What would it take to change your view?

[LHC]

On 2/11/2018 at 11:46 PM, Newman said:

 

Off topic anyway, but simple errors worth fixing, especially that which you say is "well documented".

 

Not an error. Toole and Olive provide an (well documented) example of how one could improve some aspects of our hearing. But there are other audiophiles who have written about how they have trained themselves to listen for differences that most people don't pay attention to. 

[crisis]

4 hours ago, Satanica said:

I'll just add that the file formats should be noted. E.g. I personally believe I can quite easily distinguish up to 128kbps MP3 and FLAC.

with earphones off of my IPod.

[Newman]

On 14/02/2018 at 7:32 PM, LHC said:

 

Not an error. Toole and Olive provide an (well documented) example of how one could improve some aspects of our hearing. But there are other audiophiles who have written about how they have trained themselves to listen for differences that most people don't pay attention to. 

Quote direct from Toole -- stands.

 

Self-reported self-trained "golden ears" have been making those claims since oh, the 70's, and proven to be bragging.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Newman
link added

[Newman]

3 hours ago, LHC said:

....there are some posters here who claim they follow the way of science, but they don't actually understand how science works. So they use 'science' as a pedestal in order to mock, degrade, and attack other's views as anti-science. But when their posts are challenged and the many problems with their opinions are exposed, then they complain people are being argumentative. You are right, internet debate forum can get very ugly.

 

Name one.

[Rob181]

15 minutes ago, Newman said:

Name one.

Suggest you look in a mirror...

[sir sanders zingmore]

To be clear ( yet again) this thread isn't about science or magic or DBTs. It's particularly not about changing the views of others or arguing with others. 

So if you can't contribute without playing nicely then I'd rather you bugger off somewhere else  

[Newman]

On 28/01/2018 at 8:21 PM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

So be honest with yourselves and share if you dare !

I did, and look what happened. I get told it "doesn't count" as a "proper answer".

 

Quote

And keep it nice please

Yes... well. We can dare to ask, but not much to hope.

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 minute ago, Newman said:

I did, and look what happened. I get told it "doesn't count" as a "proper answer".

 

Yes... well. We can dare to ask, but not much to hope.

If it's a proper answer for you then in the context of this thread I'd ask others to kindly refrain from criticising. 

 

I guess if nothing else I've learnt how naive I am 

[LHC]

16 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

If it's a proper answer for you then in the context of this thread I'd ask others to kindly refrain from criticising. 

 

Fair enough . It wasn't a criticism, more like a request for further information. 

[alistairm]

10 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

To be clear ( yet again) this thread isn't about science or magic or DBTs. It's particularly not about changing the views of others or arguing with others. 

So if you can't contribute without playing nicely then I'd rather you bugger off somewhere else  

/moderator hat on

 

This took the words out of my mouth. Be nice, be respectful and please avoid derailing this type of thread by repeatedly putting the same position over, and over, and over, and over, and over again in post after post.  Even if you "win" the internet by drowning out all other opinions your stereo system is not going to sound better and your mother isn't going to love you more. 

[Martykt]

On 28/01/2018 at 8:51 PM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

My question is: what would it make for you to change your view
 

Strangely enough @Sir Sanders Zingmore my journey has taken me in the exact opposite direction from a digital amp to a SS Class A preference (never got round to buying that little Accuphase though....) then finally to tubes !!

 

For me it's been more a case of what grabs me when I listen to it and if that breaks any of my misconceptions about a certain technology then great !!

 

How I ended up with tubes is my previous experience with tubes had been one of lacking power and dynamics with rolled off highs.

Once I'd heard tubes without these weaknesses the strengths of tubes came to the fore and now I just feel more at home listening to tubes.

 

I can still appreciate different technologies though and who knows, maybe in the future something else will grab my attention even more !!

 

I think keeping an open mind is always beneficial and can sometimes surprise !!

Edited February 14, 2018 by Martykt

[sir sanders zingmore]

33 minutes ago, Martykt said:

For me it's been more a case of what grabs me when I listen to it and if that breaks any of my misconceptions about a certain technology then great !!

