Discussion:
New Humor in latest TAS
EricBergan
2013-04-21 19:16:16 UTC
Permalink
So I'm sure many of you fondly remember the series of articles in The
Absolute Sound stating, among other things, that the brand of CD-R made
an audible difference. So there is a letter to the editor in the latest
edition, where the writer states that he had been skeptical of the
findings. But then he had an opportunity to listen to a very high end
system. He listened to a .flac, and it sounded tight/closed/etc. Then he
converted that .flac to a .wav, played the .wav on the same system, and
everything opened up, better positioning in the sound stage etc. My head
exploded...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-21 19:33:23 UTC
Permalink
EricBergan wrote:
> So I'm sure many of you fondly remember the series of articles in The
> Absolute Sound stating, among other things, that the brand of CD-R made
> an audible difference. So there is a letter to the editor in the latest
> edition, where the writer states that he had been skeptical of the
> findings. But then he had an opportunity to listen to a very high end
> system. He listened to a .flac, and it sounded tight/closed/etc. Then he
> converted that .flac to a .wav, played the .wav on the same system, and
> everything opened up, better positioning in the sound stage etc. My head
> exploded...

[sigh] I can't even read audio magazines/websites any more because this
type of nonsense drives me crazy.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-22 00:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Oi.

Speaking of those TAS computer audio articles from early 2012, does
anyone subscribe and know if there were many nasty letters to the editor
on all that craziness (or would they not even print critical letters)?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
EricBergan
2013-04-22 00:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> Oi.
>
> Speaking of those TAS computer audio articles from early 2012, does
> anyone subscribe and know if there were many nasty letters to the editor
> on all that craziness (or would they not even print critical letters)?

I do subscribe. I do seem to remember one letter asking some questions
(and not in the right area) and the authors basically said they got it
right, and it's left to the doubters to explain why they heard a
difference.

What I'm really seeing is that neither TAS nor Stereophile really have a
truly digital-savvy editor, so no one challenges what the authors, or
letter writers, submit. I mean, let's face it, publishing a letter that
basically says that in a rigorous test, sonic character got added
converting from flac to wav is pretty embarrassing. As one friend put
it, "I'm sure they also believe if they print out a photo and scan it at
higher resolution, it will get better."


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
EricBergan
2013-04-22 00:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Of course, anyone want to take bets on whether he used different player
apps for the .flac, and .wav?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-22 03:31:48 UTC
Permalink
EricBergan wrote:
>
> What I'm really seeing is that neither TAS nor Stereophile really have a
> truly digital-savvy editor, so no one challenges what the authors, or
> letter writers, submit. I mean, let's face it, publishing a letter that
> basically says that in a rigorous test, sonic character got added
> converting from flac to wav is pretty embarrassing. As one friend put
> it, "I'm sure they also believe if they print out a photo and scan it at
> higher resolution, it will get better."

Since the Audio CD came out in 1982, it's only been what, ~30 years
since the rise of digital? To not have a digital-savvy editor by this
point is on the order of government-level incompetence ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-22 06:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> Since the Audio CD came out in 1982, it's only been what, ~30 years
> since the rise of digital? To not have a digital-savvy editor by this
> point is on the order of government-level incompetence ;-)

Well, it reflects the audience. I am sure we have all noticed the
average age of the typical faith-based audiophile...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Wirrunna
2013-04-22 11:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Was it in the April issue ? Years ago Stereo Review used to publish
reviews of the "Lirpa" brand equipment in the April issue.

I vaguely recall an Aussie electronics mag published an April article a
long time ago that stated that if you reverse the polarity of both
speaker leads you will hear a difference, but if you turn your back to
the speakers then the sound will return to normal. As an addendum they
also stated that if you put the batteries in your torch backwards, the
torch will suck in all the light in a room and make it dark.

Then there was this http://sound.westhost.com/dynamic-range.htm article
in the venerable Wireless World in the 1970s


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wirrunna's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3225
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-22 11:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Wirrunna wrote:
> Then there was this http://sound.westhost.com/dynamic-range.htm article
> in the venerable Wireless World in the 1970s


I sooo miss Wireless World!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-22 19:47:36 UTC
Permalink
i don't find it surprising; without knowing what system he used, some
artifact in the unpacking of FLAC for playback could have an audible
effect. in my own system, using a transporter for playback, I hear a
difference between Apple Lossless and AIFF, with a distinct preference
for the latter. i also hear a difference between wired and wifi. this
does not necessarily mean the technologies or codecs are inherently
superior, just that, when computers are involved, hardware, software,
codecs, connectivity all have an effect.

as to whether that effect is audible to you, or if it is, whether you
care, and if you do, which you prefer, and if you have a preference,
whether you're willing to spend money for your preference...these are
different questions.

fyi, i made a similar observation once to Bob Stuart at Meridian, and
his response, in a nutshell, was "everything matters."


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Wombat
2013-04-22 20:06:16 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i don't find it surprising; without knowing what system he used, some
> artifact in the unpacking of FLAC for playback could have an audible
> effect.
WasnŽt that even worse? Writing reviews about something without even
knowing how to decode it correctly?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-22 20:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Wombat wrote:
> WasnŽt that even worse? Writing reviews about something without even
> knowing how to decode it correctly?

i'm not following you. i didn't read the article, just commenting
generally on whether or not such differences are audible.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Wombat
2013-04-22 20:21:30 UTC
Permalink
You had the idea of artifacts from unpacking flac.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-24 16:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Wombat wrote:
> You had the idea of artifacts from unpacking flac.

not artifacts in the FLAC file itself, but something in the unpacking
process- and i'm just speculating, as i don't have a lot of experience
with FLAC, but i do have a lot of experience with other compressed (not
data reduced) formats such as ALAC. regardless, i hear the difference,
but you may not, and that's ok too.

you may quite rightly say I don't know what I'm talking about, but you
can't say the same about what I hear.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-24 17:51:53 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> you may quite rightly say I don't know what I'm talking about, but you
> can't say the same about what I hear.

Standard audiophile defense: I hear what I hear and I know what I hear,
no double blind listening tests required.

My response: It's your money to waste as you see/hear fit.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
mlsstl
2013-04-24 18:06:22 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> Standard audiophile defense: I hear what I hear and I know what I hear,
> no double blind listening tests required.

I've decided it is the rest of humanity that is affected by subconscious
factors. I'm immune because I say so. ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-24 18:13:52 UTC
Permalink
mlsstl wrote:
> I've decided it is the rest of humanity that is affected by subconscious
> factors. I'm immune because I say so. ;-)

I know what I hear...or do I? Thus the importance of double (or at least
single) blind testing. Example, the mcgurk effect.....where even when
you KNOW what is happening, your brain is not immune from other effects.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-24 18:38:42 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> Standard audiophile defense: I hear what I hear and I know what I hear,
> no double blind listening tests required.
>
> My response: It's your money to waste as you see/hear fit.

how am i wasting my money? are you suggesting i shouldn't own a
transporter? that aif files are more expensive than FLAC?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
heisenberg
2013-04-24 22:33:18 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> how am i wasting my money? are you suggesting i shouldn't own a
> transporter? that aif files are more expensive than FLAC?

Basically, it's the same argument as when someone goes to a fancy
restaurant. People pay for the luxurious experience, to be subjected to
an extraordinary treatment of some sorts. Some people are not sparing
money in order to create a memorable experience.

