Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This, btw, is nothing different from those who provoke difference tests for many years and with that prove that there can-not-be an audible difference. Strange then that I can show (audibly) differences which blow you out of your socks and which not only show differences by these difference test means that are well under 120dB and thus "inaudible", but which show no-difference-at-all. Only my own means shows it (easily) and I must say that @pkane2001is heading for something that eventually may be able to do it too.

Hi Peter

This section certainly is NOT off topic.

Quite a few members, including Barry Diament, have questioned the validity of NULL testing being definitive for quite some time.

 Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, bachish said:

Check out the smooth, silky, analog-like quality of the Rhode NTRs - a very nice ribbon mic. Worth a listen...

 

 Yeah, right! Certainly not from this video when played directly .

 It sounds like crap , when  compared with the same video sourced from the URL of this video , then downloaded and played with JRiver , DESPITE only having 125 kilobits .aac audio !

 

* WinX YouTube Downloader

https://youtu.be/lEgRsHjoF4c

 

P.S.

 You will also see from my Sig that I also hear (despite my advanced years) what Cookie reports hearing, including the use of Uncompressed Zips as confirmed by her testing with elcorso (Roch) some time ago.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, bachish said:

 

I can still get a good sense of the mics, thank you.  Seems obvious to me. Just have to know what to listen for.

 

 

 With only 125 Kilobits compressed .aac audio, perhaps a healthy dose of Expectation Bias too ?

 Perhaps you have a link to the audio of this video that isn't so compressed and " bit shy" ?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

the airy yet somewhat rolled off highs

 

 Yes. YouTube .aac has nothing above 16KHZ

 

 I don't doubt that you are able to hear the differences between the mics, but don't expect others to from YouTube or VEVO videos which are designed to have markedly inferior audio so that it doesn't affect album sales.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

Personally, I think people (audiophiles in particular) should train their ears to be able to hear qualities in recordings even when not on an audiophile system or high bit streaming.  

 

Why ?  Music is for enjoyment, not analysis.  Why settle for plain Vanilla ?

 As I mentioned previously, this recording when  downloaded sounds WAY better, and less compressed when played using JRiver.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, bachish said:

Because in the end it will bring you more enjoyment, even when you don't have a Redbook or high res version.

 Really ?

Low bit rate audio, especially .mp3, annoys the hell out of me, perhaps due to industrial type hearing damage.

It sounds like an excuse to try and make people get used to the typical high compression and reduced SQ since around 1985 when the Loudness Wars started.

Thankfully, there are still Recording and Mastering Engineers around like Barry Diament and Cookie Marenco who strive for the highest possible sound quality from their recordings.

 

How about we get back to Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16 which is of more interest than very low bit rate YouTube Audio ?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, bachish said:

If you can hear the differences cookie talks about, then you are more than able to tell the YouTube was recorded with ribbon mics with a bit of training.

 

 I may already be able to without training, given  something better than .aac audio at 125Kilobits. However, like most people, I take YouTube and Vevo music videos as ONLY an indication whether the album the video was designed to promote is worth further investigation. 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, if you're in love with "silky," flat FR sounding "clinical" makes sense. 

 Hi Jud

 That doesn't tie in with the broad -10dB  droop in  FR around 10 KHZ which you showed in your FR graph.

 Perhaps it isn't the same microphone ?

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, bachish said:

 

Yes, that is the mic in the YouTube video.  The silky quality isn't just in the frequency response of the mic. If that were so, we could take a condenser mic and roll it off around the same point as a ribbon mic and it would sound the same. But they don't.

 

Interesting, given that Barry Diament's microphones are only -1DB down at 40KHZ, with usable frequency response to at least 57KHZ.

 Would you describe Barry's hi res recordings as " Clinical" sounding ?

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, danadam said:

But youtube .opus does, up to 20 kHz, just FYI.

And I don't know how it's with everybody else, but for me youtube usually plays opus version rather than aac.

