| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I suspect that it can be done but I currently lack the tools to actually do it. I don't see it as being relevant to the issue at hand, at this time.
The sagging HF response seems to me to be far more relevant. After all it is potentially audible.
BTW, I now see that the transient that I saw at the beginning of the file, and the 13 millisecond discrepancy, could easily be an error in how CEP converted the header as being audio data. CEP did say that it was estimating its reults when I initially opened the file.
There *is* approximately 13 milliseconds of "transient" and zeroes in the files as CEP initially converted them. So John's explanation is highly believable.
No less relevant than the anti-digital people's obsession with jitter which is even more inaudible.
And that was the entire point of my aside - to show that evil jitter is far less damaging than warm and happy sounding wow on an LP. Sorry if that pisses you off mang!
So did we ever determine for certain if demagnetizing plastic is inaudible snake oil or not?
--Ethan
Agreed!
You theory of play to play time interval influencing sound is a longstanding one in the vinyl world. I'd love to see more comparative data some time!
(Not that that's your problem, just a general thing I'd be interested in seeing.)
I hope the demag process isn't actually harming the LP!
Bonus: The fact that Ethan thought the differences were inaudible really calls in to question his aural acumen.
Good thing he has measurements to go by to tell him what he's hearing, or not!
I didn't trim the files here, but I aligned the start times exactly in SONAR, then looked at where the last "burst" of audio in the file starts. That's how I determined that the files are 1/4 second different in length.
--Ethan
Yes, let's focus on that time difference.
Hey, Ethan, did you catch the part about 3dB and more in the HF range?
Arny batted .666 at hearing those inaudible differences.
No, there really is no difference like Arny described in the spectra between the two files I have here. I just looked again, and zoomed in closely on a short section. There are tiny differences, but nothing like a 3 dB roll-off at 10 KHz. They also sound the same.
FFT stats for Arny's benefit
============================
FFT size: 32,768
FFT Overlap: 99%
FFT Window: Hamming
Buddha, do you have the files? If not, email me and I'll send you some short snippets without saying which is which. Then you tell me which is the version after demagging. If you can't do that, then maybe you should STFU about what others can or cannot hear. Dude, please don't make me put you on ignore!
--Ethan
Ethan, if you can't hear the heat, stay out of the sonic kitchen.
Now, which objectivist are we to believe? Arny says it's there, you say it's not. Someone is wrong.
I'm also worried that this "beneficial" effect of the demag may have done harm to the LP. You know that hiss the Gizmodo guy could hear at MF's? Maybe the demag takes out HF info and makes it more pleasurable, but to the detriment of the measured result!
If so, which is better, an untreated LP with intact HF info, or one that has had the HF content attenuated?
Arny's data is calling all sides of the debate into question, no?
If the Furutech harms the LP but makes it sound 'better,' what does that mean?
Ethan, maybe the files I downloaded aren't the same as the files you are basing your tests on. I did all this work in the past few days, while you've had your files for a somewhat longer time, right?
I'm glad you and Ethan reported what you did or did not hear. Where are the rest of the folks who listened? We are now on pg. 26 and we've not progessed beyond where we were when you made your report, what, ten pages ago?
This back and forth about the length of the files and how you measured them isn't interesting after it's gone on for twenty pages. I can't believe you've resorted to more of it after my last post.
If the files aren't the same, then what is there to discuss for another twenty pages?
Ethan, how do you decide when you'll take me off "ignore"?
I'm glad you asked that Jan....
INSTALLATION
Well, I tried to get Ethan to set up a blind test for me by posting the files renamed and compressed, to help convince the skeptics who would predictably argue "expectation bias". But, champion of blind tests he, Ethan nevertheless refused to do so. So I decided to download these huge files today, and without the challenge of a quasi-DBT, see if I could simply hear what the fuss is about. (Or if I would have the same experience as Ethan, and hear no difference worth mentioning). Since I have a PC, I expected a lot of problems getting this up and running, from all I'd been reading. (While it was downloading, I was doing research on what could play sowt AIFF format under Windows). But surprisingly, I was listening to the files within 2 minutes of downloading them. All I did was click on "Open File" once it downloaded, and that brought up QuickPlayer, which played them perfectly. Then I found I could even play them in my regular player, VLC. So really, what's all the fuss about playing these?! No conversions necessary, no CD-R burns necessary, no sending CD's thru the post necessary... These files were listened to on my PC as God (in this case M. Fremer) would have intended. (And if you're serious about listening to these files, that's how I suggest they be heard. I later tried to do a lame, self-administered attempt at a "blind" version of my test, by listening to 3 copies of the standard non-processed LP and 1 copy of the demagged LP, renaming all the files to random numbers. But as per usual, just making copies of the AIFF files produced results that didn't sound as good or same as the originals. So I'd hate to see what the WAV conversions and subsequent burns to CD-R sound like in comparison).
