Bits is bits?

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, Indydan said:

I found this article through Darko. The author makes a case that it isn't a case of Bits are bits. I wonder what others think?

 

 

https://www.upscaleaudio.com/pages/bits-is-bits?fbclid=IwAR20r8A_bUYGlDjzsbFfEKzNAB06vDsYOgTf_TUf7xXwpps6-kdggIay4bU

Indydan

You are wasting your time asking this question here, as the usual suspects, who are even unable to hear the obvious differences between USB cables, ( and that includes Ralf11)   unlike the huge number of members who love their Lush cables etc. will act as a group to shout down any opinions to the contrary.

You will find a large number of members who do agree with at least some of the points in that article post mainly in threads such as Rajiv's massive thread in the MUSIC SERVERS section.

Alex

[sandyk]

Indydan

 The above post is exactly what I am referring to. 

 Replies like the above calling those who disagree with them as raving Parasites and Luddites are typical of the thread destroying tactics used by several members from this group.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

. In fact, I would say that by calling Darko a shill and resorting to name-calling, folks give defenders of this poor argument a great way to deflect from the actual content of the argument - they can instead sidestep the argument itself and post the kind of response Alex has posted above, pointing out and decrying the nastiness of a "small vocal minority" of naysayers.

 I am NOT sidestepping the argument, neither am I agreeing with all the contents of the quoted article.

 I am simply saying that it is no longer  possible to have a rational discussion in this forum without members such as Ralf11 and several others deliberately attacking the poster and using insulting phrases.

 This amounts to a bullying and disruptive tactic that leads to others with different views not even joining in the discussion.

This kind of behaviour is even more prevalent in the MQA thread, where I have already made it perfectly clear that I also hear degradation caused by MQA processing.

 

In other words it becomes Censorship of those with differing points of view.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

I'm surprised by the people with blogs who are so proud to be "influencers". 

 

How many here bother to read the Blogs in this forum ?

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Presumably you continue to post your views to get a reaction?

 

You must understand by now that some of your ideas are way outside the norm, and presumably you enjoy tweaking everyone?

Yes, I agree that they are outside the norm , but I also have quite a bit of confirmation including now 4 high profile members in the previous several months.

[sandyk]

22 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

now, now - for all the Dravings, he understands analog quite well

In case you haven't noticed, I have not used Analogue based material for quite a few years.

All my observations are based around listening to Digital recordings via my highly modified DACs used both with the PC and my main system. My main DAC uses very low noise separate power supplies for both Digital and Analogue areas ,and in the case of the old Musical Fidelity XDAC V3 used with my PC, a very low PPM TCXO is used along with a <4uV noise highly stable +5V supply along with a low noise external Linear PSU instead of the supplied AC wallwart.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Doesn’t matter. When the claims are so outside the norm, the evidence needed to move the bar requires more and more care & effort. 

 I have already provided that in the way of reports by Barry Diament and the results also of 6 separate DBTs.

 As far as I am concerned I have done just that.

 It's not my problem if you refuse to accept the validity of those reports along with those from quite a few respected members of this forum.

Nothing that anybody does will ever be enough for those with deeply ingrained beliefs, just like those that refuse to accept that Man has set foot on the Moon.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I am talking about your knowledge base

 

You wouldn't know what my knowledge base is.

 

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Quite a few "respected members of this forum" have seen your purported proof.  AFAIK, not one has been convinced, or persuaded.

 

Here is a tip: when reading journal articles (which of course have undergone peer review) you first read the Methods section (not the Intro or even the Abstract).  If it is deficient, there is no need to read anything else.

 Here is a tip for you.

 This is NOT an Engineering Forum, It is an Audiophile Forum, and we don't have to play by your rules.

 I have already gone way beyond what most members would do to try and humour closed minded Academics like yourself, and continue to do so behind the scenes with other well qualified members.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

He said he respects your knowledge of analog electronics. Why are you having such a hard time taking a compliment?

DELETED.

Neither yourself or Ralf 11 are worth the effort of replying to.

[sandyk]

Just now, mansr said:

Would you be so kind as to extend me the same courtesy?

 

When you stop attacking my posts with sarcastic and derogatory remarks I will consider doing so.

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Ok you still haven’t answered: what exactly is your claim? Specifically: what do you feel you have “confirmed”?

 

Honestly, I can’t tell exactly what you are talking about. 

 On several occasions I have offered to provide you proof of my main claim but you have made it very clear, as several other members have done, that you are not interested in any proof that I have offered to provide.

 My main claim has always been that Music files with identical checksums do not necessarily sound the same, even when stored in the same folder of the same storage media, or for that matter,  Video files with identical checksums look exactly the same either.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

 But the part that is quoted at the beginning of this thread, which appears to suggest that bit errors are responsible for some sound quality issues with digital audio is entirely mistaken, and this fact really makes the entire article lose weight.  This mistake is really a shame because it is one aspect of digital playback technology which is relatively easily verifiable

Hi Barrows

 Yes , it is relatively easy verifiable, even by correctly implemented DBT sessions, but getting people with deeply ingrained beliefs to accept such proof is an entirely different matter.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

2) Don’t use the term “confirmation” when you mean that there are 4 more anecdotes. Are they public?

