Jump to content
IGNORED

If it's measurable, is it audible?


If you can measure it, is it audible?  

40 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Why don't I do further investigations?

 

Firstly, I don't hear the effect.

 

I am trying to read this thread, however you have me really confused, if someone offered proof you would accept how would it help you hear an effect you cannot hear?

 

If I don't hear a difference I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me, I'm curious how it could change it for you?

 

Once you clear up that contradiction I'll go back to not posting, I just want to be able to understand what I read.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
I am trying to read this thread, however you have me really confused, if someone offered proof you would accept how would it help you hear an effect you cannot hear?

 

If I don't hear a difference I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me, I'm curious how could it change it for you?

 

Once you clear up the contradiction I'll go back to not posting, I just want to be able to understand what I read.

 

Wouldn't change anything for me, as I don't hear it. Which is also why I am not the person with any reason to investigate it.

 

What it would change is the effect is real and perceivable by some people. As it stands now, the hypothesis offered can't be true. The effect could still be real, the reason currently given cannot. Other than that just curiosity. Seems plenty good enough.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Wouldn't change anything for me, as I don't hear it. Which is also why I am not the person with any reason to investigate it.

 

What it would change is the effect is real and perceivable by some people. As it stands now, the hypothesis offered can't be true. The effect could still be real, the reason currently given cannot. Other than that just curiosity. Seems plenty good enough.

 

So in that case, why do you care what other people do or do not hear? How do you know the hypothesis offered can't be true? You said the test sample of six was too low, however why would that matter at all if you still wouldn't hear a difference if the test sample was 6,000? If you don't hear a difference, you don't hear a difference.

 

So my question is why even post about it at all? Posting about something one doesn't care about or that one doesn't hear the effect of makes no sense at all to me.

 

So even with proof that you would accept you confirmed you would still not hear the effect. Why try to take that audio improvement away from other people who find the improvement important? I can't understand that, I say let people enjoy what they enjoy while I enjoy what I enjoy. What is wrong with that?

 

As I said if I don't hear a difference, I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference, I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me. Thus no test anywhere on Planet Earth of a difference I cannot not hear would have any effect on my listening pleasure or cause me to hear something I cannot hear.

 

So why are you interested in something you clearly have no interest? I'm even more confused after your response.

 

You have not cleared up your contradiction but made it worse.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
So in that case, why do you care what other people do or do not hear? How do you know the hypothesis offered can't be true? You said the test sample of six was too low, however why would that matter at all if you still wouldn't hear a difference if the test sample was 6,000? If you don't hear a difference, you don't hear a difference.

 

I do not know if the effect is true (though I am skeptical). I do know the hypothesis that Alex has for what he says he hears is impossible. If you understand how digital audio files are formatted, it is clear. If not, then take my word for it or learn something about them.

 

As to why it matters, it is only because multiple times most days Alex brings it up to muddy the waters or derail virtually any thread I post in whether it fits on topic or not. Over and over. You'll have to ask Alex why he does that.

 

So my question is why even post about it at all? Posting about something one doesn't care about or that one doesn't hear the effect of makes no sense at all to me.

 

See the above statement, I am not the one who keeps shoe-horning the idea in thread after thread.

 

So even with proof that you would accept you confirmed you would still not hear the effect. Why try to take that audio improvement away from other people who find the improvement important? I can't understand that, I say let people enjoy what they enjoy while I enjoy what I enjoy. What is wrong with that?

 

I don't know what you are referring to. No where have I tried to take an improvement away from people. You are mistaking your clearly misinformed idea of me with what my thoughts really are.

 

So why are you interested in something you clearly have no interest? I'm even more confused after your response.

 

Again, I am not interested in Alex's supposed effect. He appears fixated on making me interested. I am not interested, I wish he would drop it.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Esldude Wow!!

 

I will repeat my original question, if you are not interested in Alex's results which he clearly believes makes a difference to him and the others who have tried it, why do you keep responding to his posts?

 

The reason I said "Why try to take that audio improvement away from other people who find the improvement important?" is because of your continual demands for more stringent testing of something you claim to have no interest in. You aren't seriously skeptical enough to have a scientific reason to do research to meet your own requirements, so why continually question people who are enjoying said difference. As it stands to an outsider it looks like your are bullying Alex for no reason whatsoever.

