Blue or red pill?

[rando]

Live high streaming rate broadcast with lossless sound only.  Next level A/B/X testing for large geographically distant groups.  

 

[pkane2001]

Spin-off thread on Audio DiffMaker and other software to evaluate audio differences:

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Closed minded members won't accept what Mani is saying either, despite the 9 out of 10 result, which now according to some of you must have been a fluke ! Many of you can hear differences with USB cables etc. but you refuse to accept that a signal travelling through numerous underwater repeaters etc. can't also suffer from noise related problems, or  the server used to redistribute the files, which probably uses a less than low noise SMPS.

 

Apples and oranges, Alex.

 

[manisandher]

 

15 minutes ago, acg said:

...maybe give it a go.

 

No, it's become obvious to me that people will only truly accept that which is consistent with their current belief system. Any evidence to the contrary is simply dismissed.

 

15 minutes ago, acg said:

This had been a most interesting thread for me.  Thanks for your time and effort thus far. 

 

Thanks Anthony.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

Apples and oranges, Alex.

Apples and orangutans, actually.

[mansr]

Just now, manisandher said:

No, it's become obvious to me that people will only truly accept that which is consistent with their current belief system. Any evidence to the contrary is simply dismissed.

That goes for you too.

[manisandher]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That goes for you too.

 

Which evidence have I dismissed?

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, manisandher said:

No, it's become obvious to me that people will only truly accept that which is consistent with their current belief system. Any evidence to the contrary is simply dismissed.

Spot on !

Even when they believe they did hear differences at a listening session, or be aware that others present heard consistent differences, they may go home and think about it for several days , then decide it must have been their imagination, or that there must have been some other explanation.

 

[esldude]

53 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

What's the point? If I got 10/10, which I would, they'd say something was amiss.

 

And anyhow, anyone who believes that it's not possible to discern any difference between the digital and analogue captures would have to accept that a DAC with a ~25 year-old 16-bit chip is essentially audibly transparent, which I doubt they'd be able to bring themselves to do .

 

Mani.

You are the one who chose the DAC.  One which apparently can discern differences in a pair of software settings.  You are saying the captures differ obviously from digital, and that captures don't capture the difference your DAC exposed. 

 

If you are satisfied with what you've done then that is plenty.  Those of us not there would like to know what the difference is.  Peter seems little help in explaining what the settings do to the output. 

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

Apples and orangutans, actually.

 

 Even your Avatar shows what a closed mind you have.

Numerous members can tell you that 24/96 is far from perfect, and is why 24/192 or DSD is preferred !

[esldude]

26 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

No, it's become obvious to me that people will only truly accept that which is consistent with their current belief system. Any evidence to the contrary is simply dismissed.

 

 

Thanks Anthony.

 

Mani.

I don't believe you can hear something different unless the signal reaching the speakers is different.  I would like to know what that difference was. If you equate my belief system as not accepting you'll perceive a difference while the signal itself is unaltered then you are correct. 

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

If you equate my belief system as not accepting you'll perceive a difference while the signal itself is unaltered then you are correct. 

 

 If the signal itself was unaltered, Mani would not have been able to score 9 out of 10 in a test he was more comfortable with !

You simply haven't found the applicable measurements using DIGITAL means, that can identify the differences heard .

 

[STC]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

If you are going to give them a good listen, I would suggest that you do it with the digital captures. 

 

Even with the analogue capture, I failed a proper blind test with headphones ....so I am obviously not going to hear any difference with digital. 

 

 

 

 

[phosphorein]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Even your Avatar shows what a closed mind you have.

Numerous members can tell you that 24/96 is far from perfect, and is why 24/192 or DSD is preferred !

 

Nothing like stereotyping individuals. Numerous members can tell you that 24/96 is preferable to DSD and that 16/24 if properly recorded is virtually indistinguishable from 24/96!

[STC]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 If the signal itself was unaltered, Mani would not have been able to score 9 out of 10 in a test he was more comfortable with !

You simply haven't found the applicable measurements using DIGITAL means, that can identify the differences heard .

 

 

Anyone here ( beside Mani) listened to the analogue sample using their main system? No headphones. 

[Ralf11]

mani, If you get 10/10 on the capture, I will buy you a beer.  I expect you can do it easily.

[sandyk]

31 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

 

Nothing like stereotyping individuals. Numerous members can tell you that 24/96 is preferable to DSD and that 16/24 if properly recorded is virtually indistinguishable from 24/96!

 

LOL !

Seems that poor Miska has been wasting his time here then .

 

You can't even get the recording standards right !!!

 Have any members found 16/24 virtually indistinguishable from 24/96 ?  

( other than the usual naysayers in the thread)

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

LOL !

Seems that poor Miska has been wasting his time here then .

 

Even your Avatar shows what a closed mind you have and how much sand you kick into every thread.

Numerous members can tell you anything you want...  Many, many members

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Anyone here ( beside Mani) listened to the analogue sample using their main system? No headphones. 

 Why no headphones ? A decent pair of headphones and a high quality headphone amplifier can be way more revealing due to close coupling to the ears.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Why no headphones ? A decent pair of headphones and a high quality headphone amplifier can be way more revealing due to close coupling to the ears.

 

Becuase with headphones, a very slight difference of depth and soundstage is hard to tell unlike speakers. 

 

 

[manisandher]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

I don't believe you can hear something different unless the signal reaching the speakers is different.

 

I agree.

 

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

I would like to know what that difference was.

 

This assumes that I heard differences in the sound of the music during the ABX.

 

Not accepting that I heard differences in the sound of the music during the ABX is a show-stopper. No need to analyse the captures. No need to try to understand how the signal reaching the speakers could have been different.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

34 minutes ago, esldude said:

You are the one who chose the DAC.

 

Actually, my hand was forced somewhat. Understandably, Mans wanted to capture the digital signal going into the DAC in real time during the ABX. Using the Altmann was the only way I could figure out how to achieve this with the hardware I had to hand. (Post ABX, it occurred to me that it might have been possible to use the iFi Nano iDSD instead of the Altmann.)

 

In any event, my strong preference would have been to use my Phasure DAC.

 

Mani.

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

Which evidence have I dismissed?

The point is that your assessment of the relative probabilities of

-unidentified protocol error in single 9/10 live stream ABx 

-ADC incapable of recording difference in streams 

is not one which all rational analysts will share.

 

[adamdea]

39 minutes ago, phosphorein said:

 

Nothing like stereotyping individuals. Numerous members can tell you that 24/96 is preferable to DSD and that 16/24 if properly recorded is virtually indistinguishable from 24/96!

I assume you mean 16/44 and I would omit the “virtually”.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, adamdea said:

I assume you mean 16/44 and I would omit the “virtually”.

 

Just as you omitted the .1 perhaps ?