16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

a. I claimed that from there on (new XXHighEnd version) the differences would be eliminated;

(because I created a means which would present a 100% equal physical representation of the file each time it was put up for playback, no matter the source location and its physical representation there)

 

 c. It was you, Alex, who told that the differences were still there, even when using that new XXHighEnd feature.

(which was not and never discussed further, already not because you were not an XXHighEnd user (never obtained a license))

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Hi Peter

a.This  may be true for your own files played using XXHE, but you , Mani and acg (Anthony) were still able to hear clear differences between my versions , with an upload of the tracks  " Unter Donner und Blitz Polka, Op. 324" as discussed in a C.A. thread.

 I don't recollect if all of you were using XXHE though .

c. I was not an XXHighEnd user (never obtained a license)) because although you graciously offered me a copy, I never took you up on it due to the large number of updates originally. This is something that also annoys me a little with JRiver too.

It could have been an interesting exercise though to see if XXHE is capable of doing what you claim with files that I have saved here at different locations, without bringing them all down to the same quality level.

[sandyk]

Ralf 11

 It could have been an interesting exercise to see if Peter's XXHE was capable of rectifying the OP's problem if he had used Peter's S/W.

i.e.

16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

with an upload of the tracks  " Unter Donner und Blitz Polka, Op. 324" as discussed in a C.A. thread.

 

That being a 16 bit file that indeed is almost unlistenable ?

 

(sorry Alex couldn't let that slide  )

[Ralf11]

16 bits of unglistenable

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

That being a 16 bit file that indeed is almost unlistenable ?

 

(sorry Alex couldn't let that slide  )

 

 Surely not when using HQPlayer -> fiberoptic ethernet    ?

[gmgraves]

On 9/4/2018 at 5:38 AM, firedog said:

It's a social concept based on a fiction and a false understanding. Your friend can believe whatever he wants, that doesn't make it true. An identical twin to your friend would call himself white in a different culture or place - because it is a social concept; and how people see it changes with time and culture - irrespective of the individual's actual genetics. 

The fact that the US is obsessed with race and it's historic legacy of racism and it appears on government documents also doesn't make it real. It makes it a social construct based on a fiction.

It's real enough when people kill each other over it and and one or more ethnicities are considered "the criminal class" in a society so that all are lumped together and assumed to be up to be up to no good irrespective of what they do or who they are. An example of this is a black actor named Levar Burton (Kintekuta in Roots, Geordie La Forge in Star Trek Next Generation) He had just bought himself a new Ferrari and was driving from Southern California to Northern California when he was stopped by the CA Highway Patrol, not because he was speeding, or reckless driving, but because a black man in a new Ferrari "looked suspicious". When burton showed the police paperwork establishing that he was, indeed, the legal registered owner of the Ferrari, the Police arrested him anyway on suspicion of drug trafficking!.The incident was resolved at the police station when he was recognized, but do you think that he would have even been stopped had he been a white man in that Ferrari?. Yet that kind of thing happens all the time. Don't tell me that the concept of race is a fiction, tell society at large.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

When burton showed the police paperwork establishing that he was, indeed, the legal registered owner of the Ferrari, the Police arrested him anyway on suspicion of drug trafficking!

Of course they did when they realised he was a famous actor.

[psjug]

13 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Kintekuta in Roots

Oh, man.  Your post was OK but I couldn't help laughing at how badly you mangled that one, esp considering the subject matter!

[tmtomh]

On 9/2/2018 at 2:01 PM, gmgraves said:

Seig Hiel! Whatever happened to freedom of speech? It's not enough that we, in the 21st century, have to put up with the notion of "political correctness", now we have "thought police" like ARQuint here advocating censuring people who voice opinions which differ from his. The fact that you and others here find my opinions on music offensive is perhaps the silliest thing I've ever seen. If I were insulting you or yours personally, or I were purposely denigrating some race, religion, or creed, I could see why you be offended. But getting offended over some aspect of pop culture? Ridiculous! It's like getting offended because someone thinks that your favorite baseball or football team is sub-par! Talk about overreacting! I question anybody's mental health who gets so worked-up about an item of personal taste. 

 

Let me ask you a question. What if it were true? Do you advocate keeping it a secret just to avoid "hurting someone's feelings?" I ask because what you postulate is actually true! Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQs. Higher than non-Jewish Europeans.  

