Skip to main content
Topic: K2 HD is the new crap around? (Read 2979 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #50
What do you hope to accomplish with this?  This about what you think and how you came about getting there.  This was never about what others can do.

So...

At 4 minutes to conduct 10 trials I wouldn't say you can honestly claim the version you didn't like as well as being crap.

What excuses you are gonna give now?
I don't agree with ABX tests for the reasons already explained, but did it any way and pass. Not enough, you asked me to repeat the test again with your samples, altered by your standards, by your "rules", by the way you felt it should be done, and I pass it, again.

This is not about what "I think", but what I can hear and you people can't, simple as that. This doesn't make me special in any way, again, people are different, there is a lot of variables to make this possible, with the proper training, years of experience it only show that I've proof my point. If I only took 4 min, so what?
I've training and expertize in the field, I know what to look for.

You know what, is pointless to try to have a conversation, I did your way didn't I? Be a man, have the balls to admit it (I'm a woman by the way), I really can hear what I say I can.
Good luck to you, I'll not return to this forum anymore.
Bye.

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #51
And you still don't seem to get it.

Process in drilling down to a scientifically valid way to get to the truth was all this ever was.  I'm sorry you decided to make this a pissing contest.

I'm happy that you were willing to perform a more controlled test and, despite what you might think, I'm also pleased that you passed.  However it would be a bit silly if you came away from this strongly believing that a slightly more compressed version over an already compressed version is utter garbage.  To me the distortion in this tiny snippet is audible in either case.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #52
Foobar sound like shit
Now you're just taking the piss (I think I'm using the term properly).
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #53

Looking at that picture it may describe adding reconstructed harmonics.
I find myself sometimes liking this effect.
It may be the difference on the Rob Wasserman album i mentioned earlier that seems to have no additional compression.
I will try to offer some samples if interest is there.

I have a hard time to abx anything at the PC since i have a new board and only the generic Realtek onboard chip. Everything sounds slightly distorted. The 1dB difference is no problem but most other things are.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #54
Quote
Process in drilling down to a scientifically valid way to get to the truth was all this ever was.  I'm sorry you decided to make this a pissing contest.

I'm happy that you were willing to perform a more controlled test and, despite what you might think, I'm also pleased that you passed.  However it would be a bit silly if you came away from this strongly believing that a slightly more compressed version over an already compressed version is utter garbage.  To me the distortion in this tiny snippet is audible in either case.

As reluctant as I am in getting near pissing contests without a good raincoat, I just wanted to make two comments.

First, I've been reading HA for a long time, and this topic is exactly the reason why--to learn about these things.  Should I buy a K2HD product?  How does it work?  Is it "better"?  Although the OP's attitude towards debate and inquiry was regrettable, I have to thank him or her for bringing it up.  I wish the discussion had been even more productive.  The topic of visual representations of sound, whether by waveform or spectrograph, and how they do or not translate into audibility, is one that I would like to see more of--less the combativeness and the assumptions that many tend to make.

Second, reducing the debate to disputing a characterization such as "utter garbage" is not helpful.  The OP called K2HD "crap" and other things, Greynol points out that the differences are small.  I would opine that K2HD, at least in this small example, is indeed "utter garbage" and the fact that the end product of this wonderful process is only marginally worse than the original just proves that point.  Those of us who are audio hobbyists are continually bombarded with new products that purport to improve our sound and those products can be worthwhile, unnecessary, worthless, ludicrous or even detrimental.  Anything in the last two categories that is falsely marketed as beneficial will get an enthusiastic "UG" rating from me.  And reading HA is one thing that helps me root out the trash.  That and 6moons.

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #55
I always though this forum was mainly about audio.
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum. :))


Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #57
Quote
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum.

Nothing strange about it.  Representing audio or any signal visually in various ways is neither new or controversial.  I think the appropriate discussion is correlating observations of those visual representations with specific audible effects instead of making unwarranted assumptions about how they may sound.  ABX testing to see whether they are even audible at all is a start, but I think there's much more to be had. 



Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #58
Quote
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum.
  
Nothing strange about it.  Representing audio or any signal visually in various ways is neither new or controversial.  I think the appropriate discussion is correlating observations of those visual representations with specific audible effects instead of making unwarranted assumptions about how they may sound.  ABX testing to see whether they are even audible at all is a start, but I think there's much more to be had.
 
 Thankfully, people with such mindset don't last long over here (or simply don't bother coming back) than they do in your run-of-the-mill audiophool/pseudo scientific forum - where such attitudes are ovbiously not only encouraged, but also find a fertile ground to thrive and spread bullshit all over our beloved Google search results.
Listen to the music, not the media.
Qualidade em MP3

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #59
As reluctant as I am in getting near pissing contests without a good raincoat, I just wanted to make two comments.
You'd only need a raincoat if you wanted to challenge others to perform a listening test seemingly to make it look like you have superior listening skills.  Then act as if this superiority justified making highly exaggerated claims about the audible difference.

First, I've been reading HA for a long time, and this topic is exactly the reason why--to learn about these things.  Should I buy a K2HD product?  How does it work?  Is it "better"?
Feel free to start a discussion asking these questions.  This topic was never about that.  Read the first post.

 
The topic of visual representations of sound, whether by waveform or spectrograph, and how they do or not translate into audibility
Unless you believe that >22kH can come from CDDA or that the application of dynamic range compression is a necessary result of K2HD mastering then these images could be used to make an argument one way or another. Again, the original post does not set the topic up in this way.  It wasn't until post #21 that the discussion addressed one (bogus) aspect of the K2HD process, which was presented to justify a claim that the product sounded like crap. It was not presented in order to have a meaningful discussion on differences in audibility. How could it have?

