[gregorio]

You sidestepped the question about actual robust testing to confirm you actually hear anything. NO you have not even tested yourself to prove to yourself that you can hear a difference between CD and Hi Res and therefore if there is any basis to even start looking into the technical parts of the audio you believe you can differentiate between.

When people come here stating they can hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res the first thing we typically ask for is reliable evidence to verify their claim (such as an ABX) because scientific understanding indicates that no one should be able to hear the difference and the results of numerous properly conducted DBTs/ABXs confirm this fact. However, this does not apply in the case of a (broken) Filterless NOS DAC. Scientific understanding indicates that people *should* be able to hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res in this specific case and there is reliable evidence to confirm it. So, there is no need to ask the claimant for supporting evidence in this case, it can be taken as given.

If you don't mind, could you elaborate more what's the hidden message in your reply? What do you want to say with "He wrote that in 2012"?

There is no hidden message AFAIK, although @castleofargh can answer for himself. There is some “history” that is not hidden but as you have repeatedly demonstrated and actually admitted, you do NOT have expertise in audio science and therefore are presumably ignorant of it. However this is particularly bizarre, as it has in fact ALREADY been explained to you and you claimed to have “a good learning technique”, so how can you still be ignorant of it? So, yet another example of you claiming something but actually demonstrating the exact opposite.

As I highlighted earlier using the example of Quantum Physics and General Relativity articles, a hot air balloon to someone could be a piles of gold to other.

True but then Quantum Physics and General Relativity have some useful applications and advances human/scientific knowledge, even though some people have no interest in it and to them it’s just “hot air”. However, your falsehoods, pseudoscience and BS does NOT advance human knowledge, if anything it does the opposite and there is no application beyond trolling or shilling/scamming people, so it is “hot air” to everyone. A fact that someone trained in psychology and physics would readily know but that you don’t, hmmm!
It’s more than ironic that your response to the accusation of “hot air” is to confirm it, while claiming the opposite, by posting even more hot air! lol

I do have confirmation bias. I know pretty clear how it affects my thinking / behaviour.

So you admit it, great. You’ve also admitted and apologised for your ignorance. You also quoted Wikipedia on Critical Thinking but despite claims to the contrary have demonstrated you do not apply it and that is about the only thing you have not admitted yet, how much longer until you do?

I don’t expect any reply to this beyond your typical deflection, because deflection is how you respond to refutations. Your claim of sound pressure levels that cannot exist but are magically audible is just one of many examples!

G

 

[BS5711]

Thank you for clearing that up gregorio.

Honestly, I didn’t bother wading through the quagmire of his technical diatribe here, I took what he talked about on his blog at face value. Probably rather foolishly as it transpires.

Wouldn’t you think our man could have just explained that specific scenario to me, he claims to want to pass on knowledge, seems he prefers game play.

No wonder ASR got shot of him, I wonder how many pages they put up with.

 

[gregorio]

Wouldn’t you think our man could have just explained that specific scenario to me, he claims to want to pass on knowledge, seems he prefers game play.

Yes, exactly. Not only is it cherrypicking information but it’s cherrypicking effectively invalid information because a filterless NOS DAC is effectively broken. Together with the “lies of omission”, he’s arrived at pretty much the exact opposite of the truth through an excellent example of pseudoscience. The rest is just pretty much word salad or hot air as castleofargh put it.

G

 

[gregorio]

Missed this:

I took what he talked about on his blog at face value. Probably rather foolishly as it transpires.

That’s debatable. Typically one does not consider cases where something is broken, for example, obviously a broken cable sounds different to a functioning one or a pig cannot fly better than fighter jet unless the jet is broken, etc. So it’s not really foolish not to consider a deliberately broken design, especially as they’re so rare.

G

 

[BS5711]

Missed this:

That’s debatable. Typically one does not consider cases where something is broken, for example, obviously a broken cable sounds different to a functioning one or a pig cannot fly better than fighter jet unless the jet is broken, etc. So it’s not really foolish not to consider a deliberately broken design, especially as they’re so rare.

G

Cheers

B

 

[bigshot]

If he really believed what he writes, a fact would land once in a while and he’d feel obliged to address is directly. Instead he wiggles all around, giving me the impression he’s just arguing for argument’s sake.

 

[Ryokan]

This thread is proving useful, it's keeping the main Science forum posters sharp and helping hone their oratory skills.

