Computer Storage - Best Practices

[STC]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

You will find similar comments form engineers and others who know what they are talking about.

 

Problem is sometimes they talk from a narrow perspective and equating everything else should fall within their worldview. 

 

Hearing is not always about  measurements. It is about how your brain interpret them. That can be generally understood but still far too many things to be discovered going against established principles. 

[Ralf11]

I am not talking about measurements and rarely do.

 

But I'll be glad to look at any published articles on psychoacoustics you want to cite.

[STC]

I am also not talking about measurements. It is about how one quickly dismiss another opinion without even trying it for themselves. This apply both ways. If you claim something is possible the show the evidence like What Mani did. SandyK is offering the tracks so why not we start from there? 

 

Just observe some if the threads here. Do you see a conclusion?  Remember Mani’s and Mansr thread about DAC blind tests? What can a newbie learn from that blind test? Can they now say Mani is right because his claim has not been debunked yet? 

 

BTW, it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in measurement. I was just sent this yesterday. 

 

“But you're still stubbornly immersed into your measurements. Similar to those who strongly believed in LS3/5a....”

 

The funny part is I too don”t believe in LS3/5A.  

[mourip]

20 hours ago, moriez said:

 

 

 

That Ralf. Again.

 

Apparently some are so used to your posts they're not giving any attention. Super admirable but I'm not that zen and because I see you doing it a lot let me ask something with best effort to not be judgemental or offensive. Do you make these type of remarks in real life when you're in a group of people like colleagues or family as well? Oppose and scoff at most, add or construct little? Do you even realize this behaviour strongly resembles that of a very young child who makes her presence known when grown ups are talking? It's plain annoying what you're doing Ralf and really really needs work man. The option to simply quietly move on if a topic isn't for you is always available. Frankly, why admin is so loose for so long is beyond me.

 

Apologies for the off-topic everyone. Had to say in some thread.

 

Well said and no need to apologize. Believe it or not things are better here than they were a couple of years ago. Many trolls have wandered off and new folks with helpful ideas and open minds have have taken their place.

 

Obviously it is how one says something that matters. Many folks seem to miss that. They defeat their own purpose by being dismissive or sarcastic. It is possible to make a point without judgement and let others decide for themselves if something is true or not. Most folks drawn to computer audio are not dim and anyone who has been here more than a day can tell who knows what they are talking about and who has an ax to grind.

 

When I want to figure out who has a handle on producing good sound I often go to their profile to see if they have posted their system components. You can quickly get a idea if someone who is aggressive really knows what they are talking about. Some aggressive people here really do have good ideas but just bad social skills, others not so much.

 

Regarding that tiresome and very dated slur "Safe Space" ...usually people who are rude think that those around them are oversensitive. 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, STC said:

SandyK is offering the tracks so why not we start from there? 

 

If only things were this simple.

 

Many of us have downloaded and listened to his "identical but different" files and told him we could not hear any difference between them.

 

These negative results are then dismissed using one or more of the following explanations:

 

1. Your hearing isn't good enough.

 

2. Your system isn't good enough.

 

3. You didn't hear the differences between you don't have an open mind.

 

4. The differences disappear when the files are sent over the Internet. You need to listen to the CDs which Alex will only send you if he believes your system is good enough.

 

BTW, have YOU listened to his files?

[davide256]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I am not talking about measurements and rarely do.

 

But I'll be glad to look at any published articles on psychoacoustics you want to cite.

mmm, and which of the 3~7 schools of psychology would psychoacoustics fall into?  Anyone out there who has reached the age where tinnitus is personally

real knows how primitive the medical science of hearing is.

[Ralf11]

medical practice is not a science - your surgeon will make that clear before he opens you up

 

modern medical practice is based on science (one reason audiophools are not admitted in any state)

 

you might benefit by starting with a cognitive psychology text - I posted one title on here a while back; you can then go take a look at what sensory labs are doing right now -- it will reinforce the need for blind testing

 

sorry about your tinnitus - it is one of many ailments that may mean you can get by with a lower quality system (to look on the bright side)

[STC]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

If only things were this simple.

