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: More misinformation (Read 111756 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #176 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
(I guarantee that the hydrogenaudio authorities' first reaction will be to call into question the credentials of the person who wrote the above article linked to, not the substance of it!)
No (not that I'm an authority anyway), but that doesn't change that it's BS. Both the straw man arguments it attacks and the fallacious conclusions it draws. It contains the typical nonsense people have commented on and corrected several times throughout the decades.. Besides, it simply contains lies, e.g. that tiny differences cannot be heard in ABX.

If the man had a PhD in the field it would just add being scandalous.


But it's easy to bash ABX such that it will appear as valid criticism to the layman. So ignore ABX and instead demonstrate any other method that can be used to reliably distinguish between you just imagining differences and you actually hearing them. It will not come at a surprise but it will involve hearing and not giving you the information which file/device/... you're listening to. :P
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: More misinformation

Reply #177 –
Another boring digression into epistemology. One side, having just discovered the concepts, thinks it provides novel insights into the whole legitimacy of science. The other side, already completely aware of the concepts, knows that all of these objections are already well accounted for.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #179 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
24 bit audio

1) Consumer benefits
2) Devices availability
3) Good marketing
4) Consumers preferences
5] Prices ...
Ok


My post was not strictly about 24 bit audio, but about the facts that audible quality is not the sole factor of market adoption of some delivery format/media.

The sample rates are driven by Nyquist + physics + related aspects as discussed many times (Lavry etc). So no more to this from me and no need to crave for high sample rates, too.

24 bit is actually an resolution of digital storage dynamic range (not talking about ABXability now). 16 bit source playback is not compromised when sound card is set at 24/44.1 and there can be situations where it could be beneficial for customer to have 24 bit record available. If they be at same price, I would go for 24 bit FLAC.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #180 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
16 bit source playback is not compromised when sound card is set at 24/44.1 and there can be situations where it could be beneficial for customer to have 24 bit record available.
What kind of situation do you have in mind?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #181 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
When seeking to show whether this or that phenomenon is audible, they don't quote the small print that scientific findings are not proof; are temporary and could be overturned tomorrow etc. They quote ABX test results and even if they don't always state it explicitly, they seek to imply that (to use a quotation from another field of 'science') "The science is settled". If someone questions the validity of this, then their IQ and level of education are called into question. Literally! (see above)

Let's look at the technique of ABX testing. What exactly is this supposed to demonstrate? As someone recently pointed out, when we perform any sort of listening test, we are not comparing two sounds, but are, in fact comparing two audio memories. In fact, there is no way for a human to compare two sounds directly at the same moment, so if we think that ABX is achieving this, this can only be a "belief". Upon this belief, an entire edifice of listening test-based 'science' is built.

http://www.aletheiaaudio.com/Double-Blind-Testing.html

(I guarantee that the hydrogenaudio authorities' first reaction will be to call into question the credentials of the person who wrote the above article linked to, not the substance of it!)

I pointed this out earlier, but what you are arguing is that it is impossible to reliably know anything. Speculation that there might be problems with objective testing does not make subjective testing somehow reliable.

In the real world objective testing yields much more consistent and reliable results - and that's exactly why they're used.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #182 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
16 bit source playback is not compromised when sound card is set at 24/44.1 and there can be situations where it could be beneficial for customer to have 24 bit record available.
What kind of situation do you have in mind?

I do not wanna irritate the more experienced members here with my personal opinions on this topic (have been already warned). So if you want you can write me a private message and we can talk there.

Or if more people are interested we can continue the discussion about 24 bit audio in other thread.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #183 –
But you made your claim in public. You can PM yourself whatever you want.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #184 –
Quote from: Wombat on
But you made your claim in public. You can PM yourself whatever you want.

Not intentionally, my original post was not primarily about 24 bit audio, the quote was simplified  by other user. So I corrected and asked for PM.
 

Re: More misinformation

Reply #185 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Audibility aside, this is not true.

The adoption of some digital format has a lot of attributes to success.

