IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, trappy said:

Is this one of those threads where we mock anyone who spends more than we do?

 

Yeah. It's a bit like Penis size envy ?

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

A fool and his money...

 

Are saved from being parted by the Objective mob here in C.A. ?

The only  fools here are those who think they know what's best for others, and incessantly ridicule everybody who doesn't agree with them.

[sandyk]

14 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I don't think I will follow this thread and I already stopped reading after the first sentence, quotes above.

It is 100% wrong.

 

 It is indeed 100% wrong, and typical of the numerous threads concocted by beerandmusic.

 Perhaps too much beer , and not enough music ?

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

He doesn't practice regular neuroscience, he practices audiophile neuroscience. This is a unique branch of the science akin to the audiophile physics that the high-end cable manufacturers use when marketing their products. It's a lot easier the regular kind as there's no peer reviews on publications and you can issue your own degree.

 

Yet once again, you are jumping to conclusions.

As a Medical Specialist of many years standing, David is well informed about Neuroscience and keeps in touch with recent developments. He also has many Specialist friends in other areas, such as an Ophthalmic Surgeon (who also has another Specialist Degree) that I have met personally, who also has a keen ear for music, and like David a system to dream about.

 Both are very unassuming, genuine people with a passion for Hi Fi.

[sandyk]

Hi David

 Neurology was in my original unedited version, but I haven't had my wake up coffee yet, and decided to change it in case I hadn't remembered correctly.

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

So you are saying David is a neurologist?

 NO !

I am saying that as a Medical Specialist, with a friend who is a Neurologist, that he has an interest in, and is very well informed in this area.

[sandyk]

Just now, kumakuma said:

I'm confused.

 

You were born confused ?

 You now have the background info you needed.

I can do without the silly types of games that wgs and his number 1 fan (You ) like to play !

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

Regardless of how many classes in statistics you've taken, the fact that you believe Alex's claims regarding bit identical files disqualifies you from being a scientist.

 

Obviously, as an example, you don't even accept that a Mac Mini with the JS2 Linear PSU, Kelvin Sensing,fan controller etc. will be found to sound better when exporting bit identical data, to that from a bog standard, unmodified Mac Mini in a  Double Blind test ?

That's without even playing around with USB Regens, internal/external low noise +5V supplies and higher quality USB cables.

 

 It's a waste of time further discussing anything with somebody with such a blinkered outlook, who also rejects the results of 6 Blind DBTs, and numerous confirming reports in this very forum from several well respected members, as well as quite a few other members using better than  average gear.

 

BYE !

 

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

3. Simply opening a file in a program and closing it again with no changes to the file causes a deterioration in sound quality although no data has changed.

 

LIAR !!! 

 

I would post a whole pile of links, and confirming material, but the original links in most cases no longer work due to forum upgrades.

 However, if I did this the whole thread would be likely to be shut down by Admin.

WTF are some of you doing here in an Audiophile forum when you have no interest in contributing anything positive towards improving Computer Audio ?

 

Many of you only participate in a narrow section of the forum, and only to try and piss off/intimidate anybody in the forum who dares to post anything remotely connected with Subjective reports.

 

 

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

5. Zipping a file before sending it over the Internet protects it from sound deterioration and there is no difference between a "naked" file and a file that has been zipped and unzipped.

Technically again, it will be different. This statement should not be Alex's.

 

The claim was made originally by Cookie Marenco, ( Blue Coast Records) and confirmed by elcorso ( Roch) after his tests with Cookie Marenco. Despite my scepticism and initial refusal to humour Roch by trying this out, when I eventually did months later, I did indeed hear an improvement with the UNCOMPRESSED Zips after decoding again.

AFAIK , Cookie still supplies her files as UNCOMPRESSED  Zips in order to help reduce SQ degradation.

[sandyk]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

At it's core, Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data

 

Again, that is once again incorrect. It is Kumakuma's interpretation of what I said.

  I have NFI what the cause is,  but I have speculated that it has something to do with the Integrity of the Binary Data, including the symmetry, rise and fall times, even the voltage levels varying, which would still result in identical checksums, but different processing requirements. What I can say with certainty, is that the quality of the PSU area in the PC and DAC does have some bearing on this, which was also verified by Martin Colloms..