 

 

 

I just revisited this thread after a little time off, only to find that it had degenerated into an unbelievably off-topic - and pointless - argument about race. I say "pointless" because most folks in the argument actually are in agreement. The "race is a social construct and not real" folks are not in any way denying that the concept of race has very real impacts in the world, nor are they denying that many people do believe race is real. But the fact that a construct is believed by many and on that basis shapes the reality we all live in, does not mean that the construct is in fact based on biological fact or any similar empirical data.

 

But even worse, I've looked back in the thread to see where it went off the rails, and I found this nonsense: @ARQuint makes the totally reasonable point that some basic standards of civility underly virtually every functional discursive community, and in response gmgraves trots out the moronic "civility = PC censorship = Naziism" argument aka the laziest libertarian argument in the world.

 

And the final, underlying tragedy of it is that gmgraves made this silly argument simply because he doesn't agree with ARQuint's general line of discussion here at CA.

 

Look, I get it - I've made no secret of my own disdain for ARQuint's high-handed scolding and incessant attacks on @The Computer Audiophile. But he's right about his civility point, and the point behind his example of "what if one person said that one race was better than another" is obvious: Such a claim would be hateful/racist, and factually inaccurate. It's not just one "opinion" among other presumably equal opinions. It's a falsehood whose usage is well known to have a very particular motivation. And while the government cannot prevent anyone from expressing such views, or punish them for expressing them, it's stupid or willfully ignorant to pretend that there's something wrong with a privately owned and moderated hobby forum having civility rules and/or off-topic types of comments.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

But he's right about his civility point, and the point behind his example of "what if one person said that one race was better than another" is obvious: Such a claim would be hateful/racist, and factually inaccurate.

And then gmgraves made precisely that claim (yet again, and apparently without irony), which was what set off the race discussion.

[manisandher]

20 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

... why is it so difficult to imagine that someone supposedly capable of identifying a minute difference between bit-perfect digital files might also be able to hear a relatively loud keyboard strike a short distance away with only a couple of wooden panels with a gap at the bottom standing in the way?

 

You know the layout of my house and the gap under my doors do you?

 

Anyway, my phone was videoing the keystrokes as Mans made them, so that we could confirm the exact ABXs if required. If I play the video and close my eyes and listen to the keystrokes, I'd be hard pushed to decipher whether X =A or X=B... and yet I supposedly managed this from another room, between two closed doors and a hallway? Totally laughable.

 

The only other "plausible thing to consider" that Mans came up with was different timings between X=A and X=B... but the data showed that the timings were in fact random.

 

You said "one of many plausible things to consider". Remind me... exactly what were the others?

 

Mani.

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Anyway, my phone was videoing the keystrokes as Mans made them, so that we could confirm the exact ABXs if required.

 

Why would you need to listen to the keystrokes when you can watch a direct video feed? That's how I'd do it  Just kidding, Mani!

[Richard Dale]

On 9/4/2018 at 11:50 AM, pkane2001 said:

 

Alex, you have no proof. The scrambled, angry PMs from you with fuzzy photos do not rise to even a level of simple evidence, much less proof. Your stories about what someone heard and saw years ago are even less believable. There's no 'accepted dogma' here, there is a very clear understanding of digital data by people who created and built it, not by amateurs who want to believe in magic. 

 

There's no room in digital for the type of noise you are describing. None, nowhere, nohow. No matter how many people you think hear it, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I am a 'subjectivist' and I believe in all sorts of daft things such as preferring tube amplifiers to transistor ones, and thinking RCA interconnects sound different and so on. But I am also a computer programmer and I know what a Unix/Linux 'file' is. I am amazed that we have not been able to explain to sandyk why his ideas about files can't possibly make any sense. So perhaps I'll attempt to explain to non-computer science experts what a 'file' is.

 

A file is a sequence of bytes, where each byte is a pattern of eight '1's and '0's. That is all the 'file' is, and it is the definition of a 'file', no more and no less. A simpler sort of 'file' might be called a 'byte file', which is just a single byte consisting of eight bits where each bit is either '1' or '0'. You can write down the contents of a 'byte file' on a piece of paper, for instance as '01110011' would be a value, and then you could  pass that piece of paper to someone else.

 

You could also represent this 'byte file' using a line of eight people holding flags where a person representing a '0' would hold the flag downwards, and a person representing a '1' would hold the flag in the air. It would be then very easy to transpose the 'byte file' represented by the line of people to a sequence of '1's and '0's written on a piece of paper and pass that piece of paper to someone else. 