But there will always be do-gooders who will tirelessly crusade against
such experiences. These people are toiling and belabouring, performing
this thankless job where they claim they wish to protect us from
ourselves. So you can hear them yell, day in and day out: "stop wasting
your money! A nice cheap meal at the local deli is as good and as
nutritious as that fancy-schmancy meal you're eating at a posh
restaurant. Stop being such a fool, here, I will instil some
common-sense into your thick skull!"

But the bottom-line question is, who asked them to act on our behalf and
for our own benefit? The answer is simple: no one ever asked them to do
so, nor will anyone ever ask them to perform such idiotic duty.
Nevertheless, they feel compelled to keep charging with their
self-appointed crusade. That's precisely why do-gooders are the most
annoying people in the world.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
heisenberg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59622
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-24 22:39:14 UTC
Permalink
heisenberg wrote:
> Basically, it's the same argument as when someone goes to a fancy
> restaurant. People pay for the luxurious experience, to be subjected to
> an extraordinary treatment of some sorts. Some people are not sparing
> money in order to create a memorable experience.
>
> But there will always be do-gooders who will tirelessly crusade against
> such experiences. These people are toiling and belabouring, performing
> this thankless job where they claim they wish to protect us from
> ourselves. So you can hear them yell, day in and day out: "stop wasting
> your money! A nice cheap meal at the local deli is as good and as
> nutritious as that fancy-schmancy meal you're eating at a posh
> restaurant. Stop being such a fool, here, I will instil some
> common-sense into your thick skull!"
>
> But the bottom-line question is, who asked them to act on our behalf and
> for our own benefit? The answer is simple: no one ever asked them to do
> so, nor will anyone ever ask them to perform such idiotic duty.
> Nevertheless, they feel compelled to keep charging with their
> self-appointed crusade. That's precisely why do-gooders are the most
> annoying people in the world.

huh? Your example doesn't match up at all the the issue of whether two
lossless files sound different. If someone was saying, "listen to mp3,
it is likely just as good (transparent) as lossless" then your example
would work (mp3 is the cheap deli and lossless is the fancy restaurant).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-25 02:38:47 UTC
Permalink
garym wrote:
> huh? Your example doesn't match up at all the the issue of whether two
> lossless files sound different. If someone was saying, "listen to mp3,
> it is likely just as good (transparent) as lossless" then your example
> would work (mp3 is the cheap deli and lossless is the fancy
> restaurant).
>
> edit: or how about, you're in the fancy restaurant, two glasses are
> poured from a single bottle of wine in identical shaped glasses. Diner
> tastes both glasses and declares that one glass of wine is better than
> the other glass of wine, only to then discover they are in fact from the
> same bottle.

a more apt comparison would be to take one glass of wine, and serve it
with two different foods, say, cheese and chocolate. it's the same
glass of wine- does the food it is served with change the taste, or how
the taste is perceived? is the change (if it exists, and if it can be
quantified) the same from diner to diner?

if the wine, the glass, the cheese, and the chocolate are all constants,
how can you account for any differences in taste?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Mnyb
2013-04-25 06:08:53 UTC
Permalink
In this actual case there is facts , no needs to use poor analogies.

Fact . There is no difference in sound between FLAC and WAV .
There is not even a plausible mechanism for it .

Other forum members likearchimago have even measure the the transporter
in this regard.
The electrical signal that comes out are identical .

That'd age no other explanation than what's going on in the mind .
Given the complexity of a mind vs some tech...

You actually have your imagined cake and eat it to .
transcode FLAC to PCM at the server ( any old nas might not have the CPU
for it ).

I don't get where the poor analogies fit OP is limiting himself to poor
metadata support etc , because he believes WAV sound better
if he stopped doing that he whole collection of music would be easier to
manage.
And enjoyment would increase :)

In fact this tread is about solving the wrong problem , the answer is
don't use WAV .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-25 11:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Mnyb wrote:
> In this actual case there is facts , no needs to use poor analogies.
>
> Fact . There is no difference in sound between FLAC and WAV .
> There is not even a plausible mechanism for it .
>
> Other forum members likearchimago have even measure the the transporter
> in this regard.
> The electrical signal that comes out are identical .
>
> That'd age no other explanation than what's going on in the mind .
> Given the complexity of a mind vs some tech...
>
> You actually have your imagined cake and eat it to .
> transcode FLAC to PCM at the server ( any old nas might not have the CPU
> for it ).
>
> I don't get where the poor analogies fit OP is limiting himself to poor
> metadata support etc , because he believes WAV sound better
> if he stopped doing that he whole collection of music would be easier to
> manage.
> And enjoyment would increase :)
>
> In fact this tread is about solving the wrong problem , the answer is
> don't use WAV .

Nice but FACTS are completely irrelevant to an audiophile.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-25 17:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Mnyb wrote:
> In this actual case there is facts , no needs to use poor analogies.
>
> Fact . There is no difference in sound between FLAC and WAV .
> There is not even a plausible mechanism for it .
>
> Other forum members likearchimago have even measure the the transporter
> in this regard.
> The electrical signal that comes out are identical .
>
> That'd age no other explanation than what's going on in the mind .
> Given the complexity of a mind vs some tech...
>
> You actually have your imagined cake and eat it to .
> transcode FLAC to PCM at the server ( any old nas might not have the CPU
> for it ).
>
> I don't get where the poor analogies fit OP is limiting himself to poor
> metadata support etc , because he believes WAV sound better
> if he stopped doing that he whole collection of music would be easier to
> manage.
> And enjoyment would increase :)
>
> In fact this tread is about solving the wrong problem , the answer is
> don't use WAV .

i don't use WAV or FLAC, my comments were about the audibility of
compressed vs. non-compressed audio generally. in the case of ALAC and
AIF, and using the transporter, I can hear the difference. I might
speculate this is becasue the transporter will decode AIF natively,
while ALAC must be transcoded on the server, but that's just
speculation.

and you're assuming that because two files are identical, they must
sound identical to different users. you're not accounting for the key
variable, the hearing of the listener. until you can measure that, you
can't say with authority they sound the same, no matter how the file
looks from a data perspective.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Mnyb
2013-04-26 04:37:40 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i don't use WAV or FLAC, my comments were about the audibility of
> compressed vs. non-compressed audio generally. in the case of ALAC and
> AIF, and using the transporter, I can hear the difference. I might
> speculate this is becasue the transporter will decode AIF natively,
> while ALAC must be transcoded on the server, but that's just
> speculation.
>
> and you're assuming that because two files are identical, they must
> sound identical to different users. you're not accounting for the key
> variable, the hearing of the listener. until you can measure that, you
> can't say with authority they sound the same, no matter how the file
> looks from a data perspective.

You can if the files are data identical , the transporter will output
the same thing electrically .
It is in the end that same PCM data that gets converted by the dac.
How ever FLAC and ALAC has possibilities for track gain that can be used
by the transporter.
This must be disabled .

Lossless compression is by defenition lossless , bit perfect the pcm
data is the same.

If you still don't believe this a blind test may help .

A perceptual problem is much more likely .

"Hearing" has not really anything to do with it, when the stuff that
leaves the transporter is the same regardless of lossless file format
used.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-26 06:08:03 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> you're assuming that because two files are identical, they must sound
> identical to different users. you're not accounting for the key
> variable, the hearing of the listener. until you can measure that, you
> can't say with authority they sound the same, no matter how the file
> looks from a data perspective.

