Lies about vinyl vs digital

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

there may be genuine musical content past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good dog and pet dolphin to take full advantage of it

 

In YOUR opinion. Try telling that to the numerous members who prefer DSD etc. over RBCD

As is so often the case you are making these inane comments that contribute absolutely nothing worthwhile  to the threads with a view to disrupting them.

[Ralf11]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

In YOUR opinion. Try telling that to the numerous members who prefer DSD etc. over RBCD

As is so often the case you are making these inane comments that contribute absolutely nothing worthwhile  to the threads with a view to disrupting them.

 

No, it is not just my opinion.  It is a scientific fact, proven over and over again in experiments.

 

You are making inane, and insane comments based on your ignorance and some weird religious belief involving bit rot and noise infection.  You contribute misinformation which is less than absolutely nothing.  You frequently disrupt threads and have driven many good people away from here (not my opinion but the opinion of others - experts).

 

One of the most ignorant comments you have made is to confuse DSD with the ability to hear in the human ultrasonic range.

 

Go back to school if you need help on this.

 

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, esldude said:

The dolphin is why your sound must flow like water.  

 

Should I mention the old method of wet LP playback?   I never did get wet CD playback to work. 

 

That's a shame, sounds like liquid silver. You don't need water though, just crank enough power into the laser.

 

Or do what Travis Taylor and the Rocket City Rednecks did - put about 100 of the lasers from old CD and DVD players together in an array. You will have liquid music PDQ! 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Scottish??

And English, Welsh, and Irish. If ever there was a genetic stew made in the Devil's cauldron...

 

[sandyk]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

You are making inane, and insane comments based on your ignorance and some weird religious belief involving bit rot and noise infection.  You contribute misinformation which is less than absolutely nothing. 

 I will repeat this again

Quote

…..my reports about audio files sounding different, despite having identical checksums have been verified not only by correctly performed DBTs by Martin Colloms, but by NUMEROUS forum members including Peter, Barry Diament  and Mani, now including KingRex, AND  very recently including a high profile qualified E.E. that frequently posts in the General area of the forum, and has a post count in the 1,000s .

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

Oh where? I did ask Paul his thoughts on CD playback, are you afraid to give your view? 

 

Oh sorry if I did not reply.  If the music I want to listen to is only on CD, well then, CD is my friend. I would far rather listen to the music, in just about any format, that sit around and bemoan that the music is "unlistenable" unless it is of a certain quality or in a certain format. 

 

Caveat: there are people whom the equipment and sound is more important to than the music, and they may feel differently. 

 

[Paul R]

36 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I will repeat this again

 

 

Y'all need to take a step back here. You are both right, and to some degree, both wrong too. 

 

Alex, it is not possible for anyone to hear a signal at 50khz. It isn't a theory, it is indeed fact. Our auditory systems are not sensitive in that frequency range. 

 

Ralf - it is possible that capturing the entire signal, including inaudible parts, also captures something, or enables something, that we can hear. I do not know what and don't even have a viable theory about what that something would be.

 

But experience trumps theory here. if you listen and hear a difference, it isn't imagination. It is perception! 

 

On the subjects of bit-rot and digital degradation, well, I don't see how they can be possible, regardless of who hears those differences, or how exalted their status in the "audio world." However, it is more than possible people are hearing something. My guess is that "something" will turn out to be something simple and perfectly explicable.

 

Just my opinion there though.  Fight on if you wish, but in more than a decade, nobody seems to have won *anyone* over to the "other" side!  

 

-Paul 

[STC]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

there may be genuine musical content past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good dog and pet dolphin to take full advantage of it

 

But there is health benefit by having hypersonic frequencies in playback. 

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Alex, it is not possible for anyone to hear a signal at 50khz. It isn't a theory, it is indeed fact. Our auditory systems are not sensitive in that frequency range. 

Paul

 I have never claimed that we can, not even with bone conduction at those small levels.

 

 I fully agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs though.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

34 minutes ago, Paul R said:

but in more than a decade, nobody seems to have won *anyone* over to the "other" side!  

 

In part due to the fact that nobody has expressed any  interest in checking out the recent Music Video comparison tracks on the BR discs that I have available, where not only can you HEAR the differences, you can SEE the differences at the same time.

 It's a bit hard to dispute what your ears and eyes are both telling you at the same time !!!