 

That other person could decide to represent the 'byte file' as a sequence of eight glass bottles on a wall, which were either green or white glass, where the green bottles would stand for a '1' and the white bottles would stand for a '0'. You could look at the eight bottles and call over to a line of eight people holding flags and tell them how to hold their flags, either 'up' or 'down' to represent the same 'byte file' as the bottles version.

 

Because the meaning of a 'byte file' is independent of how it is represented it doesn't make any sense to say that it is possible that there could be extra values associated with each 'byte file' beyond the sequence of eight values, or that a perfect copying mechanism for transposing one representation to another must always fail in the same way. That is what would need to happen if copying computer files, was in some way like making imperfect photo copies. It isn't a physical thing like that.

 

Maybe I've still failed, but flying pigs are physical things and computer files are not - they are an abstraction entirely independent of any particular physical representation.

 

A very famous computer scientist and mathematician called Alan Turing described a very simple computer in terms of a paper tape reader and some operations that it could make when reading the current symbol on the paper tape. In his theory he was able to say that this very simple computer was exactly equivalent to any type of more complicated computer. That is on the same lines of my descriptions of representing what I have called a 'byte file' with humans with flags, lines of bottles or with digits on paper. They are exactly equivalent, there is never anything more and never anything less when you transpose one into another.

[adamdea]

13 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

I am a 'subjectivist' and I believe in all sorts of daft things such as preferring tube amplifiers to transistor ones, and thinking RCA interconnects sound different and so on. But I am also a computer programmer and I know what a Unix/Linux 'file' is. I am amazed that we have not been able to explain to sandyk why his ideas about files can't possibly make any sense. So perhaps I'll attempt to explain to non-computer science experts what a 'file' is.

 

A file is a sequence of bytes, where each byte is a pattern of eight '1's and '0's. That is all the 'file' is, and it is the definition of a 'file', no more and no less. A simpler sort of 'file' might be called a 'byte file', which is just a single byte consisting of eight bits where each bit is either '1' or '0'. You can write down the contents of a 'byte file' on a piece of paper, for instance as '01110011' would be a value, and then you could  pass that piece of paper to someone else.

 

You could also represent this 'byte file' using a line of eight people holding flags where a person representing a '0' would hold the flag downwards, and a person representing a '1' would hold the flag in the air. It would be then very easy to transpose the 'byte file' represented by the line of people to a sequence of '1's and '0's written on a piece of paper and pass that piece of paper to someone else. 

 

That other person could decide to represent the 'byte file' as a sequence of eight glass bottles on a wall, which were either green or white glass, where the green bottles would stand for a '1' and the white bottles would stand for a '0'. You could look at the eight bottles and call over to a line of eight people holding flags and tell them how to hold their flags, either 'up' or 'down' to represent the same 'byte file' as the bottles version.

 

Because the meaning of a 'byte file' is independent of how it is represented it doesn't make any sense to say that it is possible that there could be extra values associated with each 'byte file' beyond the sequence of eight values, or that a perfect copying mechanism for transposing one representation to another must always fail in the same way. That is what would need to happen if copying computer files, was in some way like making imperfect photo copies. It isn't a physical thing like that.

 

Maybe I've still failed, but flying pigs are physical things and computer files are not - they are an abstraction entirely independent of any particular physical representation.

 

A very famous computer scientist and mathematician called Alan Turing described a very simple computer in terms of a paper tape reader and some operations that it could make when reading the current symbol on the paper tape. In his theory he was able to say that this very simple computer was exactly equivalent to any type of more complicated computer. That is on the same lines of my descriptions of representing what I have called a 'byte file' with humans with flags, lines of bottles or with digits on paper. They are exactly equivalent, there is never anything more and never anything less when you transpose one into another.

Good heavens, do you mean to say that the information content of a digitally encoded signal may be largely independent of the accidents of the medium in which it is stored or transmitted? Perhaps this may have implications for digital audio. 

[esldude]

30 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

I am a 'subjectivist' and I believe in all sorts of daft things such as preferring tube amplifiers to transistor ones, and thinking RCA interconnects sound different and so on. But I am also a computer programmer and I know what a Unix/Linux 'file' is. I am amazed that we have not been able to explain to sandyk why his ideas about files can't possibly make any sense. So perhaps I'll attempt to explain to non-computer science experts what a 'file' is.