So what you are actually verifying is that non-blind, non-controlled
listening is actually totally useless for evaluating a system, because
two systems producing exactly the same sound wave will sound different
anyway?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-26 20:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> So what you are actually verifying is that non-blind, non-controlled
> listening is actually totally useless for evaluating a system, because
> two systems producing exactly the same sound wave will sound different
> anyway?

no; that one system will sound different to two people.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-26 21:55:49 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> no; that one system will sound different to two people.

True...

But that's such a broad generalization, doesn't this also mean that
there's no point doing any objective or subjective reviews at all if at
the end of the day, "good" sound is essentially idiosyncratic?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Mnyb
2013-04-26 22:42:19 UTC
Permalink
"Sound different too" hmm we are still in the domain of perceptual
errors . Is reality completely uninteresting ?

If you think it's sound different it is not necessarily so.
Foobar 2000 has an abx plugin that is useful .
Otherwise I suggests a random playlist with mixed aiff FLAC versions


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-27 01:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> True...
>
> But that's such a broad generalization that if taken to the extreme
> conclusion, doesn't this also mean that there's no point doing any
> objective or subjective reviews at all if at the end of the day, "good"
> sound is essentially idiosyncratic?

of course not- I'm only trying to underscore that *in a given system*
differences in file type might be audible. the consensus from the rest
of you seems to be that ALAC, AIFF, WAVE, FLAC will always sound the
same, no matter the system.

i don't believe the latter statement is true, and my own experience
proves it...to me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-27 03:11:11 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> of course not- I'm only trying to underscore that *in a given system*
> differences in file type might be audible. the consensus from the rest
> of you seems to be that ALAC, AIFF, WAVE, FLAC will always sound the
> same, no matter the system.
>
> i don't believe the latter statement is true, and my own experience
> proves it...to me.

IMO, given that the above are all "bit perfect", if you hear a
difference, then it means somewhere along the path, some component is
failing at its job in decoding. An alternative is that the machine is
being overtaxed or inadequate to decode the compressed stream such that
noise is being produced in the process.

Either way, the piece of equipment should be replaced. Or there's
perceptual inaccuracy. Systematic testing is the only way to diagnose
the cause.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
EricBergan
2013-04-27 03:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Particularly where computers are directly involved, don't discount the
possibility that two different applications are being used for two
different file types. Volume, tone adjustments, etc. could then be
involved, even though the same bits (after decompression in some cases)
are being used.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Mnyb
2013-04-27 04:55:44 UTC
Permalink
It's very easy to "discount the possibility" It has been done many times
with correctly setup stuff.

Did not archimago actually measured this ? WAV and FLAC actually
produces exactly the same output.

If you hear differences between lossless formats the overwhelmingly
likely explanations are .

1. Perceptual bias .
2. Experiential errors ( your setup or files are not what they should be
).

In a squeezebox context 2 is easer to avoid as the player is completely
deciopled from the server OS and you only have to make sure you turned
of replay gain and that the flew are ok.
If you have ac3 or dts or hdcd encoded file you can easily test the
system for bit perfectness .
There is a way to make a 2 channel " fake " WAV or FLAC etc file that in
reality is for example dts bit stream and every bit must've in the right
place otherwise your ht processor/receiver would only produce white
noise.

I tested the whole chain once . I burned a disc with a test file and
ripped it my usual settings and software etc to be sure that I did not
introduced any artifacts by mistake.

To get passed perceptual bias abx test is the way .

There is really no plausible mechanism for these " differences " there
are some far out and very contrived " explanations " offered, but if you
look closer and have in mind how computers actually work they probably
are incorrect.

You are kidding yourself if you are satisfied with " my experience
proves it to me " .
A proper response would be " what the **** " and try to eliminate 1 & 2
and try again.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-27 05:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Mnyb wrote:
>
> Did not archimago actually measured this ? WAV and FLAC actually
> produces exactly the same output.
>
A good example of this was in the TT3 mod measurements:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-tt3-mod.html

Stock Touch was with FLAC decoding on the hardware, TT3 measurements
with server-side decoding. No difference in measurements in either
case... I did this test before I started documenting the Dunn jitter
test. I honestly doubt the J-Test would be different however...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Mnyb
2013-04-27 05:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> A good example of this was in the TT3 mod measurements:
> http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-touch-tt3-mod.html
>
> Stock Touch was with FLAC decoding on the hardware, TT3 measurements
> with server-side decoding. No difference in measurements in either
> case... I did this test before I started documenting the Dunn jitter
> test. I honestly doubt the J-Test would be different however...

Thanks for the link, forgot to mention that you actually measure the
analog output so these are really good null tests.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-27 06:35:16 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i don't believe the latter statement is true, and my own experience
> proves it...to me.

I would be curious to hear how you verified your observations to guard
against perceptual bias.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-28 23:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> I would be curious to hear how you verified your observations to guard
> against perceptual bias.

i listened to two file types, through the same system, with all other
variables constant. one consistently sounded better. i have no bias
either way; in fact, given mine is an apple based system, it would be
simpler to use ALAC (less transcoding file types).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
mlsstl
2013-04-29 01:39:12 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i have no bias either way....

A classic misconception. We all have biases and a good portion of them
are subconscious. We are simply not aware of the latter type. It is a
mistake to claim it is rather simple to spot such influences in
ourselves.

That's why blind testing is critical if we really need the unvarnished
truth about what we hear and what we don't.

Of course, that's a big "if". The vast majority of the time in audio the
only thing that matters is our opinion. It doesn't matter much whether
our perception is due to some technical aspect or is a figment of our
imagination. In short, your "test" is meaningful for you, and
meaningless for everyone else. So there is no need to have some
convoluted scientific explanation when the odds are better than even
that technical issues have nothing to do with it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-29 07:48:34 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i listened to two file types, through the same system, with all other
> variables constant.

But you knew which file type was which? In that case, there was no guard
against perceptual bias.

There seems tp be a decent 'ABX app for the mac'
(http://emptymusic.com/software/ABXer.html), or you could run
'foobar2000 under WINE'
(http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=77261).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
probedb
2013-04-29 07:59:35 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i listened to two file types, through the same system, with all other
> variables constant. one consistently sounded better. i have no bias
> either way; in fact, given mine is an apple based system, it would be
> simpler to use ALAC (less transcoding file types).

Yet you still offer no proof that you can actually tell the difference.

If you hear it that's all fine, it's in your head. But until you can
offer proof that the output of one format is better then that's where
the difference can happily stay.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-29 16:26:01 UTC
Permalink
probedb wrote:
> Yet you still offer no proof that you can actually tell the difference.
>
> If you hear it that's all fine, it's in your head. But until you can
> offer proof that the output of one format is better then that's where
> the difference can happily stay.

i don't understand this demand for "proof." it's my system, my ears, my
music- all i said was i can hear a difference, and it would not surprise
me that others can as well (the dude referenced in the OP). your
position seems to be "it can't be so." that's fine too.

and as to this who've claimed that the difference is caused by a faulty
piece of equipment, which piece of equipment in the following chain do
you suppose is at fault?

mac mini running squeezecenter
7.7.2-->ethernet-->Transporter-->Wireworld Eclipse Single Ended-->MF
A5-->Ocos-->Vienna Acoustics Beethovens.

two different file types enter the transporter, different music emerges.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-29 16:46:45 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i don't understand this demand for "proof." it's my system, my ears, my
> music- all i said was i can hear a difference, and it would not surprise
> me that others can as well (the dude referenced in the OP). your
> position seems to be "it can't be so." that's fine too.
>
> and as to this who've claimed that the difference is caused by a faulty
> piece of equipment, which piece of equipment in the following chain do
> you suppose is at fault?
>
> mac mini running squeezecenter
> 7.7.2-->ethernet-->Transporter-->Wireworld Eclipse Single Ended-->MF
> A5-->Ocos-->Vienna Acoustics Beethovens.
>
> two different file types enter the transporter, different music emerges.

