This I doubt -

[Jabs1542]

No worry Schrödinger's cat don't like dogs:)

 

How do you know? Are you the one who opened the box?

[Jabs1542]

- I doubt either of these principles will keep me from buying the successively higher-resolution Beatles collections the minute they make it to Pono (when/if that happens).

 

+1

[beetlemania]

- I doubt either of these principles will keep me from buying the successively higher-resolution Beatles collections the minute they make it to Pono (when/if that happens).

LOL! Because buying the library for the 5th time still isn't enough . . . I have the 24/44 USB and will "probably" stop there. In my trials, I can distinguish 16 from 24 bit but not 44 kHz from 96 and higher.

[Paul R]

as the laws of physics would have to be broken for them to hear a difference, why do you think they would be able to identify 10 %.

 

I doubt the laws of physics are exactly the same as you understand them to be. Or anyone else for that matter!

[Jabs1542]

LOL! Because buying the library for the 5th time still isn't enough . . . I have the 24/44 USB and will "probably" stop there. In my trials, I can distinguish 16 from 24 bit but not 44 kHz from 96 and higher.

 

24:44? Would this be the Love album or can you point to another source?

[Foggie]

I believe all amps sound the same...oh wait wrong thread

[astrotoy]

24:44? Would this be the Love album or can you point to another source?

 

They released all the Beatles stereo albums (when the big mono and stereo CD boxes came out a few years ago) on a USB stick. It was 24/44 resolution.

 

Larry

[beetlemania]

They released all the Beatles stereo albums (when the big mono and stereo CD boxes came out a few years ago) on a USB stick. It was 24/44 resolution.

 

Larry

Yes, this thing.

[Jud]

Right, "Love" is 24/96 (and very highly recommended).

[Snowmonkey]

I doubt people hear even half of the differences they report as audible.

I doubt they can identify even 10% of those audible differences in a controlled, non sighted test.

as the laws of physics would have to be broken for them to hear a difference, why do you think they would be able to identify 10 %.

So the laws of physics decree that there should be no audible difference between any two systems?

[wgscott]

If by systems, you mean individual electrons, then yes.

[alfe]

If by systems, you mean individual electrons, then yes.

 

There is few holes missing in your logic:)

[gmgraves]

I used 10% was just as a placeholder for 'low percentage'. Never made or saw any stats or studies like that.

As about those broken laws of physics I am pretty sure there are people who can also 'hear' the laws cracking. Cable break-in anyone? I find that thread scary.

 

Me too. I mean how do these people know that their cables have improved over the "burn-in" period of 50 - 100 hours or so? I'll guarantee you that these people can't remember how the cable sounded, out-of-the-box, not even so far as general impressions are concerned! Nobody's aural memory is that good. In fact, psychoacoustic studies going back to the 1930's Bell Labs experiments found that human aural memory for subtle sonic detail is lousy. While we're good at recognizing sounds we've heard before, we're terrible at remembering sonic details for more than a few mintes.

[gmgraves]

- I doubt people will cease overemphasizing ultrasonics as important regarding hi res.

 

- I doubt people will place sufficient emphasis on quality of recording and mastering vs. resolution.

 

+1 for both of those

 

- I doubt either of these principles will keep me from buying the successively higher-resolution Beatles collections the minute they make it to Pono (when/if that happens).

 

Don't care on that one. Don't value Beatles.

[Allan F]

Deleted. Already answered.

[Snowmonkey]

If by systems, you mean individual electrons, then yes.

An individual electron can't constitute a system, since a system by definition comprises more than one part. Of course we may one day discover that electrons are comprised of sub-components, rather than being elementary particles, but that would require a revision of our understanding of the "Laws of Physics", to which everyone seems to defer with such reverence.

[esldude]

Me too. I mean how do these people know that their cables have improved over the "burn-in" period of 50 - 100 hours or so? I'll guarantee you that these people can't remember how the cable sounded, out-of-the-box, not even so far as general impressions are concerned! Nobody's aural memory is that good. In fact, psychoacoustic studies going back to the 1930's Bell Labs experiments found that human aural memory for subtle sonic detail is lousy. While we're good at recognizing sounds we've heard before, we're terrible at remembering sonic details for more than a few mintes.

 

I wonder if that short memory explains alot. Echoic memory is only a few seconds. During that time your brain still holds the actual perceptual signals to compare to incoming perception. After that it gets written to short term memory, and eventually perhaps long term memory. Short term memory is something like lossy compression (think low bit rate MP) of the original perception. So that means after more than a few seconds your memory doesn't match the original event.

 

So you compare some cable, some amp or even some software. Spend even one minute swapping. You listen and compare your best memory from a bit over a minute ago. It actually does not match what you are hearing. It genuinely sounds different in comparison. No wonder your subjective gut feeling is so strong that this sounds different. It really does. Maybe most people being less critical won't notice unless the difference is very large. But you having paid attention and knowing you swapped hear a real difference in memory vs current perception. Naturally attributing that to the things swapped. Even if the swapped aspects did nothing that really matters.

[tmkirst]

I doubt Beethoven would hear the difference in cables

[audiobugged]

I doubt Beethoven would hear the difference in cables

 

Given that Beethoven became stone deaf, that's pretty much a given!

[Allan F]

I'll guarantee you that these people can't remember how the cable sounded, out-of-the-box, not even so far as general impressions are concerned!

 

I would gladly take you up on that guarantee as my experience with certain interconnects cables, most notably JPS Labs SuperConductor 2, renders your statement not even close to factual. The difference in sound from out-of-the box to about 100 hrs of burn-in was so great and so obvious that I have little doubt that anyone other than a deaf person would have been able to hear it.

[wgscott]

An individual electron can't constitute a system, since a system by definition comprises more than one part. Of course we may one day discover that electrons are comprised of sub-components, rather than being elementary particles, but that would require a revision of our understanding of the "Laws of Physics", to which everyone seems to defer with such reverence.

 

The point is that the particles are indistinguishable. But you knew that.

[wgscott]

I also doubt the sincerity of faux outrage.

[Jud]

I also doubt the sincerity of faux outrage.

 

Foxes aren't sincere in their anger?

[wgscott]

Foxes aren't sincere in their anger?

 

Only the ones on the "News" channel.

[Jud]

Only the ones on the "News" channel.

 

So many spleens to vent, so little time. They should work at being more humorous, like that cute Ann Coulter.