 

A file is a sequence of bytes, where each byte is a pattern of eight '1's and '0's. That is all the 'file' is, and it is the definition of a 'file', no more and no less. A simpler sort of 'file' might be called a 'byte file', which is just a single byte consisting of eight bits where each bit is either '1' or '0'. You can write down the contents of a 'byte file' on a piece of paper, for instance as '01110011' would be a value, and then you could  pass that piece of paper to someone else.

 

You could also represent this 'byte file' using a line of eight people holding flags where a person representing a '0' would hold the flag downwards, and a person representing a '1' would hold the flag in the air. It would be then very easy to transpose the 'byte file' represented by the line of people to a sequence of '1's and '0's written on a piece of paper and pass that piece of paper to someone else. 

 

That other person could decide to represent the 'byte file' as a sequence of eight glass bottles on a wall, which were either green or white glass, where the green bottles would stand for a '1' and the white bottles would stand for a '0'. You could look at the eight bottles and call over to a line of eight people holding flags and tell them how to hold their flags, either 'up' or 'down' to represent the same 'byte file' as the bottles version.

 

Because the meaning of a 'byte file' is independent of how it is represented it doesn't make any sense to say that it is possible that there could be extra values associated with each 'byte file' beyond the sequence of eight values, or that a perfect copying mechanism for transposing one representation to another must always fail in the same way. That is what would need to happen if copying computer files, was in some way like making imperfect photo copies. It isn't a physical thing like that.

 

Maybe I've still failed, but flying pigs are physical things and computer files are not - they are an abstraction entirely independent of any particular physical representation.

 

A very famous computer scientist and mathematician called Alan Turing described a very simple computer in terms of a paper tape reader and some operations that it could make when reading the current symbol on the paper tape. In his theory he was able to say that this very simple computer was exactly equivalent to any type of more complicated computer. That is on the same lines of my descriptions of representing what I have called a 'byte file' with humans with flags, lines of bottles or with digits on paper. They are exactly equivalent, there is never anything more and never anything less when you transpose one into another.

 

Reminds me of Sean McMullen's excellent Greatwinter triology.  Orbiting satellites from an old war prevent any electrical or electronic devices from functioning.  Digital computing is re-discovered only all forms have to be mechanical in nature.  I've not read it in nearly 20 years.  I think the proof of concept in the feudal society had a field with thousands of servants in a square grid holding flags up or down following simple algorithmic instructions.  Which allowed the demonstration that digital computations could be carried out, and data stored and carried forward.  Perhaps the diet of the serfs used for bits would have effected the sound of digital audio files in a way analogous to linear power supplies.

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

I am a 'subjectivist' and I believe in all sorts of daft things such as preferring tube amplifiers to transistor ones, and thinking RCA interconnects sound different and so on. But I am also a computer programmer and I know what a Unix/Linux 'file' is. I am amazed that we have not been able to explain to sandyk why his ideas about files can't possibly make any sense. So perhaps I'll attempt to explain to non-computer science experts what a 'file' is.

 

A file is a sequence of bytes, where each byte is a pattern of eight '1's and '0's. That is all the 'file' is, and it is the definition of a 'file', no more and no less. A simpler sort of 'file' might be called a 'byte file', which is just a single byte consisting of eight bits where each bit is either '1' or '0'. You can write down the contents of a 'byte file' on a piece of paper, for instance as '01110011' would be a value, and then you could  pass that piece of paper to someone else.

 

You could also represent this 'byte file' using a line of eight people holding flags where a person representing a '0' would hold the flag downwards, and a person representing a '1' would hold the flag in the air. It would be then very easy to transpose the 'byte file' represented by the line of people to a sequence of '1's and '0's written on a piece of paper and pass that piece of paper to someone else. 

 

That other person could decide to represent the 'byte file' as a sequence of eight glass bottles on a wall, which were either green or white glass, where the green bottles would stand for a '1' and the white bottles would stand for a '0'. You could look at the eight bottles and call over to a line of eight people holding flags and tell them how to hold their flags, either 'up' or 'down' to represent the same 'byte file' as the bottles version.

 

Because the meaning of a 'byte file' is independent of how it is represented it doesn't make any sense to say that it is possible that there could be extra values associated with each 'byte file' beyond the sequence of eight values, or that a perfect copying mechanism for transposing one representation to another must always fail in the same way. That is what would need to happen if copying computer files, was in some way like making imperfect photo copies. It isn't a physical thing like that.

 

Maybe I've still failed, but flying pigs are physical things and computer files are not - they are an abstraction entirely independent of any particular physical representation.

