Jump to content
IGNORED

Interesting ..


Melvin

Recommended Posts

It's all just more noise in the debate and proves nothing and is evidence of nothing.

 

The same quotes and the same ideas being debated we've been hearing for years. If the author had wanted to he could have found "experts" and "engineers" with the opposite point of view, he just chose not to because it isn't headline grabbing copy.

 

Is it big news that some "execs" or "engineers" at a company sell something they don't really believe in? I think it happens in thousands of different products a day. So what. Doesn't prove anything.

 

Lukasz basically said you need very good equipment to hear the difference, not that it doesn't exist. I doubt many people would argue that point. It's also obvious to everyone that the quality of the recording trumps format/bitrate etc. Surely even promoters of hi-res have CDs that they think sound wonderful. I do. Again, proves nothing in the debate.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

"The benefits of hi-res files may be detectable on high-dollar stereo systems, but “the difference is so miniscule that it’s not even worth talking about,” according to Fikus."

 

Makes me wonder if this statement was taken out of context.

Link to comment
"The benefits of hi-res files may be detectable on high-dollar stereo systems, but “the difference is so miniscule that it’s not even worth talking about,” according to Fikus."

 

Makes me wonder if this statement was taken out of context.

 

Nope.....judge Firedog rationalizing with himself that his ears tell a different story and he's immune to expectation bias.

 

.....and he's right about the overall context not 'proving' anything but instead fortifying common knowledge within the electronics industry that the mass market simply isn't interested.

Link to comment

"CD-quality files are more than enough to generate smooth waves for all frequencies detectable by human ears" : that is a fact that hi-res enthusiasts have been ignoring since day one. That probably won't change whatever will be said or proven on the subject.

I personally wish I had the exceptional and very young ears which would allow me tho hear things beyond human average.

 

The interesting thing is that for a convinced audiophile like for Neil “There’s no doubt in his mind that it sounds better.”

Therefore is does sound better.

There is no doubt in my mind that every audiophile will find the sound better if they think that their system is the "right set up", and that includes the file res.

Now there are quite a few "right set ups" out there.

Link to comment

"Our base level is 44 – 16 and we go up to 192 – 24…which is good for you audiophiles. If you’re not an audiophile, a larger number is better than a smaller one. Things go a lot faster, there’s a lot more happening. And it’s more fun to listen to. We proved that it’s more fun to listen to. So we don’t have to prove that anymore. All the musicians that I know, about a hundred of them got in my car where we played back our stuff. We had a little device that would switch back and forth between the songs and you could switch between all of the resolutions. We had four resolutions starting with the lowly MP3, and going up to the 192. They all came to the same conclusion…we didn’t have to tell anybody anything. We had a 100% win at 192…over 96, over any compressed files that were supposedly going to playback at 192 quality. Some of them came close but they didn’t come all the way. For some scientific reason, I can’t really explain why…musicians can all hear what some scientists say we can’t hear…but that’s OK. The main thing is musicians can hear this. Musicians make their music in the studio. That’s why I did this because I love what I hear.”

 

The above is a quote from Neil Young. You can tell his knowledge of digital audio is something special. A larger number is better than a smaller one. Lots more going on things go faster. And the logical gem about for some 'scientific' reason musicians all hear what 'scientists' say we can't. Neil really should stick to making music.

 

Yes, such an easy sale. More is better. More is more accurate. Nevermind that for frequencies humans hear those more parts don't improve anything. No need to tell Neil though, he proved it in his old Cadillac.

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

I'm 100% convinced that the reason my 24/96 downloads sound better is because they were mastered by people who actually gave a damn about sound quality - the same goes for the 30th Anniv SACD of DSOTM. By contrast, I have CDs that I just dont want to play - whatever I thought of the music when it was released on vinyl, the CD version remains a poor substitute. My ears are a long way from the golden variety, but when music you once liked now annoys you to the point where you'd rather watch a YT vid, you know you're in trouble.

Just one more headphone and I know I can kick this nasty little habit !

Link to comment
"Our base level is 44 – 16 and we go up to 192 – 24…which is good for you audiophiles. If you’re not an audiophile, a larger number is better than a smaller one. Things go a lot faster, there’s a lot more happening. And it’s more fun to listen to. We proved that it’s more fun to listen to. So we don’t have to prove that anymore. All the musicians that I know, about a hundred of them got in my car where we played back our stuff. We had a little device that would switch back and forth between the songs and you could switch between all of the resolutions. We had four resolutions starting with the lowly MP3, and going up to the 192. They all came to the same conclusion…we didn’t have to tell anybody anything. We had a 100% win at 192…over 96, over any compressed files that were supposedly going to playback at 192 quality. Some of them came close but they didn’t come all the way. For some scientific reason, I can’t really explain why…musicians can all hear what some scientists say we can’t hear…but that’s OK. The main thing is musicians can hear this. Musicians make their music in the studio. That’s why I did this because I love what I hear.”

