Everything sounds the same

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The offer to provide proof still stands. If you have a suitable media player that can play BR discs with .mp4 high res videos on it,

 

Alex, we all use real computers now. We stopped going to Best Buy and arrange for movies there, let alone CDs. Well, that is what I imagine.

All we can do these days is download the files.

 

So there it stops. 

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

I think Alex is right, there. Not mentioning names now, the guys we talk about do not improve a single bit on audio. If it were to them, audio would be in the 70's of the past century. This, while my rig improves a "double" each year easily. And not only mine - also those who are open to the appliances (what ever they might be).

 

Debunking everything and all, undoubtedly in the mind of those persons, is a good thing for the world. Proving it with schoolbooks is the worst (school is always a decade behind except maybe on history).

Them trolls STOP progress. Or they try to on behalf of some orgasm. I don't know.

 

But Peter... you do realize this thread is explicitly about ‘everything sounds the same’, right? And you accuse others of trolling?

 

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Alex, we all use real computers now. We stopped going to Best Buy and arrange for movies there, let alone CDs. Well, that is what I imagine.

All we can do these days is download the files.

 

So there it stops. 

 Peter

 I am well aware of this, but we have an impasse because quite a few members insist that as long as the 1s and 0s come out of their cheap SMPS laptops etc.in the right sequence , that both the audio and video will be optimum, because the checksums say so.

This means that XXHE , HQPlayer, Foobar 2000,  Power DVD etc,. will all sound the same according to them, just as Video MUST look the same with the various S/W players.

 I deliberately put the comparison files on BR discs, meant to be played on a decent media player via HDMI into a HDTV to take the huge variables between the quality of laptops, various OS PCs and Servers completely out of the equation.

 The only need for a PC in this case is to rip the BR disc to SSD/HDD in order to verify that the checksums of each pair of comparison files are indeed identical.

 

The big bonus with these discs when used as described, is that you can not only hear audible differences between tracks, but you can AT THE SAME TIME see obvious differences in picture contrast and detail.

 It's very hard to ignore what both your eyes and ears are telling you at the same time !

Although I don't doubt that Mansr would be able to.

 

Alex

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

But Peter... you do realize this thread is explicitly about ‘everything sounds the same’, right? And you accuse others of trolling?

 

We also have the Peter Veth and Snowflake type of trolls. They continuously claim that something is audible while nobody hears it. False claims and with second agendas. Positive-negative trolls. PNT.

The group which creates this thread are not claiming anything because of the lack of substance (and schoolbooks I never found to be substantial - sorry). Negative-negative trolls. NNT. AKA Naysayers. Could be an English term.

Aha.

 

Alex, there should be a group for you too. Could be negative-positive. But still a troll. NPT.

 

There's hardly anything left for myself. I must be a commercial troll. But all positive. A CPT. We also have the CNT's. But they have all been banned, as far as I know.

 

I'll be banned ! Nice Facebook term (in vain).

 

 

[sandyk]

Re my previous post in this nonsense thread..

 

P.S.

 For those who haven't seen them, I have attached links to only a  couple of many screen  grabs of my TV screen with paused images taken with a cheap Canon camera without access to a tripod.

 I don't claim these to be definitive proof.

Please view them using the links directly from ImageShack

 

The actual tracks on the BR discs are far more revealing  with both Audio and Video and provide the irrefutable proof..

 

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/5227/nf2ksk.png

https://imageshack.com/a/img924/3245/0n8crB.png

 

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/7507/c1tHK1.png

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/3435/tXcQU5.png

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Maybe it’s because the finest measurement instruments were never designed to recognize patterns?

 

Yes, they're working in a space which suits their 'skills'. Yet, they're pronounced to be final arbiters of what humans can sense.

 

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 Hard long slug??? AI is making great progress. I’ve been involved in the field for all of my adult life. Just remember that we started measuring things with devices thousands of years ago and have been perfecting these for all that time. With AI we’ve been working on perfecting it only for the past 50-60 years. Give it a few more years to catch up 

 

Indeed it is. But in the beginning there was great arrogance in the attitudes of those who thought they understood the problems ...

