Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted November 5, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2019 It's interesting to me that sometimes the argument is "I don't believe you hear that" and sometimes it's "I don't believe you don't hear that" I'd just like to point out the operative word in both cases is "believe". 😎 daverich4, Teresa and esldude 1 2 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said: It's interesting to me that sometimes the argument is "I don't believe you hear that" and sometimes it's "I don't believe you don't hear that" I'd just like to point out the operative word in both cases is "believe". 😎 Interesting. When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. Teresa 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
sandyk Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 38 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Sandy is the only member here to receive multiple behind the scenes warnings because of his belligerence and rage at others. I don’t always call him out. Chris Part of the problem here is due to provocation caused by frequent removal of my posts by Ralf11 in particular. without a reasonable excuse . The post quoted by Kumakuma, like so many others, was removed. When the thread needed cleaning up by the OP , this post should also have been removed. However only my posts are usually removed in the needed tidying up of the threads. Yes, I agree that you have better things to do. https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/56979-who-has-tried-out-different-usb-cables/page/7/#comments kumakuma Senior Member kumakuma 4590 posts Report post #163 Posted Saturday at 12:00 PM On 11/2/2019 at 11:47 AM, sandyk said: Just remember that Admin will be able to view all of your deleted posts to decide whether the deletions were warranted or not. I'm sure Chris has better things to do with his time. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Popular Post STC Posted November 5, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Interesting. When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. With the exception to Arny Krueger. 😂 Also, I am glad that my hearing must be improving so much that now I can listen to MP3s. sandyk and Samuel T Cogley 2 ST My Ambiophonics System with Virtual Concert Hall Ambience Link to comment
sandyk Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Interesting. When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. John Dyson also mentioned this recently after 2 courses of antibiotics were needed to rectify a Eustachian tube blockage. He noticed certain types of distortion hat he had previously missed as his hearing recovered over a period of about a week.. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Speedskater Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. While I don't know anything about that, but j.j. (James D. Johnston) wrote that people with certain types of hearing damage may hear differences in MP3 files, because they don't hear some of the more important frequencies. esldude 1 Link to comment
gmgraves Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 1 hour ago, fas42 said: It appears you're still not following, George - I take a 'low res' recording, say CD or MP3. and upsample to some Hi-Res format - not one iota, one shred of extra, meaningful information has been added to the track - yet, it sounds better than the original file I started with ... I have organised the audio data so that it's now in a form which better suits the playback chain - the DAC area is the key link where this change in audible behaviour is occurring. yes, of course, I do the same thing. I have a fine up-sampler that will take standard resolution audio and up-convert it to 24/96 on the fly. It is a permanent part of my playback system. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my assertion; to whit: A DAC will not optimize a system for high-resolution playback. The DAC will play what it’s given. If the Hi-Res version of a particular recording sounds better than the Redbook version of that same recording, then it will sound the better of the two. But if the Redbook sounds better than the Hi-Res version of the same performance, the DAC won’t (and can’t) change that. It is what it is. 1 hour ago, fas42 said: So, if I'm into Hi-Res I will carefully pick a playback chain which makes the most of this format; if I have a huge collection of CDs, I will acquire a CD player which has had all the effort put into optimising the electronics in it for recovering 16 bit sound - I pick the right 'vehicle' for making the journey, 🙂. And I say there’s no such thing. Almost any 24-bit DAC will do a better job of resolving a 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD than will any 16-bit only DAC. Teresa 1 George Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted November 5, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2019 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Interesting. When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. I've met several people at T.H.E. Show with hearing damage that exhibit the same phenomenon. I'm enjoying this thread but wake me up when an actual market exists for high resolution audio files or streaming. esldude, Ajax and crenca 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted November 5, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2019 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Interesting. When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. Yes, that isn't really news. It is just ignored quite often. Among other things as we age and our hearing is stressed or damaged, the masking curves change. The masking filters become less sharp. So some material