Bits is bits?

[Confused]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

Put it this way - these days I can't bear listening to almost any ambitious hifi rig belonging to someone else for any length of time, because I can always hear the signature of poor contact quality coming through - it's an "offness" that builds like a bad taste in the mouth, and one can only take so much of it.

But if there is the odd poor quality connector used when making the original recording then that is fine, because assuming the playback rig is properly sorted it will allow the brain to connect to the essence of the music?

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

But if there is the odd poor quality connector used when making the original recording then that is fine, because assuming the playback rig is properly sorted it will allow the brain to connect to the essence of the music?

Personally i would say it all depends on whether the ‘essence’ made it past the bad connector...if it did, then yes, if it didn’t, no. 

[Blackmorec]

On 8/16/2019 at 3:06 AM, fas42 said:

 

 

When one is merely inches away from a speaker on one side of a stereo, directly in front of it, you are effectively listening to one speaker - if someone were to disconnect the other speaker while I was was listening this way, I'm sure it would be essentially an invisible operation, as far as the ears were concerned.

You see Frank, this is the stuff I’m not buying...due almost entirely to the impossibility of the physics. 

 

WE say that the magic happens when the signal reaching each ear from a stereo pair of loudspeakers is sufficiently unsullied to allow the brain the treat both signals as coming from a single source. 

 

When you are so close to one speaker, several things happen.

1. There is only effectively 1 source, so the ears are receiving the same mono signal, which by definition can’t have positioning information, which is based on the differential between 2 signals

2. You are, in all likelihood not even listening to one loudspeaker and are far more likely to be listening predominantly to one of the speaker’s drivers. For sure at the distance you talk about there’ll be zero driver integration so at best you’re going to have massive frequency imbalances. That’s hardly the unsullied signal we’re looking for. 

 

 

[4est]

On 8/16/2019 at 7:02 AM, fas42 said:

As I've stated many times, the acoustics of the room I take not the slightest efforts with ... the system has to work with whatever room makes sense to have a music system in, and the speakers have to go where it's convenient to put them - I have no interest in ultra low bass, since 99.999% of the music occurs elsewhere in the spectrum, and hence all the problems people seem to have with bass simply don't exist for me.

This pretty much tells me that you have no idea what a system is capable of or have not much experience beyond your own room(s). To suggest that room acoustics and speaker placement is of no concern and the system should "just work" is utter folly flying in the face of decades of informed user's experiences. The likelihood of your "magic" being real or of value to anyone seem highly unlikely to me.

[4est]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Hence, the use of the phrase "very carefully applied", . A good trick is to think while doing it, is that this stuff is hideously expensive, and every scrap of it not actually doing something is money down the drain ...

 

I think of it as eternally fluid solder, because it serves the main function of guaranteeing gas tightness - which counters the fundamental, underlying gremlin that one is attempting to eliminate: degradation of the contact surfaces over time.

 

Put it this way - these days I can't bear listening to almost any ambitious hifi rig belonging to someone else for any length of time, because I can always hear the signature of poor contact quality coming through - it's an "offness" that builds like a bad taste in the mouth, and one can only take so much of it.

I cannot help wonder if what you are hearing when (re)applying this paste is that the old paste has degraded, and it does degrade over time. If you actually want to "hear" good contact, try some Stabilant 22A!

[Blackmorec]

3 hours ago, 4est said:

This pretty much tells me that you have no idea what a system is capable of or have not much experience beyond your own room(s). To suggest that room acoustics and speaker placement is of no concern and the system should "just work" is utter folly flying in the face of decades of informed user's experiences. The likelihood of your "magic" being real or of value to anyone seem highly unlikely to me.

Oh the magic is real alright; the entire high end audio industry is built on it. When stereo delivers very well it really has some surprising capabilities. And the most amazing thing is that the recordings keep on giving, indicating that the journey isn’t finished.  The key to the magic is right here, “when stereo delivers very well”.  When the 2 signals from your loudspeakers are well matched enough that the brain can combine them into one, you initially experience a surreal sound as the music no longer comes from the 2 loudspeakers  L & R but is floating somewhere between and the speakers  ap(hear) to be silent.  This is not a state that few or no audiophiles have reached.....its the intended goal of the hobby. Of course the illusion can be further improved, quite dramatically in fact, but when you first hear your stereo ‘with no speakers’ it quite a profound experience if you’ve never heard it before. Kind of an audiophile grail, as in H grail just not so important. 