[rickca]

I love this thread!  Since it started, there has been a notable decline in the number of off-topic posts in the threads I care about since many of them appear here instead.

[pkane2001]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, they're working in a space which suits their 'skills'. Yet, they're pronounced to be final arbiters of what humans can sense.

 

Yes, because that’s the space which ‘suits their skills’.

 

58 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Indeed it is. But in the beginning there was great arrogance in the attitudes of those who thought they understood the problems ...

 

Dont confuse enthusiasm for arrogance. 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

There's hardly anything left for myself. I must be a commercial troll. But all positive. A CPT. 

 

Fits the facts.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, rickca said:

I love this thread!  Since it started, there has been a notable decline in the number of off-topic posts in the threads I care about since many of them appear here instead.

 Rick

 Power Supplies matter, improved clocking matters, the quality of the USB cables matter , JSSG improves even PSU leads, Uptone products aren't Snake Oil, high res LPCM and DSD is an improvement over 16/44.1 etc. etc. 

 

The threads that you care about, and their participants  are achieving worthwhile improvements with computer audio.

 

Alex

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Not mentioning names now, the guys we talk about do not improve a single bit on audio.

Saved me a bunch of money.

[mav52]

On 9/19/2018 at 12:05 AM, Ralf11 said:

even if everything doesn't sound the same, the song remains the same

Only if you're sober

[Abtr]

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, mansr said:

All components (and cables) sound exactly alike. There are no differences between a $5 clock radio and the finest system money can buy. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are not permitted to say so in this thread. We like our beliefs and wish to keep them undisturbed by reality.

 

Although 'all audio components (and cables)' do not sound exactly alike, it can be  argued that all components showing distortion levels below what is considered/known to be audible must sound the same. This can however not be logically proven. You cannot logically or mathematically prove that there exists not any complex correlated temporal pattern in low level distortion that would be audible when added (either in the analogue domain or the digital to analogue conversion domain) to the original audio signal. It might even be impossible to prove that such audible distortion actually does exist. Otherwise evidence must be accumulated empirically through (blind) listening experiments up to some statistically significant confidence level..

 

Anyway, I would argue that any audible difference between (quality) audio components results from different distortion of the analogue output relative to the input signal. Some distortion may be euphonically pleasing but it remains distortion. So for high fidelity sound your best bet would be to go for components that introduce the least measured overall analogue distortion in a sound system.

 

This may all be obvious to you, but it wasn't all that obvious to me until quite recently. So I decided to post it here.

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yes. And since it is allowed, hell is loose. Also, it is explicitly allowed, so I guess the one who allows it receives joy from it. And there you have a sick forum. Dirt.

 

You know how we try to shield our children  from reality, being careful not to shatter their beliefs in magic, fairytales and Santa Claus so as not to scar them emotionally? 

 

Well, this is nothing like that.  We are all adults here. Believe what you want, but please stop claiming that someone stating an opposing opinion is somehow attacking you, causing harm, killing joy, trolling.

 

We are all here to learn, share, teach, discuss. So, grow up, be an adult, discuss like an adult. Is that really too much to ask for?

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Abtr said:

Anyway, I would argue that any audible difference between (quality) audio components results from different distortion of the analogue output relative to the input signal. Some distortion may be euphonically pleasing but it remains distortion. So for high fidelity sound your best bet would be to go for components that introduce the least measured overall analogue distortion in a sound system.

Reasonable overall except that “overall analogue distortion” may not be as meaningful as more specific measures.

 

That’s a complaint of many if not most people who feel that measurements don’t predict SQ. 

 

For example, though, my Nelson Pass amps aren’t advertised as having the lowest possible “overall” distortion. and there are many many factors in play.

 

Thought or actual experiment: can you distinguish a pure sine wave at 20 kHz from a square wave? 16 kHz? 10 kHz ... etc etc

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

discuss like an adult. Is that really too much to ask for?

 

Can you point me to a post where this happens, in this thread ?

So Yes, that is too much to ask for. It can't work.

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

You know how we try to shield our children  from reality, being careful not to shatter their beliefs in magic, fairytales and Santa Claus so as not to scar them emotionally?