 

As far as unexplainable hypothesis go, did you see the test reports here at CA comparing iTunes, Pure Music and the Teac HR players? They all were bit perfect and measured the same yet they all sound different, and Pure Music sounds the best IMHO.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
You'll have to ask Alex why he does that.

 

Simple. You continue to refuse to accept what the vast majority of members are telling you in so many different threads, even with those lovely coloured lines in some polls. I have offered to back off, but you refuse to meet me half way.

I am not about to sit back and let you take C.A. down the Hydrogen Audio path.

Even the wording of your signature is hostile to those who post things that you don't agree with, before you even post your reply. In a more moderated forum it would not be acceptable. It is highly inflammatory.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Simple. You continue to refuse to accept what the vast majority of members are telling you in so many different threads, even with those lovely coloured lines in some polls. I have offered to back off, but you refuse to meet me half way.

I am not about to sit back and let you take C.A. down the Hydrogen Audio path.

Even the wording of your signature is hostile to those who post things that you don't agree with, before you even post your reply. In a more moderated forum it would not be acceptable. It is highly inflammatory.

 

Pretty funny Alex. The last three polls I voted on my response was also the same as the first or second most popular. Maybe there's more agreement with me than you are comfortable with.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Esldude Wow!!

 

I will repeat my original question, if you are not interested in Alex's results which he clearly believes makes a difference to him and the others who have tried it, why do you keep responding to his posts?

 

The reason I said "Why try to take that audio improvement away from other people who find the improvement important?" is because of your continual demands for more stringent testing of something you claim to have no interest in. You aren't seriously skeptical enough to have a scientific reason to do research to meet your own requirements, so why continually question people who are enjoying said difference. As it stands to an outsider it looks like your are bullying Alex for no reason whatsoever.

 

As far as unexplainable hypothesis go, did you see the test reports here at CA comparing iTunes, Pure Music and the Teac HR players? They all were bit perfect and measured the same yet they all sound different, and Pure Music sounds the best IMHO.

 

Teresa,

 

If I may chip in here...

 

First of all, you need to realize that the "audible differences between bit-identical files in an otherwise equal playback situation" as suggested by Alex and a number of other people (such as Dr. Zeilig, the author of the TAS articles) is not "just another difference". It is way, way, way past claims of audible differences between different interconnects, loudspeaker-cables, power-cords or whatever else you can think of.

 

Maybe the root of the problem is that this claim, just like any other, can never be contradicted. In other words, subjective experiences, whatever their real cause is (even expectation bias), are always true. It can only be confirmed, but never proven to be incorrect.

 

Perhaps it is not always easy for people to see how extreme this claim is, but believe me, it is! To me (and this is not to be mean, funny or whatever, just to express how strongly I feel about the subject), but I would find it easier to believe that people who can perceive these differences all have suffered alien abductions than these differences to exist.

 

So, just like Dennis, I would like to see proof that goes far beyond what Alex is providing before I accept his theory...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment
I do not know if the effect is true (though I am skeptical). I do know the hypothesis that Alex has for what he says he hears is impossible. If you understand how digital audio files are formatted, it is clear. If not, then take my word for it or learn something about them.

 

As to why it matters, it is only because multiple times most days Alex brings it up to muddy the waters or derail virtually any thread I post in whether it fits on topic or not. Over and over. You'll have to ask Alex why he does that.

 

(*sigh*)

 

You are all three correct, at least in one or more respects.

 

Dennis- you are adamant about what can and what can not be true. Only recently have you clarified your stance to say that the effect might be real, but you totally disagree as to the theory presented (i.e. Power Supply Quality) for why the effect happens or is possible at all. For what it may be worth, I hold that opinion as well.

 

Alex- You have accomplished your goal and gotten people to go from "it's impossible- he must be lying" to "he is hearing something, but I do not agree with the reason he believes is behind the difference." That is a major accomplishment. And yes, the power supply cannot under any circumstances, be the reason a file sounds different once it has been transmitted over a network to another machine. What you and others so clearly hear has to happen for another reason. Believe me, just accepting the fact that anyone can even hear a difference in two bit identical files - for any reason - is a huge win for your case.

 

Teresa - You are being a voice of reason, but, with respect, we all need to take the high road here. Myself included. I understand how darn angry and confusing some of the folks here are with their innate assumptions that what someone hears is not real. Of course it is real, even if it is a psycho acoustic trick like stereo imaging. Taking that high road, I would suggest that what we hear when we read their posts, is not what they are actually saying in those posts. At least in part. To express what I think we are hearing would just fan the flames higher, but I do not, in most cases, think that malice is at the heart of it.