 

[71 dB]

Believing and thinking hi-res is audibly superior to CD quality is probably "cool" and giving up such beliefs probably makes life dull. This is probably one reason why many hi-res fans don't let go their beliefs even when given a lot of reasons to do so. Digital audio is somewhat dull. Audible transparency has been achieved and CD quality is enough. Even less can be enough. Some people do vinyl, because analog formats have so much to play and tinker with. Personally I like the fact digital audio is so easy and perfect. I try to make my own life interesting in various ways. Exploring new music is one thing I do. Trying to collect music on CD while keeping the costs reasonable is another.

When I turned 40 I started to feel nostalgic for things in my past. I also started to feel the World isn't getting "better." New things including new technology doesn't necessarily improve my life. Time gives us new things, but it also destroys good old things. In the 90s I enjoyed spending time in the record shops of Helsinki. My Saturday ritual was to go to the center of Helsinki and visit the record shops to see if there are interesting new CDs to buy. Jokke, the shop keeper of Streetbeat store knew what kind of stuff I am after and when I entered the store he might show me the newest release from XL-Recordings and say "You are here for this, aren't you?" Then came the 21st century. First online shopping started to kill record stores. I also started to buy my music online from 1998 onwards because it felt convenient and often cheaper. CD sales in general where in decline after peaking in mid 90s and most record stores were just gone! That's how good things die. Good things must die to make room for new things. We can only hope the new things are also good, but they can also be worse.

Now at age 53 I feel very nostalgic for my past. The music I listened to at age 20 or so feels so cool again! I'm buying CDs I never bought in the past because of lack of money. That kind of music helps me cope with the anxieties of today. I don't even care if other people consider the music garbage. It's my garbage. It's garbage that improves my life. Now I am finally getting to the point of my post: Find your personal things in life that make you happy. Accept the fact than other people may not see the value of those things similarly. I can enjoy the music of Chyp-Notic without trying to prove the whole World it is good synth-pop. Trying to "prove" the superiority of hi-res is pointless.

 

[BS5711]

I am 3 years your senior so the mid 80s to mid 90s were my going out partying carefree years. Great era for music. I enjoy a lot of music from 70s to recent but music of ones young adult years always holds a special place.

I unfortunately binned all my CDs in a younger more stupid time, I stream everything these days but did like a physical medium. A bit late for vinyl but had a few to play on my parents turntable, I don’t recall seeing tapes until quite a bit later and quickly realised they were more trouble than they were worth for home use.

I certainly don’t need hi res to enjoy music and I certainly can’t tell when Apple Music has a 24/192 album instead of the more typical 16/44.1.

 

[eq1849]

I cater to both ways of listening, bigger picture and nitpicking on details. Great sound is an art of balance (to your preferences) between the two: too incisive and detail focused can easily fatigue while losing incisiveness for smooth sound becomes boring quickly. A balance between the incisiveness and tonal balance provides non-fatiguing listening where your brain doesn't need to strain in enjoying music and it surprises you with sheer clarity and detail when the track calls for it

In a live music situation, even with mics and amp, it always sounds like live music, so long as the equipment isn't being converted to digital somewhere. It doesn't matter the cables or amps or speakers it always sounds like live music to me. Like I mentioned earlier...I can hear it the second I walk into a reception hall before I even see the band. And I've heard others comment about this as well. I can hear it I go to a bar and I'm in the parking lot. Point is, I can tell without seeing the band, or knowing a band is playing, that it's live music.

The minute they play recorded digital music when they take a break, through the same setup, then all of a sudden it doesn't sound like live music. I've never heard Digital sound like live music.

You know full well it is a question.

You don't want to answer it because you are fully aware that all your talk about the technical aspects of CD versus high res audio is utterly pointless unless you have definitively confirmed that you can actually hear a difference and you haven't confirmed that.

When people come here stating they can hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res the first thing we typically ask for is reliable evidence to verify their claim (such as an ABX) because scientific understanding indicates that no one should be able to hear the difference and the results of numerous properly conducted DBTs/ABXs confirm this fact. However, this does not apply in the case of a (broken) Filterless NOS DAC. Scientific understanding indicates that people *should* be able to hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res in this specific case and there is reliable evidence to confirm it. So, there is no need to ask the claimant for supporting evidence in this case, it can be taken as given.

There is no hidden message AFAIK, although @castleofargh can answer for himself. There is some “history” that is not hidden but as you have repeatedly demonstrated and actually admitted, you do NOT have expertise in audio science and therefore are presumably ignorant of it. However this is particularly bizarre, as it has in fact ALREADY been explained to you and you claimed to have “a good learning technique”, so how can you still be ignorant of it? So, yet another example of you claiming something but actually demonstrating the exact opposite.