I think Frank has figured out a way to remove enough of the limitations in even quite humble gear to get a really good, convincing sound. And Frankly speaking I think he should write a book about what he’s achieved and the measures he’s taken. Such a book would be of profound value to the hard-up audiophile why genuinely wants to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.  College EEs for example. Turns out you can make a pretty fine purse from a pigs ear. Just takes a lot of work, which is what Frank does. 

[fas42]

14 hours ago, Confused said:

But if there is the odd poor quality connector used when making the original recording then that is fine, because assuming the playback rig is properly sorted it will allow the brain to connect to the essence of the music?

 

Yes, that's the obvious, slightly puzzling aspect to this ... why shouldn't the quality of the recording setup, in this regard, have more subjective impact? I feel there are various factors at play here - things like the fact that the studio gear is merely recording, so current, power levels are low; that the connectors are typically much better suited to the task - few rubbishy RCAs for example, and connections are constantly being refreshed, as the recording situation alters ... but one of the key ones most likely is that the quality of the recording equipment used keeps changing, track to track, album to album; the mind has trouble grabbing onto any common, continuous degrading factor - whereas one's own  rig will impart the same noise, distortion overlay onto absolutely everything, over and over again. A pattern emerges, and once the mind is sensitised to it, it comes through and clear - "you hear it every time".

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

You see Frank, this is the stuff I’m not buying...due almost entirely to the impossibility of the physics. 

 

This ain't physics ... this is the mind!

 

12 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

WE say that the magic happens when the signal reaching each ear from a stereo pair of loudspeakers is sufficiently unsullied to allow the brain the treat both signals as coming from a single source. 

 

When you are so close to one speaker, several things happen.

1. There is only effectively 1 source, so the ears are receiving the same mono signal, which by definition can’t have positioning information, which is based on the differential between 2 signals

 

When I'm that close to a speaker what concerns me is whether I am aware of the speaker being the source or not; I'm not trying to see perfect lateral positioning - think of a situation where a small hole is bored into the side of a concert hall wall, and you listen to the sound of a symphony coming through it - do you perceive it as the hole making the noises, or are you only aware of the orchestra playing on the other side?

 

12 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

2. You are, in all likelihood not even listening to one loudspeaker and are far more likely to be listening predominantly to one of the speaker’s drivers. For sure at the distance you talk about there’ll be zero driver integration so at best you’re going to have massive frequency imbalances. That’s hardly the unsullied signal we’re looking for. 

 

 

 

Doesn't work that way. Usually two way speakers, tweeter, and mid/bass, and when producing the right quality it's impossible to separate the treble energy as coming from a different point from the rest - this is one of the things that really gave me a shock 35 years ago - it was a, this ... can't ... be ... happening, moment.

 

The current rig of NAD electronics and Sharp speaker has never got this good, so far - very good standard in tone, and throwing up a huge soundstage at times - but has not manifested invisibility of the drivers ... but this is simply because I have not invested enough energy into more 'debugging' - the Round Tuit thing.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, 4est said:

This pretty much tells me that you have no idea what a system is capable of or have not much experience beyond your own room(s). To suggest that room acoustics and speaker placement is of no concern and the system should "just work" is utter folly flying in the face of decades of informed user's experiences. The likelihood of your "magic" being real or of value to anyone seem highly unlikely to me.

 

As I've stated many times, room acoustics and speaker placement is a shortcut to getting the sound in the right shape so that the, usually one, person gets an illusion to snap on, when they are placed in exactly the right position - an alternative which I find far superior is to get the SQ to a level where it manifests "everywhere"; but is still far too hard to do - hence occurs rarely.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

I think Frank has figured out a way to remove enough of the limitations in even quite humble gear to get a really good, convincing sound. And Frankly speaking I think he should write a book about what he’s achieved and the measures he’s taken. Such a book would be of profound value to the hard-up audiophile why genuinely wants to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.  College EEs for example. Turns out you can make a pretty fine purse from a pigs ear. Just takes a lot of work, which is what Frank does. 

 

Thanks for those positive words! ... yes, the thought of producing some book, archive of my adventures has gone up and down, up and down ... life, the bastard thing it is!! , gets in the way far too much at the moment ... one day ... .