 

So kids - can we all lay off the fighting? At least a little bit? Dennis is right in that every thread on the system seems to be getting polluted with this philosophical war.

 

If we really want to go at it, let's start a "Blazes" topic and have at it there.

 

Then at least we can tell each other to "Go to Blazes!" with some semblance of respect! :)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
(*sigh*)

 

You are all three correct, at least in one or more respects.

 

Dennis- you are adamant about what can and what can not be true. Only recently have you clarified your stance to say that the effect might be real, but you totally disagree as to the theory presented (i.e. Power Supply Quality) why the effect happens or is possible at all. For what it may be worth, I hold that opinion as well.

 

Alex- You have accomplished your goal and gotten people to go from "it's impossible- he must be lying" to "he is hearing something, but I do not agree with the reason he believes is behind the difference." That is a major accomplishment. And yes, the power supply cannot under any circumstances, be the reason a file sounds different once it has been transmitted over a network to another machine. What you and others so clearly hear has to happen for another reason. Believe me, just accepting the fact that anyone can even hear a difference in two bit identical files - for any reason - is a huge win for your case.

 

Teresa - You are being a voice of reason, but, with respect, we all need to take the high road here. Myself included. I understand how darn angry and confusing some of the folks here are with their innate assumptions that what someone hears is not real. Of course it is real, even if it is a psycho acoustic trick like stereo imaging. Taking that high road, I would suggest that what we hear when we read their posts, is not what they are actually saying in those posts. At least in part. To express what I think we are hearing would just fan the flames higher, but I do not, in most cases, think that malice is at the heart of it.

 

So kids - can we all lay off the fighting? At least a little bit? Dennis is right in that every thread on the system seems to be getting polluted with this philosophical war.

 

If we really want to go at it, let's start a "Blazes" topic and have at it there.

 

Then at least we can tell each other to "Go to Blazes!" with some semblance of respect! :)

 

-Paul

 

One of your finest posts Paul.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
(*sigh*)

 

You are all three correct, at least in one or more respects.

 

ETC...

 

-Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Insightful post! Could not agree more...

 

Thanks,

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment
So, just like Dennis, I would like to see proof that goes far beyond what Alex is providing before I accept his theory...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Peter

You are well aware that this kind of proof can only be obtained by the participation of suitably qualified people using the right test equipment and methodology, yet all that has come out of it from suitably qualified members here is an unwillingness to take me up on my offer to involve suitably qualified people in Sydney. It's so damn easy to demonstrate these things directly with the right choice of source and playback gear, where the differences are so obvious you don't even need those ill conceived DBTs.From my E.E. friend recently "I just calculated some checksums on "The Storm" and BIA tracks that we listened to when you came over earlier. They are identical using three methods... Unbelievable, I still can't get my head around this"

The part that really pisses me off though, is the unwillingness to take on other well respected members who are now also making claims that are now getting very close to mine in many areas, even down to reports of different versions of Audirvana Plus sounding different, music stored at different locations sounding different despite being played from system memory.etc..

Neither are you game to take on the MANY members who report hearing differences between USB cables, or the huge number of members who much prefer high resolution PCM and DSD over 16/44.1. Some of the more vocal still insist that the only differences come down to better mastering. What a load of old codswallop. You are in denial of the efforts and products of a whole section of the audio industry, not just what many members vote for with their wallets.

 

You sceptics (in general) do not have the stomach for a fight with these members, some of whom are actually involved in the industry. Presently, there is a lull in the area of improved power supplies resulting in marked SQ improvements, but very soon the new John Swenson designed linear PSUs for the Mac Mini will become available, and you sceptics are likely to see an avalanche of reports from many members where you will have no plausible explanations for what they report.

I guess that many of you will still be in denial !

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

See the brand new preliminary report from John Swenson in Post 4.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/why-linear-power-supply-18929/

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Teresa,

 

If I may chip in here...

 

First of all, you need to realize that the "audible differences between bit-identical files in an otherwise equal playback situation" as suggested by Alex and a number of other people (such as Dr. Zeilig, the author of the TAS articles) is not "just another difference". It is way, way, way past claims of audible differences between different interconnects, loudspeaker-cables, power-cords or whatever else you can think of.

