I'm wondering if anyone has purposefully created the type of file errors that might possibly be caused by the effects being hypothesized here--and apparently heard by some--when files are ripped to different media.
Would minor file errors lead to the reported effects: loss of soundstage, tonal changes, lack of "dynamism" or "musicality" and so on (note I didn't check past comments for specific words--I think we all know what I mean here)? Or would they result in files that simply can't be read, or show gaps or fuzzballs like you get with badly ripped CD? Anybody study the literature on this? Is there any literature on this?
Seems like this would help get at the question of whether this is even possible.
--Buckapound
Would minor file errors lead to the reported effects: loss of soundstage, tonal changes, lack of "dynamism" or "musicality" and so on (note I didn't check past comments for specific words--I think we all know what I mean here)? Or would they result in files that simply can't be read, or show gaps or fuzzballs like you get with badly ripped CD? Anybody study the literature on this? Is there any literature on this?
Seems like this would help get at the question of whether this is even possible.
--Buckapound
Apparently so - that's why they are not bothered with such trivia 🙂
Now if there was a more meaningful test then maybe more would be interested in doing such. The type of tests you mention appeals to some anally retentive types who don't trust their ears & even if performed to your/their exacting standards, it proves a trivial case!
Last edited:
Since "blind" means "using your ears, not your eyes," I take it that you don't trust your ears. That's fine, but I do trust mine.
Obviously not if you need to do "tests" to prove what you are hearing 🙂 Once you have proved that they sound different, what "test" are you going to use to "prove" that "A" sounds better than "B".
The entire concept of file errors is a red herring. Unrecoverable errors are mostly due to damaged media. At the time i was interested in the subject i did compare an spdif rip to a a file created from EAC. After alignment the two were perfect matches.
You can't 'purposefully' create this type of file errror, because there is no error to create. The files are identical to each other, and the orginal source, in the sense that they have the same checksum and the same bytes of data. This means that any difference must be in metadata or the environment, yet these are not sent to the DAC. Any effect they have would be part of playback, not data, so explicitly excluded from the discussion.
This is the nub of the argument: a data file somehow retains something (allegedly), which once introduced (how?) travels with the file, yet is not part of the file. This something is audible (to some), yet not measurable.
Just to complicate things a little: has anyone tried doing this with different file systems on the same media? That is, partition a disc and put FAT on one part and NTFS on another etc. Any differences would then be clearly arising from metadata. Different physical media might just be a red herring, as different media use different file systems.
Not too worried about that, and it's only useful as a way to keep one's feet on the ground. Sonic memory is pretty short term, but impressions remain. And I mean on a regular basis.. One of my best friends is both an passionate audiophile and a professional (classical) musician - a very rare combination, and he can tell quite quickly when something is not quite right in a system based on his playing experience. (With familiar material) Note that I am not advocating replacing A/B/X and rational science or even contradicting the need for controlled testing - what I am saying is that it is useful to have some idea of what the music you like actually sounds like in the wild. You learn useful things about the artificiality of "imaging," that violins in reality don't always sound silky smooth, that in orchestral pieces the dynamic range is a great deal more than you might be used to. A sense of power that few systems can adequately convey.. And ultimately the futility of trying to capture this at home. Restores a sense of reality that this is supposed to be a pleasurable hobby.. If anyone has an issue with any of this... Relax all in fun... 😀
Edit: I spend about a week a year going to nightly concerts of various types of music, and usually attend the rehearsals as well, but mostly classical, and organ music, and very rarely some chamber music or a small jazz ensemble. During the rest of the year concert attendance is sporadic as I have the opportunity and the music appeals. Until recently I was hearing a lot of old guys playing covers of old rock n' roll (Mustang Sally.. 😛 ) on Friday and Saturday nights, but not at the moment. (Jaded) I hope you have been to concerts more recently than your comments imply.. Sadly those are way too far in the past to be anything but fond memories.. 😀 SY has access to a lot of great music in Austin as I recollect from talking to him..
Last edited:
You tell me! It seems that some people so distrust the placebo effect that they confidently assert something which not only is not true, but cannot be true. Many, but perhaps not all, of them do not seem to understand why what they are claiming cannot be true. However, all attempts to get them to provide hard data in support of their claim have got nowhere. So we have sincerely-believed anecdote vs. confidently-asserted electronics reality.
