Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus (Read 17382 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #50
I can't be bothered to use quotes for this, but: "emotional power".


It is emotional voltage multiplied by emotional current.

Watch out for the emotional resistance!

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #51
Quote
All I can do is observe that kids these days use music as an aural backdrop to whatever else they are doing


You might want to extend that observation to include most non-kids as well. Me, I like to slay oodles of demonic hordes with a little Gerry Rafferty in the background.

It's true that I need to get back to more frequent exclusive listening sessions though. I used to do that a lot but not so much anymore. I think the internet had some effect on that.

Quote
On the other hand, something that you *can't* do with a digital collection is to walk up to your LPs/CDs and randomly flit across them until your eyes fall upon something that makes you think "yes, I'll play that one".

I can totally do that with my digital collection. foo_random_pools gives me a selection of albums that my eyes can fall upon. I use it for that exact purpose. Not happy with the selection? Close playlist, regenerate pool.

Quote
Just in case anyone thinks I'm some kind of Luddite

Kids these days don't even know what a Luddite is anymore.





'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #53
On the other hand, something that you *can't* do with a digital collection is to walk up to your LPs/CDs and randomly flit across them until your eyes fall upon something that makes you think "yes, I'll play that one". I kind of miss that. Random play from a digital collection just doesn't work the same way.


Foobar2k and most other software players I know have an album art display option -- and I can see and scroll through a screen of dozens at a time, analogous to random flit view ;>

It is of course not the same experience overall --you don't have a tactile sense of pulling out the LP/CD from a shelf, unpacking it sticking it in the player, etc.  But I can't really imagine that's the 'engagement' Dr. Crum means.

More likely, the simple fact of sitting there with the LP cover open on your lap (or less impressively, the CD booklet) is what we 'miss'.

Right from the start of the CD era I wondered why they didn't offer CD editions in LP packaging (espcially as companies were already making an outrageous profit on CDs, with their comparitively minimal packaging costs). Best of both worlds.  Nowadays to get that you have to buy the 'deluxe editions ' that include actual (and to me useless ) LPs as well.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #54
> in that the more you are forced to engage with the delivery mechanism, the more you are likely to engage with the listening process.

It seems obvious that the effect is there, but there's a breaking point where the hassle is too great and results in zero engagement, i.e. not bothering to play the music at all. This sudden death limit is different for all people, of course.

Doesn't it then become a question of how much hurt you can take? Is a bit of music listening supposed to be the reward (or a bonus, maybe) for managing to withstand the effort needed to play it? Are you a better, more engaged person if you can take more? Personally, I feel that's not right.

Easy music all the way and forever! I'll choose to engage if I so desire, but I don't want walls between me and my music. It would be like having to duel my bartender in a swordfight every time I order a drink:

"Hello, three Brand, please"
"Sure. EN GARDE!" ~schwinggg~
"...Sigh. This had better be an amazing beer. HAVE AT THEE" ~schwinggg~

Is it really that hard to play a record? I mean if hipsters can do it can't anybody? I would feel more comfortable playing records than sword fighting. Less to lose if you do it badly.

Isn't going to a concert the ultimate example of a delivery mechanism forcing one to engage? Even then you see idiots talking their asses off and recording the damn concert with their smart phones instead of actually watching it with their ****ing eyes.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #55
I mean if hipsters can do it can't anybody?
Even then you see idiots talking their asses off and recording the damn concert with their smart phones instead of actually watching it with their ****ing eyes.

It  looks very Pavlovian and deeply rooted in some real hate. Hate for what I  am not sure.

Isn't going to a concert the ultimate example of a delivery mechanism forcing one to engage?

Where's the required factor of repeated exposure in this example?

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #56
I mean if hipsters can do it can't anybody?
Even then you see idiots talking their asses off and recording the damn concert with their smart phones instead of actually watching it with their ****ing eyes.

It  looks very Pavlovian and deeply rooted in some real hate. Hate for what I  am not sure.

Isn't going to a concert the ultimate example of a delivery mechanism forcing one to engage?

Where's the required factor of repeated exposure in this example?


Snap!! Good point. I guess it is for Dead Heads.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #57
One of the best bits is:
Quote
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.

Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #58
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #59
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped


One of the best bits is:
Quote
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.

Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.



Maybe I am misunderstanding the forum rules but I thought we weren't supposed to post any opinions about sound quality without the support of DBTs. Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not? I'm not trying to bust anyone here. I'm just trying to better understand how the forum rules work.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #60
Well, talk to the aricle's author then. They're putting up the 1000 number as if it's super duper huge and clearly indicative of quality.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #61
Well, talk to the aricle's author then. They're putting up the 1000 number as if it's super duper huge and clearly indicative of quality.