I would opine that K2HD, at least in this small example, is indeed "utter garbage" and the fact that the end product of this wonderful process is only marginally worse than the original just proves that point.
I see nothing here to suggest that DRC is a direct and necessary result of the K2HD process. Without that criteria in place I don't see how you can use this as a means to jump to that conclusion.  While I doubt one will easily find it, given the penchant to use DRC, a K2HD title without additional DRC compared to other releases would shoot that argument down in flames.  I don't think it reasonable to draw the conclusion that K2HD must employ additional DRC, however. The fact that two versions released as K2HD have differing amounts of DRC doesn't exactly play well if one were to argue that additional DRC comes directly from K2HD process.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #60
https://mymentalage.com/new
btw I don't recommend this test, it looks biased. It said I'm about twice as old as I actually are, probably because I simply don't approve Apple products for example (why they are even there in questions lol). Also about half of the questions simply could not have an acceptable answer (esp. the one with political views) so one needs to really think which answer is the closest one.

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #61
https://mymentalage.com/new
  btw I don't recommend this test, it looks biased. It said I'm about twice as old as I actually are, probably because I simply don't approve Apple products for example (why they are even there in questions lol). Also about half of the questions simply could not have an acceptable answer (esp. the one with political views) so one needs to really think which answer is the closest one.
 
 I know! I just meant it as a way to treat someone who's obviously taking the piss (the Foobar comment does it, IMO) with the same kind of "scientific approach" they have been using so far! :))
Listen to the music, not the media.
Qualidade em MP3

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #62

I'm not saying that DBT is not important,it is, but you can't rely only on them to make decisions because our brains it's not binary, A or B, 1 or 0, our brain has too many variables to account for.
Here is Paul McGowan to share some light on the issue, the guy is CEO of PS Audio and share the same opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2MsscuBnM


Jeez, no.  Just stop.

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #63
What do you hope to accomplish with this?  This about what you think and how you came about getting there.  This was never about what others can do.

So...

At 4 minutes to conduct 10 trials I wouldn't say you can honestly claim the version you didn't like as well as being crap.

What excuses you are gonna give now?
I don't agree with ABX tests for the reasons already explained, but did it any way and pass. Not enough, you asked me to repeat the test again with your samples, altered by your standards, by your "rules", by the way you felt it should be done, and I pass it, again.

This is not about what "I think", but what I can hear and you people can't, simple as that. This doesn't make me special in any way, again, people are different, there is a lot of variables to make this possible, with the proper training, years of experience it only show that I've proof my point. If I only took 4 min, so what?
I've training and expertize in the field, I know what to look for.

You know what, is pointless to try to have a conversation, I did your way didn't I? Be a man, have the balls to admit it (I'm a woman by the way), I really can hear what I say I can.
Good luck to you, I'll not return to this forum anymore.
Bye.

Your complaint was to the effect that 'K2HD sounds like garbage', which would imply there's something *intrinsic* to the K2HD mastering process that turns the audio to audible 'garbage'. What you've shown of the K2HD process, from promo literature,  is merely that it involves nonsensical 'restoration' of  nonaudible frequencies, which is not a thing that would audibly matter. Unless dynamic range compression -- severe, not mild -- is an intrinsic part of the K2HD mastering process, there's nothing you've shown that indicates K2HD processing itself is turning audio to garbage.  IOW, it's almost certainly just the usual mastering choice to compress the dynamic range.   It may in fact be part of the K2HD workflow, but there's nothing special about that, it's part of most mastering workflows these days.  And being able to ABX two different masterings is not rocket science.   Nor does it prove your point.  A proper test would be to take a CD recording, and apply either 1) the 'high frequency reconstruction' that K2HD claims to use  , or 2) the same dynamic range compression that was used in the 'garbage' version versus the less compressed version*.  Then ABX the original versus the processed, in a level-matched, time synched way.  ABX'ing (2) would not be a heroic achievement, btw.  It would give you a basis for saying why you preferred one versus the other.


Your idea about ABX and foobar2k are similarly malformed.


*Leaving aside too the strong likelihood of  EQ differences ion the audible range, between the versions you showed, beyond DR tweaking. Which is again standard, not anything special to K2HD.


Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #64
I simply can’t see how such a subtle difference can separate utter garbage from not utter garbage.  I find it elitist as well as intellectually dishonest.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #65
Just my opinion.. K2HD and MQA are gimmicks.

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #66
Oh by the way...
I want a log from you guys too. ;)

Ps: Equal or better.
Just for completeness.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.4.1
2018-11-16 05:42:34

File A: 1.flac
SHA1: dc50b0ddae78a86a8bba8cd9971a7ef8ef0848ed
File B: 2.flac
SHA1: 8ebb615cbbabeef02a278808c2891c2484681520

Output:
DS : Primärer Soundtreiber
Crossfading: NO

05:42:34 : Test started.
05:42:54 : 01/01
05:43:17 : 02/02
05:43:31 : 03/03
05:43:44 : 04/04
05:43:59 : 05/05
05:44:09 : 06/06
05:44:26 : 07/07
05:44:38 : 08/08
05:44:53 : 09/09
05:45:07 : 10/10
05:45:19 : 11/11
05:45:28 : 12/12
05:45:28 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 12/12
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
aa75e0f06a7eb0a595eaaf2ce1ba56f3e46ad2e1
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #67
Which sample did you like best?

Would you say that it is not crap but the other sample is?
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

 

Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?

Reply #68
Fill in any audiophile buzzword you like...
In the end i can't hear any more quality with one over the other but perceive a slight difference in loudness :)
The HD 590 headphones sound slightly distorted to me with everything on my Asus Prime no matter what EQ i try. It may be the audiophile capacitors they use or the 1220 Realtek simply has not enough juice without additional OP amps.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018