 

No, coincidentally I do not know. Remember, we don't live in the same country. No magic over here, no fairytales either and Santa Claus has never been for real (over here).

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

stop claiming that someone stating an opposing opinion is somehow attacking you

 

Your imagination goes wild.

 

Paul, I have no idea where you see something to still learn from this forum. If you (and others) are happy with it as it is, then I won't tell you not to be. I only observe and it is through my eyes indeed.

Someone mentioned Hydrogen Audio. I see it worse in here by now. Through my eyes.

 

Now please continue and have as much joy as possible. 

[Abtr]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

...

That’s a complaint of many if not most people who feel that measurements don’t predict SQ. 

...

 

IME, distortion measurements do correlate with SQ. 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

For example, though, my Nelson Pass amps aren’t advertised as having the lowest possible “overall” distortion. and there are many many factors in play.

 

My Pass amps sound great also, but I know they are not as accurate as some of the cheaper, more conventional designs, and measurably so. The rub is between accuracy/lowest distortion and personal preference, as I think is usually the case on these fora. 

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Thought or actual experiment: can you distinguish a pure sine wave at 20 kHz from a square wave? 16 kHz? 10 kHz ... etc etc

 

What's the point of this experiment? A square wave is a collection of a fundamental and infinite (in theory) number of odd harmonics. Are you asking if harmonics above certain fundamental frequency are audible? 

[PeterSt]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

What's the point of this experiment?

 

Paul, try it for fun.

You can make it an 8KHz square just the same. I'll leave the further fun to Jonathan. But ... 

 

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Are you asking if harmonics above certain fundamental frequency are audible? 

 

yes. That is what it comes down to. But you should still try. 

 

 

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Paul, I have no idea where you see something to still learn from this forum. If you (and others) are happy with it as it is, then I won't tell you not to be. I only observe and it is through my eyes indeed.

Someone mentioned Hydrogen Audio. I see it worse in here by now. Through my eyes.

 

Now please continue and have as much joy as possible. 

I've learned quite a bit, actually. Often from others who disagreed with me. Conversation sharpens the mind.

 

But I understand that being involved in a commercial enterprise, you may not see disagreements and others questioning your products and designs as a positive.

[PeterSt]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

But I understand that being involved in a commercial enterprise

 

I disqualify for a commercial enterprise. Btw, I also don't see others questioning our products. I must have missed that all. You really will have a hard time in quoting such situations. I disdain schoolbooks all right. But I think that is another subject.

If you want to talk about my commercial enterprise, I am afraid this can be about my Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software only (for over 30 years by now). The audio stuff is just hobby and sharing. And as soon as that does not work out anymore or is rejected all over the place by "customers" (who are customers indeed) I am out of here.

So don't let your imagination go beyond reality, please. Thank you.

[pkane2001]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Paul, try it for fun.

You can make it an 8KHz square just the same. I'll leave the further fun to Jonathan. But ... 

 

 

yes. That is what it comes down to. But you should still try. 

 

 

 

I've written software to test my own ability to hear frequencies and distinguish sounds, so this is actually a very easy test for me to perform, just need to add a square wave generator. I guess I'm still not sure what the point is. 

 

[PeterSt]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

I guess I'm still not sure what the point is.

 

Once upon a day I was surprised about the result. I think I got it from this forum.

So of course we can all learn a lot. At least I can. And nothing tells me that you already don't know. But maybe not.

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, mansr said:

What does that even mean?

Musicality means sounding like real acoustical instruments playing in a real space with people listening in that music in that space where the performance is taking place!

I find it interesting that someone would have to explain that to you.

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I disqualify for a commercial enterprise. Btw, I also don't see others questioning our products. I must have missed that all.

You really will have a hard time in quoting such situations. So don't let your imagination go beyond reality, please. Thank you.

 

XXHighEnd settings question was at the core of the red/blue pill thread. Lush efficacy has been questioned by many in a long thread. Lush^2 thread is hilarious, by the way. I love all the participants playing with all the thousands of possible setting combinations and finding that one particular setting helps with male voices, another with soundstage, another with string instruments, another with female voices, another with bass, etc., etc. If this doesn't deserve some questioning, I don't know what does.