pablolie wrote:
isnt that why many DACs allow you to invert polarity, because the source
material may be indistinct about it, and they let you find out if it
makes a difference? I have never heard one, btw.
In the really old days you get that button on some analog preamps for
the same
Fizbin wrote:
I'm one of those 'weirdo's that can hear the difference between WAV and
FLAC on the SBT. I have two units and I have confirmed it on both. I've
had a friend come over a few times and randomly play a WAV file and the
FLAC counterpart. For the first half hour I could tell him
Julf wrote:
That is indeed an interesting result. What I would do is to try to
reproduce the results under even stricter conditions - have your friend
put together a playlist with a random combination of the FLAC and WAV
versions, and preferably try with a file that has been compressed with
Mnyb wrote:
Either it s a high res file then you get the bogus presentation of
bitrate or hi is simply disabling native flac so that he gets pcm(wav)
to the player .
Is PCM/WAV the fallback fromat?
Or some really wierd convert.conf fiddling or soem strange combinationof
file types
pablolie wrote:
as a rule, either format ought to result in bit-perfect PCM out of the
Touch. so just curious about what components and setup are around it.
Indeed and easy enough to check by recording the output on PC, making
sure they're aligned and then doing a bit compare. If they're not
darrenyeats wrote:
Evidence-based reasoning isn't the same as turning out to be right in
the end.
So you're saying we'll be going backwards by deciding that science is
wrong?
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
probedb wrote:
Indeed and easy enough to check by recording the output on PC, making
sure they're aligned and then doing a bit compare. If they're not
identical then something is wrong.
Thats actually not contested , people in this tread claim that the
diffrences are for other reasons the
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. The
fact that FLAC's suddenly sounded normal to me when I switched Native
to Disabled is odd. Particularly when my mind wasn't expecting to be any
different. The funny thing is I've had WAV's set up all wrong the entire
time. I
Fizbin wrote:
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere. The
fact that FLAC's suddenly sounded normal to me when I switched Native
to Disabled is odd. Particularly when my mind wasn't expecting to be any
different. The funny thing is I've had WAV's set up all wrong
pablolie wrote:
i do believe these days one can put together a very, very nice sounding
system with a few basic and quite cost efficient devices.
I fully agree; we are living in good times ...
pablolie wrote:
but i also immensely enjoy the exercise of being a tad irrational here
and
ralphpnj wrote:
What does a unicorn fart smell like and would one be able to tell it
apart of a fairy fart in a double blind test? Smell notwithstanding, by it's
mere force a unicorn fart will
completely lift the veils.
probedb wrote:
So you're saying we'll be going backwards by deciding that science is
wrong?
I'm saying all models are wrong, some models are useful. And models
develop over time as evidence is gathered.
Here's a thought experiment. If it was shown that people could
distinguish distortion of
superbonham wrote:
'High fidelity' music reproduction, i.e. faithful recording, storage,
transmission and play back of audio is purely an egnineering discipline
where science and measurements apply - there is simply no room for
opinions and irrationality here.
This is patently not the
this topic made me go check my own settings in LMS, and has me wondering
about them.
if a SB3 or Duet or Touch support FLACs natively (which it does), then
why the settings for stream format and decoder? why would i want to
decode at all? it seems -for example- the FLAC file format can be
Fizbin wrote:
My guess is there is a problem with the software/hardware somewhere.
I suggest re-read the thread as there have been lots of testing and
analysis work already done on this topic for example see
darrenyeats wrote:
Wait. Everyone accepts current loudspeakers have various audible
compromises.
True.
darrenyeats wrote:
Of course, designing and building speakers is a scientific and
engineering discipline [...]
Correct.
darrenyeats wrote:
[...] but human perception and opinion is
pablolie wrote:
this topic made me go check my own settings in LMS, and has me wondering
about them.
if a SB3 or Duet or Touch support FLACs natively (which it does), then
why the settings for stream format and decoder? why would i want to
decode at all? it seems -for example- the FLAC
darrenyeats wrote:
If it was shown that people could distinguish distortion of certain
types at X db lower than the currently accepted levels, when that
distortion modulates a newly invented sound pattern, then the world of
science would certainly *not* be in uproar.
To show anything about
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm saying all models are wrong, some models are useful. And models
develop over time as evidence is gathered.
Here's a thought experiment. If it was shown that people could
distinguish distortion of certain types at X db lower than the currently
accepted levels, when
Mnyb wrote:
I do believe that you percieve a difference . I dont beleive that there
-is- a diffrence . This is diffrent if you understand me ?
I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a
rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this
particular
Mnyb wrote:
But very much of what audiophiles seriusly suggest is agiainst
fundamental physical theories ,there is simply no reasoanable
mechanism to explain the effect of many things.
Indeed. And here I draw an analogy to, of all things, UFO's. Yes, there
are serious UFO researchers out
Mnyb wrote:
Thats OK with me thats a fairly resonable idea, except as i have come to
understand it the models we have acomodate for any possible pattern or
wave form ,but in princible .
And it would be quite a leap a modern dac can surpase our own abilities
with say 30dB or something
Mnyb wrote:
Thats actually not contested , people in this tread claim that the
diffrences are for other reasons the streams are bit perfect
Fair enough then. We're going into the realms of psychology so I'll duck
out.