Quote

#1 Posted : 4 years ago Retweet 
Martin Colloms

 

Rank: Moderator

 

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,481

 

Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 20 post(s)
 
Alex Kethel ripping, HIFICRITIC results second session

Private Investigations ripping from a ROM drive with various power supplies

Files EAC checked , zipped , sent to the uk on the net , unzipped , HDD filed , EAC checked, copied to USB stick , replayed via Naim UnitiServe HDD into an MSB Platinum Signature /Diamond Power Base ARC REF 5 Krell Evo 402e Wilson Sophia 3, accessories , supports to match

We did it , about 8 repeats!

Rip 1: rather mid fi CD sound perfectly good if you did not know better , not very communicative or involving set at 50% approx score

Rip 2: makes 1 sound dulled , less detailed , less transparent , softer dynamics and bass definition

rip 2 has more musical expression better listener involvement and clarity, higher resolution without a doubt ( I have heard the master tapes)

75% approx , very natural, accurate effect, firmer clearer bass lines , greater depth and atmosphere , more extended instrumental decays

Rip 3 : The latest rip, ( with another power supply upgrade to the ripping drive ) better still in some respects, but not others, eg more convincing micro dynamic resolution in far depth plane, still more detail and focus, but

not quite so relaxed , flowing , musically involving, sounds slightly artificial and mannered , a 'spotlit' character

so a moderate loss of quality to 66%

and we really do value our rhythm and timing at HIFICRITIC!

..............................................

In research it does not always go the way you expect, we have long learned to take it as it comes and never expect too much, maintaining a spirit of open enquiry.

Many thanks to Alex for his painstaking perseverance in this work , No, he is not fooling himself ............

a fascinating conundrum .......... rip quality and ripping software ( all rip 100% error free of course!)

Martin Colloms 

 

Martin Colloms

Rank: Moderator

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,481

 

Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 20 post(s)
 there is a nice twist to this story

Alex sent me at various points, three rips of his rips of Private Investigations

one , as it comes but not identified, with another, which later turned out to have the improved drive power supplies

We were able to easily distinguish double blind , ( we did not know which track was which until Alex told us later) the two rips, and describe the clear fidelity advantage of one , which turned out to be with the improved drive.

Alex then sent a third for auditioning , which we judged as improved, but not as convincing musically as the second.

The twist was that Alex had at first convinced himself that it was still better because he had done further work on the supplies.

His further listening then indicated on reflection that he had not got it right but he was still interested to see whether independent parties across the ocean via zip files could report the correct state of affairs. We could and we did , much to Alex's satisfaction, who has now corrected that phase of development.

The listening process is much like auditioning a series of review CD players.

As Ross Walker once said, more or less, 'all CD players are bit perfect and are thus perfect and all sound the same'.

An admirable and well respected site devoted to computer audio is simply in denial over the Kethel research.

We know better now

Martin C
Edited by user 4 years ago  | Reason: Not specified

 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Hey Alex, can you stay out of this ? we were just having a civilized discussion. You disturb.

 

Shout on - I go elsewhere.

Peter

 Are you here to help explain my position , or otherwise ?

 I am the one under attack here by the usual suspects.

 I did NOT initiate any of this regurgitated stuff.

Kumakuma did.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

You told Dennis that the simple act of opening a file in Audacity would cause it's sound quality to deterioriate, even if no changes were made to the file.

 

 

 Rubbish. Dennis did MORE than just open and close the file in question.

What he did wasn't the same as just simply playing the file with a software player from it's original  location.

Back on IGNORE you go.

You have a habit of twisting everything I say.

 

 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

She better avoids PCM processing when producing a DSD file.

Ah oh .. , ok, so you didn't know that.

 

I am aware of what Cookie does.(unless she has changed her methodology recently)

Let's leave it at that.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

That it is better for you and us that you don't mix in your stance about this in each and every thread,

 Peter

 I had no desire to start this up in this thread, but Kumakuma dragged me into it yet once again.

Even wgs recently respected my position of not being dragged into it again.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Peter

 I had no desire to start this up in this thread, but Kumakuma dragged me into it yet once again.

