Understanding the Audiophiles community.

[sandyk]

Quote

Is there anyway in tracks that you could tell me the difference which is audible to you?

 

I will let others decide for themselves with these.

To me the .mp3 sounds like crap, but I am perhaps a wee bit biased because I worked with Barry on the selection of S/W for the conversion from the original .aiff to .wav. To me the 24/192 is vastly superior in every respect, especially in  the areas of 3D sounding and dynamics.

I already have a full 24/192 copy of this album which is due for release on May 1st.

[STC]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I will let others decide for themselves with these.

To me the .mp3 sounds like crap, but I am perhaps a wee bit biased because I worked with Barry on the selection of S/W for the conversion from the original .aiff to .wav. To me the 24/192 is vastly superior in every respect, especially in  the areas of 3D sounding and dynamics.

I already have a full 24/192 copy of this album which is due for release on May 1st.

 

You have to be fair to me. You gave a link which I downloaded and listened. I am not saying I could or couldn't hear the difference. All I am asking where is the portion in the three tracks that can clearly be audible?  No use of talking about 3D sound here as my I am not using main system which prime purpose is to retrieve the 3D information from the recording. So let’s take one step at a time. Do you any audible difference that you could show to others?  

 

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You have to be fair to me. You gave a link which I downloaded and listened. I am not saying I could or couldn't hear the difference. All I am asking where is the portion in the three tracks that can clearly be audible?  No use of talking about 3D sound here as my I am not using main system which prime purpose is to retrieve the 3D information from the recording. So let’s take one step at a time. Do you any audible difference that you could show to others?  

 

 

 Please check the email that I just sent you. I may have DL the wrong sample of this track, but what I DL  says 320kilobits

 It is really NOT fair for me to further comment on these tracks with which I already have a great deal of experience with, and I will not be doing so !

I have already heard the conversions from 24/192 .aiff to .wav using 4 different versions of S/W and discussed my findings with Barry.

 

 I provided the links for others to judge for themselves.

[STC]

43 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Please check the email that I just sent you. I may have DL the wrong sample of this track, but what I DL  says 320kilobits

 It is really NOT fair for me to further comment on these tracks with which I already have a great deal of experience with, and I will not be doing so !

I have already heard the conversions from 24/192 .aiff to .wav using 4 different versions of S/W and discussed my findings with Barry.

 

 I provided the links for others to judge for themselves.

 

You are the third person to bring my attention to these samples. I kept quiet the first two times so that I do not offend anyone. Now, let others be truthful to themselves and decide. 

 

Anyway, I think this is a great example of expectation bias. 

[sandyk]

56 minutes ago, STC said:

Anyway, I think this is a great example of expectation bias. 

 

 Yes, after all, you really are the expert, aren't you, or claim to be !

 

 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Yes, after all, you really are the expert, aren't you, or claim to be !

 

 

 

I was waiting for you to show the audible difference that suppose to exist in those three tracks. I know I am not the expert but at least I don’t make claims that need to be retracted privately. Be a gentleman. 

[STC]

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/audiophile-questions-reveal-truth/

 

Sadly, I did not qualify. 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, STC said:

I was waiting for you to show the audible difference that suppose to exist in those three tracks

 

Of course you are, but when you get an answer that many other members are likely to agree with that shows that you don't believe in high res, whether LPCM or DSD , you have the reply removed.

 

Quote

The OP @STC has requested moderator access to this topic and it has been granted. 

 

This doesn’t work retrospectively? 

 

[STC]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Of course you are, but when you get an answer that many other members are likely to agree with that shows that you don't believe in high res, whether LPCM or DSD , you have the reply removed.

 

 

 

What many others?  No one responded. Even you until now instead of just pointing out the area where the difference supposedly exist, chose to talk about everything else.  

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

I was waiting for you to show the audible difference that suppose to exist in those three tracks. I know I am not the expert but at least I don’t make claims that need to be retracted privately. Be a gentleman. 

 

Stop baiting him. If you heard differences say so, if not, then say that. That would be the most gentlemanly and most correct behavior to present. Trying to avoid taking any stand, but making nasty cracks like you made to me and others is just foolish.

