few people who've stated a preference and others who say they hear a difference, but haven't stated what they prefer.

To temporarily sidetrack back to the specs argument, I can think of one situation where publishing specs may be a bad idea from the seller's perspective, even when the mod achieves the desired modification to the preamp's sound.  I think part of the reason behind "warm" or "vintage" mods is that some folks like the sound of the right kinds of harmonic distortion (think tubes, vinyl, ...).  So a "warm" mod that genuinely sounds better to many folks could nevertheless have a worse distortion spec.

Now, I agree that a savvy buyer should realize that, and not be scared off by a poor distortion spec if they are looking for a warm sounding preamp (and never mind whether it's a wise move to want a preamp modded such that it always adds euphonic distortion, let's just accept that some folks would like how that sounds).  But there's certainly a risk from the seller's perspective that a prospective buyer will just think distortion=bad and rule out buying the amp/mod even if it really does offer the sound he is after.

So you think the mods are just based on perspective and they are fairly subjective?

Not really.  I think the transparency type mods may well decrease the noise floor...which should be measurable.  It's not obvious though that any of us can hear the difference (compared to a stock FR2LE, with a noiser starting point like a Marantz PMD660 it may be more obvious) when listening to a musical signal at a reasonable level.

What's trickier (and IMO really should be more clearly explained by the modders) is what's going on with the warm or vintage mods - and it's not just Busman who offers them, I'm not meaning to single him out.  Based on the subjective descriptions of their effects, I suspect they work either by providing a bit of a bass boost, and/or adding a tiny bit of pleasing kinds of harmonic distortion.

Both of these are measurable as well, but the tricky aspect is that a modification which creates a pleasing sound by boosting the bass will measure worse (less flat) in terms of frequency response, and a modification that adds euphonic distortion [see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrive_(music) ] will measure worse (higher distortion).  So in the case of warm/vintage mods, I can see why a modder might be hesitant to publish specs even for a modification that many folks would find pleasing.

[flintstone]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

[digifish_music]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

...and that should easily show on a noise-floor graph.

digifish

[Church-Audio]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

Think about this would it not be nice to know by how much your noise floor was lowered and how much more input level your recorder could handle after the mod? With some before and after specs you would be able to maximize your gear by knowing its limits. That is just another reason why its a good idea to publish spec sheets when your doing mods. Some mods like "flavor mods" should change one or more of the basic specs to achieve the unique sound the claim to provide. You cant change the way something sounds with out effecting frequency response, or distortion or noise floor. One or more of these factors must change its physics if the sound changes on a electronic device there must be something that can indicate that change in an electrical value why? because the preamps and recorders are not living things. They are circuits change a component and there will be a change in the circuit and the way it operates that can be measured. If not then there must be a flux capacitor in the circuit somewhere tricking us all. I dont think so........

BTW its nice to be able to talk like this with out people getting all upset and taking things personally.. This is not personal its a very interesting topic and its one that should be explored more. I believe someone should come out with a way to do a sonic finger print of a device that has never really been done. It would be however very interesting to try and push the limits of what we know and how we test things. I still dont want to ignore listening tests but it would be cool to test things as well.

I have often wondered why I like old Neve 1073 strips over any thing out there for a preamp. I think about it and say well maybe its the caps maybe its the fact that its all transistor maybe its the layout. But imagine being able to sample the input and output of a device and duplicate the transfer function via a dsp? wow... that would be amazing. That in my mind is the future. Look at how far we have come with digital cameras I remember when photographer friends of mine would say " I will never use a digital camera" well every one I know who takes photos for a living is using one.. Why because technology has gone so far that we can capture an image and store it and it looks very good. Now is it the same as a film camera? Maybe not.. But look at the argument for analog and digital. There was a time when we said the same thing about digital audio now we all use it. The time has come to look at ways of sampling our favorite devices and stealing the signature it imprints on a signal and then recreate that signature in a DSP processor that would be pretty freaking cool. I feel when we all talk about audio like this it sparks great ideas and pushes the "little hobby" of audio further.

[rastasean]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

William,

What about these four recordings? Can you hear anything different?

[digifish_music]

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

I'm interested in who thinks A or B is better of the pink floyd and A or B of Del song is better.

VOTE PEOPLE! ....even though this is no poll....just say what you like better and WHY

It may help to have smaller downloads of each. 160 Meg to test these recordings may be too much for many.