 

Peter is that like me preferring WAV to AIFF and preferring both to FLAC and ALAC? The differences between them were profound when when I had only 1 GB of operation memory but much smaller now that I have 8 GB of operating memory and on some music almost impossible (for me) to hear. I quit believing in "bits are bits" decades ago when I first heard sonic improvements with CD mats and surface treatments.

 

So (for me) how a file is stored and/or played back and even the cleanliness of the power line making music sound better or worse makes sense to me.

 

Maybe the root of the problem is that this claim, just like any other, can never be contradicted. In other words, subjective experiences, whatever their real cause is (even expectation bias), are always true. It can only be confirmed, but never proven to be incorrect.

 

Why does anyone see a problem with this? If it is a change that costs the user nothing then each person can try it for themselves. If there is a cost and one wants to experiment then all that is needed is a money-back satisfaction guarentee. I personally believe (others disagree) that listening impressions, tests, etc. only pertain to the person listening or taking the test and have zero effect on anyone else. Also I believe traditional "public" ABX DBTs are flawed as they don't take into account how people actually listen to music for enjoyment and tend to conceal nearly all audible differences. So I don't see how strident testing can accomplish anything whatsoever. No matter what someone else hears or tests, I still can only hear what I hear and nothing else.

 

Perhaps it is not always easy for people to see how extreme this claim is, but believe me, it is! To me (and this is not to be mean, funny or whatever, just to express how strongly I feel about the subject), but I would find it easier to believe that people who can perceive these differences all have suffered alien abductions than these differences to exist.

 

That was funny. However the easy solution is to never make a claim and to never assume someone's listening observation is a claim even if they say it's a claim. I would rather have one poster tell another "That is not a claim but your listening impression which I can't verify so it has no relevance in my life."

 

So, just like Dennis, I would like to see proof that goes far beyond what Alex is providing before I accept his theory...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

First I don't consider Alex a "pure" subjectivist as he is willing to do tests as an appeasement for objectivists. You would never catch me or any other pure subjectivist offering to play such a game as we believe that individual listening situations are unique and cannot be applicable to any other person, thus we believe such things are futile.

 

As I said if I don't hear a difference, I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference, I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me. Thus no test anywhere on Planet Earth of a difference I cannot not hear would have any effect on my listening pleasure or cause me to hear something I cannot hear.

 

Thus I accept NO theories and the only way I know if anything is of value to me is to hear it in my system.

 

I would be interested why you would consider proof to have any value to your unique listening situation.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
Teresa - You are being a voice of reason, but, with respect, we all need to take the high road here. Myself included. I understand how darn angry and confusing some of the folks here are with their innate assumptions that what someone hears is not real. Of course it is real, even if it is a psycho acoustic trick like stereo imaging. Taking that high road, I would suggest that what we hear when we read their posts, is not what they are actually saying in those posts. At least in part. To express what I think we are hearing would just fan the flames higher, but I do not, in most cases, think that malice is at the heart of it.

 

Thanks Paul, I believe everyone's listening impressions, objectivist and subjectivist alike should be totally respected. One poster months ago said I shouldn't be so open-minded that my brain falls out, however that is a risk I am willing to take. Before someone else mentions it, I don't believe my short-term and long-term memory problems have anything to do with me being open-minded.

 

Since I can't duplicate what someone else hears in their own head, I believe I would be overstepping my bounds as a human being by questioning what they hear. The only thing I can logically do is listen to see if I hear the same thing. There is nothing else I can possibly do since I cannot possess another person's body.

 

I think the problems are as follows.

  • Some people assume listening impressions are claims.
  • Some people falsely present listening impressions as claims.
  • Some people demand proof other people's listening impressions rather than listening for themselves.

None of which seems logical to me.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
So in that case, why do you care what other people do or do not hear? How do you know the hypothesis offered can't be true? You said the test sample of six was too low, however why would that matter at all if you still wouldn't hear a difference if the test sample was 6,000? If you don't hear a difference, you don't hear a difference.

 

So my question is why even post about it at all? Posting about something one doesn't care about or that one doesn't hear the effect of makes no sense at all to me.

 

So even with proof that you would accept you confirmed you would still not hear the effect. Why try to take that audio improvement away from other people who find the improvement important? I can't understand that, I say let people enjoy what they enjoy while I enjoy what I enjoy. What is wrong with that?

 

As I said if I don't hear a difference, I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference, I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me. Thus no test anywhere on Planet Earth of a difference I cannot not hear would have any effect on my listening pleasure or cause me to hear something I cannot hear.