 

Many of us have downloaded and listened to his "identical but different" files and told him we could not hear any difference between them.

 

These negative results are then dismissed using one or more of the following explanations:

 

1. Your hearing isn't good enough.

 

2. Your system isn't good enough.

 

3. You didn't hear the differences between you don't have an open mind.

 

4. The differences disappear when the files are sent over the Internet. You need to listen to the CDs which Alex will only send you if he believes your system is good enough.

 

BTW, have YOU listened to his files?

 

I vaguely remember chatting with him or someone on his behalf.  I have no CD player to do the trial. But there was another golden opportunity to bust the myth in another claim which the objectivists dismissed them with the excuses just like Alex's which looks less credible to subjectivists. 

 

Even here, you only addressed one issue but ignored the 2Ms encounter which neither party wants to accept the results. Science failed? So how?

[kumakuma]

43 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I vaguely remember chatting with him or someone on his behalf.  I have no CD player to do the trial. But there was another golden opportunity to bust the myth in another claim which the objectivists dismissed them with the excuses just like Alex's which looks less credible to subjectivists. 

 

Even here, you only addressed one issue but ignored the 2Ms encounter which neither party wants to accept the results. Science failed? So how?

 

My understanding is that different software settings was the most probable cause of the differences in that test. I'm not sure how this is science failing.

[STC]

19 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

My understanding is that different software settings was the most probable cause of the differences in that test. I'm not sure how this is science failing.

 

No dispute there. I agree. I remember there was another thread started by @manisandher after @mansr visit to his place. Did we even have a conclusion to that? 

[kumakuma]

22 minutes ago, STC said:

 

No dispute there. I agree. I remember there was another thread started by @manisandher after @mansr visit to his place. Did we even have a conclusion to that? 

 

I don't think so.

 

This, of course, the best possible outcome as it allows everyone to continue to believe what they want. 👺

[davide256]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

medical practice is not a science - your surgeon will make that clear before he opens you up

 

modern medical practice is based on science (one reason audiophools are not admitted in any state)

 

you might benefit by starting with a cognitive psychology text - I posted one title on here a while back; you can then go take a look at what sensory labs are doing right now -- it will reinforce the need for blind testing

 

sorry about your tinnitus - it is one of many ailments that may mean you can get by with a lower quality system (to look on the bright side)

 if you have no experience with tinnitus, here is how you can duplicate it

 

1) find an old 25" picture tube TV that still works

2) take the back of the TV and turn it on

3) sit with your ear near to the back of the picture tube and enjoy that ultrasonic like hum

4) record it and then have someone randomly raise and lower the volume level during your day

 

So not an impediment to getting value out of a quality system but  when the tinnitus "volume gets turned up", not a great time to do any listening

that requires analytic concentration.... better to go watch /listen to blue ray movies with lots of explosions and crashes 😉

[sandyk]

13 hours ago, kumakuma said:

  15 hours ago, STC said:

SandyK is offering the tracks so why not we start from there? 

 

Which post number was this in , or has this also been  removed ?

 

Re your items 1 to 3, I have no doubt whatsoever that these statements are 100 % accurate in YOUR case !

 Note also that I have recently offered on several occasions to provide a new version BluRay disc with around 17 pairs of comparison .mp4 music videos on them, where you can not only hear the differences, you can see them as well, at the same time,  but as usual nobody is interested .

 

More recently , John Dyson gave highly detailed reports on the differences between several files that I supplied, but after realising that they had identical checksums, had the posts from me removed entirely, instead of just asking for the editing out of the personal stuff.

 Nobody has disproved Mani's reports either, which are fairly similar to mine.

 I have also been told in Rajiv's huge thread that I am preaching to the converted.