Cold hard facts & Breathe - I really cant hear any difference, I even put them in my DAW and sliced up every second bar and alternated...still no difference. I also did the same to the fade-out on 'Cold hard facts' the end and can't hear any appreciable difference there either.

digifish

[chris319]

It would seem that one difference between Oade and Busman mods is that Busman does aftermarket mods and Oade does not. You have to buy a brand new unit pre-modded from Oade. I didn't find out about the Oade mods until after I had purchased my FR-2LE; now Oade wouldn't modify my unit after the sale (if I wanted them to).

Nowadays it is trivial to benchmark audio equipment with programs such as RMAA (Rightmark Audio Analyzer). You don't need a $10,000 AP (Audio Precision) test jig. I benchmark CF recorders and mic preamps all the time and I'm just a lowly hobbyist. There is no reason for someone in the mod business not to publish test results showing an unmodded unit and the same unit after modification.

If someone has their equipment modded because they like the "warmth" or the "detail" and they're happy with it, that's great. As far as I'm concerned, I need to see a benchmark of the equipment both before and after modification to make sure the modification doesn't adversely affect the specs of the original equipment. If a mod makes something sound subjectively more pleasing but degrades the S/N, distortion or frequency response in the process, I'm not interested. I'm very happy with my FR-2LE and the way it specs out so I don't feel justified in spending $175 for a mod.

[Church-Audio]

Here are some very basic tests I have done. On the song A and B of "Cold Hard Facts"

First I converted the flac back to wav using a batch converter.

I then selected the same portion of music and averaged it out using a very large FFT window.

For noise I took the last few seconds on the sound sample and then averaged them with a shorter FFT window.

The noise test should not be used as an indication of actual performance because microphones were used to capture the sound and there might have been other factors at work in the environment that made up the differences in background noise.

There are differences between A and B I like the sound of B better to my ears it sounds warmer then A but funny enough B seems to have slightly less bottom end then A does.. Strange. Could be differences in distortion but I cant test for that with out a 1k tone being present in the recording.

Both seem very close to one another almost like they are the same recording but I am 100% SURE  B sounds warmer to me. Again testing shows there are differences I think if there are sonic differences and I seem to be able to hear them it might be something to do with even or odd harmonic distortion. But I also cant rule out mic placement changing slightly but again its hard to analyse something when you were not there.

Chris

[digifish_music]

Here are some very basic tests I have done.

There are differences between A and B

There are 4 files, 2 x A and 2 x B, is there any suggestion A is the same preamp in each case?

digifish

[Church-Audio]

Here are some very basic tests I have done.

There are differences between A and B

There are 4 files, 2 x A and 2 x B, is there any suggestion A is the same preamp in each case?

digifish

Sorry I just analysed one set of files. For the song "Cold Hard Facts"

[tenesejedd]

Nothing changed between between recordings of each song. Mics did not move, volume of playback equipment did not change, environment did not change. The only thing that changed was recorders. Recorder setting were set the same. I matched all trim and gain knobs as closely as possible between recorders.

I must say that I'm most interested in what people are hearing in the recordings instead of what people are seeing in tests.

[tenesejedd]

Poll added. We would like to hear your opinion in addition to having you vote.

Again, I have my opinion about the recordings. In my playback (KRK RP6 studio monitors), I could hear a difference and feel comfortable with the money I spent for the mod. Although, I can see that without right playback, then the advantages of the T-mod is most likely lost. In my opinion, the advantages of the T-mod is to make it clearer and more crisp response. These are things that could be lost in certain playback systems. I think that the difference between a stock and a Vintage mod would be more noticeable, but I could be wrong.

I think some of this is good discussion, some of it is just running in circles. I am most interested in hearing what your ears tell you.

[digifish_music]

Poll added. We would like to hear your opinion in addition to having you vote.

Again, I have my opinion about the recordings. In my playback (KRK RP6 studio monitors), I could hear a difference and feel comfortable with the money I spent for the mod. Although, I can see that without right playback, then the advantages of the T-mod is most likely lost. In my opinion, the advantages of the T-mod is to make it clearer and more crisp response. These are things that could be lost in certain playback systems. I think that the difference between a stock and a Vintage mod would be more noticeable, but I could be wrong.

I think some of this is good discussion, some of it is just running in circles. I am most interested in hearing what your ears tell you.

Your confident statement that you can hear differences interests me, I could not hear anything, even A/B back-to-back slicing equivalent bars. What can do is take 5 x N bar slices from each and randomize them (that's 10 things to identify) and you can tell me which is modded and unmodded, sound OK? How many bars (N) do you need to hear in a row, to identify the sound? 2, 4, 8?

digifish

[tenesejedd]

Poll added. We would like to hear your opinion in addition to having you vote.