TEST
Step Right Up #1
I played Step Right Up #1 first. I was glad to hear it was a Tom Waits song (that I'd not heard before). Waits is always interesting, and I'll occasionally use a song like "Soldier's Things" as a test track for doing my own tests.
The first thing I noticed was that the sound was excellent, overall, on my computer speaker system. There are a lot of things happening in this song, here, there and everywhere. The lyrics were typically Tom Waits humour. The sound: a nice, wide soundstage, with plenty of depth to spare. Crisp, taut bass throughout, and sharp imaging. However, I also felt the midrange was a bit hard and cold. I would have expected more warmth, especially from an LP. I heard no ticks and pops, so I could easily be fooled into thinking this was a CD. I had no trouble reacting to the rhythm of the track.
Step Right Up #2
Step Right Up #2 was very different. I heard this difference within the first 3 seconds (but it was 7 seconds when I looked at the player to see how long it took me to hear the differences). It confirms something I have always suspected: Ethan can't hear worth a damn. (note to Ethan Winer: the specific part where I heard differences is between 0:00:00 and 5:40:00).
A difference like this is ascertained more in observing the reaction, than in analyzing the sound. For in fact, that was the primary difference: I no longer found myself analyzing the sound. Yes, I noticed the bass had changed but was it tighter or less so? It no longer mattered. I couldn't say how the soundstage might have changed, or any of those other superficial details. Those faculties of analysis were no longer available, because the force of the musical connection was too powerful and distracting. I could sense it in my head and body, in the ways it now reacted to SRU2. I did manage to analyze things just enough to recognize that my complaint about the cold, hard midrange was no longer an issue. Everything was smooth, warm and natural, and very much more musical. I do recall hearing a bit of a thump at the beginning of SRU2, which I do not recall hearing on SRU1. This finally gave it away that I was listening to an LP demo. Further comparisons reveal some of those superficial differences in SRU2, not observed on the first play. SRU2 has subjectively less bass; but because bass is less exaggerated, and better controlled. Finger snaps are a bit more lost in the mix on SRU1, and better defined on SRU2. Overall, there's less hash on SRU2 and things are resolved better. This makes SRU2 sound less (or SRU1 sound more) like a machine playing music. And it turns out there is a thump on SRU1, but its less prominent than the one on SRU2.
CONCLUSIONS:
Now I can better answer the question Q. Is this (Furutech Demagnetizer) worth $2,000? A. A big YES, this machine is easily worth $2,000 dollars. If you care about music and how it's presented. Because if it can do what it did on SRU#2 to all discs, then it can do what most (costlier) audio component upgrades fail to do: significantly increasing that elusive quality of musicality. I would be interested to know what happens if a disc is demagnetized twice or three times. It might be even better.
The Objectivist Addendum: Although it's really a sad thing at its heart, I have to kind of laugh at seeing the so-called "objectivist" knob-twiddlers on here, endlessly wasting their time analyzing to death whether -3db of this or .007% of that would, should or could make a difference between these two files. The reason it's funny is because
a) These are two music files and they never even talk about the sound of them! and
b) They're two LP replays of the same track!!
No two LP replays of the same track can promise to be exactly the same. The stylus doesn't ride the groove with laser precision, and probably won't fall on the lead-in the very same way. The SRU2 play may exhibit some surface noise which SRU1 doesn't. But chattering about whether these files are adequate for blind testing purposes is being foolish enough to not see the forest for the trees. If you can't hear, or better still feel the differences between these two tracks under casual listening, a blind test won't likely convince you of anything, except what you are probably already convinced of before taking it. Or IOW, if the differences aren't meaningful to you in subjective terms, it doesn't matter what they are. But even if you do not hear the differences between these files, it would be foolish to assume anything about the Furutech Demag from them. It is not intended to be a substitute for demoing the actual device at a local dealer. I don't think these files are suitable for use in blind tests either. (Not that digital source files are any more consistent when replayed under test conditions).
