Oh my, over 30 years of digital audio and still talking about this silly argument?
30 years? More like 80. And the silly argument continues as long as people believe their subjective perceptions are more accurate and reliable than all the scientific research - an issue we will probably never be able to solve.
Have you yourself tried blinded listening or anyone else tried? I have never seen stats, graphs, or any kind of research that confirms your theory? Only statements?!?
You are right with this. No doubt the computer produces a lot of voltage noise. Just in no way can you affect this by software in a CONSISTENT manner. Especially not to produce the "reported" changes - stronger bass, more pronounced mids, etc. That would require intelligent filtering of the samples, not some random events of noise.
Often ground loops are main culprit of audible issues, class I grounded PC with huge currents (tens of amperes peaks) running through thin earth traces of the multiple-layer motherboard are extremely prone to this notorious problem. Ground loops are actually rather difficult to fight with consumer hardware (amps with single-ended inputs only yet designed as grounded class I devices, USB DACs without USB isolators, etc.).
Of course I have tried blinded testing, e.g. my old Tool for A/B Testing | Blog IVITERA a.s. .
That is not my theory, it is a regular scientific procedure ABX test - Wikipedia . In fact it is common sense. Everyone has many times experienced how his senses are easy to get confused by our thoughts. You have to get rid of that influence. How? The easiest is by not knowing - hence the blind test.
Anyone can say this and bring this on as proof. I can say it as well and bring it on as proof don’t I?
bottom line: the 32 and 64 sound like they have an upper mid hump with rolled off highs. (on my computer, in my system, with my ears). Only the RT sounds "normal", which is a godsend, because I thought I was going to have to scrap the whole thing and start using another system. My only gripe at this point is how buggy the RT version is for me with numerous reinstalls, etc. The latest bug this week is having to restart it every day when I get home because my remote ui says it can't find the page. (perhaps a wifi issue now, since "Daphile" oddly shows up in my available networks while this problem is occurring. Now, if that's all just expectation bias so be it... but really the only expectation I ever had was the dumb thing to just work.
The difference is that phofman is not claiming something that goes against half a century of scientific research and understanding. It is only extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.
Okay, but where is the scientific research..., trusted blind testing reports and so on that prooves it is not possible? Show them please!
It is only extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.
We don't need to prove "it is not possible" with every random claim. It is up to the claimant to provide proof for the claim when it goes against established scientific understanding.
You say "we", do I understand you count yourself into the group of established science? Hahaha
You say "we", do I understand you count yourself into the group of established science? Hahaha
That was what they taught me at university, and that is what I have learned to respect in my (mostly technical) work career. OK, electrical engineering is of course only applied science, but I have had the pleasure and honour to work with some really good research scientists. How about you?
I cannot believe it, it's not scientifical! It's is called blinded
taking of evidence. Show some prudentials!
Yes, for me enough proof of a Lack of Humor. Thank you for this demonstration
We indeed seem to have a failure to appreciate humor here. Lighten up, it's Friday!
I don't want to argue, I just want you to remember 2 questions I asked you, a while ago:
1. For what reason did Kipeta develop a RT-version?
2. Reports, stats, graphs on the ABX tests you say you made
3. Another one comes into my mind: A doctor's declaration of your ears being in good functioning health? I do not mean to offend you, why should I, but do you see the ridiculousness of furnishing arguments with scientific proof as is!
You have to ask him. I already gave my hints in a previous post.
I made a few ABXs with negative results. Did I make any claims publicly to support with positive ABX results? Why should I supply any charts?
You seem to fail understand the argument. YOU are the one claiming YOU hear it, YOU are the one bringing the proof so that we can take your claim seriously. My ears are not those who claim to hear it.
Waste of time discussing with you.
You say you don't want to argue, so... Let's say you walk into a pub, and start a discussion by stating "the earth is flat!". Someone responds with "What makes you say that?", and you answer "Because I see it with my own eyes". If the person responds with "no, it isn't, it's round", and you counter with "Can you prove that? And can I see an opthoalmologist's declaration that your eyes are in good functioning health?"
Can you see how that discussion could go rapidly downhill?