Easy to answer: the air in room

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98430-Audiophile-shark-jumping&p=743116&viewfull=1#post743116


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-29 18:26:11 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i don't understand this demand for "proof."

Proof is what it takes to differentiate between an opinion and a fact.
Opinions are OK, just don't expect anyone to accept it as a fact without
proof.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-29 18:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> Proof is what it takes to differentiate between an opinion and a fact.
> Opinions are OK, just don't expect anyone to accept it as a fact without
> proof.

Except for American politics and the Great State of Texas - two truly
fact free zones.

And of course any and all high end publications, either printed or
online.

Remember proof is only for the non-believers aka non-audiophiles.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
mlsstl
2013-04-29 18:37:01 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> i don't understand this demand for "proof." it's my system, my ears, my
> music- all i said was i can hear a difference, and it would not surprise
> me that others can as well (the dude referenced in the OP). your
> position seems to be "it can't be so." that's fine too.
>
> and as to this who've claimed that the difference is caused by a faulty
> piece of equipment, which piece of equipment in the following chain do
> you suppose is at fault?
>
> mac mini running squeezecenter
> 7.7.2-->ethernet-->Transporter-->Wireworld Eclipse Single Ended-->MF
> A5-->Ocos-->Vienna Acoustics Beethovens.
>
> two different file types enter the transporter, different music emerges.

No one demanded you provide proof. However, you are treating your own
perception under "sighted" conditions (i.e., that you have knowledge of
which format is being played at any point) as having some underlying
technical cause. To refer to your post from 4/22, you said "...when
computers are involved, hardware, software, codecs, connectivity all
have an effect."

In short, your a priori given is that any difference you hear must be
due to technical factors. You left zero room that the real cause might
have been the way your own brain processes things. Once again, we have a
subjectivist who leaves no allowance for subjective factors.

I've often been in the middle of a listening session when I've been
interrupted by a phone call. The pause button is hit, and a few or more
minutes go by, then I hit pause again to pick up where I left off. It is
not uncommon for the music to sound somehow different. Sometimes it
seems better -- more dynamic and engaging. Sometimes it doesn't sound as
good.

Now I could go looking for a technical explanation such as the electric
supply to my house has gotten quieter or noiser. Or perhaps the DAC or
buffer circuit has been affected somehow by the pause. However, the far
and away most likely explanation is that my own focus of attention has
changed due to the interruption.

The odds are excellent that the same thing is at work in your perception
of two different lossless file formats.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-29 20:03:42 UTC
Permalink
mlsstl wrote:
> No one demanded you provide proof. However, you are treating your own
> perception under "sighted" conditions (i.e., that you have knowledge of
> which format is being played at any point) as having some underlying
> technical cause. To refer to your post from 4/22, you said "...when
> computers are involved, hardware, software, codecs, connectivity all
> have an effect."
>
> In short, your a priori given is that any difference you hear must be
> due to technical factors. You left zero room that the real cause might
> have been the way your own brain processes things. Once again, we have a
> subjectivist who leaves no allowance for subjective factors.
>
> I've often been in the middle of a listening session when I've been
> interrupted by a phone call. The pause button is hit, and a few or more
> minutes go by, then I hit pause again to pick up where I left off. It is
> not uncommon for the music to sound somehow different. Sometimes it
> seems better -- more dynamic and engaging. Sometimes it doesn't sound as
> good.
>
> Now I could go looking for a technical explanation such as the electric
> supply to my house has gotten quieter or noiser. Or perhaps the DAC or
> buffer circuit has been affected somehow by the pause. However, the far
> and away most likely explanation is that my own focus of attention has
> changed due to the interruption.
>
> The odds are excellent that the same thing is at work in your perception
> of two different lossless file formats.

perhaps you'd have a point if the results were random, meaning i
randomly preferred one format over the other. but that's not the case;
I routinely prefer AIF over ALAC. there are times when the differences
are small, if any, but where there's an audible difference, the
preference is ALWAYS for the non-compressed file.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
mlsstl
2013-04-29 20:34:59 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> perhaps you'd have a point if the results were random, meaning i
> randomly preferred one format over the other. but that's not the case;
> I routinely prefer AIF over ALAC. there are times when the differences
> are small, if any, but where there's an audible difference, the
> preference is ALWAYS for the non-compressed file.

You continue with the assumption that you are completely aware of all
possible subconscious bias factors that might be in play. Just because
something lies below your level of self-awareness (or mine) does not
mean it is random.

This effect has been shown over and over in psychological studies that
have looked at human perception. Audio is not an exception.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-29 21:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Mnyb wrote:
> Lossless compression is by defenition lossless , bit perfect the pcm
> data is the same.

netchord wrote:
> perhaps you'd have a point if the results were random, meaning i
> randomly preferred one format over the other. but that's not the case;
> I routinely prefer AIF over ALAC. there are times when the differences
> are small, if any, but where there's an audible difference, the
> preference is ALWAYS for the non-compressed file.

mlsstl wrote:
> You continue with the assumption that you are completely aware of all
> possible subconscious bias factors that might be in play. Just because
> something lies below your level of self-awareness (or mine) does not
> mean it is random.
>
> This effect has been shown over and over in psychological studies that
> have looked at human perception. Audio is not an exception.

I think this discussion will continue to go round in circles until the
real underlying issue is resolved, which is that there is absolutely no
difference between the losslessly compressed file and the uncompressed
file at the point where the data stream enters the DAC (as pointed out
by Mnyb in the first quote above).

My suggestion to netchord is that he does some research on how lossless
compression works.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-30 03:22:07 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> perhaps you'd have a point if the results were random, meaning i
> randomly preferred one format over the other. but that's not the case;
> I routinely prefer AIF over ALAC. there are times when the differences
> are small, if any, but where there's an audible difference, the
> preference is ALWAYS for the non-compressed file.

netchord wrote:
> i don't understand this demand for "proof." it's my system, my ears, my
> music- all i said was i can hear a difference, and it would not surprise
> me that others can as well (the dude referenced in the OP). your
> position seems to be "it can't be so." that's fine too.
>
> and as to this who've claimed that the difference is caused by a faulty
> piece of equipment, which piece of equipment in the following chain do
> you suppose is at fault?
>
> mac mini running squeezecenter
> 7.7.2-->ethernet-->Transporter-->Wireworld Eclipse Single Ended-->MF
> A5-->Ocos-->Vienna Acoustics Beethovens.
>
> two different file types enter the transporter, different music emerges.


Lots of good responses already.

Let's say for the sake of discussion you're absolutely correct and your
impression of sonic differences are accurate (ie. ALAC sounds different
from AIF).

Given you're not even using natively-decoded FLAC on the Transporter
itself, it's hard to imagine what is happening here since the only thing
different is the Mac decoding ALAC on the server side vs. just sending
the uncompressed AIF straight through.