[Ralf11]

a book would also serve as an excellent sink for your desire and enthusiasm to explain these multitudinous techniques for sound quality improvement

[firedog]

And back on topic: 

Archimago responds to the source for the thread:

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/08/musings-demo-why-bits-are-bits-lets-not.html#more

[sandyk]

54 minutes ago, firedog said:

And back on topic: 

Archimago responds to the source for the thread:

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/08/musings-demo-why-bits-are-bits-lets-not.html#more

 

 It's so damn easy to demonstrate that Archimago and his disciples are incorrect, but unfortunately people like him and yourself refuse to even examine any proof offered., You also refuse to accept the results of a series of 6 separate correctly implemented  DBT sessions with 8 repeats in each session where a total of 48 out of 48 POSITIVE results were obtained, just as you refused to accept that Mani's results suggested that further investigation was needed as well.

[sandyk]

I was using Google to search for something entirely different this afternoon when I saw my User Name mentioned.

Reading through the results I rediscovered the attached.

 

Quote

01-13-2012, 06:49 PM #29

PeterSt

PeterSt is offline Senior Member PeterSt's Avatar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date:Mar 2008Location:NetherlandsPosts:4,013

 

Attack the ripper ! 

 

But the thing I am "attacking" here is the notion that bit-by-bit identical results from different rippers consistently (I assume they did multiple rips on each ripper) sound different.
As a software developer I have so many problems with this phenomenon that I won't allow myself to look into it. So here's a story :

Some CA members may recognize the file name from the graphs of my before post. This is about test files spread by another CA member who suffers ear damage,
and *thus* is able to hear things we can not. Well, I can, because I suffer from similar from time to time, like I do the past week and still am (grrr).
 It allows you to hear phase stuff which otherwise would be inaudible. Hear like a dog.
Back to the content, where I developed this analysis tool, around the same time this other CA member (I'm sure he will jump in) explicitly tested various means of ripping
(it's somewhat different, but about ripping anyway). Of course all results were equal at the data level.
So there I was with my tool, and if one person could really *proove* whether the results were different at playing back the various ripping means against eachother, it clearly is me.
Somehow I always used his files to setup the analysis tool, and check for already known differences like I explained one in my previous post.
 Took me 4 months IIRC. Always his files, but just because I prepared to hold them against eachother. Prepared ...
When all was finished I could have a go with it, and up to then (that 4 month time span) I honestly never listened for comparison.
This is A-B stuff which I don't like, so I really really must sit down for that, and have some hours spare which I usually don't have.
Then came this day a friend was over, and I thought to do this together. So we did, and we both found the same differences for the bit-matching files.
 We both heard it for the first time, and there was no doubt. The differences were there, but they could not be ... Too much IT experience here ...
And now the maybe unexpected part : Up till today I never let loose the analysis tool on these files. Heck, what if I'd see the difference (already expecting I will).
I wouldn't be able to sleep anymore. My Word documents for 100% sure always open alright, and no problems ever (yea bleedink, when you change environmental settings).
 It just can't be, and I don't want to know ...
I have also something of "let there remain some secrets in audio please". Really. If these ripping differences are perceived, let it be.
 But also : what if I can *not* proove the differences. Then what. I hear them, many others do, and more and more come around. What could be happening *then* ?

Well, *that* will be the time I can't sleep.

Additionally, I don't like myself guided by measurements too much. I rather reason out what can be the cause in advance, to afterwards check my reasoning.
 Empirical findings become science so to speak. See the absolute phase example.
In the mean time, a few years later, we are further on the subject. I now seem to know (but never tried to really proove it) this is not about the ripping as such.
 But beyond that, once being on your PC, many other things may imply a physical difference. So, I most probably will be able to proove differences by measurement,
 but I rather have these physical differences under control first;
This is a most tough task, like the WAV-FLAC thing. I already could proove that this can be solved, but in a not-so-convenient fashion.
 I also know that once that is solved, this ripping problem also will be solved. Well, it should be. Set a dial in XXHighEnd and suddenly the rips *are* the same.

Ok, I may talk in too many secrets, but maybe too many playback software already "emerged" from mine. Some 10,000 hours you know ...
 

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

 

 

[marce]

On 8/16/2019 at 3:53 AM, sandyk said:

 That is obvious from your posts.

Closed minded people like yourself demand DBTs as the so called "Gold Standard" ,but when the results don't go the way you expect,  as with the series of 6 correctly implemented DBT sessions performed several years ago with files that I supplied, you refuse to accept the results. That was 6 separate sessions with 8 repeats in each session, for a total of 48 out of 48 positive results.

 

I have no interest whatsoever in anything further you have to say.