Again, I have my opinion about the recordings. In my playback (KRK RP6 studio monitors), I could hear a difference and feel comfortable with the money I spent for the mod. Although, I can see that without right playback, then the advantages of the T-mod is most likely lost. In my opinion, the advantages of the T-mod is to make it clearer and more crisp response. These are things that could be lost in certain playback systems. I think that the difference between a stock and a Vintage mod would be more noticeable, but I could be wrong.

I think some of this is good discussion, some of it is just running in circles. I am most interested in hearing what your ears tell you.

Your confident statement that you can hear differences interests me, I could not hear anything, even A/B back-to-back slicing equivalent bars. What can do is take 5 x N bar slices from each and randomize them (that's 10 things to identify) and you can tell me which is modded and unmodded, sound OK? How many bars (N) do you need to hear in a row, to identify the sound? 2, 4, 8?

digifish

I'm not interested in someone "putting me to the test" to see if I can really hear the difference. Here are the observations I initially wrote to rastasean before I even started this thread. This just explains where I heard differences.


For Cold Hard Facts
T-Mod- Definitly makes the things more clear sounding and distinct.
The high end frequencies are especially clean compared to the non mod.
Sounds where there is a noticable difference are the sounds of the banjo
and mandolin. Not only the sound of the instrument, but you can more clearly
hear the sound of the strumming. Also, the vocals are more clear especially
the "s" sounds.

for Breathe:

The obvious difference is the cymbals and drums, percussion in general.
The other big difference are the vocals. You can hear them much more clearly
and detailed on the the T-mod version. The bass on the non-mod is more prominent
and in your face. The T-mod tames is a bit, making it more clear and tight.

[digifish_music]

Poll added. We would like to hear your opinion in addition to having you vote.

Again, I have my opinion about the recordings. In my playback (KRK RP6 studio monitors), I could hear a difference and feel comfortable with the money I spent for the mod. Although, I can see that without right playback, then the advantages of the T-mod is most likely lost. In my opinion, the advantages of the T-mod is to make it clearer and more crisp response. These are things that could be lost in certain playback systems. I think that the difference between a stock and a Vintage mod would be more noticeable, but I could be wrong.

I think some of this is good discussion, some of it is just running in circles. I am most interested in hearing what your ears tell you.

Your confident statement that you can hear differences interests me, I could not hear anything, even A/B back-to-back slicing equivalent bars. What can do is take 5 x N bar slices from each and randomize them (that's 10 things to identify) and you can tell me which is modded and unmodded, sound OK? How many bars (N) do you need to hear in a row, to identify the sound? 2, 4, 8?

digifish

I'm not interested in someone "putting me to the test" to see if I can really hear the difference. Here are the observations I initially wrote to rastasean before I even started this thread. This just explains where I heard differences.

T-Mod- Definitly makes the things more clear sounding and distinct.
The high end frequencies are especially clean compared to the non mod.
Sounds where there is a noticable difference are the sounds of the banjo
and mandolin. Not only the sound of the instrument, but you can more clearly
hear the sound of the strumming. Also, the vocals are more clear especially
the "s" sounds.

The obvious difference is the cymbals and drums, percussion in general.
The other big difference are the vocals. You can hear them much more clearly
and detailed on the the T-mod version. The bass on the non-mod is more prominent
and in your face. The T-mod tames is a bit, making it more clear and tight.

You see, perception involves expectation, if you really can hear these differences, and they are as clear as you perceive, then you should be able to hear them in a blind comparison surely? I am not trying to embarrass you, just raise this mod/non-mod thing to a objectively verifiable level. When people wanted graphs and specs, 'the human ear' was held up as the gold standard, so let's use the human ear then, but do it in a way that removes subjective bias.

digifish

[tenesejedd]

I am going to refer back to my previous post. I think that the playback plays a major role in distinguishing the differences between these recordings. These recordings are very close. This has been shown both visually (through graphical tests shown so far) and audibly (difficulty distinguishing between the two). I was able to distinguish the different recordings on my KRKs. It was difficult at first, but listening to various parts over and over again, back to back, I noticed differences. Once I listened to the songs on my headphones through my work laptop, I could not tell the differences.

Chris Church posted above that he can audibly hear differences between the two recordings. He posted his choice, and at this point, only I know whether he chose mod or non-mod. I really don't care what his decision was, because at the end of the day, he chose the recording that sounds better to him. He was able to explain what he liked and didn't like, this is what I found interesting. This thread isn't about which one sounds best, or which one performed best on a test or graph. Its about which one sounds better to each of you who took the time to listen. If you can't tell the difference, great. I don't have a problem with it. That just means you don't have to worry about getting your gear modified. If you can hear a difference and like it, well you now have an option for a mod. Also, if you can hear a difference and hear something you don't like, then you know what mod not to get.