1) Consumer benefits
2) Devices availability
3) Good marketing
4) Consumers preferences
5] Prices ...

etc etc.

On the market in 2000's even mp3's with their low quality succeeded because the portability, low prices of devices and lack of storage spaces made them popular.

But really based also on the insights I gathered here the higher sample rates do not improve the consumers overall experience. Slightly better it is with 24 bit audio but also the law of diminishing returns applies here.

I think that in some 10 years technically better format for audio delivery will prevail (especially considering 24 bit audio), although it won't be abxable for majority of consumers.

Edit: not audibility aside (it is the primary goal of Hi-Fi), but in addition to audibility, we can consider...


If you talk about portability, do you mean listen to music in noisy environment like most kinds of vehicles, or on the street with a pair of IEMs? Think about people watching HD videos and playing games on phones with a clumsy external power bank. Do you think it is good portability? I don't know how people in other countries do but here in Hong Kong, a lot of people are doing this. I am not interested in watching HD videos and playing games on phones but I can clearly see the differences of 720p vs 1080p on a 6-inch screen. Of course, better visual quality means more battery power.

If you talk about price, E-MU 1212m with 115dB SNR (loopback) and 24bit 44-192khz support only cost $200 in 2004, in 2005, X-Fi XtremeMusic, unlike Audigy which supports native 44/48/88/96khz with 109dB DAC and 102dB ADC only cost $128, in 2007, Asus Xonar DX with 44-192khz support and 117dB SNR (loopback)...

Audio formats like 24/96 and DSD already have more than 10 years of history (as stated by other members in earlier discussions in this thread). Nowadays placebophiles already talking about 32-bit 768khz PCM and DSD512.

Maybe ten years later people will talk about 64-bit 2.8mhz PCM or DSD4096, or some other new formats. 24/96 will become pure crap. Who still cares about Lavry's theory? "Engineers" will write some new papers about why Nyquist's theory is flawed, how the dots are connected, how the XtraFidelityMastaXD format override the difficulties in the past 30 years and so on. Are you prepared to argue with those people and say 96khz+ can cause distortion?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #186 –
Lets continue in PM, please, others will be irritated. I care about Nyquist and Lavry pretty much, as that is pure physics which was here even before computers.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #187 –
Can somebody share a situation where 96 DB of dynamic range isn't enough? Unless you imply with 16 bit I won't get 96 DB dynamic range?

And does anybody actually listen at 96DB except when the music has a peak?
AVI ADM 9RS | HD 650 | HD 598 | Asus Essence One Muses Edition DAC & HA | Garage1217.com Project Ember HA | Asus STX DAC & HA | Fiio E12 | iDevices

To get added to my Whatsapp Audiophilia group, PM me!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #188 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Maybe ten years later people will talk about 64-bit 2.8mhz PCM or DSD4096, or some other new formats. 24/96 will become pure crap. Who still cares about Lavry's theory? "Engineers" will write some new papers about why Nyquist's theory is flawed, how the dots are connected, how the XtraFidelityMastaXD format override the difficulties in the past 30 years and so on. Are you prepared to argue with those people and say 96khz+ can cause distortion?
I very much doubt it. You can't repeat this indefinitely, the economies of this exercise are petering out. The hi-res marketing has already become rather shrill, and I would say it reaches fewer and fewer people. Supporting ever higher sampling rates in converter chips is being done because it can be done cheaply with sigma delta converters, not because the market wants it so much; it is merely a different filter configuration in a chip that already oversamples heavily. The infrastructure of dealing with this data in production, distribution and playback is less readily provided. It won't happen for a few crazy people.

I'd say that the hi-res circus is in the process of making a complete ass of itself.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #189 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Audibility aside, this is not true.

The adoption of some digital format has a lot of attributes to success.

1) Consumer benefits
2) Devices availability
3) Good marketing
4) Consumers preferences
5] Prices ...

etc etc.

On the market in 2000's even mp3's with their low quality succeeded because the portability, low prices of devices and lack of storage spaces made them popular.