So, unless I'm mistaken, the problem here is that you're saying the Mac
you have is creating a sonic difference streaming to the Transporter
since as Ralph and Mnyb noted, the data's the same as far as the DAC
(Transporter) is concerned.

The logical question IMO is "What's wrong with your Mac?!" How come it's
not decoding the AIF or ALAC properly? Is it transcoding one of the
formats or doing digital processing unbeknownst to you?

I hold this same opinion in general when people feel they hear
differences between lossless compressed vs. uncompressed files... IF
there is a difference, then it's more likely that something is wrong
with the hardware or software settings than some kind of inexplicable
issue with the data itself. Since ultimately it becomes an indefensible
position, for an audiophile to say something like "I guess your hardware
isn't good enough to hear the difference" or to think maybe others don't
have "golden ears" is akin to putting the cart before the horse. If the
problem is jitter or interference caused by decode processing (which
should be <5% of any decent CPU for something simple like FLAC), then
you really have to ask what's wrong with the decoding device? Surely a
decent engineer, especially of expensive hi-end gear can ensure decent
jitter rejection, and shielding from electrical noise, right? If so,
there should be absolutely no difference between the lossless formats
especially with better / presumably more expensive gear! Yet it's these
same audiophiles with high-priced gear who insist on a difference... How
odd.

This reminds me of the time a friend started doing audio streaming and
kept insisting the WiFi streamed audio sounds bad vs. CD despite a
strong network. Turned out he forgot to turn off transcoding to low
quality MP3. He was silent after I brought this to his attention ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Mnyb
2013-04-30 03:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Yeah "experimental errors"

Actually I missed the point where we learned that he used server side
decoding . Then everything is not just the same hen entering the DAC by
actually from the point where it leaves the computer ?

And it is a good example of perceptual bias to for example consistently
always prefer aiff over FLAC :)
Couple of headphones and foobar2000 abx plugin would help.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-30 07:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Mnyb wrote:
> Yeah "experimental errors"
>
> Actually I missed the point where we learned that he used server side
> decoding . Then everything is not just the same hen entering the DAC by
> actually from the point where it leaves the computer ?
>
> And it is a good example of perceptual bias to for example consistently
> always prefer aiff over FLAC :)
> Couple of headphones and foobar2000 abx plugin would help.

We have provided pointers to ABX software on the mac. It is easy for him
to show us the ABX logs if he wants to make his point. Until then, he
has his opinion, and while it is unrelated to any factual evidence, I
guess he still has a right to his opinion - and we have our right not to
believe him.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-30 12:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> We have provided pointers to ABX software on the mac. It is easy for him
> to show us the ABX logs if he wants to make his point. Until then, he
> has his opinion, and while it is unrelated to any factual evidence, I
> guess he still has a right to his opinion - and we have our right not to
> believe him.

Yes he does have the right to his opinion and believe it or not I
actually do believe that he hears a difference between compressed and
uncompressed audio files. However what he does not have a right to do is
to generalize or extend his opinion beyond his system since what he is
claiming runs counter to the experiences of many other listeners and to
the well understood science of lossless compression.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Quad
2013-04-30 20:11:40 UTC
Permalink
I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
(order is not important)

Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?

Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
can't. Many tests have proven this.

But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
promise). So what's wrong with my system?

(My library is in FLAC and I stream as FLAC.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-30 20:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
> (order is not important)
>
> Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
>
> Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
> can't. Many tests have proven this.
>
> But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
> promise). So what's wrong with my system?
>
> (My library is in FLAC and I stream as FLAC.)

I haven't had a Coke or Diet Coke in over 30 years so I don't care
because as far as I'm concerned they are both poison.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Quad
2013-04-30 20:18:08 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> I haven't had a Coke or Diet Coke in over 30 years so I don't care
> because as far as I'm concerned they are both poison.

True, that's why I'm listening to classical music.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-30 20:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
> (order is not important)
>
> Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
>
> Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
> can't. Many tests have proven this.
>
> But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
> promise). So what's wrong with my system?
>
> (My library is in FLAC and I stream as FLAC.)

but a FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc file are all decoded to the same bits as they
enter the DAC. A diet coke and regular coke are NOT bit perfect (my
chemistry colleagues can tell me how the makeup is NOT identical). We
may not typically be able to tell a difference, but if we can tell a
difference there is at least a plausible reason (they are not in fact
identical products as they enter our body).


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Quad
2013-04-30 20:43:15 UTC
Permalink
garym wrote:
> but a FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc file are all decoded to the same bits as they
> enter the DAC. A diet coke and regular coke are NOT bit perfect (my
> chemistry colleagues can tell me how the makeup is NOT identical). We
> may not typically be able to tell a difference, but if we can tell a
> difference there is at least a plausible reason (they are not in fact
> identical products as they enter our body).

Don't take the analogy too far. But yes, you're right, it's different.

Me for myself I am unable to hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. But
I can hear differences between HDMI and USB outputs with otherwise
identical variables. They are both bit perfect. I can't give you a
plausible reason.

The reason I was chiming in was that no matter what anyone tells about
differences in the digital domain, a handful of kamikaze pilots
immediately talks them down. The same who will tell you that it is not
possible to discern different modern DACs. Which - with all my respect -
is complete BS.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-30 21:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> The same who will tell you that it is not possible to discern different
> modern DACs. Which - with all my respect - is complete BS.

I don't recall people indicating that it is impossible to tell the
difference between some DACs. DACs can certainly have a sound flavor.
But this is because DACs have an analog stage. My Transporter DAC sounds
different from my Benchmark DAC I (and I've detected this in a double
blind test). But this is not because of the bits each are
receiving...I'm pretty sure it is because of the analog stage of of the
two different DACs being different. But I'm no engineer.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
darrenyeats
2013-04-30 21:27:38 UTC
Permalink
garym wrote:
> I don't recall people indicating that it is impossible to tell the
> difference between some DACs. DACs can certainly have a sound flavor.
> But this is because DACs have an analog stage. My Transporter DAC sounds
> different from my Benchmark DAC I (and I've detected this in a double
> (edit, sorry SINGLE) blind test). But this is not because of the bits
> each are receiving...I'm pretty sure it is because of the analog stage
> of of the two different DACs being different. But I'm no engineer.
In the case of the DAC1 it could be DSP headroom if you are not doing
digital volume at the transport and you are listening to loudly mastered
stuff (see separate thread). The DAC2 has fixed this issue. Definitely a
real issue although perhaps not audible ... but my impression with HDR
(sighted) is that it makes a difference.
Darren


------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-30 21:31:19 UTC
Permalink
darrenyeats wrote:
> In the case of the DAC1 it could be DSP headroom if you are not doing
> digital volume at the transport and you are listening to loudly mastered
> stuff (see separate thread). The DAC2 has fixed this issue. Definitely a
> real issue although perhaps not audible ... but my impression with HDR
> (sighted) is that it makes a difference.
> Darren

Yeah, I followed your discussions of that issue (helpful!). I do use
digital volume at the transport, but can't recall what recordings I was
testing with. Been 3 or more years ago when I first bought the
Transporter. And now the Benchmark is in use at my weekend place, so
can't easily test again. I like what I read about the DAC2. If
replacing the Transporter, I might use the DAC 2 with a TOUCH.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-30 22:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> Don't take the analogy too far. But yes, you're right, it's different.
>
> Me for myself I am unable to hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. But
> I can hear differences between HDMI and USB outputs with otherwise
> identical variables. They are both bit perfect. I can't give you a
> plausible reason.
>
> The reason I was chiming in was that no matter what anyone tells about
> differences in the digital domain, a handful of kamikaze pilots
> immediately talks them down. The same who will tell you that it is not
> possible to discern different modern DACs. Which - with all my respect -
> is complete BS.