Thankyew, Frog.
I was one of the first to report what I heard. I heard little to no difference. I wasn't sure there was a difference and even if there was, it was so small as to be inconsequential.
After having read Frog's pronouncement, I realized that it's completely pointless to try and prevent people from drinking the cool-aid. There is a reason why there's a sucker born every day: People want to be suckered, they want to believe, they want to feel that there's a magic gadget that's going to make them special.
It's like trying to convince people that there is no god or santa clause. If they want to give their money to charlatans, let 'em. They not only deserve being taken for a ride, they WANT to be taken for a ride. So... have a good trip, folks.
You don't mean to suggest that people are free to think and believe what they want and spend their money on what they want!?! You mean we are free to listen, measure (like Arny) and decide for ourselves? We all don't have to blindly follow someone else who says they know better?
This, AlexO, is an outrage! I'm wowed and fluttered. How can we put an end to this reign of personal preferential spending in a hobby tyranny?
Nice response. Well, understand that it was to appease suckers like you, that I requested several times that Ethan or someone else (could have been you Alex, I would have accepted them from you) upload copies of the files renamed, so that I could take this test blind, and avoid the predictable argument of some deaf reductionist idiot who couldn't hear a trumpet blaring in his ear, trying to tell me that I did not hear what I clearly heard between the two files (even when I made copies and renamed the filenames to random numbers, to confuse me from knowing which was which). Or someone who'd go even further and tell me that I am only hearing what I'm hearing because I "WANT to be taken for a ride and give my money to charlatans"... when I did NOT buy the Furutech Demag device, and have no plans, immediate or future, of ever doing so.
But it may surprise you to learn that I agree with you O Alex... people do want to be "suckered". They want to believe. They want to drink the "cool-aid" (reg. tm. by AlexO), as you put it. As the slogan for "cool-aid" goes, "It helps you be COOL!"
After reinspecting the files, and reconverting from AIFF to WAV via sox, I agree with Ethan's analysis regarding frequency response. There is a very slight hump (perhaps 0.1-0.2db?) in the original sample around 20khz along with a slight drop after that. Perhaps more meaningful is that there is a similarly slight increase in some sub-bass harmonics in the original - this is something I would kind of expect if demagnetization was making a numerically observable improvement.
I'd also like to confirm Arny's analysis of a 0.07% speed difference (I got 0.06%). Apparantly I missed a zero in my earlier 0.6% estimate and I apologize to Michael for that.
As far as audible differences, I'm also with Ethan - I can't hear a difference in an ABX test in my listening environment (Etymotics headphones, foobar2000 with a +5db bass boost via parametric eq and the Bauer crossfeed dsp). However I only tried this once a week or two ago, and I can admit that expectation bias is potentially a factor here.
So I'm not going to say that there is no difference, but I am willing to challenge the original notion that this is a night-and-day difference.
How would you explain the difference in yours, Ethan's and Arny's measured results?
Arny
Ethan
yours
This begs the question of why so many people pretend to be such great audio experts that they can in their own minds effectively criticize DBTs all day long, but they can't put together their own ABX test of two files like the ones that Fremer posted.
My working hypothesis is that they may not be the identical same files. I downloaded mine, but if memory serves Ethan got his in the mail.
And Axon? He downloaded the same files that you did.
JA has posted on this thread about the CD he sent to Ethan and explained the reason for timing difference to which you responded:
I use some homemade code to do frequency response comparisons that I daresay is more accurate than what is available in commercial products. Also, the fact that the track speeds really do line up so relatively well helps avoid these sorts of HF comparisons from turning into utter hash. I was pretty surprised to see such a nice curve show up on high frequencies - otherwise I would be saying the exact same thing as Ethan (no difference).
The specifics of what I did: Block files into (IIRC) 10ms chunks, 75% overlap; compute power spectrum, Hamming window; average spectra of blocks together; divide one averaged spectrum over another.
Here's a link to the graphics associated with my analysis of the furutech files:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=71737
Thanks Axon.