But really based also on the insights I gathered here the higher sample rates do not improve the consumers overall experience. Slightly better it is with 24 bit audio but also the law of diminishing returns applies here.

I think that in some 10 years technically better format for audio delivery will prevail (especially considering 24 bit audio), although it won't be abxable for majority of consumers.

Edit: not audibility aside (it is the primary goal of Hi-Fi), but in addition to audibility, we can consider...


If you talk about portability, do you mean listen to music in noisy environment like most kinds of vehicles, or on the street with a pair of IEMs? Think about people watching HD videos and playing games on phones with a clumsy external power bank. Do you think it is good portability? I don't know how people in other countries do but here in Hong Kong, a lot of people are doing this. I am not interested in watching HD videos and playing games on phones but I can clearly see the differences of 720p vs 1080p on a 6-inch screen. Of course, better visual quality means more battery power.

If you talk about price, E-MU 1212m with 115dB SNR (loopback) and 24bit 44-192khz support only cost $200 in 2004, in 2005, X-Fi XtremeMusic, unlike Audigy which supports native 44/48/88/96khz with 109dB DAC and 102dB ADC only cost $128, in 2007, Asus Xonar DX with 44-192khz support and 117dB SNR (loopback)...

Audio formats like 24/96 and DSD already have more than 10 years of history (as stated by other members in earlier discussions in this thread). Nowadays placebophiles already talking about 32-bit 768khz PCM and DSD512.

Maybe ten years later people will talk about 64-bit 2.8mhz PCM or DSD4096, or some other new formats. 24/96 will become pure crap. Who still cares about Lavry's theory? "Engineers" will write some new papers about why Nyquist's theory is flawed, how the dots are connected, how the XtraFidelityMastaXD format override the difficulties in the past 30 years and so on. Are you prepared to argue with those people and say 96khz+ can cause distortion?


Unless Nyquist theorem is disproved by physicist it is easy to argue against such trends. Discussion about slightly higher sample rates (48 kHz) was not about declaring Nyquist flawed. Of course 192 SR (oversampling aside) or so is complete overkill.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #190 –
Quote from: techboy on
Can somebody share a situation where 96 DB of dynamic range isn't enough? Unless you imply with 16 bit I won't get 96 DB dynamic range?
There are such situations in production. I don't see any situation that would require more than 16 bit in distribution, unless you think of situations where the distributed material would be processed and manipulated further by the customer, rather than just being played. But that would be an entirely different type of product.

We could use more dynamic range on the top end, i.e. headroom. But that's not what current 24-bit formats provide, the way they are aligned currently.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #191 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Lets continue in PM, please, others will be irritated.
I give up. I have to realize how my signature fits my own smarta**ness...
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #192 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: saratoga on
You can test literally everything if you want.  Seriously.  Think this through. 
Could you, for example, test "whether all people see the colour red the same"?

Provided you define what "the same" means, sure, why not?

You can test literally anything that is real, and even a lot of things that aren't. The color red is absolutely real, so you can test it.  People do this stuff all the time, there is even a field that studies how people see color.

Quote from: Green Marker on
I know you could create an experiment following some version of the scientific method, but whatever it purported to show would be meaningless pseudo-science. Think it through.

This statement does not make sense.  You haven't defined what it is you would be experimenting on, so it is neither science, nor pseudoscience.  It is simply nothing.  Define your experiment fully, and then you can make a determination of what it is you are doing. 

Re: More misinformation

Reply #193 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
People who supposedly understand the science so well (the hydrogenaudio 'authorities') are not shy of quoting scientific findings to back up (or in lieu of) arguments. When seeking to show whether this or that phenomenon is audible, they don't quote the small print that scientific findings are not proof; are temporary and could be overturned tomorrow etc.

This is a pointless complaint.  If people are misunderstanding science, then correct them.  If you cannot or will not correct them, then you are not helping, and should not be posting at all. 

Quote from: Green Marker on
They quote ABX test results and even if they don't always state it explicitly, they seek to imply that (to use a quotation from another field of 'science') "The science is settled". If someone questions the validity of this, then their IQ and level of education are called into question. Literally!