As one of the "kamikaze pilots" I beg to differ from your blanket
statement. Speaking for myself I only "kamikaze" when individuals try to
attribute analog properties to the digital domain, which is what the
clowns who write for the audiophile press (print and online) do on a
regular basis. I've said it before and I'll say it again: what is about
digital audio that makes these clowns think that digital audio somehow
behaves differently than all other digital media? Why is digital audio
file that has been losslessly compressed somehow different from an Excel
spreadsheet file that has been zipped? The ONLY correct answer is that
IT IS NOT different. Lossless compression is just that: LOSSLESS.

As for the clowns in the audiophile press - they are simply doing the
bidding for their advertisers, readership be damned.

And for the record different modern DACs do sound different because of
the "A", which stands for "analog", which means that every DAC has an
analog section and each analog section has it's own sound. See back to
the analog domain which is very different from the digital domain.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-04-30 21:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
> (order is not important)
>
> Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
>
> Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
> can't. Many tests have proven this.
>
> But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
> promise). So what's wrong with my system?
>
> (My library is in FLAC and I stream as FLAC.)

?? Not sure what the problem is ??

For a SB system like the Transporter that netchord is using, ALAC is
being dealt with by the server; therefore the Mac is sending the same
data stream whether ALAC or AIFF. Yet there's supposedly an audible
difference.

Therefore, either the judgment of perception is incorrect or if there is
a perceptual difference, then the data stream going to the Transporter
is different for some reason. We can't even use the jitter argument here
since it's all packet data transfer through ethernet with large enough
buffer (>20Mbits I think).

As for USB vs. HDMI. Hardware interfaces certainly could make a
difference in some cases... Jitter results could be different (though of
course hopefully low in good gear). However, realize that unless we
measure it, there's also no way to ensure there's no volume differences
and that bit-perfection is achieved.

BTW, what did they do to the NAD to make it "Rowen Swiss"?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Quad
2013-04-30 21:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> BTW, what did they do to the NAD to make it "Rowen Swiss"?

Basically they replaced the analogue output circuit with Mundorf gear.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
mlsstl
2013-04-30 21:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> I have a question for you guys: ralphpnj, Julf, Mnyb, Archimago, mlsstl
> (order is not important)
>
> Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?
>
> Almost everyone claims to be able to identify them but the majority
> can't. Many tests have proven this.
>
> But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
> promise). So what's wrong with my system?
>
> (My library is in FLAC and I stream as FLAC.)

Not sure why the Coke analogy is relevant, though I could see the issue
being important to a diabetic.

My only point wasn't for the sake of talking people down. Rather, that
in discussing audio perception, if one doesn't take subconscious bias
factors into account when discussing what's audible and what's not under
sighted* conditions, then you're pretending the elephant in the room
isn't there. (*"sighted" meaning that we have knowledge of the
difference between the items being tested.)

The same is true with any situation where we are using only our human
senses to determine the difference between items under sighted
conditions.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-05-01 12:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Quad wrote:
> Do you think you are able to discern Diet Coke and Coke?

No idea, as I haven't had a Coke in 25 years. And it is not very
relevant - as has been pointed out, they are chemically different.

> But I can. Here I stand; I can do none other (double blind tested, I
> promise). So what's wrong with my system?

So, switching back to FLAC, as the Coke analogy doesn't work... We
aren't saying you can't. All we are saying is that it is rather unlikely
that what you are hearing is a real difference, and it is much more
likely that you are influenced by expectation bias or other perceptual
issues, so before we believe you, we would like to see the perceptual
issues ruled out and the results verified in a controlled fashion.

If somebody came to you and claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster,
would you believe the person without any verification whatsoever?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-05-01 14:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> So, switching back to FLAC, as the Coke analogy doesn't work... We
> aren't saying you can't. All we are saying is that it is rather unlikely
> that what you are hearing is a real difference, and it is much more
> likely that you are influenced by expectation bias or other perceptual
> issues, so before we believe you, we would like to see the perceptual
> issues ruled out and the results verified in a controlled fashion.
>

I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
there's *something wrong with their hardware*! To actually hear a
difference (not just bias of some sort) should not be like some badge of
honor to the audiophile IMO. It's actually a bad thing suggesting
corruption of the sound due to some form of processing/decoding and the
piece of hardware should be examined for fault!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-05-01 14:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
> difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
> there's *something wrong with their hardware*!

Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
difference. No point looking for the cause of a problem if the problem
doesn't exist.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-05-01 14:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
> difference. No point looking for the cause of a problem if the problem
> doesn't exist.

True... Just pointing out the obvious conclusion of such claims as well
;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-05-01 15:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> ...(ultra-kamikaze-like)...

Julf wrote:
> Sure - but first I would like to verify that one actually can tell the
> difference. No point looking for the cause of a problem if the problem
> doesn't exist.

You are both quite right Archimago-san and Julf-san!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-05-01 19:21:22 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> You are both quite right Archimago-san and Julf-san!

Domo arigato!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-05-03 22:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
> difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
> there's *something wrong with their hardware*! To actually hear a
> difference (not just bias of some sort) should not be like some badge of
> honor to the audiophile IMO. It's actually a bad thing suggesting
> corruption of the sound due to some form of processing/decoding and the
> piece of hardware should be examined for fault - not capable of
> distortion-free bit-perfection!

well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
are converted natively by the TP.

and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
wireless to the TP, and prefer the former? what ever bias might be
involved, i assure you it's an inconvenient one- running ethernet to my
system was a pain in the ass.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Wombat
2013-05-03 22:56:48 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
> difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
> are converted natively by the TP.
>
> and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
> wireless to the TP, and prefer the former? what ever bias might be
> involved, i assure you it's an inconvenient one- running ethernet to my
> system was a pain in the ass.
I am no psychologist but isnŽt that exactly how it works? You had much
work with bringing the cable to the device so now it must be better?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Archimago
2013-05-03 23:23:03 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
> difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
> are converted natively by the TP.
>
> and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
> wireless to the TP, and prefer the former? what ever bias might be
> involved, i assure you it's an inconvenient one- running ethernet to my
> system was a pain in the ass.

Okay, then what happens to the sound when you turn off the transcoding
to FLAC between audio stored as AIFF vs. ALAC?

No, nothing surprises me anymore such as *claims* of audibility between
WiFi and Ethernet - it is your ears, your home, your system, your
settings after all. How would I know if everything is set up properly
when you're testing? People claim a lot of things over the Internet.
What would be *useful* is if a blind test showed the difference or
measurements showing a difference and pointing to a cause. Then we can
really get somewhere.

Remember, ALAC, FLAC, APE, WV, etc. are all coded/engineered to be
bit-perfect. In a GOOD system, they SHOULD NOT sound different from
WAV/AIFF. As I suggested, to hear a difference suggests your system is
doing something funny. This is not a good thing and IMO is not
necessarily indicative of a hi-fi's resolving capacity; rather, it's
resolving enough to show a hardware limitation in decoding lossless
compressed audio data which should be trivial!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
darrell
2013-05-04 00:23:22 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> well, SC is converting ALAC to FLAC using faad/sox, so i guess the
> difference I'm hearing is actually between FLAC and AIFF, both of which
> are converted natively by the TP.
>
> and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
> wireless to the TP, and prefer the former? what ever bias might be
> involved, i assure you it's an inconvenient one- running ethernet to my
> system was a pain in the ass.