True but then Quantum Physics and General Relativity have some useful applications and advances human/scientific knowledge, even though some people have no interest in it and to them it’s just “hot air”. However, your falsehoods, pseudoscience and BS does NOT advance human knowledge, if anything it does the opposite and there is no application beyond trolling or shilling/scamming people, so it is “hot air” to everyone. A fact that someone trained in psychology and physics would readily know but that you don’t, hmmm!
It’s more than ironic that your response to the accusation of “hot air” is to confirm it, while claiming the opposite, by posting even more hot air! lol

So you admit it, great. You’ve also admitted and apologised for your ignorance. You also quoted Wikipedia on Critical Thinking but despite claims to the contrary have demonstrated you do not apply it and that is about the only thing you have not admitted yet, how much longer until you do?

I don’t expect any reply to this beyond your typical deflection, because deflection is how you respond to refutations. Your claim of sound pressure levels that cannot exist but are magically audible is just one of many examples!

G

I am blind testing high res and its 1644.1 dithered down version, listening to one(don't know which) file each morning and guessing if it's high res or 16/44.1.

7/7 so far

 

[gregorio]

Like I mentioned earlier...I can hear it the second I walk into a reception hall before I even see the band. And I've heard others comment about this as well. I can hear it if Im at a bar from the parking lot.

The minute they play recorded digital music when they take a break, through the same setup, then all of a sudden it doesn't sound like live music. I've never heard Digital sound like live music.

That’s because it’s not live music! It’s a recording (IE. It’s been recorded and mixed/produced in a studio) and I would hope you can tell the difference, otherwise there would be no point in going to all the effort of mixing/producing/mastering recordings. The fact you or others can tell so easily, from a different room or even from the parking lot confirms this. It has nothing to do with being digital, in fact most big live gigs these days use digital.

I am blind testing high res and its 1644.1 dithered down version, listening to one(don't know which) file each morning and guessing if it's high res or 16/44.1.

7/7 so far

Yes, it’s trivially easy, I’ve done it 16/16 on various occasions. There’s at least two ways of doing it in a proper ABX/DBT.

G

 

[sunjam]

There is no hidden message AFAIK, although @castleofargh can answer for himself.

In that case, what do you think would be the possible reason why he stated that when he replied to my comment? Can you share with your viewpoint? You know I could be wrong in interpreting someone's message. It would be great if you can give us some insight.

Of course, it would be better if @castleofargh can answer for himself. But, as I said, feel free not to reply as we are living in a free world.

It is entirely factual, you won't answer the question because you know the truthful answer shows you haven't done the basic background work before you venture into the technical details which is a very long way from the critical thinking that you proclaim you are exercising.

Giving several paragraphs of deflection isn't an answer.

The premise behind all this, as stated on your blog, was that you hear a difference so you are looking into the technicalities to discover/prove why that is and why hi res isn't pointless. Please don't debate the tiny nuances, that is the essence of your blog, your own words demonstrate that.

At least you are honest enough to not just lie about your lack of basic work to establish the premise, I will give you that much.

You are obviously not interested in a genuine conversation so I will leave you to your petty game playing. Please spare me one of your typical condescending replies that you think make you look clever.

I am too tired in attempting to correct your mis-information every single time you tried to put words into my mouth.

This is what I said: my comment

disclaimer:

I know it is hard to face facts that are not compatible with your beliefs. If putting some words into my mouth would make you feel better, feel free to put whatever you like if you want.
I am not going to correct your on-going mistakes or attempts to put words into my mouth (unless I think I have to if it goes too far). Enjoy.

 

[sunjam]

Believing and thinking hi-res is audibly superior to CD quality is probably "cool" and giving up such beliefs probably makes life dull. This is probably one reason why many hi-res fans don't let go their beliefs even when given a lot of reasons to do so. Digital audio is somewhat dull. Audible transparency has been achieved and CD quality is enough. Even less can be enough. Some people do vinyl, because analog formats have so much to play and tinker with. Personally I like the fact digital audio is so easy and perfect. I try to make my own life interesting in various ways. Exploring new music is one thing I do. Trying to collect music on CD while keeping the costs reasonable is another.

