ralphpnj wrote:
By the way, as far as I can tell the Audiophile section of this forum is
one of the few places where discussions about audio include empirical
measurements, logic, and common sense.
There is always Hydrogen Audio...
SBGK wrote:
the problem is your measurements don't account for the empirical
evidence of changes to sound caused by any number of factors.
All modern science is pretty much based on empirical evidence, but to
qualify as empirical evidence, observations have to satisfy a bunch of
criteria,
Some people wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em in the
buttock. Don't listen to the noise; Listen to the signal. :)
Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297
View this
Soulkeeper wrote:
Some people wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em in the
buttock. Don't listen to the noise; Listen to the signal. :)
Unfortunately audiophoolery seems to involve a fair bit of cargo cult
science.
Soulkeeper wrote:
Some people wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em in the
buttock. Don't listen to the noise; Listen to the signal. :)
And ALWAYS follow the money.
ralphpnj's Profile:
Anyone had a chance to listen to the newest Beatles reissues on vinyl?
I've read a few mutually contradictory reports and was wondering whether
it was worth buying some of those LPs?
heisenberg's Profile:
Hello there,
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing regular 16
Julf wrote:
Claims of major differences from some minuscule improvements in the
reproduction chain after the audio has passed through tens if not
hundreds of opamps, half a mile of cable, and been filtered and
processed through N layers of digital processing are very much like the
claims of
ralphpnj wrote:
My response is to ask you a question: why is it that only in the field
of digital audio are two digitally identical data streams, by which I
mean two data streams that contain the exact same digital data being
transmitted or sourced slightly differently, e.g. wifi versus
heisenberg wrote:
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been comparing
heisenberg wrote:
Hello there,
I've been doing some comparative listening to the same tracks, only
rendered in different digital formats. For example, I was comparing some
Beatles tracks issued as 24 bit/44.1 khz to the same tracks issued as 16
bit/44.1 khz. In addition to that, I've been
heisenberg wrote:
Very good points. I don't think the debate is about the veracity of the
source information (like you've said, in digital world, a copy is 100%
identical to the original). So this copy can be tossed over and bounced
back-and-forth through countless channels till the cows
garym wrote:
A good high bitrate lossy file should be transparent to the listener
(for most music...i.e., not problem samples, etc.). Perhaps the 16 vs
24 files you are comparing are from different masters while the 16 bit
vs 320kbs lossy are from the same master. The 24/44.1 tracks you
garym wrote:
The fallacy of comparing the digital picture files example to issues
with digital music files has been previously discussed at these forums
(been a few years I believe, but a search should find some of the
threads...)
Just because the 'fallacy' has been discussed doesn't mean
heisenberg wrote:
Isn't this the same as saying that any claims that a water filter
system, installed in your kitchen, cannot possibly make any difference
to the cleanliness of the water you're drinking knowing full well that
the same water had travelled through various dirty, rusty pipes?
heisenberg wrote:
The high-rez Beatles tracks (the 24 bit/44.1 khz) were obtained from the
2009 Apple USB dongle (sold in the shape of an apple). So these are, I'm
assuming, legit, no?
The 16 bit/44.1 khz tracks where ripped from the 2009 stereo box set in
the AIFF format. The 320 kbps
garym wrote:
edit: and no one in the current discussion has said that different DACs
(analog chain) can't sound different (and certainly speakers can sound
very different). The discussion is more around whether the bits that
arrive at the front end of the DAC (before the analog conversion)
heisenberg wrote:
Just because the 'fallacy' has been discussed doesn't mean that it is
indeed a fallacy, no?
sorry, I meant discussed and debunked
garym's Profile:
heisenberg wrote:
To expect that the bits upon arriving at the analog stage are somehow
'different' than the bits that left the digital transport is, erm, how
shall I put it, stupid. It is just not possible for that to happen, no
matter what.