Well, if you're happy to simply set up your system in the way that you
*think* sounds best for you, then fine. Just get on with enjoying the
music. It's a free country, as we say. But if you are at all interested
in understanding *why* you perceive these effects (and on one level you
must be, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on the internet about it),
you owe it to yourself to consider (and research, if necessary) the
science, both electrical and psychological, with an open mind. You
really will get nowhere without doing that.

Even if you limit yourself to a serious consideration of the few most
recent threads on this forum, you will find enough food for thought, and
references, for you to begin understanding the possible mechanisms for
your subjective experiences.

To summarise (perhaps crudely) the most likely possibilities (not
necessarily in order):

1. Psychological factors
2. There is something broken in your replay chain
3. You are not comparing like with like (different masters, for example)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13460
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-05-04 21:24:44 UTC
Permalink
darrell wrote:
>
>
> 1. Psychological factors
> 2. There is something broken in your replay chain
> 3. You are not comparing like with like (different masters, for example)


these are only the most likely causes if you believe, as you seem to,
that there can be no differences unless something is "broken."


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-05-04 21:40:30 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> these are only the most likely causes if you believe, as you seem to,
> that there can be no differences unless something is "broken."

It's not "belief" it is a FACT. But then it is becoming quite
acceptable, at least in the US, to completely disregard facts and
science, especially when the facts get in the way of commerce. So for
example, high end cable manufacturers and audio magazines disregard the
FACT there is absolutely no difference sonically between a $10 USB cable
and a $500 USB cable. But, hey it's your money so have fun.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
darrell
2013-05-04 23:07:10 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> these are only the most likely causes if you believe, as you seem to,
> that there can be no differences unless something is "broken."

To be clear, let's remember we're talking about the perception of
differences between FLAC and AIFF, not differences in general. These are
lossless formats, which means that the bits arriving at your DAC
(unless, as I said, something in your replay chain is broken) are the
same. I think that we can agree that this is fact, not opinion.

So let's assume that nothing is broken. Now we're looking for something
that makes the same thing sound different. What could it be? We don't
need to wonder, or to rewrite the physics of data transmission, because
there are libraries full of evidence of the effects of what I called
above "psychological factors", that is, the capacity of the human mind
to delude itself.

If you want to have a further (sensible) discussion on the issue, the
first thing to do is to show that the plausible explanations above do
not apply. Then, and only then, do we have an interesting result worthy
of debate. This is the scientific method - I'm not making it up. Without
it, we would not be able to listen to musical events across space and
time at all.

At the risk of hammering the point home, we are discussing a scientific
subject, so we must apply the scientific method. Otherwise, there is
little to talk about.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13460
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-05-05 01:07:25 UTC
Permalink
darrell wrote:
>
> At the risk of hammering the point home, we are discussing a scientific
> subject, so we must apply the scientific method. Otherwise, there is
> little to talk about.

Exactly!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-05-06 17:00:08 UTC
Permalink
EricBergan wrote:
> You know, I just saw there were not one but two (serious journal) recent
> papers suggesting the speed of light might not be a hard constant, so
> there you go...

Good point but not really applicable since sound travels at the speed of
sound (DUH!) and not at the speed of light.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-05-06 17:27:35 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> Good point but not really applicable since sound travels at the speed of
> sound (DUH!) and not at the speed of light.

I am assuming that the comment from EricBergan was humorous.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-05-06 17:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> I am assuming that the comment from EricBergan was humorous.

Oops! Sorry. I think I need some kind of guide which indicates which
forum members are Kool-Aid drinking die-hard audiophiles who love all of
HP's Super-Discs and which members listen to real music.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
EricBergan
2013-05-06 18:20:55 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> Oops! Sorry. I think I need some kind of guide which indicates which
> forum members are Kool-Aid drinking die-hard audiophiles who love all of
> HP's Super-Discs and which members listen to real music.

But see, now we can not only have time clock variation jitter on
TOSLINK, we can also have varying speed of light effecting the audio
quality!

:-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-05-06 18:36:50 UTC
Permalink
EricBergan wrote:
> But see, now we can not only have time clock variation jitter on
> TOSLINK, we can also have varying speed of light effecting the audio
> quality!
>
> :-)

Ah! But if, wait, not "if" but WHEN the audio quality is being adversely
affected by the varying speed of light we need a name for the effect.
Since jitter already being used my suggestion is "the Einstein effect".
The best thing about the Einstein Effect is that since it involves light
it can only be observed during sighted listening and NEVER during blind
or double blind testing and listening.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-05-06 18:48:48 UTC
Permalink
ralphpnj wrote:
> my suggestion is "the Einstein effect"

'XKCD: Einstein' (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/einstein.png)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-05-06 18:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Julf wrote:
> 'XKCD: Einstein' (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/einstein.png)

Does one to be a real audiophile to understand the comic?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-05-04 00:55:58 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
>
> and would it surprise you to learn i hear a difference between wired and
> wireless to the TP, and prefer the former? what ever bias might be
> involved, i assure you it's an inconvenient one- running ethernet to my
> system was a pain in the ass.

Very surprised. More evidence that something is broken. Bad wifi can
cause buffering and dropouts. But sound quality differences?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Jeff52
2013-05-04 23:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Archimago wrote:
> I would still argue (ultra-kamikaze-like) that if one could tell a
> difference between FLAC vs. WAV vs. AIFF vs. APE vs. WV vs. ALAC, then
> there's *something wrong with their hardware*! To actually hear a
> difference (not just bias of some sort) should not be like some badge of
> honor to the audiophile IMO. It's actually a bad thing suggesting
> corruption of the sound due to some form of processing/decoding and the
> piece of hardware should be examined for fault - not capable of
> distortion-free bit-perfection!

I can't tell any difference between FLAC, WAV or other lossless formats,
but I do notice a difference in all formats if the temperature in my
listening room deviates two degrees above or below 68 degrees F. or the
relative humidity levels are above or below 50%. The lower the humidity
and temperature results in more tuneful bass. Higher humidity and
temperature results in less tuneful bass but at the same time there is
less congestion in the midrange and the highs become less etched and
more extended. I now adjust temperature and humidity levels based on the
recording for optimum playback results.

I have also noted some differences based on the level of light in the
room, but that will require more listening to my reference recordings in
order to fully flush out the differences.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff52's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=103
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
EricBergan
2013-05-04 23:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Jeff52 wrote:
> I can't tell any difference between FLAC, WAV or other lossless formats,
> but I do notice a difference in all formats if the temperature in my
> listening room deviates two degrees above or below 68 degrees F. or the
> relative humidity levels are above or below 50%. The lower the humidity
> and temperature results in more tuneful bass. Higher humidity and
> temperature results in less tuneful bass but at the same time there is
> less congestion in the midrange and the highs become less etched and
> more extended. I now adjust temperature and humidity levels based on the
> recording for optimum playback results.
>
> I have also noted some differences based on the level of light in the
> room, but that will require more listening to my reference recordings in
> order to fully flush out the differences.