This sounds like sour grapes from someone who lost an argument.  If you had a substantial point, you should make it.  Instead, you are complaining that people think you are not as intelligent as you want them to believe.  I have bad news for you:  complaining that people think you're stupid will not make people think you are smart.  It will make them think you are insecure, and it will lead them to dismiss your future opinions as unintelligent.  This is precisely how you set out to lose an argument and to discredit yourself.  Do not do it. 

Quote from: Green Marker on
Let's look at the technique of ABX testing. What exactly is this supposed to demonstrate?

An ABX test statistically demonstrates with a predefined probability that two things can be distinguished.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote from: Green Marker on
As someone recently pointed out, when we perform any sort of listening test, we are not comparing two sounds, but are, in fact comparing two audio memories. In fact, there is no way for a human to compare two sounds directly at the same moment, so if we think that ABX is achieving this, this can only be a "belief".

ABX testing can only demonstrate statistically that a difference exists with a given probability (never that it does not exist), and if ABX testing succeeds, them memory is not a problem.  It is a test that is never negative, and yet you are complaining about it being negative due to memory effects.  This is a nonsensical complaint that indicates that you misunderstand the purpose of the test. 

Quote from: Green Marker on
http://www.aletheiaaudio.com/Double-Blind-Testing.html

That link makes a foolish argument.  It complains about statistics without understanding them.  It (or you) could have come up with a much better argument by more carefully considering the implications of a statistical test and proceeding from there.  As such, I doubt you will impress anyone with that.

Quote from: Green Marker on
(I guarantee that the hydrogenaudio authorities' first reaction will be to call into question the credentials of the person who wrote the above article linked to, not the substance of it!)

Its not the author's credentials (which I do not know and certainly do not care about), it is his incorrect reasoning that is the problem.   Again, you keep coming back to ad hom arguments, which is not the right thing to do here.  The author's credentials are not important.  He could be a trained monkey on a typewriter or the smartest man alive and it wouldn't change anything.  Instead, look at the content of his argument, which stands or falls (in this case) on its own. 

You seem upset that people do not regard you as intelligent as you want to believe you are.  Have you considered that the content of your posts here may be leading people to those conclusions?  You seem to think you can demand admiration or respect; but in reality it must be earned.  Rather than complain that people consider your ideas poorly thought out, try improving the quality of your arguments. 

Re: More misinformation

Reply #194 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
it could be beneficial for customer to have 24 bit record available.

Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
It is kinda pity that on this forum a "protection" of 16/44.1
While you were in that 17 yr coma, the market kinda aligned that way too.
Care to share your system and what type of music you are finding 16/44 "limitations" with?

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
If they be at same price, I would go for 24 bit FLAC.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas. They aren't the same price.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #195 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
it could be beneficial for customer to have 24 bit record available.



Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
If they be at same price, I would go for 24 bit FLAC.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas. They aren't the same price.

You can PM me.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #197 –
hmm no idea how to search this thread.

Anyone mention Mastered for iTunes yet? It's 24/44.1khz music. Basically what @jumpingjackflash5 was asking for.

<subtle>can't wait for the "it's not lossless" line</subtle>

Re: More misinformation

Reply #198 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You can PM me.
Nope, post your system and music here for all to learn how 24 bits is better than 16

I do not wanna be trashed here again for flooding the forums with my inexperienced opinions. I know that some of my arguments are weak by this forum standards. If there is a strong expressed demand for discussing them and other members also want to I can post them again here, but for now I will stay in PM about why I think 24 bit audio has (subtle and primarily technical) benefits even for some normal customers.

Thank you.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #199 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I know that some of my arguments are weak by this forum standards.
The forum adheres to basic scientific method, so they are not weak "by the forum standards", they are just weak.
I'd rather spare my Inbox from weak nonsense, as I have only interest in audio, not pseudoscience, religion, etc. beliefs.
Didn't you claim to be some sort of scientist?
One last time, specifics of real music and real system where 16/44 is an audible bottleneck?
Loudspeaker manufacturer