The author didn't post in this forum.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #62
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not?
Those claims were not in a form that could be tested. The first says something could sound "quite good", and not in comparison to anything else. Hence there is nothing to test it against. There is nothing to ABX.

The second quote was speculating what someone else (off forum) meant. The poster here didn't claim anything.


If someone tried either of the above tricks to try to make or imply a claim of their own yet avoid blind testing, they'd probably get reminded of TOS 8, and if anyone could figure out a way to blind test the claim, I think they would suggest it.

Cheers,
David.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #63
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not?
Those claims were not in a form that could be tested. The first says something could sound "quite good", and not in comparison to anything else. Hence there is nothing to test it against. There is nothing to ABX.

The second quote was speculating what someone else (off forum) meant. The poster here didn't claim anything.


If someone tried either of the above tricks to try to make or imply a claim of their own yet avoid blind testing, they'd probably get reminded of TOS 8, and if anyone could figure out a way to blind test the claim, I think they would suggest it.

Cheers,
David.


Thanks for your reply. Just a few follow up questions. How is a claim of "quite good" not testable and if it is untestable how does that make it exempt from the rules about posting subjective opinions without the backup of DBTs? Is it not a cute way around the forum rules to present what one thinks another person meant? Could someone skirt the rule by posting vicariously through other people's subjective opinions if that is allowed?

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #64
This is not on-topic.  In situations like these, one should search for answers to their questions rather than steer the discussion off-topic.

Here:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=97224

PS: Accepting a simplified version of TOS #8 as saying that all things are assumed to sound the same until proven otherwise should help in determining what is OK and what isn't.  In this situation, "quite good" should be interpreted as transparent or near transparent. If the poster meant near transparent as meaning he could tell the difference, then he's obligated to provide evidence. In this case however, it is clear (to me at least) that "quite good" should be interpreted as likely transparent. IOW, likely to sound the same.  Now if someone wants to demonstrate otherwise, he is free to provide evidence.

EDIT #2 (major gaff!) I said it was "on-topic"? My proof reading sucks big time. WTF is wrong with me!?!

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #65
For those who interested here is a needle drop recording. One is original 16-bit 44k, another one is converted to 10-bit 50k. Since I didn't say I can hear their differences I don't need to provide an ABX log right?
https://www.sendspace.com/file/hyt1w6

Of course one can use samples of some classical and soft music to demonstrate artifacts like quantization noise, but even if it is audible it is not that bad, at least to my ears.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #66
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped


One of the best bits is:
Quote
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.

Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.



Maybe I am misunderstanding the forum rules but I thought we weren't supposed to post any opinions about sound quality without the support of DBTs.


The substance of the post you are objecting is that 1000 kbps is arithmetically less than 1411 kbps which is obviously like saying that 14 is greater than 10.  No DBTs required!

Quote
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not? I'm not trying to bust anyone here. I'm just trying to better understand how the forum rules work.


Sec0ond go around for this in just a few days. This is getting rediculous. No, no DBTs are required to support claims that are self-evidently true based on common knowledge.

I can tell you for sure that  vinyl playback has far  poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated  by many people using fairly simple test equipment.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #67
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped


One of the best bits is:
Quote
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.

Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.



Maybe I am misunderstanding the forum rules but I thought we weren't supposed to post any opinions about sound quality without the support of DBTs.


The substance of the post you are objecting is that 1000 kbps is arithmetically less than 1411 kbps which is obviously like saying that 14 is greater than 10.  No DBTs required!

Quote
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not? I'm not trying to bust anyone here. I'm just trying to better understand how the forum rules work.


Sec0ond go around for this in just a few days. This is getting rediculous. No, no DBTs are required to support claims that are self-evidently true based on common knowledge.

I can tell you for sure that  vinyl playback has far  poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated  by many people using fairly simple test equipment.


Yes it is getting ridiculous. But not for the reasons you give. Not really worth getting into it but it has become clear to me that the forum rules are a convoluted mess. Imagine someone saying they think a Gibson Les Paul sounds "quite good" only to find out that on Hydrogen Audio "quite good" means "transparent or nearly transparent." Makes that opinion kind of absurd since transparency isn't a quality of electric guitars. And of course if one were to say a 10,000 dollar speaker cable sounds "quite good" that would be a violation of TOS 8 and yet in compliance since "quite good" means transparent or nearly transparent on Hydrogen Audio. No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #68
I can tell you for sure that  vinyl playback has far  poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated  by many people using fairly simple test equipment.
Not the best or most carefully worded example. Vinyl tends to beat mp3 above 16kHz

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #69
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.


Well that only took you a month to figure out.  I guess that's progress.



'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #70
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.