You know, I just saw there were not one but two (serious journal) recent
papers suggesting the speed of light might not be a hard constant, so
there you go...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
darrell
2013-05-04 23:45:42 UTC
Permalink
I suppose that humidity would likely have a greater effect than the type
of (lossless) compression. Light levels I'm not so sure about, although
if it got so dark that I couldn't find my armchair or remote control,
there would be consequences...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrell's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13460
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Jeff52
2013-05-05 00:23:08 UTC
Permalink
darrell wrote:
> I suppose that humidity would likely have a greater effect than the type
> of (lossless) compression. Light levels I'm not so sure about, although
> if it got so dark that I couldn't find my armchair or remote control,
> there would be consequences...

You need to develop your tactile senses with the remote control so you
can use it in total darkness, or invest in equipment which features a
remote which has a feature to enable it to light up by pressing the
appropriate button. I do notice a difference when using a lighted remote
which tends to impart a veil on the music so I generally disable that
feature and rely upon my memory of the button positions in order to
avoid any semblance of sound coloration.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff52's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=103
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
EricBergan
2013-04-25 17:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Mnyb wrote:
>
> I don't get where the poor analogies fit OP is limiting himself to poor
> metadata support etc , because he believes WAV sound better
> if he stopped doing that he whole collection of music would be easier to
> manage.
> And enjoyment would increase :)
>
>

As the OP, just to be clear, I mentioned that my head exploded reading
the letter writer's argument...

And boy has this thread wandered.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
EricBergan's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4746
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
mlsstl
2013-04-25 02:15:13 UTC
Permalink
heisenberg wrote:
> But the bottom-line question is, who asked them to act on our behalf and
> for our own benefit? The answer is simple: no one ever asked them to do
> so, nor will anyone ever ask them to perform such idiotic duty.
> Nevertheless, they feel compelled to keep charging with their
> self-appointed crusade. That's precisely why do-gooders are the most
> annoying people in the world.

There's another group of people who are just as annoying. They are the
ones who insist that their hearing couldn't possibly be influenced by
their own mind. They regard their own perception as a calibrated
scientific instrument. They also come up with elaborate "scientific"
explanations to "prove" their perception is right, then combine that
with convoluted explanations to discount any need to explain their
consistently poor performance in blind tests (if they even consent to
participate). They are also the first to denigrate anyone who doesn't
believe as they do -- that person must have an inferior system, bad
hearing, or is just a fool.

I'm in the "I like what I like" category. I don't need babble-science to
justify my choices and I'm also willing to spend extra if I happen to
like the way something looks, do-gooders be damned. I'd be pleased to
see both groups mentioned above go away.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Julf
2013-04-24 20:36:09 UTC
Permalink
netchord wrote:
> you may quite rightly say I don't know what I'm talking about, but you
> can't say the same about what I hear.

Not what you hear, but what you believe you hear. Can you prove you
really hear what you believe you hear?

Hint: The answer "I *know* what I hear" is wrong. You don't. Proven over
and over again by studies of things like mcgurk and other perceptive
effects.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-24 21:01:46 UTC
Permalink
garym wrote:
> I know what I hear...or do I? Thus the importance of double (or at least
> single) blind testing. Example, the mcgurk effect.....where even when
> you KNOW what is happening, your brain is not immune from other effects.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

McGurk Effect aka the Wilson Audio Effect aka the Magico Effect aka the
AudioQuest Effect aka machined from a solid block of aircraft grade
aluminum effect

netchord wrote:
> how am i wasting my money? are you suggesting i shouldn't own a
> transporter? that aif files are more expensive than FLAC?

Close. How about uncompressed files take 40% more hard drive space so
you are buying more hard drive than you need = wasted money

Julf wrote:
> Not what you hear, but what you believe you hear. Can you prove you
> really hear what you believe you hear?
>
> Hint: The answer "I *know* what I hear" is wrong. You don't. Proven over
> and over again by studies of things like mcgurk and other perceptive
> effects.

True


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
darrenyeats
2013-04-24 21:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Point of clarification, people really do hear what they hear. E.g. with
the McGurk Effect, you really hear that sound. So I would never say "are
you really hearing what you think you're hearing" ... because the answer
is always yes by definition.

The only question might be why someone hears something (is it purely the
sound waves or are psychological effects playing a part?)
Darren


------------------------------------------------------------------------
darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
garym
2013-04-24 21:19:51 UTC
Permalink
darrenyeats wrote:
> Point of clarification, people really do hear what they hear. E.g. with
> the McGurk Effect, you really hear that sound. So I would never say "are
> you really hearing what you think you're hearing" ... because the answer
> is always yes by definition.
>
> The only question might be why someone hears something (is it purely the
> sound waves or are psychological effects playing a part?)
> Darren

yes, good clarification.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
netchord
2013-04-24 21:45:41 UTC
Permalink
darrenyeats wrote:
> Point of clarification, people really do hear what they hear. E.g. with
> the McGurk Effect, you really hear that sound. So I would never say "are
> you really hearing what you think you're hearing" ... because the answer
> is always yes by definition.
>
> The only question might be why someone hears something (is it purely the
> sound waves or are psychological effects playing a part?)
> Darren

listening to music is not something one does with only one sense (ie
hearing). fwiw, i'm a reasonably educated listener, spent 10 years as a
performing classical musician, including time spent in major concert
halls in paris, milan, new york, etc. I think i have a good sense of
what good sound sounds like.

and hardrives are cheap- if buying more storage than i need is my
greatest audiophile sin, then i'm fine with it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
ralphpnj
2013-04-23 15:18:29 UTC
Permalink
EricBergan wrote:
> I do subscribe. I do seem to remember one letter asking some questions
> (and not in the right area) and the authors basically said they got it
> right, and it's left to the doubters to explain why they heard a
> difference.
>
> What I'm really seeing is that neither TAS nor Stereophile really have a
> truly digital-savvy editor, so no one challenges what the authors, or
> letter writers, submit. I mean, let's face it, publishing a letter that
> basically says that in a rigorous test, sonic character got added
> converting from flac to wav is pretty embarrassing. As one friend put
> it, "I'm sure they also believe if they print out a photo and scan it at
> higher resolution, it will get better."

I also subscribe since for $12 a year I get the BEST humor magazine
currently being published (with Stereophile a very close second). Any of
the letters to the editor criticizing the 2012 Computer Audio series
were basically dismissed with some asinine comment from the clown in
chief.

As for TAS and Stereophile not having digital savvy editors and writers
there is really no way to tell since these magazines will NEVER publish
any information which might reveal that the high end cable
manufacturer's products are worthless and remember that high end cable
manufacturers are these magazines biggest advertisers. Once you do away
with the truth then everything just becomes a free for all where
anything goes, hence the 2012 Computer Audio series.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
JJZolx
2013-04-23 18:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Claims that WAV or AIFF versions of the same track sound better than
FLAC have been made for years by many, many people. I doubt that there's
a single audio magazine or audio forum where it hasn't been said.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Wombat
2013-04-23 22:33:54 UTC
Permalink
JJZolx wrote:
> Claims that WAV or AIFF versions of the same track sound better than
> FLAC have been made for years by many, many people. I doubt that there's
> a single audio magazine or audio forum where it hasn't been said.
Of course that doesnŽt make these claims more valid. Unfortunately flac
uses compression and compression creates damage to the flow of sound.
You will never get that out of the brains.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630
Loading...