Blue or red pill?

[sandyk]

44 minutes ago, mansr said:

I see you have run out of arguments.

 

 Why do you also keep ignoring the reports by George, who is also well qualified, and actually makes Classical Music recordings for others ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, dalethorn said:

I've been making ad-hoc binaural recordings with the Sennheiser-Apogee Ambeo headset, and each recording sounds way different depending on numerous factors affecting the rooms I record in, or not.  It's clear to me that a quality recording setup that addresses ambient noise, reflective surfaces, ideal listening location, etc. is vastly more important than the 'HRTF' and related properties that headphone listeners read so much about.  I've been reviewing headphones for a few years, but haven't attempted "quality" recordings until a few weeks ago.  I think if the average headphone user could use the Ambeo headset for a few weeks, they'd appreciate their audiophile music recordings a lot more.

 Dale

 Have you tried playing those binaural recordings via speakers as well, and if so, did you obtain any Height Cues from them ?

Many people when first playing around in this area, not just with Binaural recordings , often record a thunderstorm as well, did you also try this ?

 

Alex

[sandyk]

15 hours ago, esldude said:

I really don't like to use headphones anyway.  Only when necessary or when checking recordings I've made.

Dennis

 Compare the top end of your headphones with the Audio Technica W1000 that I use.

 IIRC, they have a claimed usable frequency response from 5HZ to 40kHZ. (no limits specified)

 They also comply with the old IEC directive of using an output impedance of 120 ohms from the H.A.

The ones I used before these were Stax, but I missed the low end performance, despite the very appealing (especially with female voices) top end.

Alex

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

No, I haven't. The reason is that I really don't see the point. Many of the people discussing this topic at this time on this thread, are only here to argue

 George

 That's a shame.

 Alex

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, mansr said:

They could have gone easier on the reverb. Then again, with such bland music, I suppose they had to do something.

 

It is a good album for testing purposes ,as lesser systems highlight the sibilance on her voice, possibly due to hard limiting with the voice track?

[sandyk]

22 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Apropos nothing, I just tried listening to the same binaural recordings through speakers. That's probably some of the most detailed position and soundstage information I've heard from my system... except when using headphones with the same binaural recordings.

 

The sound through the speakers appears to be extend to in front and to the sides of the speakers and has a very easy and natural feel to it, how should I put it.... very realistic and coherent comes to mind  The same depth cue information that was noticeable with headphones in the reverberant spaces is easily noticed with speakers, as well.

 

I understand the addition of room reflections, modes, etc. and, the additional cross-bleed between channels, and yet it sounds great! Perhaps this is just due to the simplicity of two microphone recording and no mixing? Or due to better preserving phase information between left and right channels? Or Chesky's recording equipment, or post-processing or lack thereof? Don't know. Will need to investigate and listen more, but I can definitely recommend others try it.

 

 I have yet to hear these recordings via my main system due to family considerations, but going by what I am currently hearing via headphones, I would be most surprised if some of these tracks didn't sound exactly as you have described.

 It's a shame that there isn't more mainstream material like this available from Chesky.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I've mentioned elsewhere I don't seem to hear binaural like others.  I actually am not happy Chesky went pure binaural.  These are still nice recordings over headphones.  They are actually better over speakers to my listening of them.  I think they aren't quite up to par with earlier work in some ways.  They remind me of the sound when I record using a Jecklin disk.  Almost a hole in the middle and too much far right and far left.  The soundstage seems to get ghostly in the middle third.  

Dennis

 I have previously found that you are able to hear similar things to me in other areas.

Are you sure that this isn't due to the quite marked HF roll- off of your headphones as posted in the graphs previously ?

 

Alex

P.S.

 Did you see the photos and info about the Sony 100KHZ tweeters that we discussed previously, that I posted several hours ago ?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

It's possible though I hear the same effect on some DT880s. The effect is more pronounced on some AKG 240s a friend has. The AKGs have always seemed to emphasize far left and right on recordings to me.  

 Dennis

 I just edited my previous reply to you

Alex

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Yes I've not disputed the tweeters from Sony.  Only that tweeters damaged by SACD was ever a thing.

 Dennis

 My memory was shown to be very good at a fairly recent medical check up. (30 out of 30).

 However, it may not have been the Sony SACD players that had this reported problem.

As you have stated, some other players use quite different filtering, and have quite different measured  bandwidths.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, semente said:

 

If the sibilance is part of the recording then a good system should reproduce it in all its glory.

 

 Sibilance is further exaggerated when there is low level system noise ,such as with many inferior USB Audio implementations. If it was an analogue recording, then you would be correct.

A peak in the speakers' response around 12-13KHZ will also exaggerate any sibilance.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the unconscious mind is continually 'conjuring' up mental pictures

Quote

https://www.verywellmind.com › Psychology › Theories › Cognitive Psychology

1. Cached

May 30, 2016 - In Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality, the unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict.

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, yes, I know. Only you can do it right, and you can't let anyone else hear your recordings.

 That is NOT correct.

 I am not the only one to have heard one of George's recordings ripped from the original CD made some time back.

It is an excellent recording with a very good depth of image, and sounds every bit as good as the better commercially available Classical CD releases.

George is not able to make these recordings available to others, as they are clients' property.

George trusted a couple of members enough to make sure that this recording went no further.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If these recordings are now clients’ property than only the clients could distribute or share them and not the maker without the consent of the owner. 

 

 That is correct, and although in this case it was only a single sample track from a very old recording , George shouldn't have let me hear it.

I guess that George is fed up with the constant snide remarks about his expertise in this area, and just wanted someone else to know that he does has proven expertise in this area. 