[Paul R]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Paul

 I have never claimed that we can, not even with bone conduction at those small levels.

 

 I fully agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs though.

 

Regards

Alex

 

Ok, but it isn’t the amplitude - it is the frequency itself.  Even the common non-lethal ultrasonic weapons are only in the 20khz range.  

 

Now infrasound, that can cause some freaky problems!

 

 

[Paul R]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

In part due to the fact that nobody has expressed any  interest in checking out the recent Music Video comparison tracks on the BR discs that I have available, where not only can you HEAR the differences, you can SEE the differences at the same time.

 It's a bit hard to dispute what your ears and eyes are both telling you at the same time !!!

 

Well, we will have to disagree a bit there then. I do not see mysterious bit rot or other kinds of inexplicable forces at play there either.  

But, that is perhaps a discussion for another day. 

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Well, we will have to disagree a bit there then

 

How can you possibly disagree when you haven't even seen or heard  the discs !!!

 

That's exactly the problem in this forum. We have numerous members in another area of the forum (Rajiv's huge thread

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/ )

 doing what they refer to as " bleeding edge" investigations, and on the other hand numerous qualified E.E. and S/W people disputing these reports based on purely theoretical grounds from what they were taught at Uni DECADES ago.

[Paul R]

36 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

How can you possibly disagree when you haven't even seen or heard  the discs !!!

 

That's exactly the problem in this forum. We have numerous members in another area of the forum (Rajiv's huge thread

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/ )

 doing what they refer to as " bleeding edge" investigations, and on the other hand numerous qualified E.E. and S/W people disputing these reports based on purely theoretical grounds from what they were taught at Uni DECADES ago.

 

Because I have seen similar effects before, and been able to find reasonable explanations for them. No need for unusual explanations or mysterious unknowable forces. 

 

But I try to keep an open mind.  You know you are not the easiest person in the world to deal with then you think someone else is wrong, right?   😁

 

You seriously misjudge people sometimes as well. Most people are open to new theories. But those theories have to give better results than conventional theories before most people are willing to accept them. Might be willing to talk about and look at them, but come out and say an outlandish theory is proved correct? Takes more than a few uncontrolled examples to be compelling. 

 

But fun to think about none the less. 

[marce]

44 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

How can you possibly disagree when you haven't even seen or heard  the discs !!!

 

That's exactly the problem in this forum. We have numerous members in another area of the forum (Rajiv's huge thread

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/ )

 doing what they refer to as " bleeding edge" investigations, and on the other hand numerous qualified E.E. and S/W people disputing these reports based on purely theoretical grounds from what they were taught at Uni DECADES ago.

Yawn, same rubbish time after time...

A lot of those E.E. and S/W people are probably working in electronics, maybe you should think of that and possible on more cutting edge stuff than audio...

You need to get your head out of the sand and stop trolling threads with the same repeated stuff...

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Paul R said:

But I try to keep an open mind.

 Do you have an HDTV capable of playing YouTube .mp4s directly from a USB memory stick ?

 If so, I will investigate the possibility of sending a comparison Music Video via DropBox without them  experiencing too much degradation. I will then need to DL them again for myself to see if this is viable or not.

[Paul R]

Yes, I do, but why would I do so? I can steam to our 4K tv without all the electrical nonsense involved with a USB stick. It isn’t like audio with a USB stick - all the rest of the TV and network is not going to go away just because I plug in a USB stick. 

 

Also, I can stream to a full 5k resolution screen which shows up all the crap. 

 

Even if I believed there was an advantage Alex, I would never play video that way. For one thing, the screen power and connections are up on top of a tall bookshelf. One tiny little cable carries optical signal and power to the screen hanging on the wall. Really annoy me to get out a step stool just to play video or display pictures.

 

My photo collection is very large too Alex. It won’t fit on a USB stick, and is mostly stored in the cloud anyway. 

 

See why I am not a good target for your demos? I already have truly excellent video and it is fully integrated on my network. You would have to show me an improvement in my environment to catch my interest in this. You already know I have a good Blu-ray player here, I would be willing to test with that though. 

 

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Paul R said:

You already know I have a good Blu-ray player here, I would be willing to test with that though. 

PM sent

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh sorry if I did not reply.  If the music I want to listen to is only on CD, well then, CD is my friend. I would far rather listen to the music, in just about any format, that sit around and bemoan that the music is "unlistenable" unless it is of a certain quality or in a certain format. 