 

A very famous computer scientist and mathematician called Alan Turing described a very simple computer in terms of a paper tape reader and some operations that it could make when reading the current symbol on the paper tape. In his theory he was able to say that this very simple computer was exactly equivalent to any type of more complicated computer. That is on the same lines of my descriptions of representing what I have called a 'byte file' with humans with flags, lines of bottles or with digits on paper. They are exactly equivalent, there is never anything more and never anything less when you transpose one into another.

 

Good luck, Richard. As long as Alex believes that someone has heard a difference, it must be all true. No logic, math, or scientific argument will help, all Turing machines be damned ?

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Good luck, Richard. As long as Alex believes that someone has heard a difference, it must be all true. No logic, math, or scientific argument will help, all Turing machines be damned ?

Alex has a halting problem. He just won't stop.

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Good luck, Richard. As long as Alex believes that someone has heard a difference, it must be all true. No logic, math, or scientific argument will help, all Turing machines be damned ?

 

The fact that he refers to computer science and math as "dogma" says it all.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

I am amazed that we have not been able to explain to sandyk why his ideas about files can't possibly make any sense.

 

It IS true, because the reports have already been verified as a a result of 6 separate correctly performed DBTs.

 

Why don't you pack of snobbish know-it-alls get up of your high horses and avail yourself of the opportunity to see for yourself just how far out of date you really are ?

 There are several BR Comparison discs that have been with esldude for several months that he wasn't able to play as intended because his mediocre BR player can't play .mp4 videos.
They were deliberately designed to get away from crappy Laptops , "deaf" standard Mac Minis etc. 

 I can even provide a "Cheat Sheet" pointing out the most obvious differencesc

Get away from your tripewriters for a change, borrow a suitable media player such as an Oppo 103 or later model if you don't already have a suitable player, connect the player via HDMI to a decent HDTV,  with the audio from the Media player connected into your own system ( assuming that you even HAVE a decent audio system !!!). and also assuming that you are in the USA , ask Dennis to send you one of the earlier comparison BR discs to check. You will then not only SEE differences, you will at the same time HEAR different sounding audio, DESPITE what your beloved , be-all-end-all Checksums may insist.

 

Of course, you won't do this, just like Ralf 11 who has a suitable Oppo204 player, and previously expressed interest, then couldn't be bothered to even ask Dennis to send him a BR  disc.

 Exactly the same happened when I previously sent Dennis some comparison CD-Rs to make available to any member who has posted about also having a suitable non PC based Audio sytem.
All that was needed was the availability of a high quality CD/DVD player such as the previously mentioned Oppo players, or better.

Their availability was mentioned on quite a few occasions,  but apparently nobody with a suitable system (which rules out many of the Objective side in this thread) , could even be bothered to ask for one to be sent to them in the USA.
 I presume that Dennis still has some of these comparison CD-Rs available for those who still have a decent CD/DVD player.

 I previously did similar for Barry Diament, and he also confirmed what I reported, just like with later comparison CD-Rs that I sent to Martin Colloms.

Quote

,,,,,My wife could hear the differences very easily too , I did a few blind comparisons and she had no problem scoring and describing subjective differences

 had things to do at this juncture.......................

thanks for arranging the trial,  should I send the discs back for others to test?

BTW great sounds from the 'good' tracks on the gold discs

You will let me know the basis for the differences....

Kind regards   Martin

 

 

 It really is a waste of time discussing anything like this with the deaf vocal E.Es and S/W  members who congregate mainly in this single section of the forum and ignore the numerous advances reported in other areas of the forum.

 

 Why are you even members of an AUDIOPHILE FORUM ?

 

 If anybody is genuinely interested, please feel free to PM me, or if they are able to meet the requirements that I mentioned, and live in the USA, ask Dennis to send them a comparison BD-R disc.

 

[Richard Dale]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

It IS true, because the reports have already been verified as a a result of 6 separate correctly performed DBTs.

 

Why don't you pack of snobbish know-it-alls get up of your high horses and avail yourself of the opportunity to see for yourself just how far out of date you really are ?

 There are several BR Comparison discs that have been with esldude for several months that he wasn't able to play as intended because his mediocre BR player can't play .mp4 videos.
They were deliberately designed to get away from crappy Laptops , "deaf" standard Mac Minis etc. 

