Read this post# 868:
From reading the above, how much certainty is I think I hear differences? It is done a few seconds after download.
And here is post# 1098 BigE was responding to in his quote:
I'm the only one who knows how much differences exist between these 2 computers. And it is BIG. So big that it is equivalent like saying I know that my wife is talking even without seeing her lips. It is so BIG that with all my consciousness I will put my $1000 for your $1 if I possibly made mistake in my judgement.
Remember the Media Player Classic screenshot showing a "broken" screen? That is part of the problem. Video has problem (which is obvious to everyone) as well as audio (which is not obvious to everyone, but obvious to me).
From reading the above, how much certainty is I think I hear differences? It is done a few seconds after download.
And here is post# 1098 BigE was responding to in his quote:
I'm the only one who knows how much differences exist between these 2 computers. And it is BIG. So big that it is equivalent like saying I know that my wife is talking even without seeing her lips. It is so BIG that with all my consciousness I will put my $1000 for your $1 if I possibly made mistake in my judgement.
Remember the Media Player Classic screenshot showing a "broken" screen? That is part of the problem. Video has problem (which is obvious to everyone) as well as audio (which is not obvious to everyone, but obvious to me).
Attachments
No. Delusions may seem real, but they are still delusions.
I once read about a "test" where a switch was installed and marked with two positions: SS and Tube. Two amps were visible, a SS amp and a tube amp. Only the SS amp was functional, although the heaters did glow in the tube amp.
When people switched from SS to tube, and back, they commented how sterile the sound was when switched to SS, and how warm it was in tube mode.
Is that how we should proceed with this hobby? Should we accept people fooling us into believing that what they offer is substantively better without any formal testing process?
At least one group is trying to control companies from misleading the public:
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/11/The-Chord-Company-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_274211.aspx#.VYyzivlVikr
So you were quoting other people words without genuine interest in what those words are saying, only as a vehicle to bring forward your own ideas/opinion which is often unrelated?
BTW, who is hearing differences between two bit perfect streams? A noname? But I don't understand about "position".
But thanks for the English lesson (about the difference between possibility and probability), I hope it is accurate as I wont recheck with wikipedia or wikitheasurus 😉
It seems like I don't belong to that group you're referring?! At least I'm not afraid of blind tests. A few groups had invited me if I could hear the effect of "exotic" stuffs and upgrades. With surprising result 😉
Even preference is not that simple. If people mention what they prefer, without 100% accuracy in picking difference, you can ignore that data.
Even with 100% accuracy in picking difference, preference is only relevant if it refers to other/previous firm experience.
The way I look at it, is the "basic" lesson I have learnt as a beginner, hanging around people with the same audio hobby. There is this "big" mantra called MATCHING...
So it's about the whole chain. If our CD player is BRIGHT, we will prefer our amplifier or speaker to be DULL. That's the concept. Still being used by Stereophile reviewers...
So it doesn't mean that we prefer DULL speaker. Just when we have the option only to change the speaker then that is what we prefer, a DULL one 😀
Same with second order distortion, speaker panel vibration, early reflection, etc. We only care about the "final" result.
And tell me now precisely what this has to do with " one element has a brilliant set of numbers, from one set of technical tests, then it is now 'transparent' "
I never referenced any set of numbers from a technical test, and did not claim anything to be transparent.
Try again. Tell me just how I fit into the mold of how you imagine an objectivist thinks.
Knowledge and understanding computers is not inextricably linked to whatever it is that you think exemplifies "objectivist" thinking. I, for one, do not put a lot of emphasis on the numbers themselves. I do not blindly believe that more is better.
What I do know is that the less interaction, the less bit mangling, that software does to a stream of digital audio, the better. I also know that software bit mangling has far greater potential to degrade audio reproduction than the miniscule (if at all) variations in signal noise inside a PC due to the use of one player as opposed to a different one. And finally, I know that it is a trivial matter to rule out the software bit mangling.
Frank, you can go on and on trying various players and clicking random features on and off again, but until you take steps to ensure that the players are not mangling the bits, the miniscule possibility of different PC "noise patterns" from one player to another remains completely irrelevant.
You won't believe me, of course, or agree, but the difference you are claiming to hear is almost certainly directly due to the fact that the bitstreams from the files are not making it to the audio chip unscathed. Data integrity is not being maintained.
Once this issue is worked out between the OS and player(s), then perhaps it may be worth it to pursue your noise pattern theory. I do suggest investing in some very sensive equipment to put that theory to the test. You are going to need it. And yes, I know this will never happen.
In the meantime, I'm going to buy a cat.
Jay said:
So, if two players are configured to produce bit perfect results, they will sound different?
Its about how perception works - you noticed that right? Or do you think visual perception is something different from audio?
Let me be more clear: What do you think it says about audio? And how does that relate to objective proof (if it does at all)?
Do you wish to persuade people? Then you might begin with the insight that its not logic which persuades, rather reason.
Plenty of books on Amazon explain this, you could do a search on 'persuasion'.
You used the word 'real' in that post but what did you mean by it? If you'd explain that then perhaps I can tie up between your explanation and what Hoffman's saying.
You suggested false dichotomy as if you knew what you were talking about. And you directed me to Hoffman. I want to know how Hoffman's talk supports your idea.
Are you thinking that SY wouldn't have taught her well on logic?? Just teach her gently, she might have interest in different subject...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.