Skip to main content

Recent Posts

3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Biography Discussion
Last post by WilB -
I don't use UPnP, and don't currently have a suitable test set-up to check whether it's possible or what might be involved. It also seems that foo_upnp development has ceased.
General Audio / Re: PonoMusic Is Dead.. All Hail Xstream!
Last post by drewfx -
When it comes to high res, the record industry is still broken.  The industry was such that even when I wanted to remaster some of the great performances from my artist friends at high res, Pono had to pay thousands of dollars for each recording, with little expectation of getting the money back. Record companies believe they should charge a premium for high res recordings and conversely, I believe all music should cost the same, regardless of the technology used.

Therefore we need new, more expensive, proprietary technology available from a single source. Makes sense to me. :)
Dynamic range doubles when you add one more bit because you now have twice as many values you can produce.

Pcm spaces values uniformly in amplitude such that all levels are equally encoded. There are formats that space them non-uniformly, mostly as a means of lossy compression.
General Audio / Re: PonoMusic Is Dead.. All Hail Xstream!
Last post by Shinsekai -
The artists would allow their fans to hear what they hear in the studios, and the music lovers would hear the music the best it could be.
Bullshit Never Sleeps
FYI, the only thing that buildC changes is the slope of the bit allocation by 1/64 bit per Bark. In practice, we end altering the LF vs HF balance by the equivalent of 1.5 dB SNR. So HF get more bits, at the expense of the LF. buildE was trying to be fancier about how to do it (depending on the context), but it doesn't seem like it worked.
Of course not, but as human beings we are all prone to the same imperfections that lead us to draw erroneous conclusions, including how we interpret sound.  There are methods to get around this and these methods are required when one wants to posit claims about differences in sound quality.
Michael Fremer weaseled out.....
Yep, just like you and the "burned" cable challenge. When it comes time to expose oneself as total deluded audiophools...

Oh yes...and that fabricated, imaginary "list"
...and as such I'm not buying it. ;)

We are all who we are because of our life experiences. It wouldn't do to have us all the same now, would it?
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

Do you have any links to additional information about this?
it is obviously quite as easy to get incorrect results via "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening"

Beside that it is known to nearly everybody doing sensory (perceptual) tests.
Just another delusion of your ilk. The very reason for controlled testing is due to the unreliability of uncontrolled testing. There is zero equivalence, except for those peddlers with pecuniary interests such as your ilk.

The reason is quite simple; "blinding" removes just one cognitive bias, all others are still at work.
More delusional nonsense.

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.
So list your positive controls for your sighted listening that you equate with controlled listening.
Also list Oohashis positive control. What was it?
Btw, if blinding is as useless as a delusional peddler such as yourself claims, why are you continuously citing controlled (blind) tests like Oohashi to begin with? You scammers can't have it both ways.