Agreed he hears quite well.
There is a problem though, which is his claim about digital files changing sound even though they are bit-identical. That physically can't happen, files don't exist in the same way physical objects do. Files might playback with sound affected by where they are stored, but that would be a quirk of the hardware doing the storing and moving bits around, not something that is particular to the files themselves if they are stored somewhere else or copied. Don't know if you know enough about files to know that, hopefully you do.
Last edited:
Well I have heard the statement that ‘digital is digital’ , you know ....Ones and zeros and nothing should change that between storage and playback.
But experiences dictate there is indeed differences between different digital gear regarding sq, but as far as changing the sound within the same gear my response to that would be it is an electrical device after all..... I would call it plausible, in fact I think I even picked up on a difference in one of his test files, what the difference actually was I have no clue as I did not implement it. Iirc it was a demonstration of his goop, which I also find plausible.....I mean who’d of thought a rock would be critical to picking up a radio frequency?
But experiences dictate there is indeed differences between different digital gear regarding sq, but as far as changing the sound within the same gear my response to that would be it is an electrical device after all..... I would call it plausible, in fact I think I even picked up on a difference in one of his test files, what the difference actually was I have no clue as I did not implement it. Iirc it was a demonstration of his goop, which I also find plausible.....I mean who’d of thought a rock would be critical to picking up a radio frequency?
Files are information encoded in bits, 1's and 0's. There is nothing physical about the information itself. You could print out the pattern of 1's and 0's onto a piece of paper then type it back into to your cell phone by hand. If you copy the pattern exactly without any mistakes then you have copied all there is. Same pattern means exact same information.
If the information is about how to play back a sound, then the information would be sent to a DAC to be turned into a sound. If the DAC is imperfect then the sound may change (and all DACs are imperfect). Or, if the bit pattern changed because you made a typing error then the sound would change. There is nothing else, that's all there is to it (in very brief form).
If the information is about how to play back a sound, then the information would be sent to a DAC to be turned into a sound. If the DAC is imperfect then the sound may change (and all DACs are imperfect). Or, if the bit pattern changed because you made a typing error then the sound would change. There is nothing else, that's all there is to it (in very brief form).
It's just not that easy when using digital data for real time sound reproduction; while there is no "ghost in the data" which means bit identical information played back in _exactly_ the same way will lead to the same soundfield.
But if the bit identical information is played back via physically different paths or by different software, audible differences are still possible.
It is quite difficult to find out if at a remote location everything works as intended, so one should not dismiss audible differences per se.
But the reason will not be found in the bit identical data.
It's the interface between the loudspeaker and the room.
You don't have to prove claims you post on the forum. However, you will be taken accordingly by others.
Still no apology after falsely accusing me of doing something that I didn't?In other news...... It’ll be ok EH
I’d also like to add that I have no superior hearing skills but do like to think a lifetime of honing listening skills should at least qualify an opinion.
Backing up an opinion with evidence would be a good qualifier, i.e., claiming that "The fact that you’ve brainwashed yourself into thinking there’s no difference in sound between amplifiers..." then following up with a quote of qualifying post, which you
In your own universe but not in the industry standard definition.
Try to lead by example; you owe me an apology for claims about my posts on different forums.
It is my impression that Tournesol was writing about the complete "thing" overall, starting from recording of an original sound event and ending with reproducing it in a listening room (or via headphones/in-ears).
I'd be surprised to learn that an "industry standard definition" exists for that, but anyway, most people I know indeed prefer to listen to something pleasurable and rate the emotional response quite high.
This is interesting, for many it seems music is defined as pleasurable, but what does that mean and does it only apply to music or all art forms, is music somehow different?
I quoted your own posts made on Hydrogenaudio forum. You are still in denial, of course for the interest of your audio business.
Your impression indeed and you are the one in audio business.
This is why your input is useless. You "know very little" but it "certainly might make a difference".
So it makes a difference in audio but word files can be carried dozens of different ways and copied hudreds of times and not lose a bit. Wake up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.