 I can even provide a "Cheat Sheet" pointing out the most obvious differencesc

Get away from your tripewriters for a change, borrow a suitable media player such as an Oppo 103 or later model if you don't already have a suitable player, connect the player via HDMI to a decent HDTV,  with the audio from the Media player connected into your own system ( assuming that you even HAVE a decent audio system !!!). and also assuming that you are in the USA , ask Dennis to send you one of the earlier comparison BR discs to check. You will then not only SEE differences, you will at the same time HEAR different sounding audio, DESPITE what your beloved , be-all-end-all Checksums may insist.

 

Of course, you won't do this, just like Ralf 11 who has a suitable Oppo204 player, and previously expressed interest, then couldn't be bothered to even ask Dennis to send him a BR  disc.

 Exactly the same happened when I previously sent Dennis some comparison CD-Rs to make available to any member who has posted about also having a suitable non PC based Audio sytem.
All that was needed was the availability of a high quality CD/DVD player such as the previously mentioned Oppo players, or better.

Their availability was mentioned on quite a few occasions,  but apparently nobody with a suitable system (which rules out many of the Objective side in this thread) , could even be bothered to ask for one to be sent to them in the USA.
 I presume that Dennis still has some of these comparison CD-Rs available for those who still have a decent CD/DVD player.

 I previously did similar for Barry Diament, and he also confirmed what I reported, just like with later comparison CD-Rs that I sent to Martin Colloms.

 

 It really is a waste of time discussing anything like this with the deaf vocal E.Es and S/W  members who congregate mainly in this single section of the forum and ignore the numerous advances reported in other areas of the forum.

 

 Why are you even members of an AUDIOPHILE FORUM ?

 

 If anybody is genuinely interested, please feel free to PM me, or if they are able to meet the requirements that I mentioned, and live in the USA, ask Dennis to send them a comparison BD-R disc.

 

Oh dear, epic fail on my behalf with an attempt at an explanation of how file copying works in computers on an abstract mathematical level.

[Ralf11]

Hey SandMan, I do not have an Oppo204 player, and your pm's are full of fuzzy photos...

 

AND  no one has seen your shifting number of 6 DBTs.  Not that 6 would be valid.

 

Not that NO METHODOLOGY has been given for the supposed DBTs.

 

CUT THE BS.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

Oh dear, epic fail on my behalf with an attempt at an explanation of how file copying works in computers on an abstract mathematical level.

 

You weren't the first to beat your head to a bloody pulp against that brick wall. Most of us have given up trying.

[fas42]

Alex, the precise method of listening to these files, the order in which you do it, the sequence of operations making it happen most likely are what are causing these perceived variations - unless you do a trial where absolutely every aspect of whether the next version listened to is selected totally at random, and the paths whereby the sources are read are effectively 100% identical, then you're not putting A and B on equal footing.

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Hey SandMan, I do not have an Oppo204 player, and your pm's are full of fuzzy photos...

 

AND  no one has seen your shifting number of 6 DBTs.  Not that 6 would be valid.

 

Not that NO METHODOLOGY has been given for the supposed DBTs.

 

CUT THE BS.

 

 You have claimed in the forum to have a suitable Oppo player. I may be incorrect about which model it is.

 Dennis has conceded that the recent uploaded photos which should have been looked at directly from Image Shack itself ,

did not have camera shake. Kumakuma stated that he could even see a slight ghost in img.0711.

 Note that I am not attributing any other conclusions to him other than this.

So you are lying about " fuzzy"  photos, although one version of each pair is obviously degraded to anybody using a decent monitor.

 C.A. member Eloise contacted M.C. directly about how the DBTs were performed and seemed reasonably happy with the response.

 The 6 separate sessions were with typically 8 sets of comparisons each time. NOT just a single comparison between 2 tracks performed on 6 separate occasions.

 I will not be responding to further attacks on my credibility in this thread by those too lazy to even avail themselves of the opportunity to find out the truth in this matter for themselves.

This means YOU too, Kumakuma !!

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Alex, the precise method of listening to these files, the order in which you do it, the sequence of operations making it happen most likely are what are causing these perceived variations - unless you do a trial where absolutely every aspect of whether the next version listened to is selected totally at random, and the paths whereby the sources are read are effectively 100% identical, then you're not putting A and B on equal footing.

 Frank

 Did you even bother to read my PM ?

 These files are burned to BD-R discs. You can play them in any damn sequence you want with exactly the same results.

 You can even easily rip them to HDD again to check that the .md5 files of each pair of comparisons are identical to those provided.

 

 I am now out of this thread which has long since passed it's use by date !