When I turned 40 I started to feel nostalgic for things in my past. I also started to feel the World isn't getting "better." New things including new technology doesn't necessarily improve my life. Time gives us new things, but it also destroys good old things. In the 90s I enjoyed spending time in the record shops of Helsinki. My Saturday ritual was to go to the center of Helsinki and visit the record shops to see if there are interesting new CDs to buy. Jokke, the shop keeper of Streetbeat store knew what kind of stuff I am after and when I entered the store he might show me the newest release from XL-Recordings and say "You are here for this, aren't you?" Then came the 21st century. First online shopping started to kill record stores. I also started to buy my music online from 1998 onwards because it felt convenient and often cheaper. CD sales in general where in decline after peaking in mid 90s and most record stores were just gone! That's how good things die. Good things must die to make room for new things. We can only hope the new things are also good, but they can also be worse.

Now at age 53 I feel very nostalgic for my past. The music I listened to at age 20 or so feels so cool again! I'm buying CDs I never bought in the past because of lack of money. That kind of music helps me cope with the anxieties of today. I don't even care if other people consider the music garbage. It's my garbage. It's garbage that improves my life. Now I am finally getting to the point of my post: Find your personal things in life that make you happy. Accept the fact than other people may not see the value of those things similarly. I can enjoy the music of Chyp-Notic without trying to prove the whole World it is good synth-pop. Trying to "prove" the superiority of hi-res is pointless.

Cool, thanks a lot for your sharing. I really enjoy it. "Find your personal things in life that make you happy"

For me I have been using CD for decades. My offical Hi-Res journey just started a few months ago when I got my PC.

As a new PC, it has a lot of excessive power. One day, I saw someones mentioned HQPlayer and they said it sounds very good. Given I have a new PC, I decided to try it (as it is free). Then you could guess what happened.

Not sure if you can hear the difference or not. For me, I do. I am not younger than you. It has no harm to try so I did it.

CD is very good indeed, you don't have to change if you want. Sometimes, I would just play the raw CD files as I need the extra power in my PC for number chrunching.

Bottom line: No matter it is Hi-Res or CD, "hear the difference or not", enjoy the music you love! Cheers

 

[eq1849]

That’s because it’s not live music! It’s a recording (IE. It’s been recorded and mixed/produced in a studio) and I would hope you can tell the difference, otherwise there would be no point in going to all the effort of mixing/producing/mastering recordings. The fact you or others can tell so easily, from a different room or even from the parking lot confirms this. It has nothing to do with being digital, in fact most big live gigs these days use digital.

G

I essentially do a blind listening test when I don't know a band is there, I haven't seen them, and yet I can tell it's a live band.

 

[sunjam]

When people come here stating they can hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res the first thing we typically ask for is reliable evidence to verify their claim (such as an ABX) because scientific understanding indicates that no one should be able to hear the difference and the results of numerous properly conducted DBTs/ABXs confirm this fact. However, this does not apply in the case of a (broken) Filterless NOS DAC. Scientific understanding indicates that people *should* be able to hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res in this specific case and there is reliable evidence to confirm it. So, there is no need to ask the claimant for supporting evidence in this case, it can be taken as given.

There is no hidden message AFAIK, although @castleofargh can answer for himself. There is some “history” that is not hidden but as you have repeatedly demonstrated and actually admitted, you do NOT have expertise in audio science and therefore are presumably ignorant of it. However this is particularly bizarre, as it has in fact ALREADY been explained to you and you claimed to have “a good learning technique”, so how can you still be ignorant of it? So, yet another example of you claiming something but actually demonstrating the exact opposite.

True but then Quantum Physics and General Relativity have some useful applications and advances human/scientific knowledge, even though some people have no interest in it and to them it’s just “hot air”. However, your falsehoods, pseudoscience and BS does NOT advance human knowledge, if anything it does the opposite and there is no application beyond trolling or shilling/scamming people, so it is “hot air” to everyone. A fact that someone trained in psychology and physics would readily know but that you don’t, hmmm!
It’s more than ironic that your response to the accusation of “hot air” is to confirm it, while claiming the opposite, by posting even more hot air! lol

So you admit it, great. You’ve also admitted and apologised for your ignorance. You also quoted Wikipedia on Critical Thinking but despite claims to the contrary have demonstrated you do not apply it and that is about the only thing you have not admitted yet, how much longer until you do?

I don’t expect any reply to this beyond your typical deflection, because deflection is how you respond to refutations. Your claim of sound pressure levels that cannot exist but are magically audible is just one of many examples!

G

With your expertise in audio science, do you know if there is any measurement to quantify the level of ringing artifacts caused by different filter in a DAC?