All in all, I'm glad this thread is getting this much attention. There is some very good discussion going on.

[Church-Audio]

I am going to refer back to my previous post. I think that the playback plays a major role in distinguishing the differences between these recordings. These recordings are very close. This has been shown both visually (through graphical tests shown so far) and audibly (difficulty distinguishing between the two). I was able to distinguish the different recordings on my KRKs. It was difficult at first, but listening to various parts over and over again, back to back, I noticed differences. Once I listened to the songs on my headphones through my work laptop, I could not tell the differences.

Chris Church posted above that he can audibly hear differences between the two recordings. He posted his choice, and at this point, only I know whether he chose mod or non-mod. I really don't care what his decision was, because at the end of the day, he chose the recording that sounds better to him. He was able to explain what he liked and didn't like, this is what I found interesting. This thread isn't about which one sounds best, or which one performed best on a test or graph. Its about which one sounds better to each of you who took the time to listen. If you can't tell the difference, great. I don't have a problem with it. That just means you don't have to worry about getting your gear modified. If you can hear a difference and like it, well you now have an option for a mod. Also, if you can hear a difference and hear something you don't like, then you know what mod not to get.

All in all, I'm glad this thread is getting this much attention. There is some very good discussion going on.

My argument was never about not using your ears.. But as a electronic designer of circuits and someone who has worked and is working with some very talented electronics engineers.. I would never put out a product with out testing it.. I dont do mods or "updates" to my own products with out testing them first to make sure people are getting what they paid for. That was my whole point and its not about bussman or any one mod guy in particular its a generalized statement.. You cant mod anything properly with out doing tests period. And you cant buy anything audio with out using your ears they both go hand in hand. In the end one supports the other. I was amazed how different A sounded from B. And if B was Bussman he did a great job. A I found to be harsh and very top end heavy with a peak frequency around 4-5k that stuck in my ears like sandpaper. They sounded so different to me I had to think the mic was moved ever so slightly.. I say this because I could duplicate the same thing if I moved a cardioid mic slightly that was in front of a speaker.

[jacobmyers]

I haven't had a chance to get to the "real" computer so I downloaded them to the laptop (which has a halfway decent 24-bit sound card and reasonably powerful headphone amp), plugged in the D1001's, and listened to all four samples in WinAmp. I'm hearing slight differences but I won't elaborate (except to say that I agreed with the poll). Thanks for this. It was fun but now my little ears are "tired".

[Ozpeter]

Perhaps the real test would be to use dissimilar recordings made under different circumstances.  If the only way that differences can be heard is by comparing identical recordings, which won't happen in actual use, then there's no point in the mods.  (Yes, I'm being provocative!)

[tenesejedd]

Perhaps the real test would be to use dissimilar recordings made under different circumstances.  If the only way that differences can be heard is by comparing identical recordings, which won't happen in actual use, then there's no point in the mods.  (Yes, I'm being provocative!)

I partially agree. I think a better test would be to do identical recordings across a variety of situations/circumstances. The more I think about it, this is really a test of how these recorders capture the sound of my home stereo, which is neither fancy by any means nor a realistic use of this recorder. It would be best to do a variety of things like various music, ambient recordings, nature recordings, etc.

[Will_S]

Its about which one sounds better to each of you who took the time to listen. If you can't tell the difference, great. I don't have a problem with it. That just means you don't have to worry about getting your gear modified. If you can hear a difference and like it, well you now have an option for a mod. Also, if you can hear a difference and hear something you don't like, then you know what mod not to get.

Well, but as the last attempt at a comparison shows (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,111772.0/all.html), if you listen long and hard enough for a difference, you are likely to perceive one.  But the difference you perceive may have nothing to do with the mod.  For instance when comparing the sets of clips, basically no one was able to correctly identify modded vs. non modded clips.  In 9/10 possible pairings, people wrongly grouped stock and modded clips together.  So whatever people thought they were hearing, it wasn't the mod.

Don't worry about whether that last test was imperfect because there were short clips (it was), just realize that lots of folks confidently stated they heard the effects of the mod, when in fact they didn't.  

So I don't doubt that you perceive differences when you listen to what you know is the modded track and what you know is the stock track.  But if you are really hearing the effects of the mod, you should be able to tell the clips apart in blind listening as well.

Likewise Chris' comments may well reflect (be influenced by) the knowledge he gained from the measurements, it's too bad he didn't describe what he heard before measuring the tracks.