What might happen, though, is that those bits
ralphpnj wrote:
No. Changing a power cord would NOT be the equivalent of filtering the
water it would be the equivalent to replacing the piping between the
sink and the water supply pipe in the wall. A filter would be the
equivalent of something like the PS Audio Power Plant.
Agreed
heisenberg wrote:
Sorry for missing your point. I agree with you, it would be absolutely
ludicrous to expect that the original file and its copy could sound
different on the same equipment in the same room.
However, the flip side is not necessarily true. Same CDs do sound
different on
heisenberg wrote:
That's why moving to a higher quality digital transport coupled with a
good DAC will definitely sound better.
or rather *may* sound better.
garym's Profile:
garym wrote:
or rather *may* sound better.
Thanks for correcting me. Yes, absolutely, MAY sound better (I've heard
some sickeningly expensive gear that made digitized music actually sound
worse!)
heisenberg's Profile:
garym wrote:
of course. different DACs, different amps/preamps/speakers/room
treatments
True, but also, everything else staying equal, I've heard improvements
when going from a PC-based configuration to a SBT configuration. Both
systems pumping same bits into the same DAC, via same
heisenberg wrote:
Thanks for correcting me. Yes, absolutely, MAY sound better (I've heard
some sickeningly expensive gear that made digitized music actually sound
worse!)
Yes, as mnyb often points out in his posts here, there are cheap chinese
wallmart CD players that can sound better than
garym wrote:
Yes, as mnyb often points out in his posts here, there are cheap chinese
wallmart CD players that can sound better than some badly designed
high-end gear. NOS DACs anyone?
Just the other weekend my wife and I strolled into a newly open
neighbourhood high end audio store and
heisenberg wrote:
True, but also, everything else staying equal, I've heard improvements
when going from a PC-based configuration to a SBT configuration. Both
systems pumping same bits into the same DAC, via same cables, and yet
SBT bettered the PC. Go figure...
Archimago has been doing
garym wrote:
Sorry, you're completely wrong here. But I'm guessing you registered
here just to troll a bit. Enjoy.
Well, why don't you correct me then? Slapping a label on someone just
because they may have exhibited some misunderstanding isn't helping the
case, is it?
garym wrote:
Archimago has been doing some interesting tests on these sorts of
things. See his blog
http://archimago.blogspot.com/
and this thread with lots of interesting measurements (I think all are
in the blog above as well):
heisenberg wrote:
Well, why don't you correct me then? Slapping a label on someone just
because they may have exhibited some misunderstanding isn't helping the
case, is it?
read a lot more of this forum postings on these sorts of issues. And
read a bit over a hydrogenaudio.org. And perhaps
Afaik there are different masters ,meaningntheynare produced to sound
different .
The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
that 16 bit file .
Ime , in other cases lets say an SACD or DVDA release
Mnyb wrote:
Afaik there are different masters ,meaning they are produced to sound
different .
The way to compare these things is as Garym say to make you own 16bit
files from the 24bit files and also make your own 320k mp3 files from
that 16 bit file .
Ime , in other cases lets say an
Or SoX , or r8brain .
Sox is commandline and has a plethora of filter settings , can take some
reading to find proper settings some of the recommended defaults are
good .
Off topic:
SOX is often used in a sub genre in audiophoolism , to up convert on
your computer before sending it to the DAC .
Lots of good discussion here already.
2009 Beatles USB hi-res 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3 vs. lossless test from
Archimago wrote:
Lots of good discussion here already.
2009 Beatles USB hi-res 24/44 was ~0.35dB or so louder in many tracks
compared to the equivalent 16/44 CD release.
High quality MP3 sounds very close if not identical to lossless 16/44...
If you missed it, there was the blind MP3
Mnyb wrote:
There are however excellent reasons to use lossles files anyway .
Yes. Completely agree.
Let me be clear. Although I do not believe there is significant
perceivable difference between good MP3 and lossless (for the majority
of listeners), I'm an advocate of archiving in FLAC and
36 matches
Mail list logo