 

Yes. But you pay for it.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Huh?

 

 I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that this was a new " ad free " subscription service. from YouTube.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

If your browser supports it, you get Opus audio. No payment required.

 

 I am more interested in " ad free", as I also like watching the videos. It's annoying to keep having to close pop up ads while watching a video. Neither do I wish to view the videos directly, as the audio is considerably degraded to compared with downloading the file and playing with JRiver. This was particularly noticeable with the video linked to in this thread, and the audible differences were far from subtle.

 Another problem that I often encounter is the inability during peak periods to watch a video that doesn't need to play " catchup" due to bandwidth restrictions. Downloading the video prevents that problem as well as removing the ads.

Opus Audio isn't available with freeware (or paid for) downloaders as far as I can see.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Use an ad blocker.

 

 If you watched YouTube regularly you would realise that this doesn't work with YouTube videos, where much of the time you have to wait until the ad is fully finished, or you can disable it after a specified number of seconds.

 

 Pop up blockers can also be a double edged sword, where you can sometimes see a pop up that interests you, but when given the ability to temporarily allow pop ups, the pop up you wished to check out is no longer there.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Whoops, yes, I remember now - they're part of the video.

 Hi Jud

 Downloading them not only results in superior Audio, but the ability to choose the available video resolution to save them in, which can be up to 1080P, or even in some cases, 4K resolution !

 Even with a stuttering video due to bandwidth limitations at the time, the DL usually takes much less time than the length of the video itself.

 

Regards

Alex

 

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Pop up blockers can also be a double edged sword, where you can sometimes see a pop up that interests you, but when given the ability to temporarily allow pop ups, the pop up you wished to check out is no longer there.

 

Given that pop ups are often targeted at your previous searches, you will often miss out on seeing new results and improved products that may be of considerable interest. if you block all pop ups.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Probably is common knowledge. I've just been ignoring all the ads forever, but lately it's started to bug me like commercial TV and radio.  Time to make things calmer. 

 

 But does it also bypass the obligatory YouTube ads that require you to wait a pre-determined time before viewing the actual video ?

 YouTube and Vevo would not take too kindly to that being defeated as it's their revenue stream. 

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes. It is faster and doesn't accept money from advertisers.

 

 I tried adblockplusie and it worked well, although I was unable to make it show Exclusions with W10/64.

 I would have been happy to exclude YouTube to get rid of all the other damn pop ups though.

 The first time that I tried using it YouTube gave a message about using an ad blocker and depriving artists of advertising revenue. 

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

If you use Chrome, a combination of uBlock and Nano Defender will prevent that.  (You need to read Nano Defender's instructions on getting the two to work together.)

 

Edit:  Opera or Vivaldi browsers are Chrome based and will work also.

Hi Jud

 I had a quick look at  Google Chrome but it tried to take over my Home page and just about everything else.

 Yeah, I am old and stuck in my ways.

 I like my present set up the way it is using I.E. and can live with what ad blocker is doing to YouTube, although I would have preferred that it didn't.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

38 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well Alex, pretty much all browsers try to do that.  You can decline the offer, and remove the check box for it to ask you those with each start.  Then it works like pretty much all other browsers.  After the initial few opt outs it isn't a problem.  

 Hi Dennis

 Google never gives in ! They try to wear you down with nagging , especially when you also need to use Google Mail .

 

Alex

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I need an ad blocker for youtube on apple TV

 Hmmm.

In my case using Internet Explorer and W10/64 there is no way to adjust it's settings to give exceptions such as YouTube and C.A.

 BTW, aren't the contributors to the forum drawing visitors to view the forum resulting in ad revenue?

Quote

It looks like you're using an adblocker.

We use ad revenue to pay our writers (and feed Chris's three-legged chihuahua). Please support us by adjusting your adblocker.

Adjust my adblockerContinue without disabling