firedog

  • Content count

    6,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About firedog

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member
  1. It sounds good, you can hear lots of detail. It has the bonus tracks, which is a plus. It is still pretty noticeable volume compression - if that matters to you, especially in a hi-res download. If that bothers you, maybe just download the Redbook version. I downloaded it from the Band's site, as I assume they make more money that way.
  2. No, I didn't actually say that. You did. I'm not sure what is hard to understand here, and your question makes no sense to me. Obviously when circumstances change, your added knowledge can also change your perception. "Sighted" doesn't necessarily mean literally sighted. It means knowledge about what's being tested. I'm not really going to argue the point that knowledge of which components are being tested effects perception, and in a big way. It's been demonstrated repeatedly, with lots of people. You can reduce the argument to absurdity by bringing in all sorts of "possible" other factors that haven't been shown to have that kind of effect, for which we don't know what kind of effect they might have, and for which we don't have any evidence, even anecdotal, that they do, and try to say that they are just as significant. I don't think that's a supportable position, and in any case, it doesn't negate the importance of sighted testing in influencing results.
  3. yes, but you are just speculating.It's possible other factors exist, but you're speculating on whether they do and how much influence they have. There have been lots of demonstrations of people "knowing" that one component sounds much better than another, but not being able to tell which is which when the components are behind a curtain.
  4. I'm just talking about the concept, not a policy. And yes, often it is said here that "you can't challenge what I hear. If I hear it that's all there is to it." Well, yes you can challenge it, because it's an thoroughly challengable claim. I agree people should be civil about it. I also think people should be careful about how they phrase their claims for what they heard.
  5. You are conflating different arguments. It's not an argument about blind A/B testing. Sighted listening is well established as a major influence in peoples decisions about what sounds better. That is, people's evaluations of which component sounds better/different are directly and consistently affected when they know which components are being played. Even "large/obvious" differences can magically disappear when we don't know which components are playing. The other factors you mention might have some effect, but it certainly isn't established how they work or even if the same variable might work in opposite directions at different times. And it hasn't been shown that they can cause large changes in our perception. Sight can. We know that. Teresa can listen however she wants. But even given all those factors you mention, she comes up with a decision about what sounds better to her. The question remains - would she reach the same decision if she didn't know which of two components she is comparing? It can't be said with any authority that she would.
  6. The problem is when audiophile only use sighted evaluation and make claims sound improvements brought about things like cables and other items that can't be supported by known mechanisms. If you want to say something definitive like, "cable a reduces harshness compared to cable b", then you should be prepared to test it unsighted.
  7. Unfortunately, our brain will often continue to allow sight to override what is coming into our ears. We are creatures very oriented towards sight. You obviously can listen and enjoy how you like - and should. I think what Sal and some others are reacting to is using sighted listening as some sort of objective, authoritative yardstick. It isn't. Even for our own ears. We should at least acknowledge that. It's fine to say, "I like this better and that's what I'm listening to."; That isn't the same as saying, I added this to my system and I KNOW for a fact that it does x (reduces noise, lifts veils, firms up bass, etc)", because I heard it. A better approach would be "it sounds better to me, but I haven't tested it non-sighted, so I could be fooling myself."
  8. You are also going too far. Sal writes with a sharp edge, but it's simply true that the ear/brain system is easy to fool. It's also true that sighted listening changes what we hear - that's well established. Obviously each person is free to evaluate sound however they want, but you can't claim accuracy/authority if you are basing everything on sighted evaluations using the ear/brain system. If that's my only tool for evaluation that is fine, but then I should also acknowledge the distinct possibility that I'm fooling myself at least some of the time. Part of the problem that in real life it's basically impossible for most of us to do any proper blind testing, so we muddle through as best we can without it. Some of us are comfortable with that reality, others find it very bothersome. Hey but in the end it's only audio. It shouldn't bother anyone else what I choose to listen to. By the way, to understand how much sight effects our auditory perception, watch this:
  9. What's your problem? I made no such claim. DarwinOSX made a statement about how MQA and the Dragonfly work that was patently incorrect, while at the same time accusing me of not understand it and suggesting I read up on the subject. So not pretentious to claim I know more about it than him - which is all I claimed. It apparently is true, based on his demonstrated lack of understanding of the subject. He also claimed that "most people" agree with him about MQA. Based on what? There's no basis for such a claim. If you and he like it say so. I have no argument with your taste. But don't try the tired tactic of claiming your opinions have the authority of "most people". Sorry you don't like the tone, but calling that ignorant isn't pretentious, it's simply a fact. Not understanding your own lack of knowledge and telling others they should "readup" on the subject is clearly also arrogant. Read the posts again. I reacted to his statement that MQA was a must have feature. So I asked him if he had actually heard it. The truth is that it's pretty clear that "most audiophiles" still haven't heard MQA. (You pretty much can't unless you have one of a very few new DACs, some specific software, and a subscripton to Tidal or a small number of downloadable files for comparison). At that point he hadn't stated what his experience is with it. I wasn't asking to put him down, but to understand if he was merely taking a position based on enthusiasm without experience or one from experience. I guess I should have phrased it better. I didn't say MQA sucked, criticize him personally for liking it, or accuse him of having no taste, etc. I simply stated that I didn't think MQA added much to the overall listening experience and that there are more effective ways to improve a system. But, apparently the fact that I don't share his enthusiasm for MQA is very hard for him to take. He also used that as a jumping off point to engage in personal invective about how I must be someone who "pooh-poohs" anything new. Without a shred of evidence, I might add. So it's pretty clear who's being intolerant and operating from a position not based on facts. Hint: it isn't me. Or is the real issue simply that you also can't take it when someone isn't a MQA fanboy?
  10. It would certainly work. How big is your music collecton? The other option is using an internal HD as your storage for your music, whether it is on a NAS or inside your computer.
  11. When you find the "carefully done" study that actually shows that, let me know. There are studies, none of them large enough or well done enough to prove anything. And please don't trot out the Meyer-Moran study from 10 years ago. It's been shown to be fundamentally flawed. They used SACDs sourced from upsampled Redbook as "high-res" to compare to Redbook of the same album.
  12. I had a Regen and a Wyrd. I thought the Regen a bit better. Also conncected them in series: Wyrd>Regen>DAC, which was even better.
  13. Really? I don't "pooh-pooh" new things. Look at my sig. And if I wasn't willing to try new things, I wouldn't have bought an ME2 just to try MQA. My opinion about MQA, based on listening, is different than yours. Sorry if it is tough for you to deal with. Telling me I have reading to do is rich: you're the one who didn't understand how MQA and the DF Black work. I love it when arrogance is matched with ignorance.
  14. "Most people hear major improvements" is just a conjecture on your part. No actual data behind it. Only your impressions. Your impressions aren't data or facts. No one knows what "most people" think. I apparently know more about MQA than you. The Dragonfly Black doesn't do the first unfold. It is a renderer, which means it applies the MQA "deblurring". It depends on desktop software to do the unfold. If you look hard the ME2, which actually processes MQA, can be had for about $130. I've done plenty of MQA experiments with it and aren't particularly impressed by MQA. As I said, I think there are much more effective ways to improve a sound system, and they work for all files, not just MQA files. That's why I don't think it should be anyone's priority in buying equipment.
  15. Ever heard of sarcasm? Do we really have to put emoji's with every sentence we write? Or are you just being doubly ironic and sarcastic? This thread has lost it anyway and should be closed.