Implied in posts 965, 986, 990, 992, 997 (to post a few). Those become senseless if you don't believe that you can measure what we hear.
dave
dave
I think I'd rather more say you can believe otherwise. Almost every other thing you talk about around here sounds more like your own hifi belief system rather than solid science anyway.
Then throwing the old 'lo-fi' 'medium-fi', chestnut around isn't going to win you any favours either.
I don't care what my friends listen to as long as they are happy with it, I listen to compressed music when it's necessary. I only used MP3 as an example codec, you can replace that with any other lossy codec that you wish. The point is at a high enough bit rate, with still plenty of actual data being thrown away, you cannot distinguish it between the original. And even if, playing devils advocate, lets say you can just about hear differences, they are tiny. If were we so far away from being able to quantify what = good sound, lossy codecs would sound utterly terrible, that's if these night and day differences people spout off about are to be believed.
By the way Dave, what system do you use that can easily let you discern the differences between a high bit rate lossy codec and something lossless?
I have a DAC for you.
Abbingdon Music Research - Products - Digital Processor-777
These guys hired the original TDA1541 designer to extend the tech to 24 bits… this uses essentially a 24/192 TDA1541
dave
Neither do i. I do care about what i listen to, and i will give my friends the opportunity to see if their happiness level can be increased. You often don't know what you are missing until you experience it.
dave
Currently, macMini with PureMusic into TC Firewire DAC (via modestly prices after market cable -- i was surprised it made a small but positive improvement over all the ones i have to connect HDs) into MooseFET pre, driving Pass ACA monoblocks and a pair of µMar-Ken5.2 with EnABLed drivers.
Core front end remains pretty much the same, amps on subject to change.
How much if any difference is highly dependent on the quality of the underlying recording.
dave
Unless I'm missing something vital here it looks like you're reading into AMR's blurb something that's not there. This product contains two DACs - one for handling hires, the other is a TDA1541A but that's limited to 16bits and intended to replay RBCD.
Very cool but out of my budget, I would rather buy a dynavector xxmk2 or ortofon cadenza for my already capable turntable.
I can't believe that they use a 'tube' for the outputs, a simple regulated transistor circuit sounds with so much fidelity and details.
I'm not reading any of the blurb, i am going by what one of the designers said elsewhere.
dave
Yup but the nice thing here is that you can pick the test tracks to try that with, so at your leisure.
I wouldn't exactly call most of your systems components neutral towards the goal of hi fidelity, nor is it capable of covering the enter audio band. It looks more like something you've put together to provide you with aural kisses rather than presenting the music (ie what's on the recorded medium) in all it's (un)glory.
Still to each his own. I'm not knocking anyone who approaches his system with the goal of making something that sounds 'nice' just that it is considerably different from those of us who put their systems together with the overall goal being complete accuracy.
I've reread those and still don't see what made you want to ask me for my "evidence that we can measure tells us how good things sound" and " solid DBT".
I've asked you what sound people can hear that cannot be measured. Still no answer from you, just like those poster I've seen on other forums.
I've reread those and still don't see what made you want to ask me for my "evidence that we can measure tells us how good things sound" and " solid DBT".
I've asked you what sound people can hear that cannot be measured. Still no answer from you, just like those poster I've seen on other forums.
How might I measure higher order modes generated in horns and waveguides? Folk hear them and even "correct" for them.
The system is quite neutral (not as neutral as the "big" system) and is very much full range -- i left off the dual push-push 10" subs under test as i am not sure that the active XO i put into service is transparent enuff to allow for pulling off IDing compressed tunes. Without the XO it is.
dave
Well, you're being lied to then. This thing uses a TDA1541 for 16/44.1 and something else off-the-shelf for anything higher.
An unnecessarily cynical deduction from the evidence. Could be that Dave simply misunderstood what was being said, or perhaps mis-remembered.
The excerpt of ITU-R BS.1116-3 does indeed cover a situation quite similar to that, which you´ve described above. So there is still some work to do before one should accept "null results" (i.e. means that the null hypothesis could not be rejected) and i´d add some positive controls to check, but in the end i agree, there is accumulated knowledge even in the case of negative results.
Otoh would you´he described is imo not the usual case, ist it?
Could you cite some well documented tests in which that happened?
You should (at least sometimes 🙂 ) consider another possibility; i´was asking because i looked it up (again, after being puzzled by your assertion) and still don´t get, in which way i should have constructed a straw man.
No way. Let me restate it, if it is a hypothesis test (which it is), then the null hypothesis will be that the result could be quite likely occur due to random guessing.
Given the level of significance the experimenters has choosen before, he can decide to reject the null hypothesis or to _not_ reject the null hypothesis.
And that leads to the two possible errors:
to reject the null hypothesis, although the null hypothesis is in fact true
or
to not reject the null hypothesis, although the null hypothesis is in fact wrong.
This "so" violates the rules of logic... 😉 An example was already given.
You were talking about "properly done" tests and wrt that description these are lacking; btw the amp one is old news.
(With all due respect, as my spanish is way too rusty and babblefish doesn´t help really...)