That's awesome 

I always feel like I'm learning something when I can break one of my misconceptions 

[Satanica]

17 hours ago, LHC said:

With regards to the OP question about changing mind and your approach, I will say this. While a lot is known about audio science, there are still more to learn, discover and understand. Science (in contrast to Technology), by its nature, is a slow process. So the scientific explanations that could change your mind may take a long time to emerge, if ever. I hope you appreciate that fact. 

I don't understand the claims there is more to learn in audio science, like how do you know there is more to know than we don't already know?

I hope you can now appreciate yours in an opinion there is more to learn in audiology, to any significant degree, not a fact.

Unless you'd like to present some evidence about what we are going to learn in the future?

 

And, I think technology can still greatly improve, especially making smaller less intrusive hardware.

Plus speakers that can combat room acoustics, like what the Kii 3 does.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Satanica

[MLXXX]

On 2/14/2018 at 12:14 PM, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

In the context of this thread I would ask the following:

 

for those of you who are sure there is an audible difference between file formats, what would it take for you to change your own view ?

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what precise question you are asking here, Sir Sanders.

 

I presume you mean identical audio information presented in different file formats, such as 96kHz 24 bit linear PCM packaged uncompressed as wav or packaged compressed without loss to FLAC, Dolby TrueHD,  or DTS-HD Master Audio.

 

An initial question would be: "Has  the conversion been carried out so that the converted version can be verified to be bit- for-bit identical with the original version"?   That question could be answered by running an approved decoding algorithm and then running a bit-for-bit file comparison.  If this were not feasible one could use a listening test but that would only be revealing if there were significant discrepancies.

 

A further question would be: "Is the device under test defective in relation to its ability to decode and play different formats?". 

 

It appears to me that your question could relate to:

•  a belief that mastering processes can or do result in a lossless compressed format not having the same audio content as an uncompressed format, or other lossless format; or,
•  a belief that playback devices can or do fail to decode and play different formats properly.
•  something else I haven't thought of!

The first two dot points are quite different!

 

 In summary,

1. By different file formats do you mean identical audio ostensibly (supposedly) packaged into different formats without loss so that they are bit-for-bit identical?

2. By audible difference between file formats do you mean a difference brought about by faulty or different mastering such that the files created are not in fact actually identical bit-for-bit in their content ?

3. Alternatively by audible difference between file formats do you mean a difference brought about by a defect in the player when attempting to play a file in a particular format that it can only play correctly if supplied in another format?

 

 

For simplicity, I am excluding SACDs and their DSD format as the DSD format is not one that can be converted on a bit-for-bit identical basis to the usual range of lossless compressed formats.

Edited February 15, 2018 by MLXXX

[sir sanders zingmore]

42 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what precise question you are asking here, Sir Sanders.

 

My question is quite simple (I think).

I'll give an example. There are people will only rip their CDs in FLAC format because it sounds better than say, Apple Lossless.

Both copies are bit-perfect

 

My question to those people is, what would it take for you to change your mind about there being a difference in sound?

[rantan]

10 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

My question is quite simple (I think).

I'll give an example. There are people will only rip their CDs in FLAC format because it sounds better than say, Apple Lossless.

Both copies are bit-perfect

 

My question to those people is, what would it take for you to change your mind about there being a difference in sound?

I always thought it was a simple question but for some reason that I am unable to understand, people seem determined to make it exponentially more complex than it is and used these complications to further their own view. As @alistairm says these views are endlessly repeated and actually end up being counter productive

[MLXXX]

8 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I'll give an example. There are people will only rip their CDs in FLAC format because it sounds better than say, Apple Lossless.

Both copies are bit-perfect

 

My question to those people is, what would it take for you to change your mind about there being a difference in

Thanks for providing a specific example. It appears to me to involve two quite different aspects:

 

1. Whether the non-believer is of the opinion that the supposedly lossless encoding algorithms available for ripping their CDs are not all bit perfect.

 

2. Whether the the non-believer is of the opinion that the player they use will, when presented with alternative bit-perfect FLAC, Apple Lossless,  or other lossless compressed formats, not be capable of decoding them all of them in a bit-perfect manner, and playing them all smoothly and correctly.