 

So why are you interested in something you clearly have no interest? I'm even more confused after your response.

 

You have not cleared up your contradiction but made it worse.

 

I don't think he's looking to convince you, fixed in your beliefs and convictions, of anything. It's the open minded audio enthusiasts that might be receptive to the possibility that their sensory system isn't as consistent or accurate or acute or trustworthy or proficient as you and so many obtuse audiophiles report.

 

For whatever deities sake, lay off the defense of your position B.S. We are ALL in complete understanding of where YOU stand. If the forum was titled THERESA'S COMPUTER AUDIO, you'd have a valid arguement.......but since it's a PUBLIC forum for SHARING independant ideas and thought, your personal defensive posture is unwarranted and downright obnoxious. This thread topic has nothing to do with your personal opinions being challenged or threatened. Enough already.

Link to comment
I don't think he's looking to convince you, fixed in your beliefs and convictions, of anything. It's the open minded audio enthusiasts that might be receptive to the possibility that their sensory system isn't as consistent or accurate or acute or trustworthy or proficient as you and so many obtuse audiophiles report.

 

For whatever deities sake, lay off the defense of your position B.S. We are ALL in complete understanding of where YOU stand. If the forum was titled THERESA'S COMPUTER AUDIO, you'd have a valid arguement.......but since it's a PUBLIC forum for SHARING independant ideas and thought, your personal defensive posture is unwarranted and downright obnoxious. This thread topic has nothing to do with your personal opinions being challenged or threatened. Enough already.

 

Nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever and has nothing to do with what I wrote. I don't have a position, I just believe everyone whither objectivists or subjectivists should have their opinions respected. How can you honestly disagree with that?

 

In no way should this ever be Teresa's Computer Audio or anyone else's! It is also not Objectivist Computer Audio but Computer Audiophile. Understand???

 

I stand for complete freedom for both subjectivist and objectivists, while you stand for a dictatorship of objectivists over subjectivists which I find highly offensive. I don’t care if objectivists perform all manner of tests until they are blue in the face, that is just not my scene.

 

If subjectivists can accept what objectivists do or do not hear why can’t they extend subjectivists the same courtesy? I am only requesting common human decency.

 

I don’t care how anyone conducts their listening evaluations and/or tests so why do some people demand others do everything their way when they clearly do not want to? That also is offensive.

 

Being open minded means respecting everyone's listening impressions whither you disagree with them or not and be willing to experiment oneself on what one is interested in whither there is a current scientific explanation or not. You will have a very hard time finding anyone more open minded than me.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
I don't think he's looking to convince you.

 

That's not necessary as I check out things I feel important to me in my system, with my music and my ears. I don't allow anyone to convince me of anything. If everyone stuck with convincing themselves only and no one else and quit attacking people and things they disagree with we could all get along.

 

However, Esldude said "Wouldn't change anything for me, as I don't hear it. Which is also why I am not the person with any reason to investigate it." And I just wanted to know why he cares what other people do or don't hear, when he doesn't hear the effect himself. I clearly do not understand his position.

 

Esldude or anyone else have never and will never convince me of anything.

 

Peace.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
snippage...........................

 

Esldude or anyone else have never and will never convince me of anything.

 

Peace.

 

 

Yes, I have known this for quite some time. Couple years or more.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Hi Teresa,

 

First of all I hope you are feeling well given your condition, and it pleases me to see you are able to contribute... Let me try to explain:

 

Peter is that like me preferring WAV to AIFF and preferring both to FLAC and ALAC? The differences between them were profound when when I had only 1 GB of operation memory but much smaller now that I have 8 GB of operating memory and on some music almost impossible (for me) to hear. I quit believing in "bits are bits" decades ago when I first heard sonic improvements with CD mats and surface treatments.

 

So (for me) how a file is stored and/or played back and even the cleanliness of the power line making music sound better or worse makes sense to me.

 

To answer your question: not exactly. The file-format of WAV and AIFF is different from each other, and FLAC and ALAC are compressed formats. I believe it is generally accepted here that some people might be able to hear the processing that converts the file to the format the DAC needs.

 

What Alex claims is that two completely identical files (as in bit-for-bit exactly the same) can sound differently in an otherwise completely equal playback situation. If I recall correctly, you are one of the people who could correctly identify the differences between two (?) test-files Alex provided you for comparison.