 

I guess that you have some hidden agenda to benefit yourself, or are yet another failed Hydrogen Audio  gas bag forum acolyte, over here on a  mission to prove that audiophiles are silly brainless idiots. I kinda thought those hombres had given up.

 

-Paul 

 

[STC]

Whenever I refer to the term live performance, I always meant natural or acoustic music performance without sound reinforcement.

 

Having said that, i would be a hypocrite if I couldn’t produce at least a reasonable sound of a typical rock concert recording in my system. 

 

Using a reference of another system which was said to be captured with an iphone, i decided to to capture the same track using the iphone. My Pink Floyd’s One of those days was from the Meddle so this is a different version. Mine is the original master version. 

 

Here is the Youtube version but it actually sounded a little different from my album but close enough. 

 

Just the last one minute. 

 

 

 

and here is my recording with iphone like the other reference in this thread. 

 

[STC]

29 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Stop baiting him. If you heard differences say so, if not, then say that. That would be the most gentlemanly and most correct behavior to present. Trying to avoid taking any stand, but making nasty cracks like you made to me and others is just foolish.

 

I guess that you have some hidden agenda to benefit yourself, or are yet another failed Hydrogen Audio  gas bag forum acolyte, over here on a  mission to prove that audiophiles are silly brainless idiots. I kinda thought those hombres had given up.

 

-Paul 

 

 

You first be a gentleman and accept your mistake for the statement regarding speech recognition being binaural and then lecture me. I expect the next post of yours to address that since you falsely accused me.  Otherwise, I will remove your unnecessary post that got nothing to do with the OP.   

[Paul R]

24 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You first be a gentleman and accept your mistake for regarding speech recognition being binaural and then lecture me. I expect the next post that you to address that. Otherwise, I will remove you unnecessary post that got nothing to do with the OP.   

 

You are utterly and completely wrong - speech recognition is most definitely binaural in nature, and always has been. Very easily shown in practice. But of course, this would be something that is not favorable to your business or the false expertise you are using to bolster it. 

 

You didn't bother to give anyone any credentials to say why they should take your opinion seriously, instead you acted like a jerk.  I disengaged from the conversation for that reason, and I certainly won't apologize for you being wrong, or you being a Jerk. 

 

Clearly you do not understand the Audiophile community at all. This was a good topic to start, until your hidden agenda started to reveal itself. Apparently to boost your reputation somewhere, you are attempting to push your vision of audiophiles. How really nasty a thing to do to a group of hobbyists who like hanging out together ad talking about their hobby. Clearly, you have decided your commercial interest is far more important. 

 

You have already accused 85% of us of having no idea at all what we are talking about - I am now sure to boost your commercial image. You might note that the audience you are talking to in general, has decades of experience, at least one degree, usually multiple degrees, and has been successful in one or more business endeavors. Oh, as we love our audio hobby as well. 

 

That while you parade your own ignorance of very basic things like speech and hearing discrimination, and seem to think that simply saying something will make it so with people who actually have experience in this or related fields.  Makes me shake my head. 

 

Feel free to do whatever you feel you have to do. There isn't much you can do right now to erase your record of being a jerk, but you can certainly try.

 

Oh, and I would suggest that most reasonable people flee this topic now. It looks to be nothing more than a honey pot. Don't feed the trolls! 

[Summit]

9 hours ago, STC said:

 

That is pretty common. Most of do not have a dedicated room or proper treatment as good sound is not only from the speakers but also from the room. Unfortunately, it is hard to have one rule for all. If you take Harbeth speakers into this discussion, it was designed to be played in a typical room without any treatment. Also, Alan Shaw believes in the treble and bass knobs for the amplifier as there were part and parcel of the equation to produce good sound. 

 

However, when you talk about other high end speakers they usually will sound better with room treatment. Then again some speaker designer make their speakers to sound good without treatment as they were meant to be part of the décor of the space they occupy. 