Well that only took you a month to figure out.  I guess that's progress.



yeah I guess I'm just not the fastest gun in the west. But it only took a couple of your posts for me to figure out you are a prick. Somethings are so obvious that even a dumb guy like me can see it right away. I have never run into more pricks in my life than I have in trying to do a little homework on buying audio equipment.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #71
Foobar2k and most other software players I know have an album art display option -- and I can see and scroll through a screen of dozens at a time, analogous to random flit view ;>

It is of course not the same experience overall --you don't have a tactile sense of pulling out the LP/CD from a shelf, unpacking it sticking it in the player, etc.  But I can't really imagine that's the 'engagement' Dr. Crum means.

It's a pretty important aspect for me, though. Especially when I have friends over and we're looking through the collection etc. The whole process of putting a record on, is relatively elaborate to clicking on a file, or even putting a CD in. I refurbish old vinyls that have mold living in the groves sometimes. It's quite fun to do.
I have vinyls from the mid 70's that sound amazing. I'm not a very old dude, but listening to a medium that old, that sounds this good, is pretty impressive to me. I've grown up using cassette tapes - now that was something else. I remember playing with the reel-to-reel tape recorder of a friend of my dads once. That think was like a steampunk machine to my six year old eyes, that managed to deliver a super high quality sound. I kinda still want one, but only for the novelty of it.

More likely, the simple fact of sitting there with the LP cover open on your lap (or less impressively, the CD booklet) is what we 'miss'.

Right from the start of the CD era I wondered why they didn't offer CD editions in LP packaging (espcially as companies were already making an outrageous profit on CDs, with their comparitively minimal packaging costs). Best of both worlds.  Nowadays to get that you have to buy the 'deluxe editions ' that include actual (and to me useless ) LPs as well.

Because putting a small CD in a big-ass cardboard sleeve would be just... dumb, I don't know, I wouldn't like it. But I hated (and still hate to this day), the polystyrene "Jewel Cases" with all my might. I have a few CDs, that were released in a cardboard case, that when closed, it was like three pieces of cardboard over each side of the CD, so it wouldn't fall out or be scratched (I don't mean that digipack nonsense, though).

I have a 3CD-set of italo-western music, that comes in a case, similar to those huge multiple-LP album cases, just in CD size - awesome.

I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.

The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #72
I can tell you for sure that  vinyl playback has far  poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated  by many people using fairly simple test equipment.
Not the best or most carefully worded example. Vinyl tends to beat mp3 above 16kHz


Not when nonlinear distortion is considered. ;-)

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #73
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.


Well that only took you a month to figure out.  I guess that's progress.



yeah I guess I'm just not the fastest gun in the west. But it only took a couple of your posts for me to figure out you are a prick. Somethings are so obvious that even a dumb guy like me can see it right away. I have never run into more pricks in my life than I have in trying to do a little homework on buying audio equipment.



It's a hard lesson, but no one here cares whether you think something sounds good or not.  But don't take it personally, that's true for all of us.

If you want to discuss *why* things might sound the way they do, we're here for you, man.  Subject to the Terms of Service, of course. 

If you want to read lots of heartfelt opinions regarding the gorgeous/terrible sound of this or that piece of gear or audio format -- untethered from any objective backup --  you might prefer this forum.

'Science' Shows There's Only One Real Way to Listen to Mus

Reply #74
Because putting a small CD in a big-ass cardboard sleeve would be just... dumb, I don't know, I wouldn't like it.


Why would it matter that a small disc is in a big sleeve?  Hell, it could be a 'sleeve' with *no* disc in it AFIAC, the music could come from a download.  The point is to give the art and design the engaging presentation it  deserves.

Quote
I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.


I have *hundreds* of CDs, some dating back to the dawn of CDs, and AFIACT, none of them are 'disintegrating'.  Long ago I discarded one or two 'classical' CDs that 'bronzed' due to a defect that was publicized at the time.  That's it, after 30+ years of CD buying.

But I rip everything to hard drive now anyway,for the convenience of playback. And I ditch the nasty plastic cases. And of course I have backups of the drives, in various locations. 

I emphatically *do not* miss the ritual of LP (I won't call them 'vinyls', sorry) playback....the de-staticing, the cleaning of disc and stylus, the adjusting of tracking forces and weights.  Nor the fragility of vinyl plastic surfaces themselves.  (I've recovered many a scratched CD to fully playable condition)

Beyond the loss of large-format album art, I *do* miss the way album tracks had to be 'sequenced' to give each 'side' a flow.  I *do* miss the way LP format nudged most releases into the ~40 minute zone.  There's far too many hour-long albums now .....


Quote
The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.


CDs will inevitably be rare some day and are already considered antiquated tech.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021