 

As for "bits are bits"... I believe bits are indeed bits, but the process that interprets the information can be in error, or other factors can have a disturbing analogue influence resulting in lowered playback-quality. For example, Barry Diament wrote once he could hear clear differences between a blue-spec (?) CD and a regular pressing of the same CD when played back from a CD-player. However, after ripping the CDs to his computer, the differences were gone. So, the bits are still the bits. A possible explanation could be that the regular pressing of the CD would cause the laser tracking mechanism of CD-player to make continuous corrections to read the bits correctly, It is not unthinkable that could cause analogue-based interference, making the regular pressing sound worse compared to the blue-spec high-quality pressing.

 

Why does anyone see a problem with this? If it is a change that costs the user nothing then each person can try it for themselves. If there is a cost and one wants to experiment then all that is needed is a money-back satisfaction guarentee. I personally believe (others disagree) that listening impressions, tests, etc. only pertain to the person listening or taking the test and have zero effect on anyone else. Also I believe traditional "public" ABX DBTs are flawed as they don't take into account how people actually listen to music for enjoyment and tend to conceal nearly all audible differences. So I don't see how strident testing can accomplish anything whatsoever. No matter what someone else hears or tests, I still can only hear what I hear and nothing else.

 

About 6 months ago an acquaintance contacted me asking if he should re-rip his 1000+ CD-collection because his hard-disk crashed, and all his music-files were backed-up as FLAC to save space. Alarmed by Dr. Zeilig's TAS articles, he believed the FLAC-ed files after decompressing them to WAV again would suffer deterioration. I, after a week, was able to convince him that would be completely unnecessary and would not suffer a worsened quality. So, yes! It can cost people money and a lot of time to combat a problem that, as far as I am concerned, does not exist.

 

I am well aware of your point-of-view regarding DBT and ABX in particular. I agree 100% with you that the result can not change the listening-experience of another person, but it is a tool to prove existence.

 

That was funny. However the easy solution is to never make a claim and to never assume someone's listening observation is a claim even if they say it's a claim. I would rather have one poster tell another "That is not a claim but your listening impression which I can't verify so it has no relevance in my life."

 

The problem here is that Alex has been trying to convince the audiophile community for almost five years now these differences exist... Five long years!

 

First I don't consider Alex a "pure" subjectivist as he is willing to do tests as an appeasement for objectivists. You would never catch me or any other pure subjectivist offering to play such a game as we believe that individual listening situations are unique and cannot be applicable to any other person, thus we believe such things are futile.

 

Alex is not trying to please objectivists, he is gathering proof! Big difference here!

 

As I said if I don't hear a difference, I don't hear a difference and if I hear a difference, I hear a difference, other people's tests have never been able to change that for me. Thus no test anywhere on Planet Earth of a difference I cannot not hear would have any effect on my listening pleasure or cause me to hear something I cannot hear.

 

Thus I accept NO theories and the only way I know if anything is of value to me is to hear it in my system.

 

I cannot argue with that as I do the same.

 

I would be interested why you would consider proof to have any value to your unique listening situation.

 

Teresa, as stated before, I can not hear differences between bit-identical files, so it has no impact on my enjoyment of listening to music. But! It does not only involve my unique listening situation. If what Alex and others claim is really true, digital will never be the same again, but for that extensive and verifiable proof is required. So far and in my opinion, that does not exist. For me is is curiosity... I would really like to find out why this is happening.

 

Another analogy... Imagine you have a glass of water that slips from your hand. Instead of dropping on the floor, it "drops" on your ceiling. That, obviously, would be a very strange event. Would you not be curious about why that would be happening? The same applies to me and any claim that says that bit-identical files can sound different.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

“We are the Audiodrones. Lower your skepticism and surrender your wallets. We will add your cash and savings to our own. Your mindset will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” - (Quote from Star Trek: The Audiophile Generation)

Link to comment
Barry Diament wrote once he could hear clear differences between a blue-spec (?) CD and a regular pressing of the same CD when played back from a CD-player.

However, after ripping the CDs to his computer, the differences were gone.

 

Nevertheless, Barry and his wife did hear small differences between comparison .wav tracks after he ripped some of the tracks to HDD that I sent him on 2 CDs early last year.. The comparison tracks were in pairs on the same CD. They both reported similar differences between versions.