[willndmb]

Perhaps the real test would be to use dissimilar recordings made under different circumstances.  If the only way that differences can be heard is by comparing identical recordings, which won't happen in actual use, then there's no point in the mods.  (Yes, I'm being provocative!)

yes and no
although i think its good to see if you can tell from different recordings
i also am not sure i can tell until i hear the same recording with each
as i have stated i can hear small differences between this comp and the one will did - not enough for me to justify the mod though with my bank roll right now

[Church-Audio]

Its about which one sounds better to each of you who took the time to listen. If you can't tell the difference, great. I don't have a problem with it. That just means you don't have to worry about getting your gear modified. If you can hear a difference and like it, well you now have an option for a mod. Also, if you can hear a difference and hear something you don't like, then you know what mod not to get.

Well, but as the last attempt at a comparison shows (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,111772.0/all.html), if you listen long and hard enough for a difference, you are likely to perceive one.  But the difference you perceive may have nothing to do with the mod.  For instance when comparing the sets of clips, basically no one was able to correctly identify modded vs. non modded clips.  In 9/10 possible pairings, people wrongly grouped stock and modded clips together.  So whatever people thought they were hearing, it wasn't the mod.

Don't worry about whether that last test was imperfect because there were short clips (it was), just realize that lots of folks confidently stated they heard the effects of the mod, when in fact they didn't.  

So I don't doubt that you perceive differences when you listen to what you know is the modded track and what you know is the stock track.  But if you are really hearing the effects of the mod, you should be able to tell the clips apart in blind listening as well.

Likewise Chris' comments may well reflect (be influenced by) the knowledge he gained from the measurements, it's too bad he didn't describe what he heard before measuring the tracks.

I actually did listen to the tracks first for the reason you mention. I did not want my tests to influence the results. I found that the track b did sound better it was smoother in the top end track A sounded harsh by comparison. There was such a difference I thought the mics must have been moved! But I have been assured that is not the case. So as far as my evaluation goes I feel I am 100% accurate there was differences and track B did sound better.. I did listen to the Floyd tracks but they sounded so bad to my ears I did not bother trying to even evaluate them.

Chris

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I still can't download the samples.  Would someone please post a graph that shows the difference?

You can download them here (one big 169.5 MB zip file) if the original link doesn't work for you:
http://homepage.mac.com/satterwill/FR2LEcompTNJedd.zip

THANK YOU!

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I don't know what FUD is either, but Chris has not once said anything in this thread to degrade you or your products (not that I am even sure what products you sell)

Get your facts straight.  I sell nothing.

[page]

Have we done any measurements in adverse conditions? (minor or major overloading of both sensitivity settings, and minor/major overloading of the gain to the A/D.) We've got 2 possible places to hit the wall, did anyone try playing wtih those?

I was at Umphrey's last night and someone mentioned that they thought this was an area to test that (it seemed) we hadn't. It could be that there are minor differences accousticly in normal circumstances, but there are bigger differences when we start to get to the edge of normal operation where clipping or overload would occur. Food for thought.

[digifish_music]

I don't know what FUD is either, but Chris has not once said anything in this thread to degrade you or your products (not that I am even sure what products you sell)

Get your facts straight.  I sell nothing.

My facts were straight, didn't I say "not that I am even sure what products you sell"

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I don't know what FUD is either, but Chris has not once said anything in this thread to degrade you or your products (not that I am even sure what products you sell)

Get your facts straight.  I sell nothing.

My facts were straight, didn't I say "not that I am even sure what products you sell"

You implied I sell product and therefore have a profit motive.  You don't have a clue.

[digifish_music]

I'm not interested in someone "putting me to the test" to see if I can really hear the difference. Here are the observations I initially wrote to rastasean before I even started this thread. This just explains where I heard differences.

T-Mod- Definitly makes the things more clear sounding and distinct.
The high end frequencies are especially clean compared to the non mod.
Sounds where there is a noticable difference are the sounds of the banjo
and mandolin. Not only the sound of the instrument, but you can more clearly
hear the sound of the strumming. Also, the vocals are more clear especially
the "s" sounds.

The obvious difference is the cymbals and drums, percussion in general.
The other big difference are the vocals. You can hear them much more clearly
and detailed on the the T-mod version. The bass on the non-mod is more prominent
and in your face. The T-mod tames is a bit, making it more clear and tight.

You see, perception involves expectation, if you really can hear these differences, and they are as clear as you perceive, then you should be able to hear them in a blind comparison surely? I am not trying to embarrass you, just raise this mod/non-mod thing to a objectively verifiable level. When people wanted graphs and specs, 'the human ear' was held up as the gold standard, so let's use the human ear then, but do it in a way that removes subjective bias.

digifish

Test your perceptions here...

