Jump to content

toasties

  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on that much. I agree that placing the bass anywhere in the room is not a good idea (besides, this seems to be based upon a desire to use room resonance to maximise slam, which isn't a good thing for music listening anyway). On the other hand, if you place the sub the middle of the stereo field, feed it a mono signal and play bass only through the right channel, I, and I think most people, will interpret what they hear as bass coming from the right speaker. Likewise, play as bass sound only through the left channel, and I will interpret that as a single bass sound coming from the left speaker. This assumes a properly integrated system. Hence why I don't think that two subs are necessary to maintain a stereo field.
  2. Barry, I'm not sure removing the high frequencies is a reliable test. In my experience because high frequencies are easier to localise, if you have a well integrated sub and main system the brain will recogise all the bass as coming from the location of the high frequencies. The brain hears several harmonics and localises the overall sound to the harmonics easier to locate, namely the higher harmonics. If you take away the high frequences that illusion can no longer occur and the brain will take it's cue from what's remaining, ie. the sub. I think there is an issue where a single sub is two far from the stereo field, the result is a contradiction of where the bass sounds like its coming from (the main speakers) and where it feels like it's coming from (the sub), the illusion described above breaks down and the result is incredibly off-putting and very obvious in passages with considerable bass, and which explains the issue you described with a rear sub. But a single sub in the centre of the stereo field doesn't have this problem in my experience. On the other hand, I would recommend two subs for the other issues discussed such as resonances etc. Having spent quite some time equalising subs in my room to achieve a perceptively flat response the task is a great deal easier with two than just one.
  3. Why would the masses pay for 24-bit audio when the dynamic range of 16-bit isn't even close to being utilised on most recordings? Even if we accept that there is a noticeable difference between hi-def and redbook (and that's still a big question, particularly on standard consumer grade equipment) to upgrade to hi-def when most recordings are heavily dynamically compressed, would simply be daft. The masses have it right imo.
  4. Have you even bothered to read some of the other posts where I have gone into much greater detail, even to the extent of making compilations on a USB pen for the purpose of these comparisons, so that I could have an independent person post the test results in another forum? Yes I have read those posts, but I'm not sure how they contradict anything I said in my post. It doesn't change the fact that calling people close-minded is disrespectful.
  5. SandyK, may I ask that, given that you tend to take offence relatively easily, that you don't call people close-minded simply for disagreeing with you and your methods. Many perfectly valid reasons have been given for rejecting your theories, none of which are to do with close-mindedness, and which you haven't imo provided valid answers for. Not only is what you are saying extremely unlikely, some may some impossible, but your methodology is also extremely questionable. You dismiss any reports that don't agree with your own assessment on the basis that the equipment isn't good enough, yet accept any report that agrees no matter how poor the equipment, you refuse to blindtest despite saying that you could identify which tracks are which, you even believe that uploading the files to a server doesn't degrade them when copying between drives on a PC does which makes absolutely no sense. These are all perfectly valid reasons to reject your hypothesis and are not due to close-mindedness. Maybe if you wish for people to show you and your ideas respect, you should repay the compliment. After all, one could very easily argue that the problem here isn't the closemindedness of the naysayers, but the closemindedness of you and others to your own flaws.
  6. I believe that I have already given an answer to that on this thread. There may be a small degradation, but I did not go too deeply into that when I quickly checked that one of my uploads came out O.K. If the files came out OK when you uploaded to the server, which, if it is in a typical server room will have far greater vibration problems than any of the systems discussed on this thread, then you've just disproven your own hypothesis. Maybe you think the files came out okay when you uploaded them because the vibrations of the server are out of sight, hence out of mind?
  7. SandyK, as others have pointed out, if copying the files to untreated spinning HDDs degrades the sound, why doesn't uploading them to a server degrade the sound?
  8. Talking about theoretical dynamic ranges is all well and good but in your post you said you listened to rock and electronic. Trust me, you won't find much electronic or rock music that approaches the dynamic range of CD, let alone high-rez. Hell, much of that electronic music was made on 16-bit equipment! This is why most high-rez music is classical. Classical music can have a far higher dynamic range and some can make use of high-rez capabilities. That's not to say that there's no point ripping vinyl. Vinyl can sound better (not to my taste admittedly, but some prefer it) and some vinyl is mastered better than the equivalent CD, however, if you do go down that route, you won't be taking advantage of the dynamic range offered by high-rez
  9. SandyK, a couple of questions - You have clearly gone to quite a lot of hassle to prove your case. In which case, may I ask why you don't do a blindtest? It would seem like the obvious next step - On a couple of occasions you have asked only for those people with highly resolving systems to listen to your tracks, and you have dismissed reports that failed to find a difference because they are not resolving enough. And yet, the e-mail you posted states that the source was the analogue out of a Terratec soundcard. Terratec is purely a consumer grade product and no where near to highend or audiophile (not to slag of Terratec, they are good at what they do, they just don't do audiophile). So by your own standard, shouldn't we discount the report you posted? Or should we only discount reports if they fail to find a difference? - If your hypothesis is that merely copying the files is causing a degradation, how do you suppose these differences are maintained after being uploaded to a file server? I'm not sure if you've visited many server rooms, but trust me, vibration dampening and SSDs isn't big on the agenda. If these files are different (and thats still a huge if) doesn't the fact that these differences are maintained even after being copied to a noisy server prove that the difference is not due to being copied to untreated standard hard-drives?