 

 

I'd imagine it would be much easier to change a non-believer's mind about 1 than 2, but I'll leave it to any non-believers among us to have their say!

[Satanica]

16 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Thanks for providing a specific example. It appears to me to involve two quite different aspects:

 

1. Whether the non-believer is of the opinion that the supposedly lossless encoding algorithms available for ripping their CDs are not all bit perfect.

 

2. Whether the the non-believer is of the opinion that the player they use will, when presented with alternative bit-perfect FLAC, Apple Lossless,  or other lossless compressed formats, not be capable of decoding them all of them in a bit-perfect manner, and playing them all smoothly and correctly.

 

 

I'd imagine it would be much easier to change a non-believer's mind about 1 than 2, but I'll leave it to any non-believers among us to have their say!

I think the OP is referring to believers, not non-believers.

[MLXXX]

14 minutes ago, Satanica said:

I think the OP is referring to believers, not non-believers.

In his example, he is referring to people who do not believe that rips are truly lossless, or do not believe that truly lossless rips necessarily play back correctly, or audibly the same.  To my mind these people are non-believers in the use of lossless rips (or at least in certain varieties of lossless rips, and at least with some equipment).

 

Yes, you can express the same idea by saying these people believe in an audible difference existing between different types of lossless rips (at least on some occasions, and at least with some equipment).

Edited February 15, 2018 by MLXXX

[Satanica]

1 minute ago, MLXXX said:

In his example, he is referring to people who do not believe that rips are truly lossless, or do not believe that truly lossless rips necessarily play back correctly, or audibly the same.  To my mind these people are non-believers in the use of lossless rips (or at least in certain varieties of lossless rips, and at least with some equipment).

 

You can express the same idea by saying these people believe in an audible difference existing between different types of lossless rips (at least on some occasions, and at least with some equipment).

In my mind these are "believers".

 

belief

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

   "his belief in extraterrestrial life"

   • something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.

     "we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"

     synonyms:

     opinion, view, viewpoint, point of view, attitude, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgement, thinking, way of thinking, thought, idea, theory, hypothesis, thesis, interpretation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, notion, impression, sense, feeling, fancy, hunch "she clung to the belief that Diane was innocent"

   • a religious conviction.

     "Christian beliefs"

     synonyms:

     ideology, principle, ideal, ethic, conviction; More doctrine, teaching, dogma, tenet, canon, article of faith, credence, creed, credo, code of belief "he opposed traditional religious beliefs"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

[MLXXX]

1 minute ago, Satanica said:

In my mind these are "believers".

 

belief

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

I'm struggling to understand your point.  There are in fact people who believe that different types of lossless rips give different results.  How much proof they have that led them to hold that belief I wouldn't know. It might well be the way the rips have sounded to them. It could be something adverse they read about a particular codec. 

 

However they may have arrived at their belief, Sir Sanders is asking what would it take to change their view.

[rocky500]

This is where I think everyone gets it wrong. There are no believers or non believers at all.

It is just what they hear or don't hear, as simple as that.

[alistairm]

Give me ambiguity or give me something else. 

[Satanica]

9 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I'm struggling to understand your point.  There are in fact people who believe that different types of lossless rips give different results.  How much proof they have that led them to hold that belief I wouldn't know. It might well be the way the rips have sounded to them. It could be something adverse they read about a particular codec. 

 

However they may have arrived at their belief, Sir Sanders is asking what would it take to change their view.

Keep trying to understand. We typically refer to a "believer" as one who claims something exists in that they hear a difference between at least two "things" but has not proved it through unsighted level matched testing and most likely has no other evidence to support it.

 

Honestly, I think Sanders is somewhat asking a rhetorical question. Notice how nobody has really answered? I think there's a few readers here who don't want to say "Failure of a blind test or tests..." but are thinking it.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Satanica

[Satanica]

10 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

This is where I think everyone gets it wrong. There are no believers or non believers at all.

It is just what they hear or don't hear, as simple as that.

I thought you were on board that what we think we hear sighted and what we actually do might be two different things. Not so simple.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Satanica