BYE !

Deja Vu😁

[firedog]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 It's so damn easy to demonstrate that Archimago and his disciples are incorrect, but unfortunately people like him and yourself refuse to even examine any proof offered., You also refuse to accept the results of a series of 6 separate correctly implemented  DBT sessions with 8 repeats in each session where a total of 48 out of 48 POSITIVE results were obtained, just as you refused to accept that Mani's results suggested that further investigation was needed as well.

1) I wasn't aware I stated my opinion:

2)  It's so damn easy that it hasn't been done in any reputable way. Especially never by anyone purporting to back the many devices that are based on the bits aren't bits idea.
And no, I don't accept your oft quoted tests, as I don't know what the controls were, exactly how it was done, etc. And in science, tests need to be repeatable by others, not just by a small set of people you've cultivated. Assuming your tests are good, they'd just be an indication, which has never been backed up anywyhere else. 
 

I also didn't "refuse to accept" Mani's results. You make a very quick jump making an equivalence from  "not embracing with enthusiasm" to  "refusing to accept". 

[sandyk]

38 minutes ago, firedog said:

2)  It's so damn easy that it hasn't been done in any reputable way. Especially never by anyone purporting to back the many devices that are based on the bits aren't bits idea.

 

You wouldn't have a clue what the current methodology is, and which 4 high profile qualified members have also verified my reports in the last 4 1/2 months or so !

So now you are claiming that Martin Colloms didn't perform the 6 DBT sessions in a reputable way ?

Unlike you, he is a well qualified E.E. and knows how to perform DBTs correctly..

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You wouldn't have a clue what the current methodology is

So why should we trust it?

[sandyk]

46 minutes ago, marce said:

Deja Vu😁

 So is the usual quoted BS from Archimago who was sent a comparison disc by Dennis quite some time back and didn't even have the decency to report back. He probably didn't even bother checking it either.

You have been offered proof on several occasions but simply aren't interested.

 

Did any of you even bother to read the report from Peter that I located again today ?

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

So why should we trust it?

 You don't need to trust it .

You simply need to trust 2 of your God given senses using the methodology and equipment mentioned 

[firedog]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

So why should we trust it?

exactly

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 You don't need to trust it .

You simply need to trust 2 of your God given senses using the methodology and equipment mentioned 

Which god? Barry or the The Colloms?

[firedog]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

You wouldn't have a clue what the current methodology is, and which 4 high profile qualified members have also verified my reports in the last 4 1/2 months or so !

So now you are claiming that Martin Colloms didn't perform the 6 DBT sessions in a reputable way ?

Unlike you, he is a well qualified E.E. and knows how to perform DBTs correctly..

Being an E.E. has little directly to do with any of the above. 
As far as I'm concerned he's just another experienced listener. That's not  a mark against him, but it also doesn't get him any points for being some special kind of expert whose opinion is especially valuable. 

[Summit]

I can’t understand why so many people feel that they need to make it their life mission to debunk what many audiophiles say that they can hear. If what some people hear or think they hear is all bias, so what! Is it really a problem what someone want to spend their money on? Deforestation, climate change, over-fishing, Ebola and other virus epidemics and many other things are of common concern. If I want to spend my money on an IMO “better” USB cable, is not. The rescue mission to save audiophiles from their own bias is only beneficial up to a point after its just touting of ideas.

 

I believe that a bit is a bit. Is there nothing more too good sound than to get a bit perfect transmission? Yes of that I am sure. And yes I can be sure without knowing exactly what it is that makes two bit perfect digital gear sound different, I just know they can do. It’s the same then I throw a ball up in the air. I don’t need to know exactly why it will fall back down, it will do so regardless of my knowledge. My ultimate measuring instrument for SQ difference between gears is my ear. To some what I or other hear is useless, but if something sounds good to me in my system it’s sounds good to me. If something OTOH doesn’t sounds good to me in my system it’s not for me. It’s IMHO a simple and subjective way of selecting and matching audio gear, but in my experience also the best.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

Being an E.E. has little directly to do with any of the above. 
As far as I'm concerned he's just another experienced listener. That's not  a mark against him, but it also doesn't get him any points for being some special kind of expert whose opinion is especially valuable. 

 In  other words you and the others only accept the results of DBTs when they correspond with your own expectations.

How convenient !

 If he had reported that my reports were incorrect after the DBTs you would have all jumped on the results as absolute proof.

 

What a pack of Hypocrites !