  10. Copy and paste as usual but stick the quote in between 'em' tags thanks
  11. No problem. I can come across as antagonistic at times. I do find myself drifting further into the objectivist camp as the years go by, but still try to keep an open-mind
  12. "Nope, I'm assuming that you've not done a blind test as regarding the files in question. No, it wouldn't settle matters, and neither would it settle matters if Sandy/Alex did a blind test and couldn't detect a difference, IMO. :)" It would settle whether Sandy is hearing differences due to the files, it wouldn't settle whether differences are possible. But anything is possible "There is no default position, there are only opinions. We each are entitled to, indeed must, make up our own minds when presented with contrary views. One ought to be able to share their opinion WITHOUT others immediately claiming (without their own proof to the contrary) that it's not possible simply because it contradicts that person's opinion (which is most likely based on probability). This is NOT Hydrogen Audio. Chris has made it quite clear that he supports an environment where contrary, even controversial, discussions can be held. IOW, Sandy and others are allowed to have conversations about topics that others of us deem extremely unlikely. I can speak from personal experience, it IS insulting when one posts an opinion based on their own experience, and the immediate responses are to point to information that suggests that it's all in one's head. That was MY personal experience here at CA, and that is why I play devil's advocate here on this issue even though my opinion sides with the more commonly accepted 'opinion' (as opposed to 'fact') that the files should not sound different." First, it shouldn't be insulting. We are all human and we should accept our flaws. Like anyone who has worked in sound engineering I've had more than enough experiences of thinking I hear a difference only later to find out that it was only in my head. The sooner we can all get over our egos and accept we all have cognitive biases the better. Second, no-one is saying that SandyK isn't allowed to have these discussions, in fact the only ones being told what they are and aren't allowed to say are the people questioning his conclusions. Discussion works both ways. SandyK should be free to say what he wants, and others should be free to question him. Should anyone who disagrees with SandyK not comment? Is that free discussion? "That's your opinion. Others may disagree. As I said above, it is up to each of us to determine our own opinions based on the evidence before us. If someone is NOT trying to change your opinion, but rather just sharing their own, why should they conform to YOUR testing approach? To demand that others conform to one's own ideas seems to be folly What is perhaps bizarre is a belief that others should meet one's conditions, and if not, their opinions should be disregarded/disputed/dismissed (or insert whatever word might best describe the nature of the opposition). This is a hobby, not a search for a cure for cancer. Reasonable men can agree to disagree.." Yes, it is my opinion, an opinion which I am free to state. No-one has "demanded" anything. All I and others have said is that given the balance of probabilities the likelihood is that there is no audible difference in the files and that the burden of proof is on those advocating the difference. The funny thing is, your first post in this thread said - "I think the burden on those who would disprove the theory (you stated) is rather heavy, and to my point of view, not yet met." Which is pretty much what I've been saying I would also point out that this thread was started by someone who, as it appears to me, is relatively new to this side of the hobby and was looking for advice. As such I do not think this thread is really the place for such unsupported and extreme claims as SandyK and others are putting forward, and, if those ideas are posted on such a thread, I think it only responsible that they should be questioned. TBH, if SandyK was to make their own thread, I wouldn't even comment. "perhaps the crux of this macro issue (i.e. the ages old debate, not just this one) is that so-called objectivists - who want to back up their own opinions with testing - can NEVER prove via testing that the claims of a subjectivist are absolutely false, and subjectivists - who base their opinions on their own 'subjective' experience - don't care whether it can be proven for/to/by others, and thereby certainly are not going to do 'testing' for the benefit of the objectivists. Some might argue that I am giving the objectivists the benefit of the doubt when I say above that they want to base their own opinions on testing. Sometimes it seems as if they mostly promote the use of testing to refute the claims that they don't believe. ;0" Personally, I have no interest in using testing to back up my opinions. I want to use testing to find out what is true and what isn't. Whether that coincides with my opinions is neither here nor there. I don't advocate blind-testing to discredit people, I advocate it because by using it we can find out what is valid and what isn't. I would love a blind test to confirm SandyK is correct. I would love further blindtests to discover exactly where the differences are occuring. That is how this hobby progresses. Equally I think you do subjectivists a disservice. From my experience it is not accurate to say that " don't care whether it can be proven for/to/by others" Does this sound like someone who doesn't care whether their ideas are proven for/to/by others " I even went to the trouble of putting a pile of comparison .wav files. and wav files converted to .flac then back to .wav again, on a USB pen and took them to a friend who is in I.T.,who wrote a program to rearrange the file numbering and amend "Properties" so that I could do a series of comparisons and then post the results. On returning home,with each couple of files for comparison, I then added the more recent version directly to the other 2 comparison files so that I could better identify which was which, or if they all sounded the same. Unfortunately, they all sounded different, and not as good as the "control" file. When I asked my friend if the files had been moved around between his HDDs, and said that they now all sounded different, I got another lecture on 1s and 0s, and he asked to be no longer associated with the comparisons project. I then sent the USB pen to a friend in the U.K. who had also reported hearing similar differences from my uploaded files, and he reported similar findings. Another Sydney friend took 3 of those files from my PC home on his USB pen, and he reported back that they all sounded a little different through his valve based setup as well." On the contrary, I think the subjectivists are just as interested in proving things as the objectivists. The difference is the methodology used. "PS, Toasties, I missed your comment "I"m not trying to say that it's impossible", OTOH, my comments were directed to any/all who seem to believe that probability equates to certainty, and not to you personally (despite having quoted your words as representative). My apologies that this wasn't clear." No problem BTW, any chance we can get quote tags on this forum Chris? ;-)
