Quote from: B0RK on 19 April, 2009, 01:22:55 AMBut We are not talking about me now are we ?Cause if you are , you could easily have had a taste of my ABXing in the LossyWav thread.yeah, I see where you say you don't believe a 14/20 ABX run can be due to luck.14/20 (p=.058) doesn't even break the 'standard' p<.05 threshold for a Type I error, much less an arguably more appropriate p<0.01 threshold.Regardless of what you believe, a marginal run like that virtually begs for a re-test to see if indeed it WAS just luck.
But We are not talking about me now are we ?Cause if you are , you could easily have had a taste of my ABXing in the LossyWav thread.
So, are you saying that you did your Foobar tests having never listened to a MP3 in your life? Can't be true!
It sad , if you know nothing else , or even the source product, on a deeper level.
Do you seriously think that people are comparing MP3s to MP3's? That's what you just said. Just for the record, people are compaing MP3s to .wav files much of the time. That's the source product, right? Where do you get these wild ideas from? Your buddy Fremer?
I';ve been listening to various people's high end gear for decades. I might even have had a little of it myself.What you don't seem to realize that some of us were held hostige in an analog-only world for many decades of painful love of music. Painful, because all we had to listen to was analog. I had to wait until I was in my l mid-20s berfore there was any good SS to buy. I had to wait until I was in my late 30s before there was any digital to buy. So, I spent about 25 years in a pure analog world. I had nothing but vinyl and tubes to listen to for all of that time. Not good. Not fun.
I agree. But my point was that I would like to enjoy the entire experience. Eating great food blindfolded in a basement isn't as much fun as in a fine dining room. And at least for me the main part of this hobby is actually listening to and enjoying music, not assessing differences between components.
Our interest in hydrogenaudio is scientific, not commercial. We don't care if a white laptop with a white apple in it sells better than a grey laptop with two letters in it. We would care if a task A is better done on laptop 1 or on laptop 2.
....The Original itself, is an inferior corrupted Audio Format (Digital Audio in this case).
ABX tests , Are Subjecive tests.
The Original itself, is an inferior corrupted Audio Format (Digital Audio in this case).
-In your opinion , considering current trends, how many iTunes clients have your experience in audio & know their lossy CD sources & Analog gear sound as well as you do ?
-Knowing what you know, Would you ever give that experience up , going straight to an iPod-iTunes combo ?
This is the detail that matters: Audiophiles are basically synesthesiacs. They "see" music in three-dimensional visual space.
as Scientifically, Any lossy audio , is an inferior , More Corrupted audio version,of the original, where even , The Original itself, is an inferior corrupted Audio Format (Digital Audio in this case).
The distortions present in high bitrate MP3 etc are astonishingly minor compared to any number of effects in mastering, recording, etc.
That audiophiles can hear a three-dimensional 'soundstage' would suggest one of three things:1. They are making stuff up...
What exactly do you mean by "making stuff up"? Are you saying that they are lying, or that there's something going on in the brain that generates the 3D experience? I believe it's the latter.
There's complete scorn at the idea that an "expensive" system is any better than in iPod, despite the obvious advantages of hearing music over good speakers driven by capable amplifiers.
I'm interested, without any knowledge, in the soundstage phenomenon.Like Gagg Halfrunt, I often listen to orchestral concerts in rooms that give me very little acoustic sense of the location of performers; sometimes that's just auditory image overwhelmed by visual cues, I guess, but I deliberately tested this during a performance of a Handel Oratorio, and I specifically heard the voices of the quite small choir coming from all around me--very much delocalised. And, of course, in a rock concert we know where the sound is coming from: those banks and banks of speakers (at a Bob Dylan concert I attended in 1978, at Blackbushe Aerodrome, I was lucky enough to get a position just in front of the second row of PA towers: Bob looked very small that far away).
you could run CD and iPod through the same DAC.
I'm finding this discussion of imaging, hearing in 3D etc very interesting. I "see" a 3D image all the time when I actually listen to music; rather than it simply being on the background. It only happens when listening via speakers. Headphones seem to just squeeze the sound into your head. It's completely different - as is live music. Anyway what I'm finding interesting is that I thought everybody heard stereo that way. Otherwise why do engineers bother trying to create a sound stage? Why doesn't everybody listen in mono? Incidentally, it makes no difference whether I am listening to a digital or analogue source.
I don't begudge audiophiles their favorite recordings with readily-discernable imaging. However, they aren't talking about recreating the concert hall experience. They're talking about a listening experience that has few if any real-world equivalents.