Last edited:
jkeny,
You find it 'trivial' to prove that there is a difference. Yet, as far as I am aware, all claims to a difference that were examined in a controlled test (in other words, using ears only) were inconclusive, meaning a difference could not be reliably and repeatably established. Which, of course, doesn't mean there isn't any; you cannot prove a negative.
I don't understand the logic of trying to decide which is better if you don't even know if there is a difference at all. Trying to decide which is better only makes sense if you have established clearly that there is a difference in the first place, no?
jan didden
You find it 'trivial' to prove that there is a difference. Yet, as far as I am aware, all claims to a difference that were examined in a controlled test (in other words, using ears only) were inconclusive, meaning a difference could not be reliably and repeatably established. Which, of course, doesn't mean there isn't any; you cannot prove a negative.
I don't understand the logic of trying to decide which is better if you don't even know if there is a difference at all. Trying to decide which is better only makes sense if you have established clearly that there is a difference in the first place, no?
jan didden
It is hard to argue with the facts. This thread makes a very strong case against subjectivism, much as it annoys me to admit it.
Still, not all is lost. Seemingly, many are entirely confused about what they have been listening to, so there may be a touch of placebo but it's mostly ignorance 🙄
Yes, Kevin, don't worry I was only using extreme examples to point up the ridiculous arguments of some objectivists who reject any opinion unless it is backed up by strictly controlled blind testing. I'm sure your musician friend would consider it trite & laughable if this was suggested to him when he points up a flaw that he can "hear". This comes from training one's hearing & I'm not saying that I have trained hearing but I have better abilities at hearing some things than I used to have (once I had trained my hearing to pick these up i.e exposed myself to enough examples).
I agree that there are certain things that are difficult to differentiate & this is where blind testing is needed BUT the insistence on blind testing for the blindingly 🙂 obvious is ridiculous. I'm not contending that the differences here are blindingly obvious & they fall into the "should be tested" class.
I agree that there are certain things that are difficult to differentiate & this is where blind testing is needed BUT the insistence on blind testing for the blindingly 🙂 obvious is ridiculous. I'm not contending that the differences here are blindingly obvious & they fall into the "should be tested" class.
Spock: I love you.
However, I hate you.
Alice: But ...I'm identical in every way with Alice 27.
Spock: Yes, of course. That is exactly why I hate you. Because you are identical.
No Jan, read my post again, I said the result of such a test only proves a trivial case i.e "there's a difference" - a trivial conclusion.
I don't understand the logic of having to prove that there's a difference if you can "definitely hear one" - what does it add to one's enjoyment or is this not what the hobby is about? Based on this and many other threads of a similar ilk this forum is now a place to come for an argument rather than any attempt at sharing of "improvements"! These "improvements" will either be proven by a large group testing them or fall by the wayside - this insistence on ABX testing is a fanatical fundamentalism trait. The fact that most people don't try the suggested improvement (here or in other threads) is testament to this fundamentalism & closed-minded attitude. There is also the same gang that jump on every thread with their demands & you all know who they are!
Last edited:
Over quoting removed.Please do NOT over-quote. Do not quote the entire post just above yours. It is not needed and is simply clutter.
Different is unfortunately binary and provable. Two things are either identical, or not.
Logically, you could only claim that one item is better than another if you can show (prove) they are different in the first instance - and that means different at the point of perception, not back deep in the binary code or anywhere else.
That means listening tests. No other method meets the criteria.
Better is MUCH easier to show as it doesn't require proof - only judgement. Moreover, it will logically vary from listener to listener as we ALL hear differently.
Logically, you could only claim that one item is better than another if you can show (prove) they are different in the first instance - and that means different at the point of perception, not back deep in the binary code or anywhere else.
That means listening tests. No other method meets the criteria.
Better is MUCH easier to show as it doesn't require proof - only judgement. Moreover, it will logically vary from listener to listener as we ALL hear differently.
From previous posts, I'm in agreement with jkeny. I see no reason to have to prove to others that I can hear a difference, regardless of odd questions and the increasing arguments.
My post was to share my own personal findings, with the hope that others my try it for themselves. As everyone hears things differently anyway, not everyone will hear a difference, but some will.
Panomaniac, thanks for the link to the ABX plugin, it's appreciated. If/when I have time next (busy dad) I'll try it out.
My post was to share my own personal findings, with the hope that others my try it for themselves. As everyone hears things differently anyway, not everyone will hear a difference, but some will.
Panomaniac, thanks for the link to the ABX plugin, it's appreciated. If/when I have time next (busy dad) I'll try it out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.