 

Caveat: there are people whom the equipment and sound is more important to than the music, and they may feel differently. 

 

Thanks

[Teresa]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

...it is possible that capturing the entire signal, including inaudible parts, also captures something, or enables something, that we can hear. I do not know what and don't even have a viable theory about what that something would be...

 

No one (to my knowledge) has ever said we can hear ultrasonic frequencies. The reason to reproduce them is because musical instruments have overtones as high as 102.4 KHz. See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!

 

There are many theories on what our bodies do with inaudible ultrasonic frequencies our ears cannot hear. In all the theories ultrasonic overtones must have the corresponding fundamental tone in order to be perceived.  Theories I've read include:

• We can feel ultrasonics with our skin.
• Ultrasonics are processed by the eyeball.
• Ultrasonics effect how audible frequencies sound.
• etc.

There are many other theories but those seem the most popular.

 

The theory that sounds the most plausible to me is audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly. When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is IMHO.

[davide256]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

In YOUR opinion. Try telling that to the numerous members who prefer DSD etc. over RBCD

As is so often the case you are making these inane comments that contribute absolutely nothing worthwhile  to the threads with a view to disrupting them.

Your constant irrational anger outbursts look like AD. Seek help. Else you wll become ostracized and isolated from society.

21 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

No one (to my knowledge) has ever said we can hear ultrasonic frequencies. The reason to reproduce them is because musical instruments have overtones as high as 102.4 KHz. See There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!

 

There are many theories on what our bodies do with inaudible ultrasonic frequencies our ears cannot hear. In all the theories ultrasonic overtones must have the corresponding fundamental tone in order to be perceived.  Theories I've read include:

• We can feel ultrasonics with our skin.
• Ultrasonics are processed by the eyeball.
• Ultrasonics effect how audible frequencies sound.
• etc.

There are many other theories but those seem the most popular.

 

The theory that sounds the most plausible to me is audio energy exists as upper overtones of musical instruments and has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear directly. When listening to music we hear the fundamental note and its overtones shape the timbre, this is why an oboe and a clarinet sound different when playing the same note as their overtone series is different. The more overtones available to shape the timbre of the fundamental tone the more accurate the timbre is IMHO.

Teresa,

ultrasonics by definition can't be heard, and to be felt require that they are the fundamental tone, else are too low in energy to be physically felt.

The reason we can enjoy music with much of the same capability as we age is that over 90% of the energy of a musical performance lies below 10khz.

The one hit we take with aging is imaging as the frequencies above 10khz provide better directional queues to our ears. A simple cricket can produce

a very loud and easily located sound because it is a higher frequency requiring little energy

 

 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, davide256 said:

A simple cricket can produce

a very loud and easily located sound because it is a higher frequency requiring little energy

 

On the contrary the sound of cricket is hard to localize by human. 

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Your constant irrational anger outbursts look like AD. Seek help. Else you wll become ostracized and isolated from society.

DELETED. You simply aren't worth the trouble.

[The_K-Man]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

Caveat: there are people whom the equipment and sound is more important to than the music, and they may feel differently. 

 

And those people are who we classify as audiophiles.

 

From your self description, it would seem you are more of a melophile - or as I incorrectly described myself - a 'musiphile'.  A lover of the music itself, and a fan of the performers.  

 

For you and I, at the very least, if a song or album is well-written, well-performed, well-recorded, mixed, and mastered, it will sound great across the widest range of formats and playback devices or systems. Regardless of budget or effort spent to attain those systems.

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

And those people are who we classify as audiophiles.

 

From your self description, it would seem you are more of a melophile - or as I incorrectly described myself - a 'musiphile'.  A lover of the music itself, and a fan of the performers.  

 

For you and I, at the very least, if a song or album is well-written, well-performed, well-recorded, mixed, and mastered, it will sound great across the widest range of formats and playback devices or systems. Regardless of budget or effort spent to attain those systems.

 

I think you are unnecessarily trying to narrow the definition of “audiophile” - perhaps to describe some specific thing that has caught your interest. 

 

Too many labels.  

 

For me, the “audiophile” label is fine to encompass all the sub clans. I think everyone has a bit of “musiphile” and a bit of gear head in the mix. The extremes are just that, the extremes. 

 

YMMV!