that might be masked if young, can be unmasked when older. In some senses that is sort of like hearing what you couldn't hear before, but in general except rather odd circumstances your hearing acuity is really worse. An obvious subjective experience is how well you can hear and carry on a conversation at say a sporting event with a crowd and its incessant noise or say conversation at a crowded party. Something you could do when young that with deteriorating masking the same situation becomes a constant noise you can't pierce through and separate out. At first blush this explanation might seem backwards. With normal hearing our ears parse things out into maybe 30 shifting bands. With a widened filter with age multiple bands may be activated when only one or fewer would be with better hearing. In situations of simpler stimulus this might result in one band being activated by an out of band signal that when younger would have been ignored resulting in a subjective increase in loudness or prominence of the sound. MP3 indeed would fit as such a stimulus. Here is another odd little thing I've run across. Our perception changes in regard to which temporal lobe of the brain is most involved with age. This article also examines "babble noise levels" vs age. The crowd situation I mentioned above. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4348517/ Ajax, Hugo9000, Jeff_N and 5 others 4 2 2 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted November 5, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 5, 2019 1 hour ago, sandyk said: Part of the problem here is due to provocation No. Be an adult, take personal responsibility, and stop blaming your behavior on others. daverich4, Teresa, opus101 and 1 other 3 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Rexp Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: No. Be an adult, take personal responsibility, and stop blaming your behavior on others. How ironic, I guess Alex upset your fragile ego at some point. opus101 and Ajax 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted November 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Rexp said: How ironic, I guess Alex upset your fragile ego at some point. lucretius and MetalNuts 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted November 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2019 Part of the problem here is due to prevarication esldude and marce 2 Link to comment
sandyk Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 It would be more helpful to the present situation if Rexp , Kumakuma and Ralf11 deleted their replies. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
Popular Post Rexp Posted November 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, sandyk said: It would be more helpful to the present situation if Rexp , Kumakuma and Ralf11 deleted their replies. No need, i cant see any of Ralfs posts and the dog is cute. 4est, MetalNuts and kumakuma 2 1 Link to comment
MetalNuts Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, Rexp said: No need, i cant see any of Ralfs posts and the dog is cute. Agree, the dog is very cute. MetalNuts Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted November 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2019 35 minutes ago, Rexp said: How ironic, I guess Alex upset your fragile ego at some point. Is that a personal attack? i have no clue what you mean though. Everyone here can’t blame their belligerent behavior on others. The “he made me do it” excuse is for 2nd grade. Teresa and Ajax 1 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 34 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: Part of the problem here is due to prevarication Exactly why I modified one post to the above - it is important to view your actions, including posts, in an objective light. sandyk 1 Link to comment
fas42 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 3 hours ago, gmgraves said: yes, of course, I do the same thing. I have a fine up-sampler that will take standard resolution audio and up-convert it to 24/96 on the fly. It is a permanent part of my playback system. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my assertion; to whit: A DAC will not optimize a system for high-resolution playback. The DAC will play what it’s given. If the Hi-Res version of a particular recording sounds better than the Redbook version of that same recording, then it will sound the better of the two. But if the Redbook sounds better than the Hi-Res version of the same performance, the DAC won’t (and can’t) change that. It is what it is. And I say there’s no such thing. Almost any 24-bit DAC will do a better job of resolving a 16-bit/44.1 KHz CD than will any 16-bit only DAC. "On the fly" doesn't count. If circuitry is working to do the upsampling while you listen, all bets are off - because, the bits of circuitry doing that particular processing are part of the playback chain - as you say. I don't distinguish digital 'parts' from analogue, as a special case, if I'm concerned with some type of interference effect. So, upsampling, etc, is a totally offline activity - I have two tracks set up on some media, ready to play, of each format The DAC is a hybrid circuit - how it behaves can vary depending upon, well, everything. If the designer of the circuitry made sure that the SQ was better for a particular type of input - then that's what at least some people should hear. Technically, the 24 bit may be 'better' than the 16 bit - soundwise, the converse could be true. Link to comment
