Mnyb wrote:
> You can still have an interest in good audio gear.
>
Of course! It is just that sound quality will no longer the sole
determiner of one's preferences in audio.
Audio in its present form seems to suffer from an immature one track
mind. Sound quality is thought of by most as being
You can still have an interest in good audio gear .
I know that almost no product in isolation provides an audible upgrade
speakers are the most obvius exception they still all have a signature
to them, but if the tech is perfected whole the way (preferably from the
recording studio and onwards )
Julf wrote:
> I guess part of the problem is that a lot of audiophiles belong to a
> generation that got into the hobby back in the day of analog (and rather
> imperfect) gear. Unfortunately the same goes for the journalists. And
> far too many people prefer "intuitively correct" truthiness over
docbob wrote:
> Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
> argument?
>
Sure, but by using correct procedures you can obtain reliable, relevant
results from time synched, level matched, DBTs. Fail to apply any of
those controls and all hope of reliable results is t
Mnyb wrote:
> It's funny how many audiophiles thinks the DAC's have some magical
> properties like they where like the pickup on your vinyl player having a
> distinct sonic signature.
I guess part of the problem is that a lot of audiophiles belong to a
generation that got into the hobby back in
And there are other experiments , if you want to be sure a good "fact" (
they are all temporary until someone finds better data/experiments ) is
supported by more than one experiment .
And it's is in the case of hirez audio . I think for example a lot of us
here have tried some blind testing of o
docbob wrote:
> Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
> argument?
>
> And since we want to display the benefit of rational thought with
> reliable evidence, shouldn't we be extra vigilant to ensure that those
> who share our beliefs/knowledge not defend our poin
Julf wrote:
> Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
> contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs.
Good point. But isn't that true for many people on _all_ sides of _any_
argument?
And since we want to display the benefit of rational th
arnyk wrote:
> It is true that this was a flaw in the experiment. They should have
> played the SACDs and DVD-A to ensure that they actually had hi rez
> content . Reporting this flaw would have enhanced the results and
> conclusions part of their article. Interestingly enough I know of no
> re
adamdea wrote:
> This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the
> "favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book.
>
It is true that this was a flaw in the experiment. They should have
played the SACDs and DVD-A to ensure that they actually had hi rez
content . Rep
adamdea wrote:
> This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the
> "favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book. Ok so hirez may
> actually be distinguishable from 16/44 because some of the files which
> were thought to be hirez, but were actually indistinguishable f
Julf wrote:
> Good point. And the point I was hinting at is that the current "hi-res"
> download services are a great big double blind test. How many golden
> ears have actually reported cases of upsampling or "fake hi-res" based
> on actually hearing a difference (as opposed to "Audacity Cowboys
Julf wrote:
> Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
> contrary evidence, and only focus on "data" that supports one's beliefs.
Agreed.
IME that's just one reason why sighted evaluations have this stunning
propensity to generate invalid results. Since the listener
arnyk wrote:
> IME it is more likely that the *patient* lacks the listening skill and
> test environment that would allow him to actually know whether the UUT
> is *working* or not. 2 words: Sighted Evaluatioin.
Sure, but my point was also about the tendency to ignore or deny any
contrary eviden
Julf wrote:
> But the problem with snake oil is that occasionally the patient does get
> well, and that is *clearly* proof that the snake oil works!
IME it is more likely that the *patient* lacks the listening skill and
test environment that would allow him to actually know whether the UUT
is *w
Archimago wrote:
> But the snake oil salesmen are selling things that not only didn't work
> for the "ailment" but the contents even taste just like water, chemical
> analysis shows us it's water, although packaged in a nice medicine
> bottle.
But the problem with snake oil is that occasionally
arnyk wrote:
> ;-)
>
> Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can
> be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test
> comparing it to a file of the same music with reliable provenance.
>
> Difference testing and other tests based on mathemati
Julf wrote:
> Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a
> night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :)
;-)
Good point. The ultimate test of any audio file is whether or not it can
be detected in comparison using a level-matched, time synched ABX test
com
Mnyb wrote:
> These charlatans lives of the confusing of actual recording quality with
> high bitrates are impressive sample formats .
> It the easy thing to provide . To provide actual good soundquality is
> hard and takes some effort .
But... But... Larger numbers are better, right? :)
"To
DJanGo wrote:
> Long Time ago a german Computer Magazin (CT) did a big Test with 100reds
> of People if the hear a difference between mp3 and Wav. There was a
> minor group of People who always gets them right.
> All theses People have a minor issue with their ears (20% on the left or
> right ear
As always picking the low hanging fruit.
As a large minority with some bying power always equal bitrate or sample
freq with actual recording quality .
Then we will have "hifi" streaming services like tidal et al . But it is
as random as ever they still rely on the labels to upload whatever they
garym wrote:
> No, not all downloads are "watermarked" ... but buyer beware of course!
But are these Track with "watermarks" bitperfect ?:p
Long Time ago a german Computer Magazin (CT) did a big Test with 100reds
of People if the hear a difference between mp3 and Wav. There was a
minor group of
Wombat wrote:
> Over the years i was in contact with several persons on the internet and
> exchanged samples of typical faults of mp3 coding. There was only one
> person i know that heard all defects possible. Me for example found some
> sandpaper or chirping noise many people simply missed while
rkrug01 wrote:
>
> > And then i lately realized that Watermark crap.
> > Your 24/96 qobuz purchase may have the Watermark vermin inside while a
> > standard CD hasn't.
> > https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,98.0.html
> >
> >
> But the same applies to all downloads.
>
>
No, not all dow
Julf wrote:
> Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a
> night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :)
Over the years i was in contact with several persons on the internet and
exchanged samples of typical faults of mp3 coding. There was only one
person i k
Archimago wrote:
> As usual, without decent quality control the whole hi-res thing is a
> fail
Really? Why would you need quality control when everyone will hear a
night and day difference between "hi-res" and red book? :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
That's just sad. As usual, without decent quality control the whole
hi-res thing is a fail especially when they let stuff like this happen
with watermarking... Upsampled audio, questionable provenance, dynamic
compressed mastering, now watermarking. All when it's questionable even
if well done hi-
rkrug01 wrote:
>
> But the same applies to all downloads.
>
Like garym already mentioned in a similar named thread it is a gamble.
In the hydrogen link i gave is also the sample of lousy downsampling of
the 44.1 version at qobuz.
I did not buy any download since but several CDs.
Transporter
28 matches
Mail list logo