 

It s hard to say some are doing it wrong without knowing the overall room acoustics. For some their system will sound better when they sit close to the rear wall for other rooms it may not work even with the same type of speakers.

 

Our loudspeakers interact with the acoustics of the room in which they are used, therefore optimizing their positions in the room and the acoustics of the room pays off big time. Often inexpensive audio systems, optimally set up, outperform more expensive audio systems. Even though that “we” know how important the interaction of the speakers with the room is it is amazing how often many audiophile overlook it and instead spend more and more money on speakers, electronics and cables without paying proper attention to the listening environment. The room dictates what we hear. The treatment doesn’t have to be exotic and we can do a lot with regular furnisher, books, LPs and depending on the system and room maybe some bass traps, acoustic diffuser or at least something that kill early reflections.

 

Some general rules are more or less always true and are not depending on which speakers you have, while other rules depends on the speakers. IME the speaker’s position from the side and back wall depends on the speakers, as does the degree of toeing in speakers. To sit to close to the back wall OTOH seems to be totally independent on the type of speaker used. To minimize early reflections from roof and sidewalls is another.

 

To overdamp the room (common) with a lot of fluffy material that kill the upper mids and treble is as bad, if not worse, than a lot of hard surfaces.

 

Some basics:

http://www.cardas.com/roomsetup.pdf

https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/acoustic-treatment-101/

 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

You are utterly and completely wrong - speech recognition is most definitely binaural in nature, and always has been.

 

Read your own reference and tell me in what context that it is binaural. 

 

Quote

 

 

Very easily shown in practice.

Like how? Man deaf in one ear can’t hear a word you are saying. I am sure they got a pretty good reason for that.   

 

Quote

 

But of course, this would be something that is not favorable to your business or the false expertise you are using to bolster it. 

 

I have no business. Just ideas which I am copying from someone’s 40 years research. I don’t sell nor charge any visitors. 

 

 

Quote

 

You didn't bother to give anyone any credentials to say why they should take your opinion seriously, instead you acted like a jerk.

 

What do you want?  The credential is in your own reference which you included. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

  I disengaged from the conversation for that reason, and I certainly won't apologize for you being wrong, or you being a Jerk. 

 

There will be always an excuse to cover up one’s mistake especially when it turn out that your misunderstood the concept for a long time.  

Quote

 

Clearly you do not understand the Audiophile community at all. This was a good topic to start, until your hidden agenda started to reveal itself.

 

What was the agenda and show me when and where it started. 

Quote

 

 

Apparently to boost your reputation somewhere, you are attempting to push your vision of audiophiles. How really nasty a thing to do to a group of hobbyists who like hanging out together ad talking about their hobby. Clearly, you have decided your commercial interest is far more important. 

 

Getting personal?  That’s okay. 

 

Quote

 

You have already accused 85% of us of having no idea at all what we are talking about - I am now sure to boost your commercial image. You might note that the audience you are talking to in general, has decades of experience, at least one degree, usually multiple degrees, and has been successful in one or more business endeavors. Oh, as we love our audio hobby as well. 

 

Yes. They are successful and wish them they continue be. They will be grateful to people like you. 

 

Quote

 

That while you parade your own ignorance of very basic things like speech and hearing discrimination, and seem to think that simply saying something will sakeit so with people who actually have experience in this or related fields.  Makes me shake my head. 

 

I am also shaking my head. No need to waste so much of time writing a long reply. Just tell me where and when I said human hearing is not binaural. Not very hard to do that, right?

Quote

 

Feel free to do whatever you feel you have to do. There isn't much you can do right now to erase your record of being a jerk, but you can certainly try. 

 

This shall remain to see who is a liar and a confused one. 

[STC]

10 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Our loudspeakers interact with the acoustics of the room in which they are used, therefore optimizing their positions in the room and the acoustics of the room pays off big time. Often inexpensive audio systems, optimally set up, outperform more expensive audio systems. Even though that “we” know how important the interaction of the speakers with the room is it is amazing how often many audiophile overlook it and instead spend more and more money on speakers, electronics and cables without paying proper attention to the listening environment. The room dictates what we hear. The treatment doesn’t have to be exotic and we can do a lot with regular furnisher, books, LPs and depending on the system and room maybe some bass traps, acoustic diffuser or at least something that kill early reflections.

