Skip to main content

Recent Posts

That's how I thought it should work. Any input is split into whatever resolution you want (16/24/32).
The folks propagating "extra bits = greater dynamic range" as the ONLY reason for greater bit depth are wrong.

A dB is a logarithmic representation of a ratio. If dB is used with a suffix (for instance dB SPL), it is telling you the ratio relative to a predefined value specified by the suffix.

Increasing the bit depth increases the ratio between the largest and smallest value that can be represented by a factor 2x per bit (= ~6dB/bit).

The important thing to note is that if the smallest values that can be represented in a digital audio format are buried under noise in the listening environment or other factors or below you threshold of hearing when played back at a given listening level, then in the real world increasing bit depth doesn't really do anything. IOW increasing bit depth is only useful if it's the thing that is actually limiting resolution in the real world.

In the end how many of the well-known quacks actually went hand-to-hand with Randi? I saw much more smoke than actual listening.

Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

Btw, the last statement i´ve read about the "Challenge" was this:

so, it seems that the Challenge isn´t in force since that, or exists a newer declaration?
Use "Downmix channels to Stereo" included with every version of foobar2000.
Trim levels for this component (which can't be changed) are -3 dB for Center and -3 dB for Surround (side & back).  -3dB for LFE.
From my test it seems that "Downmix channels to stereo" in foobar2000 1.3.15 uses 0 dB for LFE. I created 7.1 file with all channels with level 0% (-∞ dB) except LFE  with level 100% (0 dB), then downmixed it to stereo using "Downmix channels to stereo" in foobar2000 1.3.15. Resulted stereo file has peaks 0 dB in both channels.
I don't recall you admitting that sighted evaluations are generally invalid.  So, I have not confirmed your position at all.

You don´t need to confirm my position at all, but the assertion, that ajinfla cited, was backed up by your post. Beside that it is known to nearly everybody doing sensory (perceptual) tests. The reason is quite simple; "blinding" removes just one cognitive bias, all others are still at work. And the list of remaining bias effects is quite long, starting with Rosenthal and Hawthourne, covering presentation order and/or time order errors, habituation effect (strongly related to the internal criterion problem) and does not end with bias effects due to knowledge about the EUT.

Nonusage of positive and negative controls makes incorrect results even more likely.

PS. Tom Nousaine noted the high error rate in same/different tests already back in 1990 and in other well documented (even with large samples) that fact is confirmed by error rates up to 80% in trials.
Experiments within Signal Detection Theory have shown that for example cash prizes directly influenced decision strategies of the participants.
That's the lie that audiophiles seem to like to gratify themselves with. They like to pretend that there is some kind of reasonable choice between their uncontrolled audiophile listening and DBTs, I am very irritated by that absence of a viable alternative to DBTs, but I can't find any. .No such thing seems to actually exist.  Do you know of one?

Have a look at fields of science where "blinding" is not possible or maybe even ethically forbidden. They do controlled tests without "blinding" and it seems they nevertheless can achieve some valid work.

But, as we are able to incorporate the "blind" property we should do it, but your assertion that "sighted listening is invalid" isn´t correct, as impossibility to show validness isn´t the same as invalid. The problem with sighted listning tests (that could otherwise be controlled in the same manner as a controlled tests including "blindness") simply exists because one is not able to show the internal validity.
As said many times before, most people use controlled blind tests to confirm something they discovered during sighted listening; wouldn´t make much sense if sighted listening isn´t of merit.

Subjective evaluation deals a lot with bias effects, if participants aren´t not able to control (up to a certain degree) their bias, correct results were simply only due to chance.

Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

Again that's the audiophile self-deception - that any kind of usable listening test takes less care, effort, and knowledge.

Maybe that self-deception exists partly, the direct pseudoobjectivistic counterpart would be "doing blind" is already better/sufficient.

What do you think Amir's profession is?

In our context.....running Madrona Digital.  

BTW, I see that you don't even seem to know what his first name is. <snip>

Either that, or it is simply that i tend to use the forum nicks instead of real names......
Do audio playback apps use these power saving features and when they are used, can the playback be gapless or support ReplayGain?

As far as I know the stock Android libraries handle it automatically if you use them for decode. They are gapless but I don't know about replaygain. You should ask someone doing Android development though, I just looked at their source for codec optimization ideas.
It's now officially a bug with the format because you deemed it as such? No, you're just stoking the fire with more unsubstantiatd paranoia. TOS8 is here to prevent wasting our time going down these rabbit holes.

Regarding mpc and consumption of space, there is no "fact".  Space is only loosely correlated to quality and there is only one proper method of testing to determine quality, despite your empty BS rhetoric about ABX not being necessary.
Yes it matters because almost certainly the OP would be told mp3 V2 and mpc -q5 are generally transparent (hes not interested in 128k). Whether he can abx or not doesn't diminish the fact that mpc would consume less space on the DAP especially for loud HF material.

Theres more examples i can dig up. You don't know that the AAC bug has been fully fixed and old doesn't mean worse especially with todays chaotic software development.
My cd-r sounds better because it can be played back without skips and dropouts doesn't exactly rise to a level of being worthy of discussion, not that Barry Diament's bits are not bits nonsense is worthy, either.

My bad assuming you were naively defending the latter.  Based on the direction this topic was heading (acceptance of arguments coming from the Camp of Audiophile Woo), I hope you can understand why I jumped to this conclusion.  I had no idea I was being countered in a game of tiddlywinks.  You win, yay!
Recently I found out that Reed-Solomon is only effective if the disc is tracking properly, and mistracking could easily have been the reason for the difference in sound.

Why do CD ripping programs have authentication databases if they get it right every time?
How does that defend the position that a CD-R will provide better quality audio than the original disc from which it was sourced, catastrophic failures, not withstanding?

Or are you only talking about completely uninteresting trivial cases?

I think Mr Krueger's post gives an explanation better than I ever could.

Consider yourself countered, and a little bit rude. ;)
General Audio / Re: PonoMusic Is Dead.. All Hail Xstream!
Last post by Wombat -
The HiBit files were to expensive to obtain for pono and for offer but now xstream will stream you full HiBit!?
So many things done and said around the pono store and player was crap from the beginning.
Whoever spents 1 more Cent based on NY drivel should be pulled his driving license.
This makes me wonder how many streaming providers we really need?
Must be the music business believes in streaming atm as a service everybody must have in different places from now on and dislikes the fact you own the music you listen and pay only once.