So your measured results are more accurate than Arny's (in other words his results are not accurate) and even though Ethan had issues with the timing difference between his files, you didn't. And your results are nearly the same as Ethan's.
I have to say, with all due respect, that this particular test doesn't give me great confidence in the outcome of the measured results.
Thanks for posting these Arny.
The measured results are fine, its the interpretation of them that is subjective and therefore possibly in error.
Since I had another chance to look at them to post them, I did so. I decided that I may have misinterpreted the difference between the two channels as a difference between the two samples.
I redid the analyis of just the left channel of both samples and found that both plots were just about right on top of each other.
Therefore, there *was* indeed an error in interpretaion on my part, and I now concur with Axon's analysis that the two samples are in fact so similar as to be indistinguishable.
Wow, measurements lie?
Now there are even more questions. If Arny could tell the samples apart to a p value of 0.05, yet they are objectively "so similar as to be indistinguishable," now what?
Arny did say he could identify the files by listening to them, didn't he? Apologies if I read that wrong.
Audbibly distinguishable yet now objectively indistinguishable?
Thanks for the explanation and clarification Arny. Errors of interpretation appear to cause many of 'our' problems.
What I said was that I got down to better than the P=0.05 level but not as good as the P=0.01 level. The latter is my comfort zone. So, I wasn't really comfortable with my results, but they were what they were.
But not clearly enough so that I'm in my comfort zone.
I did some more ABX tests yesterday before I discovered my error. Just like the day before, I thought I was hearing something. They were adding up in the direction of random guessing. If I added those 10 or so trials to the previous 30, P > 0.05.
They are clearly distinguishable in some objective ways, but with the limited objective analysis tools available to us at this time, it is hard to conclusively say what the tiny variations mean in terms of sonics, except not so much.
If the LP that was the centerpiece of this study were a proper test record, then objective analysis would be easier and more could be said. Both the Ultimate Analogue Test LP, and Hi-Fi News (HFN002) LP are known quantities for us.
Sounds like they are becoming less audibly different over time.
You were much more positive in your initial description of your listening experience.
I can understand the back pedalling now that we know they measure so similarly. Hearing the difference would now be a bad thing.
Original audible difference:
Revised audbility:
Man, it's amazing how things change like that!
Measurements drift, results drift, p values drift...but subjectivists aren't dependable listeners and we should trust objectivists?
Try anyway.
I bet you can do better than that. It's music not test signals.
If you are being serious, then that would be unfair of you because yes, there was new objective evidence today, but earlier there was new subjective evidence which you have not mentioned.
Both the objective and subjective evidence from the past two days should be reflected in comments made today, no?
Pesky music containing records. Dammit.
Some nights I sit listening to my Shure Test Record or my Ultimate Analogue Test LP and think, "Man, good thing this is a proper record. Lucky there's no music around to screw up my listening."
Now I think I know why objectivists don't like vinyl. There's only four or five proper LP's to listen to.
Geez, you just answered your own question. Brilliant as ever, Arny!
LOL!!
This is what I can tell from reading opinions from the so-called "objectivist" crew in this thread so far: Every "objectivist" who went to the trouble to measure the two files, has seen some kind of difference between them. But overall, they can't hear any difference. Yet, they conclude that means demagnetization causes no difference. I think it shows something quite different, and something that's been proven time and time again across forums like these: that either self-described "objectivists" typically have very lousy critical listening skills, and/or they are influenced by their own expectation bias (as one of them admitted in this thread, despite them using ABX to avoid that, which doesn't say much for the usefulness of ABX!), and/or the double blind test methodologies they are using (ie. ABX) mask the differences that need to be perceived, in order to pursue their futile effort to avoid every natural variable in subjective listening.
Of course, they generally won't admit to any of these failings, since there's an ideological battle going on. So that leaves us back to square one, as always. Which is: each to his belief system. Or "whatever floats your canoe", as AK says.
To those who would criticize me over the results of my subjective test, because it is not aligned with the results of their subjecjtive test, or their supposedly "objective" test, my final reasoning is this: If I can consistently hear significant and meaningful differences using the Furutech Demag unit (the key word here is "consistent"), and it helps me hear more of the music every time I use the device, why should I care what some pro-audio guy on the internet "claims" to have measured with his waveform software? Especially one who has already shown (or even admitted) a multitude of biases against this product (because he can't understand how it could work), and all other related audio products which are beyond his understanding. Or one who's own analysis changes by the day, or the level of the tides.