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,113482.0.html

[digifish_music]

Perhaps the real test would be to use dissimilar recordings made under different circumstances.  If the only way that differences can be heard is by comparing identical recordings, which won't happen in actual use, then there's no point in the mods.  (Yes, I'm being provocative!)

I partially agree. I think a better test would be to do identical recordings across a variety of situations/circumstances. The more I think about it, this is really a test of how these recorders capture the sound of my home stereo, which is neither fancy by any means nor a realistic use of this recorder. It would be best to do a variety of things like various music, ambient recordings, nature recordings, etc.

So did you post an answer as to which group of recordings A or B was modded?

digifish

[rastasean]

Tenesejedd is the one who knows the answers. I would PM him for the answers. I left my answers at home or else I would write you.

[newplanet7]

Thanks for the answers Tennessee Jed.
I chose the t-mod for both samples.
Great test.

[digifish_music]

Thanks for the answers Tennessee Jed.
I chose the t-mod for both samples.
Great test.

There was a 25% chance you would do that (fairly likely), but now there is no convincing you that you heard something So can you pick the modded version 7 times or more?

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,113482.0.html

digifish

[newplanet7]

Not sure and don't really care to try.
I'm satisfied with this thread.

[Will_S]

Thanks for the answers Tennessee Jed.
I chose the t-mod for both samples.
Great test.

There was a 25% chance you would do that (fairly likely), but now there is no convincing you that you heard something So can you pick the modded version 7 times or more?

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,113482.0.html

digifish

To be fair, sitting and picking out subtle differences 7 times is a pretty time consuming task.  I'd be somewhat convinced if someone could pick out the 3 or 4 most revealing cuts (to their ears) and get them all right.  You couldn't publish it in a journal, but it would be enough to convince me they more likely than not could hear a differences.

[rastasean]

To be fair, sitting and picking out subtle differences 7 times is a pretty time consuming task.  I'd be somewhat convinced if someone could pick out the 3 or 4 most revealing cuts (to their ears) and get them all right.  You couldn't publish it in a journal, but it would be enough to convince me they more likely than not could hear a differences.

I think digifish was getting at trying to find out just how much you can hear a difference. If you have two songs and one is modded and one isn't, that's a pretty high chance of getting the modded one right (basically just a guess) but if those same files are chopped up, who can then hear the difference? He was attempting to come to a very good conclusion that not many people at all will be able to hear the difference. It would still be nice to see some specs, graphs, charts, etc for  BEFORE and AFTER mod work.

[digifish_music]

Thanks for the answers Tennessee Jed.
I chose the t-mod for both samples.
Great test.

There was a 25% chance you would do that (fairly likely), but now there is no convincing you that you heard something So can you pick the modded version 7 times or more?

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,113482.0.html

digifish

To be fair, sitting and picking out subtle differences 7 times is a pretty time consuming task.  I'd be somewhat convinced if someone could pick out the 3 or 4 most revealing cuts (to their ears) and get them all right.  You couldn't publish it in a journal, but it would be enough to convince me they more likely than not could hear a differences.

I maintain there are no audible differences between the two recordings (until proven otherwise). 3 or more correct out of (lets say) 4 comparisons happens with a ~31% frequency by chance alone, that isn't convincing at all. In other words, about 1 in 3 people would pick the mod 3 or more times out of 4 comparisons. Meaningless.

However let's say 10 people read this thread and participate, you will have (by chance alone) 3 people posting they picked the modded file on 3 or 4 occasions. The other 7 keep their mouths shut, because who likes to put their hand up and say the king isn't wearing any clothes?

BTW: If it takes that much effort to tell them apart that 7 comparisons are onerous, then it's a questionable difference. Looking at the preferences in the poll, it certainly does not seem to show any trend.

digifish

[Will_S]

Thanks for the answers Tennessee Jed.
I chose the t-mod for both samples.
Great test.

There was a 25% chance you would do that (fairly likely), but now there is no convincing you that you heard something So can you pick the modded version 7 times or more?

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,113482.0.html

digifish

To be fair, sitting and picking out subtle differences 7 times is a pretty time consuming task.  I'd be somewhat convinced if someone could pick out the 3 or 4 most revealing cuts (to their ears) and get them all right.  You couldn't publish it in a journal, but it would be enough to convince me they more likely than not could hear a differences.

I maintain there are no audible differences between the two recordings (until proven otherwise). 3 or more correct out of (lets say) 4 comparisons happens with a ~31% frequency by chance alone, that isn't convincing at all. In other words, about 1 in 3 people would get 3 or more out of 4 comparisons. Meaningless.