 

The above is a quote from Neil Young. You can tell his knowledge of digital audio is something special. A larger number is better than a smaller one. Lots more going on things go faster. And the logical gem about for some 'scientific' reason musicians all hear what 'scientists' say we can't. Neil really should stick to making music.

 

Yes, such an easy sale. More is better. More is more accurate. Nevermind that for frequencies humans hear those more parts don't improve anything. No need to tell Neil though, he proved it in his old Cadillac.

 

They are releasing old albums selling dacs,software like hot pancakes what do you expect them to say? now that we can hear up to MHz more is coming with hi-rez cables, hi-rez amplifiers, hi-rez speakers.

I think it started already in another thread that you need special cable for 768 Khz:)

Be prepared for DSD 2048 and PCM 1546:)

 


Link to comment

Ned Kelly, +1. I'm blown away by almost 50 year old Simon and Garfunkel albums on my Pono and my main system, in large part because someone cared enough and was smart enough to do a helluva job on the original recording, and whoever transferred it to 24/192 had the good sense not to mess it up.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> ISO Regen -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
I'm 100% convinced that the reason my 24/96 downloads sound better is because they were mastered by people who actually gave a damn about sound quality - the same goes for the 30th Anniv SACD of DSOTM. By contrast, I have CDs that I just dont want to play - whatever I thought of the music when it was released on vinyl, the CD version remains a poor substitute. My ears are a long way from the golden variety, but when music you once liked now annoys you to the point where you'd rather watch a YT vid, you know you're in trouble.

 

+1

Link to comment
Nope.....judge Firedog rationalizing with himself that his ears tell a different story and he's immune to expectation bias.

 

.....and he's right about the overall context not 'proving' anything but instead fortifying common knowledge within the electronics industry that the mass market simply isn't interested.

 

Mayhem, I know you love being a gadfly here, but maybe a bit less arrogance? How can you so confidently assume I've never been involved in blind testing of hi-res vs CD?

 

FYI, I have and have with some tracks consistently identified them as hi-res. Simply, with some types of music it is easy to hear the difference and with others it isn't.

 

Maybe you're the one with expectation bias?

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with NY, but your comments are classic ones that don't understand context. First, NY isn't a scientist, isn't particularly well educated, and isn't trying to talk like he is. He's speaking in the vernacular, and purposely trying to explain things in a simple way that isn't technical for a broad audience.

 

He may be 100% wrong. But your commentary on his comments doesn't improve any facet of our understanding of what he was saying.

 

"Our base level is 44 – 16 and we go up to 192 – 24…which is good for you audiophiles. If you’re not an audiophile, a larger number is better than a smaller one. Things go a lot faster, there’s a lot more happening. And it’s more fun to listen to. We proved that it’s more fun to listen to. So we don’t have to prove that anymore. All the musicians that I know, about a hundred of them got in my car where we played back our stuff. We had a little device that would switch back and forth between the songs and you could switch between all of the resolutions. We had four resolutions starting with the lowly MP3, and going up to the 192. They all came to the same conclusion…we didn’t have to tell anybody anything. We had a 100% win at 192…over 96, over any compressed files that were supposedly going to playback at 192 quality. Some of them came close but they didn’t come all the way. For some scientific reason, I can’t really explain why…musicians can all hear what some scientists say we can’t hear…but that’s OK. The main thing is musicians can hear this. Musicians make their music in the studio. That’s why I did this because I love what I hear.”

 

The above is a quote from Neil Young. You can tell his knowledge of digital audio is something special. A larger number is better than a smaller one. Lots more going on things go faster. And the logical gem about for some 'scientific' reason musicians all hear what 'scientists' say we can't. Neil really should stick to making music.

 

Yes, such an easy sale. More is better. More is more accurate. Nevermind that for frequencies humans hear those more parts don't improve anything. No need to tell Neil though, he proved it in his old Cadillac.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with NY, but your comments are classic ones that don't understand context. First, NY isn't a scientist, isn't particularly well educated, and isn't trying to talk like he is. He's speaking in the vernacular, and purposely trying to explain things in a simple way that isn't technical for a broad audience.

 

He may be 100% wrong. But your commentary on his comments doesn't improve any facet of our understanding of what he was saying.

 

Neil is trying to show his credibility by talking as if scientists don't know what is going on. That musicians know better. Don't believe those scientists, believe what we heard. Scientists don't have the credibility we musicians do.

 

This is because he knows there already were and have been those saying 192 is a waste of time. His comments indicate he does lack the education and background to decide. The context is the key. A man who stands to profit, is talking up in a vernacular to deflect criticisms of using 192, and trying to convince us he is right by appealing to others who know no more than he does.

 

My comments are that he speaks of what he doesn't understand in an attempt to influence people. If he simply left it at he thought it sounded better, without the comments about the scientists that would be one thing. If he weren't trying to sell us on the idea 192 is better that would be one thing. But he is doing both of those.

 

Now he talked about getting closer to the master, to what the musicians wanted the sound to be, to hearing things in the native format it was recorded. All good stuff. He could talk about how better mastering is worth getting even at 44 khz. Instead he is selling something not true in the need for hires distribution. That is the context.

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

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...