The level of the tides will cause your canoe to shift.
You know, I was wondering about that because I noticed the obvious difference in HF content between the left and right channels.
This points up another severe flaw with vinyl. Now, it could be that the music was actually mixed that way, but it seems more likely to be LP mistracking or some other LP-related flaw.
--Ethan
LOL, okay Froggy, now I know you're full of crap so I'm calling your bluff. For space considerations I extracted the same short (10 seconds) section from both files and put them on my web site:
Frog A
Frog B
Frog C
Frog D
Your challenge is to tell me from which source - Step Right Up 1 or Step Right Up 2 - each of these excerpts came from. Note there are four excerpts and you have to identify all four correctly or face extreme embarrassment. With only two excerpts you'd have a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly and that just wouldn't be right.
Your reputation is on the line pal, and I'm just dying to hear your guesses! And I do mean guesses.
I'll sit back now and wait for you to prove the superiority of your ears and hi-fi expertise.
--Ethan
I'll take "A" no, wait, I'll take "C" ... no, wait, I'll take "B" and "D" .... Aw, shit, it's easier if you're and objectivist and you say you can't hear anything, then you're never supposed to be wrong.
Over my $3 computer headphones I'll take "B" as demagnetized. "A" and "D" are not demagnetized. Not sure about "C", might have to hear it on a better system, but I'd say "not demagnetized".
How do we know we can trust you to tell the truth?
Remarkable that you can listen ... sorry, look at a digital music file and say the analog source is to blame. You've ruled out any digital recording flaws, eh?
It isn't about the results you obtain, it is all about the questionable way that you obtain those results.
We've tested what you do, and we've conclusively determined that when people can't base their perceptions on sight, but rather only sound, the results are often vastly different.
You look at stuff and then you tell us what you perceive based on what you see, as if you were basing it on what you hear.
Please notice that you won't hurt yourself if you stick your finger into your ear, but you will hurt yourself if try to stick your finger into your eye. ;-)
Eye is not ear, and ear is not eye, is it?
Hearing is not seeing and seeing is not hearing, is it?
If you were as badly confused about tasting as you seem to be confused about hearing, you'd be sticking food in your eye to see if it is good to eat.
That's what your alleged listening tests look like to those of us who know better than to stick food into our eyes to taste it, or judge audio gear by looking at it.
Jan, when will you start taking this seriously enough for us to notice your shift towards making sense?
So, in other words, you've conclusively determined that when people can't base their perceptions on sight, but rather sound, the results are sometimes the same?
When the audible differences are really large, the results of sighted evaluations and bias-controlled evaluations may converge.
When the audible differences are subtle, the results of sighted evaluations and bias-controlled evaluations are generally quite different.
You first. That is gobbledegook.
Say, when are you going to describe the music you heard? Take Ethan's test and tell us what you hear. That way there's no more of the BS about how anything measured. Just listen and tell us what you hear. Supposedly at least one of them is the demagnetized file. Go ahead, let yourself be embarrassed along with me and Frog. What have you got to loose?
The way I understand this is, if you can't tell which one is the demag file - and Ethan has actually placed the demag file in here, then when you can't hear it, it conclusively proves you can't hear.
What do you have to loose? Ethan's covered his butt by doing the placing, so now it's up to you.
Go ahead, listen to some music.
Er no Ethan, nice try, but that boat has sailed. Or that canoe has floated, if you prefer.
I gave you no less than three chances over several days to 'anonymize' those files for me, allowing me to test them blind, and when you weren't simply ignoring me, you were giving me stupid excuses as to why what I was asking for was not possible or practical. (Remember this? "Files... what files? I don't know what you're talking about. I only have the CD. There are 'files' on a CD? Really?? Well, I don't know what you want me to do. It's not possible to transfer them to a website. It is?? Weally?? Well, it's too large to transfer them on my site, sorry. What? You already offered me free webspace to send them to, in your last request? Oh. I see. Then I guess I'll have to terminate this conversation...").