 

About 6 months ago an acquaintance contacted me asking if he should re-rip his 1000+ CD-collection because his hard-disk crashed, and all his music-files were backed-up as FLAC to save space. Alarmed by Dr. Zeilig's TAS articles, he believed the FLAC-ed files after decompressing them to WAV again would suffer deterioration. I, after a week, was able to convince him that would be completely unnecessary

and would not suffer a worsened quality

 

I have always stated that, with the caveat that the higher the quality of the PSU that the .flac files were stored on the better they sound. I have even saved ,flac files to a CD, then copied them to a Corsair Voyager using a linear PSU and they sound just the same when played as the existing .flac files on the same Corsair Voyager. Provided that the power supply where they are stored is well above average, there is only a minor difference between the original stored .wav file and the .flac version after reconversion to.wav again. So no, we aren't in complete agreement here.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

A number of years ago, one of my speaker companies was doing some interesting research into the amount of distortion that was introduced by fact that a speaker cone acts like a spring, in other words the electrical impulse it receives causes it to start and then stop motion, but never instantaneously so. The mass of the driver means that there is always some delay before it moves and then some "bouncing" (almost like a spring) as it attempts to come back to a stop. When compared to the amount of distortion introduced by any of the electrical components in a system, this was orders of magnitude greater (i.e. tens of percentage points not tenths of a percentage point). In theory, you could measure that springlike behavior of the driver cone and then make adjustments to the electrical input signal to compensate for it. In other words, start the impulse fractionally sooner and add electrical energy to bring the "bouncing" to a stop sooner. Doing so, led to highly measurable improvements in the distortion levels from those drivers -- the waveforms they output much more closely resembled the input waveforms than unadjusted driver responses.

 

We thought we were really onto something.

 

Unfortunately, we discovered that even though we could show that we had eliminated something like 20-40% of the total system distortion, our ears couldn't seem to figure it out. Somehow, ears are very good at compensating for that distortion (and far less good at compensating for other errors). So notwithstanding a problem that was highly measurable and therefore seemed highly relevant, it just didn't matter.

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment

Servo tech has been around for quite a while in subwoofers and it works very well, both on paper and audibly. Todays better designed motors get past without it and provide more displacement from the byproduct of increased linear travel( Xmax). For the sake of discussion, yes, i'll agree that HD below 100hz is difficult to hear......poor impulse response on the other hand is easy to identify.

Link to comment
Hi Teresa,

 

First of all I hope you are feeling well given your condition, and it pleases me to see you are able to contribute... Let me try to explain....

 

Peter thanks for the well wishes and detailed response! //(*_*)\\

 

Alex is not trying to please objectivists, he is gathering proof! Big difference here!

 

And that is the reason I don't consider Alex a "pure" subjectivist because he is gathering proof to appease the demands for proof by objectivists. Proof is the purview of objectivists not subjectivists. A "pure" subjectivist would never try to prove or convince anyone of anything, instead they believe that individual listening situations are unique and cannot be applicable to any other person, thus a "pure" subjectivist believes such things are futile. So by trying to "prove" his results it makes him both a subjectivist and a objectivist.

 

I can understand the curiosity you mentioned but I would never beat someone over the head to satisfy my curiosity. For example in my first post in this thread I was very curious and asked Esldude if someone offered proof he would accept how would it help him hear an effect he cannot hear as that didn't seem logical to me. He confirmed it would not change what he could hear, thank goodness. So, what I learned is even though he has no interest personally in his own listening situation with Alex's tests, he is curious what other people hear or do not hear and why. Still doesn't make sense to me but since I believe in respecting other people's opinion and desires I didn't question his motives further, although I still remain confused as to his interest and can only see his curiosity about Alex's tests may never meet his satisfaction. In other words I think this curiosity with Alex's tests are futile, but I refuse to sit in judgement, I just wanted to understand his motives. He is free to interact however he wants to with Alex as long consents, at least now I have somewhat of a clue where he is coming from.

 

Curiosity can sometimes be a dangerous thing.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to comment
Esldude or anyone else have never and will never convince me of anything.

 

You will have a very hard time finding anyone more open minded than me.

 

These two sentences seem rather inconsistent.

Mac Mini, Audirvana Plus, Metrum Hex NOS DAC w/Upgraded USB Module-2, UpTone Regen Amber, Pass Labs INT-30A Amplifier, B&W 802 Diamond Speakers, Shotgun Bi-wire Kimber 4TC Cables. Headphone setup: Burson Soloist Amp, Audeze LCD-3 Headphones.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...