 

Why don't you stop dragging me into this, to have your buddies complain when I reply ?

 

[manisandher]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

No dispute there. I agree. I remember there was another thread started by @manisandher after @mansr visit to his place. Did we even have a conclusion to that? 

 

1. I was certain that I could hear differences between two different but bit-identical playback means

2. I invited Mans over to my place to demonstrate this

3. we conducted only a single blind ABX test, in which I scored 9/10 (1% probability of achieving this by guessing alone)

 

[Before the ABX test itself, we conducted two non-ABX tests in which I scored 5/10, proving that no 'tells' existed during any of the tests.]

 

I'll leave it to you and others to draw your own logical conclusion from this sequence of events.

 

Mani.

[STC]

8 minutes ago, manisandher said:

3. we conducted only a single blind ABX test, in which I scored 9/10 (1% probability of achieving this by guessing alone)

 

Yes..yes..I am still waiting this to be debunked or explained. 

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Yes..yes..I am still waiting this to be debunked or explained. 

 

The 9/10 ABX result hasn't been debunked, and won't be - the difference was real and audible. I'm not one to waste my, or anyone else's, time and wouldn't have invited Mans over to my place if I wasn't confident that I was hearing a real difference.

 

As for an explanation... Well, I suspect it is due to different noise profiles entering the DAC, 'on the back of' the digital signal. These different noise profiles then affect the DAC ever-so-slightly differently, at the point of digital-to-analogue conversion. No d-to-a conversion, absolutely no problem.

 

This is pure speculation on my part. I'd be happy to undertake further measurements/tests to try to figure out what is causing the audible difference. But proving that there is an audible difference is now totally established, in my opinion.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, manisandher said:

The 9/10 ABX result hasn't been debunked, and won't be

It has also not been confirmed, and won't be. A single test result proves nothing. That's all there is to say until substantial new information is obtained. Unfortunately, hauling my lab gear to your place isn't practical.

[STC]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

Unfortunately, hauling my lab gear to your place isn't practical.

 

That’s sounds so familiar.  Subjectivists too argue the same. The difference will only audible in their setup.  

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

That’s sounds so familiar.  Subjectivists too argue the same. The difference will only audible in their setup.  

It doesn't have to be my gear. The problem is that Mani doesn't have any.

[manisandher]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

A single test result proves nothing.

 

"A single test result"? We conducted 10 ABXs.

 

"Proves nothing"? There was a probability of 1% by guessing alone.

 

It's a shame that we've reached this impasse, but such is life.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

Just now, mansr said:

It doesn't have to be my gear. The problem is that Mani doesn't have any.

 

What do you need?

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

It has also not been confirmed, and won't be. A single test result proves nothing.

 

Neither does apparently a series of 6 separate correctly set up Blind A/B/A, 3 minutes of each by a qualified E.E, with 8 repeats in each, and not using the same participants in all of them, to people like yourself.

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

It doesn't have to be my gear. The problem is that Mani doesn't have any.

 

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

What do you need?

 

How now?

[marce]

On 4/21/2019 at 9:42 PM, numlog said:

who are these newbies that manage to come here and avoid the other 95% of the internet (including half of this site, courtesy of your valiant efforts) that agree and perpetutate that ''bit are bits''? I think the people  here all already know what they hear is ''wrong''. you are free to waste your time though, 10000 posts later

 

Bits are bits though, maybe you should listen to the 95% who realise bits are bits...

[kumakuma]

5 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

As for an explanation... Well, I suspect it is due to different noise profiles entering the DAC, 'on the back of' the digital signal. These different noise profiles then affect the DAC ever-so-slightly differently, at the point of digital-to-analogue conversion. No d-to-a conversion, absolutely no problem.

 

 

I can see this as a plausible explanation.

 

I would also like to highlight that this is completely different from what Alex is claiming  (identical files played under identical conditions sounding different on a consistent basis).