So I had no choice but to do the test on my own, sighted, and let the slings and arrows of pseudo-objectivists fall upon me, for my purportedly "unscientific" contribution to this debate. Of course, only now that my results don't concur with yours, you want me to participate in this "vengeance test" you concocted, specially for me! It's so quaint that you think I would buy whatever bridge you have to sell, that I've already written your name on the cheque as soon as you've made the offer. Even if those are all not copies from the same file, you think I trust you to say which one is which at the end of it? 'Specially after you write sweet things to me like:
"okay Froggy, now I know you're full of crap so I'm calling your bluff."
"Note there are four excerpts and you have to identify all four correctly or face extreme embarrassment."
and how can we forget the classic:
"Your reputation is on the line pal".
Ok, EW, how about THIS suggestion: get off your duff and download FreshClip's files already, and stop making excuses that they're impossible to download. I did so within minutes, and with my help, Jan was able to download them as well, without his computer blowing up, miraculously. Had you kept at it instead of making your usual excuses, you'd have gotten and tested them by now. His files are a similar test, except they deal with CD demagnetization, so it's a perfectly legit alternative. Even more so, because you can't claim there are inherent differences between plays, as there might be with LP. Following that, FC will divulge which of the four is the demagged file, and which are not. THEN we'll see which of us got this right, and which of us didn't. Or who's full of "crap" and who is not at all so full of that crap stuff.
Say, can't wait to see what excuse you'll come up with for not accepting (and going through with) this challenge!
BTW, I did listen to your WAV snippets all the same, and just as I had said I suspected, they don't sound anywhere near as good as my original AIFF's (and I was only comparing them to the non-demagnetized version). I'm sorry to say that you and whoever else thinks the AIFF's and the WAV conversions/copies made from them are all exactly the same files and is treating them as such, is deluding themselves.
I was already first. Jan, you're just trying to act tough while you run and hide from my questions.
The above is why so many high end ideologists fear DBTs with such loathing. They've been using their eyes for a crutch so long that their ears have lost too much of their natural sensitivity to hear small differences well.
Over use of the eyes as a crutch causes the fear that keeps them from doing DBTs on their own, which is now so easy that a child can do it.
Now that's a good idea. There's your challenge, Ethan, have at it.
Been meaning to post the 4 Reasons Why people Can't Hear Tweaks or Claim Their Effects are Subtle. So, without further ado, here they are. Enjoy.
The following is from a letter by George Tice to Stereophile responding to a disgruntled recipient of Mr. Tice's Clock. Feel free to substitute for "TPT Clock" a demagnetizer, green pen, red pen, chip, ion blaster, power cord, Shakti stone, quartz crystals or whatever else suits your fancy.
"There are four reasons why someone could not get the full potential from a TPT Clock. They are: 1) You did not follow the directions. 2) There are one or more choke points in your system (a choke point is a component which is significantly below the quality of the rest of the system). 3) Your audio system is not up to the standards by which anything can be accurately judged. 4) Your hearing ability is not as refined as that of other music lovers and audiophiles."
For those interested, the complete exchange can be found on-line in 1991 Stereophile at:
George Tice Responds
~ Cheerio
Do these files have a URL?
Well, there you have it, why I won't get serious about this thread.
I'm not trying to "act tough" and I'm certainly not hiding from your questions - which questions by the way? Like I said, I haven't been paying attention to this BS.
But I'm right here, ask away. I may not answer simply because I don't really care but you can ask.
So, if "The above is why so many high end ideologists fear DBTs with such loathing" what does it have to do with this thread? Are Ethan's files coded someway to make them a sighted test? Frog answered which files sounded more like real music, so what's the deal with this sighted DBT BS now? It's the objectivists who seem to not be answering the question about the files - so are they the ones running?
I don't think Buddha has weighed in one this either. Where's Buddha?
I took the test with Ethan's files and all I could see was my computer screen. So where's the sighted test you're running on about? I suppose a ten minute lag between the files being posted and my response is an indication of fear?
There ya'go! When you start making sense, I'll take this seriously.
Now, take Ethan's test. There's nothing to fear, it's an ABX DBT, your favorite. It's a snap to pass according to you.
If you won't take the test, why not? This isn't the same one you took before, so it's more fun and games on the Stereophile forum!. We dont have much of that here so go ahead and take the test.
Are you going to run and hide from the challenge? Are you afraid?
C'mon, tell us what you hear in the music. Which file is which? It's OK with Ethan if you guess.
Pages