No, I said pick 3 or 4 and get them ALL right.  That's (for only 1 person taking the test) a 1/8 chance or a 1/16.  Good enough for me to believe they probably do hear something, though as I stated not something I would run off and submit to a journal.  Of course if 8 people take the test and one or two pass, that would be less convincing, although if it turned out to be the two with the best playback systems that would factor in to my interpretation as well.

BTW: If it takes that much effort to tell them apart that 7 comparisons are onerous, then it's a questionable difference. Looking at the preferences in the poll, it certainly does not seem to show any trend.

Meh.  I certainly believe subtle differences are hard to pick out in a blind test, especially with short passages, and that some passages might be more revealing than others.  I agree that it is pretty silly to claim that the mod makes a big difference in this case, but that does not lead to the conclusion that it is necessarily inaudible to everyone.

If you have two songs and one is modded and one isn't, that's a pretty high chance of getting the modded one right (basically just a guess) but if those same files are chopped up, who can then hear the difference? He was attempting to come to a very good conclusion that not many people at all will be able to hear the difference. It would still be nice to see some specs, graphs, charts, etc for  BEFORE and AFTER mod work.

I understand this.  I'm just saying, listening to all 7 cuts carefully enough to hear a difference may be more work than most folks are willing to put into it.  3/3 or 4/4 would be reasonably convincing to me, so long as there were no mistakes mixed in.

[digifish_music]

Meh.  I certainly believe subtle differences are hard to pick out in a blind test, especially with short passages, and that some passages might be more revealing than others.  I agree that it is pretty silly to claim that the mod makes a big difference in this case, but that does not lead to the conclusion that it is necessarily inaudible to everyone.

Actually research has shown that short passages back-to-back A/B makes listeners as sensitive as they are going to get to hearing the smallest differences. Given the case that repeated exposure is allowed, subjects can concentrate on different aspects of the sound on each run-through. Nothing beats the moment of A/B switching for detecting changes in audio. This was all thrashed out long ago in the battle of the bit-rates. Our memory for subtle audio qualities, turns out to be quite short.   

BTW: I agree 3/3 is or 4/4 certainly a better test than 2/2.

digifish

[digifish_music]

BTW: This is worth watching, as it has principles that I think apply here...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Nphg4YVm37I

[rastasean]

Although this is about the Oade mod, I thought it was worth posting here, as well at the post started by Will_S:

Here's a post about the Oade mod on the fostex forumn.

http://www.fostexusa.com/mercuryboard/index.php?a=topic&t=4084

[illconditioned]

Although this is about the Oade mod, I thought it was worth posting here, as well at the post started by Will_S:

Here's a post about the Oade mod on the fostex forumn.

http://www.fostexusa.com/mercuryboard/index.php?a=topic&t=4084

They make a good point: modders should tell what parts they use/replace.  I have no trouble paying a modder to do the work, but I would like to know what chip(s) are being replaced.  BTW, I'm perfectly happy to tell you what mod I did: I replaced the four NJM (SOIC) chips with LM4562, a great new audio chip from National Semiconductor.  I'm still waiting to hear a difference in the mod.  I *suspect* I'll hear it in quiet and/or "ambient" type recordings, but I have not tested this yet.  Too quick to the soldering iron I guess...

  Richard

[it-goes-to-eleven]

They make a good point: modders should tell what parts they use/replace.  I have no trouble paying a modder to do the work, but I would like to know what chip(s) are being replaced.  BTW, I'm perfectly happy to tell you what mod I did: I replaced the four NJM (SOIC) chips with LM4562, a great new audio chip from National Semiconductor.  I'm still waiting to hear a difference in the mod.  I *suspect* I'll hear it in quiet and/or "ambient" type recordings, but I have not tested this yet.  Too quick to the soldering iron I guess...

For proprietary reasons, I don't feel the modder has any obligation to disclose specifics.  Especially when they have a good reputation and are first to market.   It is far easier to copy than to innovate.  Oade certainly has made the substantial investment in his playback to evaluate the sonic changes.

[page]

For proprietary reasons, I don't feel the modder has any obligation to disclose specifics.  Especially when they have a good reputation and are first to market.   It is far easier to copy than to innovate.  Oade certainly has made the substantial investment in his playback to evaluate the sonic changes.