 With the recent verifications I have deliberately not made public the names of the high profile members involved, so as to protect them from the inevitable personal attacks by the usual pack of suspects. 

Of course their reports are anecdotal, as it is not possible to organise DBT sessions etc. like I did originally.

 If you are interested I can provide further details, FYI ONLY via a PM.

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Oh ok. On my system they sound the same to me.

 Unless I am mistaken, you have not been supplied with any recent examples which are very different to the original samples provided

 

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Thats ok. I am confident that the conditions which apply to your system and cause you to hear what you hear don’t  apply to my system. 

Virtually Everybody from the Objective side appears to believe that what others in this Forum report hearing  does NOT apply to their own system.

  I am not just talking about HEARING.

You are also neglecting the fact that others have reported hearing the same differences through their own system via my provided files.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Alex, I understand you are very passionate about this topic. If you wish to document all the ways a noisy PC can affect the media output then go for it.

 

You might consider solving this problem using a good isolating network segment (I use fiber) and that way the details of the media whether it be audio, or imaging, will be effectively isolated from the noisy PC. In any case I’m all set.

 

Here we go again, the usual claim from the other side that their own system is totally immune from these effects, and the usual unwillingness to even participate in such as exercise.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I did listen awhile ago. You know that. You are being irrational. Have you ever listened to my system? Why are you so presumptuous?

 You are the one being presumptuous.

 You are making an unverifiable claim that your system is totally immune to these effects, and can correct all deficiencies resulting from the front end, even the visual side from an attached monitor/TV  which does NOT go through your optical network along with the Audio.

 It's simply a waste of time discussing this further with you.

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, marce said:

It is well known that more objective based audiophiles are deaf (myself included) and have to cover our disability in the hearing department by hiding behind the shoulders of the likes of Maxwell, Heaviside, Tesla etc.

 You can't possibly have as much hearing damage, as well as age related as I have, yet I am still able to hear things many others are unable to. 

Personally knowing a couple of E.Es. , I put some of this down to Expectation Bias due to your original training.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, alfe said:

 

Dickhead is for porn site, here the insult is Radiohead.

 

 What's wrong with Richard Cranium instead ?

[sandyk]

A NICE POST !  Including this part too.

Quote

 giving you a ‘sound stage’ that has width, depth and in the better ones, height.

 

[sandyk]

56 minutes ago, STC said:

Stereo is just a method to trick the brain to reconstruct the positional space. If a stereo recording is all about phase as you alleged then it should also able to produce sound from above and behind you

 

 If your system is good enough, yes it will !

The Chesky recording of "The Storm" even when down converted to Stereo can give a frighteningly real illusion of Height.

Olivia Newton John's recording of "Moth to a Flame"  gives a simulated anti clockwise sweep of a Moth from behind both the speakers and the listening position with a better than average system and listening room.

However, to produce sound behind you, it is much easier to achieve that with artificial phase manipulation. e.g. QSound

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Quite the contrary in my experience - if the speakers (which are the source not only of the 'foreground' sound but also its 'background') are easily located then you're enjoying low quality playback.

 

Unless of course it's a recording like some of The Beatles recordings.

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

I have the Chesky binaural recording but I couldn’t find any track names “ The Storm”. Height is can be perceived due to suggestive knowledge for HF and especially if your tweeter are way above your ears. Technically, stereo do not have height information but often perceived to hear own especially sounds like bird tweeting or bee buzzing. 

 

QSound is OT. I think most of moats here too are OT and not a bit on bits. Better I stop here. 

"The Storm" is track 6 in the album that I posted a photo of.

Even esldude will concede that it is possible to give height information with appropriate microphone replacement.

A group of us heard the height in this track via a pair of big Nelson Pass 100W Class A monoblocks. 

 A nearby lightning strike in the recording made us jump a little involuntarily.

 You can even notice the height of the rolling thunder as it moves across the sky via a good headphone amplifier set up.

 I had this track near the end of a compilation CD and momentarily dozed off while listening on the bed with headphones on.

I woke up looking through the window for the storm to realise it was bright blue sky outside.

 

 Perhaps your gear isn't as good as you believe it is ? 

 

We have been off topic for well more than a page already.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

OK, I had a hunch I remembered which album I was ‘quoting’ and I found it first try. 

Again Qobuz in standard resolution 

 

Shpongle - Tales of the Inexpressible 

So if you want a soundstage that fills your room, goes floor to ceiling and beyond and has electronic generated tones that do the floor-to-ceiling thing, here it is. This album is about music,  but a lot of the artistry lies in its presentation. Soundstages are massive, instruments and tones highly agile and there are sections of this album where the acoustics are so different and altered they’ll feel like they’re altering your consciousness.  A good percentage of this album happens at ceiling height. 

 

I have a suspicion that the ability to hear height Involves the pinna of the ear as much as the stereo system as it helps to rest your head against the chair’s headrest when listening, which has the effect of tipping your head back slightly, which really allows you to hear the height element perfectly. It isn’t however about tipping the head, as only part of the music happens at ceiling height...the rest is divided between floor and ceiling. All tipping your head back very slightly does is allow you to differentiate and therefore hear the height element much more clearly. 

 

 

The track 01 Ascent, Zarathustra on this album can fill the whole listening area with sound too.