 

Some general rules are more or less always true and are not depending on which speakers you have, while other rules depends on the speakers. IME the speaker’s position from the side and back wall depends on the speakers, as does the degree of toeing in speakers. To sit to close to the back wall OTOH seems to be totally independent on the type of speaker used. To minimize early reflections from roof and sidewalls is another.

 

To overdamp the room (common) with a lot of fluffy material that kill the upper mids and treble is as bad, if not worse, than a lot of hard surfaces.

 

Some basics:

http://www.cardas.com/roomsetup.pdf

https://ehomerecordingstudio.com/acoustic-treatment-101/

 

 

Thanks for the Cardas link. I used them for my initial room design together with Ethan Winer mode calculator. 

 

I paid great attention to the room design so that it is acoustically accurate and wanted a room RT60 of 0.28s as in the BBC studio. 

 

The dimension was based on golden ratio and another mini room in the room of another room with the same golden ratio. Two brick walls separated by 1 foot gap. The inner layer was filled with Rockwool. Even the ceiling was damped. The only place that was not damped is the floor. Not even a carpet. 

 

The result of 0.28s RT was a dead room. Musically it wasn’t engaging although it was accurate and crystal clear. Since all the absorbers were built in, i had no choice but to add reflected over them to bring the RT to around 0.43s. I had use aluminum foil and whatever things that could help to sustain the reverb. 

 

All these experiment was done when I was using Harbeth Super 5. So the room treatment varied a accordingly when I migrate to artificial reverbs.  Another friend attempted the same overdamping like mine and that sound turned out to be more lively than mine but those were the big Wilson speakers. 

 

Cutting the long story short, if I were to do the room again, I would opt for the basic design of LEDE and strategically place absorbers and diffusers. Room acoustics is more of an art than science. For most consumers a proper speaker size will solve most of the acoustic problems. 

 

 

[Summit]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Thanks for the Cardas link. I used them for my initial room design together with Ethan Winer mode calculator. 

 

I paid great attention to the room design so that it is acoustically accurate and wanted a room RT60 of 0.28s as in the BBC studio. 

 

The dimension was based on golden ratio and another mini room in the room of another room with the same golden ratio. Two brick walls separated by 1 foot gap. The inner layer was filled with Rockwool. Even the ceiling was damped. The only place that was not damped is the floor. Not even a carpet. 

 

The result of 0.28s RT was a dead room. Musically it wasn’t engaging although it was accurate and crystal clear. Since all the absorbers were built in, i had no choice but to add reflected over them to bring the RT to around 0.43s. I had use aluminum foil and whatever things that could help to sustain the reverb. 

 

All these experiment was done when I was using Harbeth Super 5. So the room treatment varied a accordingly when I migrate to artificial reverbs.  Another friend attempted the same overdamping like mine and that sound turned out to be more lively than mine but those were the big Wilson speakers. 

 

Cutting the long story short, if I were to do the room again, I would opt for the basic design of LEDE and strategically place absorbers and diffusers. Room acoustics is more of an art than science. For most consumers a proper speaker size will solve most of the acoustic problems. 

 

 

 

This is the type of experience knowledge and practice that I think can help other audiophiles.

[STC]

12 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

This is the type of experience knowledge and practice that I think can help other audiophiles.

 

Not really.  I thing most already made up their mind. Audiophiles over here dismiss my system as IMAX like performance which according to them not natural. The irony is the world class Philharmonic orchestra is just 15 minutes away and I took years to reproduce that experience but only to be dismissed by the audiophile experts that my system

doesn't qualify as hifi. It sounds like concert hall and I am like wtf, isn't that our aim?

[John Dyson]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

You have to be fair to me. You gave a link which I downloaded and listened. I am not saying I could or couldn't hear the difference. All I am asking where is the portion in the three tracks that can clearly be audible?  No use of talking about 3D sound here as my I am not using main system which prime purpose is to retrieve the 3D information from the recording. So let’s take one step at a time. Do you any audible difference that you could show to others?  