fas42 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 4 hours ago, sandyk said: Frank This is even more obvious when very low bit rate .aac encoding as used by YouTube and elsewhere is converted to LPCM. I have previously posted examples of this. The interesting thing though, is that if you convert low bit rate .aac to a much higher bit rate .aac it doesn't improve it much, if at all. Alex Makes sense that changing the .aac rate won't help matters ... the 'better' sample still has to be decoded, on the fly, and if that is the underlying issue, that is, the processing required is the root cause of the SQ lacking - then there won't be an improvement. Link to comment
sandyk Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, fas42 said: Makes sense that changing the .aac rate won't help matters ... the 'better' sample still has to be decoded, on the fly, and if that is the underlying issue, that is, the processing required is the root cause of the SQ lacking - then there won't be an improvement. If the YouTube player did a conversion of the low bit rate audio to LPCM right at the time of loading the file for playback, which often takes several seconds, then everybody would be able to hear them better, perhaps resulting in increased sales of the recordings without increasing the bandwidth needed. How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
gmgraves Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 1 hour ago, fas42 said: "On the fly" doesn't count. If circuitry is working to do the upsampling while you listen, all bets are off - because, the bits of circuitry doing that particular processing are part of the playback chain - as you say. I don't distinguish digital 'parts' from analogue, as a special case, if I'm concerned with some type of interference effect. So, upsampling, etc, is a totally offline activity - I have two tracks set up on some media, ready to play, of each format The DAC is a hybrid circuit - how it behaves can vary depending upon, well, everything. If the designer of the circuitry made sure that the SQ was better for a particular type of input - then that's what at least some people should hear. Technically, the 24 bit may be 'better' than the 16 bit - soundwise, the converse could be true. None of that alters the fact that your assertion that a DAC can “optimize” a system for hi-res is both wrong and more than a little absurd, Frank. In this case, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. George Link to comment
fas42 Posted November 6, 2019 Share Posted November 6, 2019 1 hour ago, gmgraves said: None of that alters the fact that your assertion that a DAC can “optimize” a system for hi-res is both wrong and more than a little absurd, Frank. In this case, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Dear me, 😲 ... going back to my original statement, Quote I did listening tests 30 years ago, which ably demonstrated that 16 bits is way good enough - if 24 bits sounds better, then it's because the particular playback chain has been 'tuned' to work better with that format - and no other reason. Now, the particular owner may check out the reviews, and find that a certain CDP works brilliantly with CDs. Or that a media server and particular associated DAC does excellently with Hi-Res material. And buy one or the other, accordingly - in my book, that's a form of "optimising" ... was talking just a day or so ago about how to play true 4 channel LPs, and using a Parabolic stylus was recommended, for better sound - should I consider it "absurd" that vinyl replay could be made better, by altering the hardware being used? Link to comment
Popular Post gmgraves Posted November 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2019 14 hours ago, fas42 said: Dear me, 😲 ... going back to my original statement, Now, the particular owner may check out the reviews, and find that a certain CDP works brilliantly with CDs. Or that a media server and particular associated DAC does excellently with Hi-Res material. And buy one or the other, accordingly - in my book, that's a form of "optimising" ... was talking just a day or so ago about how to play true 4 channel LPs, and using a Parabolic stylus was recommended, for better sound - should I consider it "absurd" that vinyl replay could be made better, by altering the hardware being used? Now it is possible to optimize one’s system for vinyl playback because there are so many variables. There’s the ‘table itself, the arm, the cartridge, the phono preamp, all of these affect playback quality, but with digital, you really only have the DAC and will not just affect playback of Hi-Res material, but of standard resolution material as well. You can’t separate the two. It’s like trying to optimize your phonograph set-up for 45 RPM LPs over 33.3 RPM LPs. The same equipment plays both and there is simply nothing you can do to make your system favor one over the other. As we seem to be caught in a circular argument, there is no need to respond, Frank. I have nothing more to say on the subject, and you just seem to be restating your position, and I simply do not buy your conclusions. See you in another thread! Teresa and kumakuma 2 George Link to comment
Popular Post mcgillroy Posted November 6, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2019 22 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Interesting. When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. The reputable German computer mag c‘t did an MP3 hearing test ca. 2006 where they had one participant with a very high success rate. Turned out he had a hearing damage and he was able to identify certain phasing artifacts of MP3 encoders. If I am not mistaken the person also worked in the audio field, perhaps on hearing aids. The test was done on professional equipment in a recording studio. Maybe some German reader can find the particular article. sandyk and The Computer Audiophile 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now