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
You seem to have edited your post while I was typing ...
darrenyeats wrote:
What about loudspeakers, venue acoustics. In terms of recording
technology, analogue tape? People's opinions about what sounds better or
worse are very important, but this doesn't diminish the science and
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm saying all models are wrong
Really? Do you want to tell that to every manufacturer of audio
equipment? Every developer who has created or involved in development of
audio codecs? Experts, professors etc around the world that study this
that they're all wrong?
People
probedb wrote:
Really? Do you want to tell that to every manufacturer of audio
equipment? Every developer who has created or involved in development of
audio codecs? Experts, professors etc around the world that study this
that they're all wrong?
People don't seem to be able to
Julf wrote:
I still think it would be fair for us to try to see if there is a
rational explanation for why there might be an actual difference in this
particular case. Fizbin, could you post your convert.conf file
(preferably both versions)?
Aha missed that fizzbin has an edited version ?
SBGK wrote:
and yet the hifi world goes on and people outside of this forum continue
to improve the sound of their systems.
And yet the industry goes on and continues to produce better sound for
lower price, completely outside internet forums or hi-end hifi...
To try to judge the real from
Mnyb wrote:
All models are aproximations wrong in some sense but they are darn
close, close enogh for all practical engineering if you adopt the rigth
modell .
Exactly. They're not wrong, just degrees of imperfect and through
scientific advances they will forever approach perfection.
It's
probedb wrote:
Really? Do you want to tell that to every manufacturer of audio
equipment? Every developer who has created or involved in development of
audio codecs? Experts, professors etc around the world that study this
that they're all wrong?
People don't seem to be able to
superbonham wrote:
They do exclude one another in the sense that they address different
questions. There is no scientific way to address 'human opinion'
[preference, taste, mood], because it's just not a scientific category.
There is simply no scientific way to tell whether some audio
darrenyeats wrote:
It might be the wrong question if we're writing a scientific paper.
But it's the right question for many people in practice.
Yes, agreed; but then the question rather refers to
a) (side) constrains like available budget, practicability of the
solution and the like
b)
I like faithful reproduction, never quite got into the whole tube thing,
and i was glad when i got rid of my turntable. :-)
i also think one can indeed measure many things quite well and that they
provide a reliable indication of the design intent of the engineers,
which for me ideally is quite
You have all the rigths to prefer anything that's not really the
audiophile problem .
There are confusiongood sound is not alway equvavilent to faithfull
reproduction ok are we in agreement you have your preference , you
migth even want tube amps with less than ideal output impedance because
pablolie wrote:
I like faithful reproduction, never quite got into the whole tube thing,
and i was glad when i got rid of my turntable. :-)
i also think one can indeed measure many things quite well and that they
provide a reliable indication of the design intent of the engineers,
which
alfista wrote:
It's been posted here before, but it's still enjoyable reading, 'The
Relativity of Wrong'
(http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)
Very good. Science being very mathematical, his argument is
unsurprisingly maths-based and he quantifies how successive
darrenyeats wrote:
If there were no future revolutions I'd be disappointed though!
But who will be the first ones up against the wall?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will
superbonham wrote:
If we only had a more fact-based discussion within the so-called
'audiophile' segment, progress would be even better than it is already
today, because effort spent on developing improved designs need the
consumer's acceptance (and money) in the end.
But the audiophile
darrenyeats wrote:
Very good. Science being very mathematical, his argument is
unsurprisingly maths-based and he quantifies how successive theories get
less wrong. Also he picked really simple things like the shape of the
earth, and indeed this has been refined over time. Sadly, Relativity
ralphpnj wrote:
What does a unicorn fart smell like and would one be able to tell it
apart of a fairy fart in a double blind test?
I have no idea. But I know what they sound like, so a double blind test
is a breeze. The fairy has DR11 and the unicorn DR18. More oomph, so to
speak.
OK, I'll
Julf wrote:
But the audiophile segment is a tiny fragment of the consumer
category.
You are of course right.
Julf wrote:
Yes, it is a very cash-loaded segment, but it is very irrational and
fickle. Ask any luxury good company.
This is unfortunately also true. Still I think the
superbonham wrote:
IMO they were refinements based on revolutionary but somewhat inevitable
concepts.
Let's agree to disagree on that one.
IIRC Fermat claimed he had a really simple proof, that would be a
cracker if true.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
darrenyeats wrote:
Let's agree to disagree on that one.
I am willing to disagree but I still would be happy about a reason to do
so ;)
darrenyeats wrote:
IIRC Fermat claimed he had a really simple proof, that would be a
cracker if true.
Yes, he purportedly did have a proof and yes, it would
Wow my head is spinning with all these detailed and well reasoned posts.
However everyone fails to address the core issue and the one that really
gets me upset with the world of high end audio. The issue being the use
of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders, which
includes
ralphpnj wrote:
Wow my head is spinning with all these detailed and well reasoned posts.
However everyone fails to address the core issue and the one that really
gets me upset with the world of high end audio. The issue being the use
of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders,
ralphpnj wrote:
... FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) by industry insiders, which
includes manufacturers and the high end audio press, to drum up new
business. What private individuals care to believe is of no interest
since, it has been stated over and over, everyone is entitled to their
This may be very old news to the mastering engineers at this forum .
More about intersample peaks .
The company TC electronics have some of their AES papers freely aviable
. I'm not affiliated with them similar research may be aviable elsewhere
. Please provide me with more reading in the tread
47 matches
Mail list logo