Graphs and some data is what I'm looking for, maybe some samples recorded that can be compared. I personally see "reputation" as a cop-out for not providing test data that may or may not help your product sell. Look at Madoff and the ponzi scheme, he had a rep for being a great guy, guess that didn't work out so well...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

For proprietary reasons, I don't feel the modder has any obligation to disclose specifics.  Especially when they have a good reputation and are first to market.   It is far easier to copy than to innovate.  Oade certainly has made the substantial investment in his playback to evaluate the sonic changes.

Graphs and some data is what I'm looking for, maybe some samples recorded that can be compared. I personally see "reputation" as a cop-out for not providing test data that may or may not help your product sell. Look at Madoff and the ponzi scheme, he had a rep for being a great guy, guess that didn't work out so well...

Graphs of what?   In a lousy bar, my psp2 sounds better with my MG200's than my v3.  But acoustic bluegrass?  Give me the v3.  What graph is going to reveal that?  You need to hear it.

Dragging Madoff into this, especially as a likely to be convicted criminal and fraud, is absurd.   Why not just use hitler if you're going to make an absurd comparison.

Oade has posted samples in the past. I don't know if he still does.  I've done a lot of livingroom tests but don't bother much anymore because it doesn't match what I hear in the field.   Want to know how well your rig records F-18's?  Record live F-18's.  Live, they make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  A recording of F-18's?  Nah.   Same applies to live music.

[page]

For proprietary reasons, I don't feel the modder has any obligation to disclose specifics.  Especially when they have a good reputation and are first to market.   It is far easier to copy than to innovate.  Oade certainly has made the substantial investment in his playback to evaluate the sonic changes.

Graphs and some data is what I'm looking for, maybe some samples recorded that can be compared. I personally see "reputation" as a cop-out for not providing test data that may or may not help your product sell. Look at Madoff and the ponzi scheme, he had a rep for being a great guy, guess that didn't work out so well...

Graphs of what?   In a lousy bar, my psp2 sounds better with my MG200's than my v3.  But acoustic bluegrass?  Give me the v3.  What graph is going to reveal that?  You need to hear it.

Dragging Madoff into this, especially as a likely to be convicted criminal and fraud, is absurd.   Why not just use hitler if you're going to make an absurd comparison.

Oade has posted samples in the past. I don't know if he still does.  I've done a lot of livingroom tests but don't bother much anymore because it doesn't match what I hear in the field.   Want to know how well your rig records F-18's?  Record live F-18's.  Live, they make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  A recording of F-18's?  Nah.   Same applies to live music.

For purposes of replying, I'm referencing your paragraphs in order of your composition above.

1) Well, follow this logic; if you have a piece of electronics that produces measurable results A (and produces A repeatedly when tested with a designed controlled test case), then you alter that with the intention of now product, wouldn't it be nice to know that it changed? For example if we wanted to know if the noise has decreased in volume, a graph can illustrate whether noise starts to show at -60 or -80. Graphs, data (such as specs, but not limited to), and samples; all three can help tell a story about an experiment, just a matter of choosing the right tool for the right task or analysis. So if we were comparing different types of gear, then your right, generally hearing is about as good as it gets to know the difference, however I'm not referring to that. I'm interested in how the same gear (which has a given "sound" or signature) is different after someone changes components, so I'm not sure that the psp2/v3 comparison fits well *in this* discussion.

2) The intended illustration was that reputation for good behavior does not preclude future (or unknown) behavior in an absolute manner, it only gives a guide or general suggestion which may or may not be correct at all. For example, an ebay seller could have 2000 perfect feedback transactions and a reputation for selling mobile phones that were claimed to be authentic name brand, only to discover that some of them are excellent chinese knock offs by an engineer who bought one. Up until the truth was found, this person was considered a great person, with a great reputation, but that did not prevent them from doing unfavorable deeds unbeknownst to others. Reputation may be based on actions, but the foundation of reputation is rooted in perception, and perceptions are not absolute in their accuracy.

3) He evidently doesn't anymore, and I've never seen any comp samples available. If I've missed them on his site or publicly available, please, I'd like to know for future reference. On another note, I find it interesting about your reaction of live actions vs recorded play back as it differs from my personal experience. If I go home and listen to a recording at a similar volume, I generally experience similar physical and emotional reactions as when I heard it, similar but not exact duplicated. Maybe I'm reading into your remark too much and that slight difference is what you are referencing. However for purposes of discussion, with the above jet theory, it wouldn't make any difference (and thus be pointless for analysis) to do any comparisons as you'd never get a true comp short of for each single channel in gets duplicated into 2 out channels (1 to the unmod and 1 to the modded) as it's not "live" (which I interpret to mean non-recorded and from a single source), any other way.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I don't explain my thoughts fully and for that I apologize for any confusion, but I'm honestly interested as to where there is a fallacy of logic?