 

Sorry George, I should have kept my big mouth shut  in this case.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"There's no such thing as a bad recording!" - and that's been a very reliable guide.

 

 Any recording that has a large amount of obvious audible peak level clipping, as can also be verified by a Sound Editing program IS a bad recording !

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

I see. Only those you're certain will hear what you tell them to hear are allowed to listen. Reminds me of Alex's magical test files.

 

 All you need to do is ask esldude to send you a MAM Gold CD-R of my comparison .wav files, that was designed to be played directly, NOT ripped, via a decent CD player and a better than average system ,although Barry D. could still hear some differences after ripping to HDD with the CD-R that I supplied him.

The availability of these CD-Rs has been mentioned in C.A. quite a few times already, yet not a single member appears to have asked Dennis to forward one to them.

I  did however originally state that it would be a waste of time sending one to any member whose playback equipment he considers is mediocre, or who has demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are highly unlikely to hear any differences, because they have a 100% expectation that there are no audible differences. 

[sandyk]

Just now, Archimago said:

 

Absolutely. See, we agree on some thing...

 Archimago

 I am not against appropriate measurements, and do also use test equipment wherever possible,

although due to my age (79) , I have given much of my remaining gear away.

 However, I do not believe that we yet know everything that needs to be measured in  some cases.

It could be very difficult for example to compare the analogue output of a DAC with 2 checksum identical musical files such as one via a Regen , and another without a Regen, where audible differences are confirmed via non sighted listening, without another A/D conversion which will almost certainly degrade subtle ( or not quite so subtle ) differences.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, psjug said:

If you use an MQA ADC then it won't degrade; it will improve.  Seriously, though, you won't accept comparisons from an ADC if top notch equipment is used?

 No, I won't accept any further A/D conversions.

 I have been readily able to hear the differences of copying a ripped file to a different location on another internal HDD , or as Cookie Marenco says .(below)

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, psjug said:

What if it proved what you wanted to show?

 

 It is far more unlikely to show what we wanted, and I simply don't need any more people jumping to negative conclusions in this area, based on failures using this methodology to show differences confirmed previously under non sighted or DBT conditions.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, the website that George pointed to is a disaster - for me, at least ... trying to hear some of the samples only achieved something like an old time short wave radio quality - so I tried YouTube . Came up with this clip, which may or may not be done by the man,

 

 

In any case, the quality shows up all the good things - would do very nicely on a full blown rig ...

 There is a small amount of depth information from this example in a couple of places, but your brain would need to work very hard filling in the blanks to get much more from it.

 Very few YouTube clips have much depth anyway, let alone height,  due to the max. 187Kilobits .aac used.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Sometimes, a YouTube clip will come across better than I've heard the CD on ambitious systems, because key parts of the content are not blurred as much as they are on the "big rig".

 

 A YouTube clip with a Static visual display should NEVER come across better than a well recorded CD on a decent system !

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 Like I said before, I strongly suspect that you don't hear any depth or height for the very reason that you have decided beforehand that you're not going to hear it.

 

That appears to be a general problem with many from the Objective side, and why he is highly unlikely to hear any differences that Mani hears when they meet up.

[sandyk]

Quote

• 
•  
• 10,181 posts

• Report post
•  

Posted 10 hours ago

11 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 Like I said before, I strongly suspect that you don't hear any depth or height for the very reason that you have decided beforehand that you're not going to hear it.

 

That appears to be a general problem with many from the Objective side, and why he is highly unlikely to hear any differences that Mani hears when they meet up.

This is why I have ZERO expectations that Archimago will hear any differences with the CD-R that is being sent to him, and why I said to feel free to pass the CD around among Audiophile friends.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I find it interesting that some people seem oblivious to the major changes in perceived quality when altering the software used for playback, and the settings used - on 2 quite ordinary PCs, one a desktop, the other the laptop, I went through quite a long process for each, on separate occasions, finding the player, and settings which gave the best sound over the inbuilt circuitry, and auxiliary, basic monitor speakers. Different players gave the best result for each one - and reverting to the much lower standard of the usual suspects is then quite irritating to the ear.

 

Yes, many people, E.E.s and Software people especially, seem to think that all software players must sound the same provided that the same binary data is exported to the DAC. Thus many insist that the Foobar 2K comparator should be used for comparison purposes ! Not all players even play from System Memory.

There are quite a few software players for both Windows and Mac that sound considerably better than the " Jack of all trades, Master of none" Foobar 2000.

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Here we go again, insulting entire professions. Do you seriously believe it's possible to construct and program a computer without knowing how it works?

 

Oh, but they do. There is no other way to write one.

 

That is not what I am saying. The  simple fact is that many software player programs do sound different.

It's your problem if you are unable to hear what so many other C.A. members report, especially with the various Mac software players. 

Many even report hearing a difference between the various CD Ripping programs used, quite a few expressing a preference for a more "solid" sound from dBPoweramp compared with E.A.C. !

That is with correct checksums from both Rippers too.

 

Perhaps I didn't word my reply carefully enough, but many players such as .VLC Media player, Power DVD etc. etc. do NOT load the contents into system memory before playing them. This is especially evident when you play from a USB memory stick for example, where there may be several seconds of delay before play starts, where you can see it's LED flashing before play starts , then cease when  the file is being played. 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

They do. There is no other way of getting the data to the DAC.

With a USB memory stick it's clear when the contents were NOT buffered before playing, when the LED continues to flash during playing. Does that suit you better ? Note also that jRiver didn't originally play from System Memory, as Jim didn't believe that it made any difference. It was customer demand that saw it happen !

  As is so often the case, you are playing word games , when you know damn well what I  , and others, are trying to say.

With you, it looks like we need to carefully dot all the "i"s and cross the "t"s every time we say something to you.