 

 

(This is NOT meant to be preachy -- I am only talking about my own experience and flaws here -- not projecting onto anyone else!!!)

 

Doing comparisons using human hearing is fraught with all kinds of landmines.  I have recognized that my own comparisons are so statistically noisy that it takes careful/special techniques to get reliable results -- that is, results that match reality.  Since my project NEEDS to make forward progress (the results are always improving, and MUST further improve, because IMO it is still not 'good enough' for me),  I cannot get held back by some kind of audio mirage.  Every time that I get held back from an incorrect measurement, try to do some kind of stupid modification based  upon bad data from my listening -- then my project is delayed by at least several days because of my measurement folly.

 

I have also learned to stay away from casual comparisons.  Even casual listening is fraught with dangers -- especially difficult for me since I want to make sure that I have integrity all around (but I am not perfect.)  For me, integrity doesn't just mean 'righteous' but also to be trustworthy.  I do SOMETIMES push the boundries, but as a character flaw I do care what people think about me.

 

Bottom line, as I have started appearing in the audio world, I have learned about a lot of landmines -- internal and external.  I just thought that the big bugaboo was 'elite equipment', but it does go further than that sometimes.

 

My hearing sucks, is unreliable, but I know it resulting from trying to use it for measurment purposes -- bzzt.  Depending on hearing with lots of aids is fraught with a lot of dangers and can cause lots of wastefulness.

(At least, the above is my own -- very limited -- audio experience.)

 

John

[STC]

29 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

(This is NOT meant to be preachy -- I am only talking about my own experience and flaws here -- not projecting onto anyone else!!!)

 

Doing comparisons using human hearing is fraught with all kinds of landmines.  I have recognized that my own comparisons are so statistically noisy that it takes careful/special techniques to get reliable results -- that is, results that match reality.  Since my project NEEDS to make forward progress (the results are always improving, and MUST further improve, because IMO it is still not 'good enough' for me),  I cannot get held back by some kind of audio mirage.  Every time that I get held back from an incorrect measurement, try to do some kind of stupid modification based  upon bad data from my listening -- then my project is delayed by at least several days because of my measurement folly.

 

I have also learned to stay away from casual comparisons.  Even casual listening is fraught with dangers -- especially difficult for me since I want to make sure that I have integrity all around (but I am not perfect.)  For me, integrity doesn't just mean 'righteous' but also to be trustworthy.  I do SOMETIMES push the boundries, but as a character flaw I do care what people think about me.

 

Bottom line, as I have started appearing in the audio world, I have learned about a lot of landmines -- internal and external.  I just thought that the big bugaboo was 'elite equipment', but it does go further than that sometimes.

 

My hearing sucks, is unreliable, but I know it resulting from trying to use it for measurment purposes -- bzzt.  Depending on hearing with lots of aids is fraught with a lot of dangers and can cause lots of wastefulness.

(At least, the above is my own -- very limited -- audio experience.)

 

John

 

I do not know your background until very recently. Nothing I said here directed to anyone in particular unless they spew nonsense and drag others to justify their position. Therefore my response to you here is to what you posted in this post. 

 

My position about sound  difference is that it should be readily audible. Otherwise, it is not worth the effort to have the difference as my priority is music that sounds enjoyable . Having said that, I spent  most of the time listening to radio station with iphone sitting in balcony.  That is enjoyable enough for me.  Those were music for my soul to heal and enjoy nature. 

 

I am not sure I understood you correctly when you said that comparison with human hearing is fraught with landmines. Music is only relevant to the ears and thats what should be the final arbiter when it comes to comparison. 

 

However, you were right when you say about that finding minutes difference can be dicey as we judge sound differently depending on time and mood. I generally do the setting and always let fresh ears who were first time listeners to my system to do evaluation. 