  13. "Perhaps the hypocrisy here is that you insist that others follow YOUR method for proof, and yet you've not bothered to try it yourself? :)" And are you are assuming I've never done a blindtest? I can ensure you that I have done Let's imagine I did to a test and found no result, would that settle matters, or would I just be told that my ears/equipment aren't up to the job. Eloise tested these files on a different thread and found no difference. Have a guess what the response was? It's funny how if one can doesn't hear a difference questioning their ears or their equipment is perfectly acceptable, yet when one questions those who can hear a difference, suddenly the situation changes. But thats how these discussions work isn't it. Someone claims to hear a difference, someone else claims they can't hear a difference. The person who can't hear the difference is dismissed because of their ears/equipment isn't up to the job. So the default position becomes that there is a difference. But of course, putting the hypocrisy to one side, scientifically speaking, me failing a blindtest wouldn't prove anything, and anyone who understands the rationale of blindtests knows that. It would merely show that I can't hear a difference, it would not show that there was no difference. SandyK et all, failing blindtest would prove something. It would demonstrate that their reports of differences are not due to differences in the files. "You appear to be claiming that it's not possible for there to be a difference. If so, can you actually prove your position? Absent that proof, there's a HUGE grey area wherein the truth might lie. with all due respect, clay" With all due respect maybe you should try reading my posts, for example "- I am not saying it is impossible that there is a difference" All I have claimed is that given current knowledge it is greatly more likely that any perceived difference is not due to a difference in the files. Can anyone honestly say that this isn't the case? Therefore, a bllindtest is needed. Why this should be so controversial or considered an insult is utterly beyond me. If there was an ounce of sanity in this hobby what I am suggesting would be common practice. Instead it's considered an insult. Utterly bizarre.
  14. "to do a simple blind test to confirm that differences actually exist. Did you ? If you did, and you didn't hear a thing, must I blame your equipment, your ears, my equipment (somehow) or my ears ? IOW, it doesn't work like that. At all. It may work overhere, but not overhere at my place, and overthere at your place. Too many variables involved." No, I didn't do a blind test. Me failing a blindtest would demonstrate nothing, since I'm not claiming to hear a difference. Maybe my equipment isn't good enough, maybe my ears aren't? Additionally, if SandyK is right and copying files does cause degradation, then it would be impossible for me to do a blindtest on those files without going to SandyK's house However, if someone is claiming to hear a difference then a blindtest would be useful to clarify whether the difference is related to the files themselves. You talk about too many variables involved, yet the whole point of a blind test is to reduce the variables. So surely you can see the point. On the other hand, if a they do pass the blindtest, we would have clarification. We could then do further tests to further seperate out the variables "Let me clarify my position. - I am not saying it is impossible that there is a difference Here's mine : - I am saying it is impossible there is a difference. Confused ? if you read what I just said in the before posts you won't. But I refuse to come up with jokes about insulting or arrogancy. So there must be a difference between you and me. Luckily ! haha I don't like to hear differences I can't explain, and it actually never happens (oh, it does, but when I set myself to it, it can be explained afterall). This time I can not (but see my poor attempts earlier in the thread). And now I don't want to know. I'm definitely an ostrich. Again : to do a simple blind test to confirm that differences actually exist No, because I could just measure it." So go ahead, measure it. Oh, and please don't go on about respect and insults and then write stuff like "So there must be a difference between you and me. Luckily ! haha". Your hypocrisy is clear for everyone to see
  15. PeterSt, I honestly don't understand what your point is. What we are discussing is whether we should accept sighted subjective reports on face value despite plentiful evidence that such reports are flawed. or whether some kind of objective verification is required You made a comparison with software sounding different Now you say you have proved that software does sound different. If that is the case, why did you make the comparison? If you have proved it, then the comparison with what is under discussion at the moment is quite clearly not valid. Let me clarify my position. - I am not saying it is impossible that there is a difference - I am not saying that because I can't hear a difference there is no difference - I am not saying there is anything wrong with your equipment or your ears What I am saying is that on the balance of probabilities it is far more likely that the perceived difference is due to subjective factors or objective factors not related to the files themselves. Given the science on the subject I think this is undeniable What I am saying is that before further investigation is worthwhile, we need someone who claims to hear a difference, to do a simple blind test to confirm that differences actually exist. What do you disagree with?
×
×
  • Create New...