MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison - FINAL

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, austinpop said:

We hear what we hear!

 

100%.

 

Mani.

[clipper]

5 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

There is no 'higher end' DAC than the Phasure NOS1... IMHO of course ?.

 

Mani.

I didn't mean to imply that your DAC wasn't "high end."  I haven't been able to listen to one, but I've heard nothing but good things about it.

 

I just meant that since you're listening to only one DAC, maybe what you're hearing is particular to that DAC (or that DAC and its playback software). 

[Ralf11]

We hear what we think we hear!

[manisandher]

38 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

We hear what we think we hear!

 

Not a long time ago in a thread not far, far away....

 

I thought I could hear a difference between a file being played back in 2 different bit-identical ways.

I thought I could demonstrate that I was hearing what I was hearing.

I scored 9/10 in a blind ABX.

 

Mani.

[Ralf11]

were the software and its setting the same??

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

were the software and its setting the same??

 

If you had bothered to read the thread properly you would know that the S/W settings were different, but the files were still bit perfect when captured.

 

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

were the software and its setting the same??

 

The 2 outputs from the software were captured digitally and proven to be bit-identical.

 

Mani.

[Ralf11]

after reading the thread properly, that may not have been adequate... despite the upside down BS from the upside down part of the planet

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

after reading the thread properly, that may not have been adequate... despite the upside down BS from the upside down part of the planet

 

 I repeat, you obviously didn't read the thread properly and will continue to dispute the relevance of Mani's findings.

Mani is more than capable of conclusively repeating his previous record of 9 out of 10 in an ABX, having learned from the false start of the previous session.

Put simply, you aren't interested in finding the  truth, or anything that doesn't agree with what you already believe.

[Ralf11]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I repeat, you obviously didn't read the thread properly and will continue to dispute the relevance of Mani's findings.

Mani is more than capable of conclusively repeating his previous record of 9 out of 10 in an ABX, having learned from the false start of the previous session.

Put simply, you aren't interested in finding the  truth, or anything that doesn't agree with what you already believe.

 

chill out muffy - a well-written Methods section is a sine qua non of all technical writing

 

now stop trying to put words in my mouth and work on your hearing

[sapporo]

On 11/4/2018 at 8:18 PM, Miska said:

We also hear what we see. Search in youtube “Audio Myths Workshop” . It’ s  AES Ethan Winer presentation. At 5:30 AES Poppy Crum shows us what we hear.

 

[fas42]

We also see what we hear ... the tangibility of the aural soundscape that can be projected in front of one by a sorted system is simply amazing; one can "walk" through and around the myriad sound elements with ease, in one's mind ... the difference between this and conventional stereo reproduction is huge, and makes the arguments about "expectation bias" sound absurd, to those who are able to experience this.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

chill out muffy - a well-written Methods section is a sine qua non of all technical writing

 

now stop trying to put words in my mouth and work on your hearing

It would appear that you missed that technical writing class or slept through it  !

 It would also appear that my hearing, despite age and damage is still vastly superior to yours, as you aren't even game to put yours to the test in the various threads where comparisons are provided. You are not even game to post any listening  findings with the various MQA listening examples.  

[fas42]

Alex, people of an objectivist leaning don't ever want to hear to hear a difference which can't be readily measured - they subscribe to the theory that humans are highly feeble mechanisms of meat, that can always be outshone by a marvellous, manufactured instrument of precision. That means that there is order in the world, which is the number one priority, at all times.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Alex, people of an objectivist leaning don't ever want to hear to hear a difference which can't be readily measured - they subscribe to the theory that humans are highly feeble mechanisms of meat, that can always be outshone by a marvellous, manufactured instrument of precision. That means that there is order in the world, which is the number one priority, at all times.

 

 

[Ralf11]

Sandman - it is too bad you don't understand digital electronics

 

no one with a brain is 'game' to listen to your magically infested files

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Sandman - it is too bad you don't understand digital electronics

 

no one with a brain is 'game' to listen to your magically infested files

 It's too bad that you are so full of yourself that you aren't even willing to try the videos on the BR disc on the suitable Oppo  BR player that you own.

You simply don't want to know the truth, and post mainly insults and personal attacks that if someone like me posted would cause me to be reprimanded and possibly banned.

 

Lift your game !!!

 

 

[Ralf11]

I avoid wasting my time on trivia

[manisandher]

9 hours ago, manisandher said:

The 2 outputs from the software were captured digitally and proven to be bit-identical.

 

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

after reading the thread properly, that may not have been adequate... 

 

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

a well-written Methods section is a sine qua non of all technical writing

 

No-one was doing scientific research.

• I was certain I could hear differences between bit-identical playback.
• So confident was I that this was the case, I invited a well-respected CAer up to demonstrate this to him, with a view to posting the results up, whichever way they went, for all to see. (Does anyone think I would have done this if I couldn't hear what I was hearing?)
• We captured the input to the DAC digitally in real time during the ABX - there were 30 captures from the 10 ABXs.
• All 30 captures were compared and shown to be bit-identical.
• And yet I identified X correctly 9/10 times (1% probability by guessing alone).

I know of no other test conducted as rigourously as this, in situ in a domestic setting.

 

"Whether or not a thing is measurable is not something to be decided a priori by thought alone, but something that can be decided only by experiment."

 

Mani.

[mcgillroy]

Hmmm - I had some interesting results.

 

Before I post them I’d like to ask if anybody has a better ABX software recommendation for the Mac than ABX Tester by Jogataki?

 

Thank you!

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I avoid wasting my time on trivia

That's a copout !

 You have so little confidence in your own listening abilities that you are unwilling to try any of the numerous comparison tracks made available in different C.A. threads, and post your results for other members to see.

[audiobomber]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

post your results for other members to see

Maybe my answer will embolden Ralf11: I heard only minor differences between the three FINAL tracks. I could have kept trying, but the differences weren't significant enough for me to care and I found the music deeply boring. Seven minutes of noodling on an uninteresting theme.

 

As I said previously, this sort of comparison really needs a vocal track, because the human voice is what people understand best. The music in the first thread was outstanding.

 

PS I was able to identify the MQA track in the previous two threads, and found it least appealing in each case. 

[randyhat]

20 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Maybe my answer will embolden Ralf11: I heard only minor differences between the three FINAL tracks. I could have kept trying, but the differences weren't significant enough for me to care and I found the music deeply boring. Seven minutes of noodling on an uninteresting theme.

 

Exactly.  Good music, no matter how well recorded will always sound better than well recorded boring music.  It reminds me of one of my other hobbies, photography, where people will photograph brick walls to demonstrate things like sharpness, detail and focus.  Horrible photos but great details.  Great measurements but no art.  Be it digital photography or digital music there is a tendency to focus on the bricks and not the building.  For some it seems impossible to enjoy the forest without counting and measuring the trees.

[manisandher]

41 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

... I found the music deeply boring.

 

10 minutes ago, randyhat said:

Exactly.  Good music, no matter how well recorded will always sound better than well recorded boring music.

 

FWIW, I like the music in all 3 'apples-to-apples' threads ?.

 

Mani.

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

 

FWIW, I like the music in all 3 'apples-to-apples' threads ?.

 

Mani.

 

+1

 

Boring, it certainly was not.

 

Hmm, I have to analyze my recent tendency to talk in yoda-like sentences.