 

Once you are familiar to a sound it is hard to erase them from your memory and some sort of preference would set in. Furthermore, during evaluation we often concentrate only to one aspect and completely ignore others. This also could be a reason why blind tests sometimes do not agree to what we perceived at other times. 

 

Perhaps, more on this later. 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

However, you were right when you say about that finding minutes difference can be dicey as we judge sound differently depending on time and mood. I generally do the setting and always let fresh ears who were first time listeners to my system to do evaluation. 

 

Once you are familiar to a sound it is hard to erase them from your memory and some sort of preference would set in. Furthermore, during evaluation we often concentrate only to one aspect and completely ignore others. This also could be a reason why blind tests sometimes do not agree to what we perceived at other times. 

 

I have two hats on right now -- one is looking for precision and the other is to casually listen and enjoy.  I was detecting that the current interchange was about subtle differences.  In that case, very carefully designed techniques are in order.  Great care and even statistical techniques are necessary for reliable TECHNICAL results -- EVEN IF CARE IS TAKEN wrt listening situation/environment/time of day/etc.  Personally, for my most critical listening -- I do it first thing in the morning before my hearing is polluted.  Controlling experiments based simply on hearing alone without additional aids (FOR TECHNICAL PURPOSES) can be insufficient.

 

On the other hand -- listening for enjoyment.  At that point, I don't take a position.  My suggestion is to 'LISTEN FOR ENJOYMENT', and any opinion beyond that is overreaching.

 

Back to the critical listening -- I have significant experience on that matter, and have learned a lot of lessons from mistakes.  I have made NUMEROUS wasteful (my time and other people's time) mistakes because I had depended on the reliability of my own hearing.  I don't suggest that other people's hearing is as unreliable as mine -- but I would suspect that no-one's reliabilty is good enough for the kind of precision that I am working with.  When younger, I had perfect pitch and very precise/clear hearing.  I cannot say so now, but do know that when all is said and done, and once I have done careful testing -- I can EVENTUALLY -- after a lot of work, can judge improvements and sound accuracy.  My results are NOT based on results that I can get within even 1Hr of testing -- but require statstical results from multiple sessions.

 

I have found that casual -- I MEAN QUICK CHECKS -- listening without repeated tests during different times of the day and statstically derived results -- that the finer diferences are impossible to reliably distinguish and judge.

 

Other people might be able to get by with less rigor -- and that is why I initially mentioned that I am not telling other people how they need to do their listening -- most listening SHOULD be for enjoyment, but trying to be technically authoritative based only on the tools used for casual listening is fraught with land mines.

 

John

[Ralf11]

18 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

George Graves is an E.E who mainly posts in the General Forum area, and frequently admonishes members who report hearing differences between any type  (Coax, Interconnects, mains cables, speaker cables) of well constructed cables whether generic or uber expensive. Yes, he does have a lot of experience in the UHF and Microwave cable areas.

 

 

you can't tell the players w/out a scorecard

 

@gmgraves can post for himself, but my understanding is that he is a recording engineer with extensive experience in taht area (maybe too much with female vocalists??) 

[Ralf11]

John, can you clarify your comments on human hearing?  You must mean it is inefficient to use it early in the product development trajectory (?)

 

After all, the point is to make something the human ear (& brain) cannot distinguish from a real instrument...

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you can't tell the players w/out a scorecard

 

@gmgraves can post for himself, but my understanding is that he is a recording engineer with extensive experience in taht area (maybe too much with female vocalists??) 

 

 That comment is completely unwarranted and you should apologise and retract it.

 George records Classical Music , and I have heard one of his fine Classical recordings.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

John, can you clarify your comments on human hearing?  You must mean it is inefficient to use it early in the product development trajectory (?)

 

After all, the point is to make something the human ear (& brain) cannot distinguish from a real instrument...

 

John is being a little too modest. I have done quite a few tests with John listening to some of his corrected recordings. I would suggest that like everybody else, there are certain times that he can't be as analytical as at other times, especially when many of his sessions ,due to necessity, continue into the wee small hours, but he certainly does appear to get things right most of the time judging by the marked improvements he has made to many previous non corrected Dolby recordings.