Even wgs recently respected my position of not being dragged into it again.

Even if I say nothing further , I will still continue to be dragged into these nasty  "Get Audiophiles" type threads.

At least in your own forum, you have a say on whether this kind of behaviour will be tolerated or not. 

I would bet that you don't have too many of your members who would suggest that you are either delusional or smoking weed ?

Alex

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

That’s right, just your SSD working caused a degradation of sound.

 

That is why I power both my internal SSDs individually from the internal +12V rail, regulated down to +5V, then followed by a variety of Shunt Regulator to improve the isolation between them and other components via the internal PSU.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

just to be clear, you do not believe that kumakuma's stmt #3 is correct?

 

 It is NOT correct.

It should be no different opening a file in Audacity, Sound Forge or whatever , looking at it, then closing it again WITHOUT any changes, than playing it with Software and closing it again.

 However, IIRC, Dennis looked at the file in Audacity, then saved the file again, not just closed Audacity.

In other words there was a degree of processing involved.

I found that even simply removing the incorrect Header information using SF9 to make a universally playable .wav file , then saving it again results in minor degradation. Objectivist "peter the surfing alien" wrote a simple command line  program for me to do this, which resulted in less audible degradation. Some 24/192 .wav files from Barry Diament were unplayable with some players ( not Foobar 2K) because the Header info didn't meet standards of the time.

Removing the incorrect Header info made them universally playable from even the Oppo I had at the time.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

At it's core, Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data and that noise travels with this digital data when it copied, transferred over the Internet, or written to the CD.

 

That is utter BS,  and I have already replied to that false statement.

 

 

[sandyk]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

Thx for clarifying.

But I don't see a mechanism that would alter SQ with a re-save of the file.

 

W/o a mechanism, I'd suggest fairly strong evidence would be needed to get engineers involved.  Say, 19 out of 20 guesses correctly distinguishing the files by several people.

 

Please stop dragging me back into this thread. This stuff has been done to death already over the last 9 years or so.

I have already made additional info available to you via PM.

 

[sandyk]

An old thread worth a look at by the Newbies of the forum.

It was one of the most popular threads of the time.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/16174-where-is-audio-truth/

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

You can start your research here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=data+stored+hard+drive+binary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

 It takes a lot of processing to convert the saved waveforms on  an HDD to actual 1s and 0s.

 

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1230839

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

so you are in ageement, it is stored in 1's and 0's.....super!

 

 A wee bit premature !!

Read the article at the attached link, (my previous post) and look at a typical saved waveform on a HDD.

[sandyk]

25 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'd guess he meant different types of capacitor.

In the capacitance multiplier section of the John Linsley Hood designed PSU add-on that I use there are 2 parallel 4700uF electro's.When the original was designed , Low ESR types were never mentioned. If a Low ESR type is used in parallel with a normal type of the same capacitance, the effective bandwidth of the original design is markedly increased. However,if both types used are Low ESR types, analogue audio sounds too detailed with accentuated treble and sibilance.

You wouldn't normally use very low ESR types as used in computers ,especially not in parallel in Analogue Preamplifiers etc. However , using a selected low ESR type in parallel with a normal type of electro in the JLH normally results in a more balanced SQ as verified by the 100s of people who have used the JLHs in Pre and Power Amplifiers.

It has been shown elsewhere in this thread , that even the waveform saved on a HDD is actually an ANALOGUE waveform with all it's vagaries before being processed.

Alex

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

false....

main difference being one signal (analog) is continuous with infinite values ....

in contrast, a digital signal, inre music, can only provide a value at time Tx where there are unlimited samples with analog.

 

I am not going to try and convince anyone, but facts are facts.

 

Audio engineers may try to design a high speed digital circuit as if it were analog (as stated in the article that some may misinterpret), but it is stored as a digital file on a hard drive....sorry...i won't bother responding to any more about how music file is stored on a hard drive...you either get it or you don't.

Despite the evidence posted showing an actual waveform stored on an HDD, you still refuse to accept that it doesn't become a binary waveform without quite a bit of further processing.  

 

You will never get it !