[bigshot]

I was actually thinking about the differences in mastering the other day. I ordered a bunch of CDs of Procol Harum and The Move that were remastered by Cherry Red (UK) and Esoteric (Japan) and while I was waiting for them to cross the ponds, I listened to a couple of the albums on Amazon and Apple. They sounded good, but when the CDs arrived, they sounded considerably better. Since they are boutique labels from other countries, their mastering isn't available on streaming. It just drove home how you can't generalize about what format sounds best. It's going to be different depending on the mastering used, which can be one thing on one streaming service and something else on a CD.... or vice versa.

 

[theveterans]

Yep! Remasters without disclosing that it’s a remaster release can either ruin or make the track sound better: the former is the more common one in many cases

 

[bigshot]

I find that remasters on CD are usually better. The purpose of CDs is different than it used to be. Most folks don’t rip their own MP3s any more, so CDs are being mastered to play on players in living room systems now. Not as a source for tracks to be played on shuffle.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Why do you "push the message" here ?

You know that what you say is contrary to science and you have nothing to support your message except you hear stuff.

Nobody has any objection to you having beliefs about audio that differ to theirs but this isn't the place to try and get people to your way of thinking without robust data to back up your assertions, which of course you don't have. That then comes back to the classic audiophile stance of "I know what I hear" and from there we have this merry go round of conversation that is going nowhere.

Would you guys "accept" that i put my personal expierence into spoilers from now on and keep the non-spoiler talk objective? i mean i get it that you mainly wanna talk objective around here but you guys have to admit its hard keep personal expierence seperated from the equation

Spoiler: Non-Scientific

Your bags of minerals on cables. You said it makes a difference. Where is the science that backs that up ? You believe hear a difference but you also know that you can perceive sound differences that don't even exist and yet you choose to believe the vague concept that science can't explain it rather than accept that it might be faulty perception. That is an utterly foreign mindset to me which is why this conversation is pointless, I literally don't understand how you extend the knowledge you have to the conclusion you do, to me that is utterly irrational, and yet you are far from alone.

Well for me the crystal jorney hovers mostly around piezoelectric crystals (and other crystals that have propertys like this, ferroelectric one of them), i got this from a german forum where someone advertised ferrite cables https://shop.proaudiogear.de/Eupen-EMC/COM-Ferrit-Filterkabel-3x1qmm-Meterware and they had a nice impact which can be kinda replicated if you put like 5-10 ferrite clamps on a standard power cable
Then i think it was the same person coming up with tourmaline filled RCA plugs
of course nothing backed up by anything but people heared a difference, the only logical conclusion here is the piezoelectric characteristics which basicly can transfer electricity (noise, from the grounded rca plug) into heat, tho to what actual degree? i dont know, i kinda see them as fancy RCA endcaps and you can easly DIY them for a few bucks (and the person on the forum just made a tutorial how todo them, there was no incentive to sell those...)
tho later on because of the grounding box thread here i also noticed there are actual perceived differences if you put crystals on vibrating surfaces like your speakers and on hifi device
grounding "boxes" with cables i kinda avoid because of the antenna effect that amir measured with one grounding box...
"real snake oil" is for me overprived stuff to make quick buck, but i can hardly say im biased or whatever about a 10euro rca plug

 

[bigshot]

If you're asking for suggestions, I'd suggest going back to the other parts of Head Fi until you chill out.

 

[Ghoostknight]

If you're asking for suggestions, I'd suggest going back to the other parts of Head Fi until you chill out.

luckily (for you) i havent asked for suggestions

 

[BS5711]

Would you guys "accept" that i put my personal expierence into spoilers from now on and keep the non-spoiler talk objective? i mean i get it that you mainly wanna talk objective around here but you guys have to admit its hard keep personal expierence seperated from the equation

Unfortunately it seems that everything you say is just personal experience and perceptions which you are trying to convince others to take seriously.

If you put everything in a spoiler you might as well say nothing, which is of course another option, it would be equally productive.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Unfortunately it seems that everything you say is just personal experience and perceptions which you are trying to convince others to take seriously.

Others can do what they want with them.... still

If you put everything in a spoiler you might as well say nothing, which is of course another option, it would be equally productive.

alright, i will leave the spoiler out...

 

[bigshot]

This guy just wants attention.

 

[castleofargh]

@Ghoostknight.
First, congrats, you managed to make another thread go off-topic to fuel your personal vendetta. You must be so proud.


A scientific approach often consists of having an idea, then tests to see if we can disprove that idea. In very many cases, even when a model for how things happen can be developed and seems to work quite well, we don't know why for a fact(as in we have not proved it or don't know how to).

Now a random guy's approach is to have an idea, decide he's right for no valid reason, come up with a why, also decide it is the cause for his "correct" idea. He then proceeds to go tell people how right he is while using his why to validate his idea.
The total amount of evidence is possibly zero. The amount of evidence for causality between the idea and the why is also possibly zero. But the guy has constructed a rational in his head that seems fine enough to him, to create a belief that it's all real, and that he's right about it. In so many words, he has invented a rational to agree with himself.

Most people will find it obvious why the random guy's approach is much less credible than the scientific approach. One side challenges its own idea and requires demonstration(several), while the other is self validating and offers no proof whatsoever.
We all have more confidence in the objective approach, except when the random guy is us!!!!! Did the facts change? Did the amount of evidence change? No. The only thing that changes is that when it's us, our ego gets in the way of logical thinking.
There is no arguing for ego. There is no debating illogical arguments. And how do we remove the emotional ego from the experiment? But of course, with the scientific method.

Stop making excuses, stop posting strawman arguments. Check out goldensound's vid on blind testing. It's one guy doing one test with one method on one system. It's the definitive answer to nothing. Maybe there's a flaw in his test, maybe he does have unusually good hearing, maybe... And yet his test does more to suggest differences than years of opinionated empty-handed guys like you, who ironically get mad when we don't take their ego as proof of something.
If you want to prove something, do it. Just making shiiit up is pushing everybody's patience.

 

[bigshot]

He really isn't worth that many words.

 

[gregorio]

your "facts" are reliably (reliably probably means lower ) proofable audible thresholds (by who knows who), nothing more, stop the false marketing bull

No, “reliably” means higher in that context and it was “proofable” by numerous professional scientists and engineers, in controlled environments with tens of thousands of subjects all over the world for around a century, ranging from very young children, to professional listeners, audio engineers, musicians, students of all ages, older people, audiophiles and members of the general public. So “nothing more” is sufficient, what human beings fall outside any of these categories?

Tho, i dont mess around that much with it, just recently again, but yea also this can make a difference, but one has to be open minded about it, i know its hard to accept other opinions then your own guys
Just surprised how much of a cult feeling all this has...

Yep, we are “not open minded about it” for exactly the same reason that we’re not open minded that the earth is flat, that 1+1=3 or that pink unicorns are real and yes it is very hard for sane/rational people to “accept other opinions” such as these, thankfully!

If someone hints to a text that says in this science forum personal opinions are forbidden, link me those and im gone,

You mean some text apart from the actual name of this forum? There isn’t such a text because it’s assumed visitors went to school, learnt what the word “science” means and therefore have a basic understanding of what is acceptable in a “Sound Science” discussion forum as opposed to a “Sound Personal Opinion” forum.

I presume, as you’re already here and it’s in bold near the top of every page, that you don’t need a link to “Sound Science”? I won’t hold my breath that you’ll go though, because you’ve proved numerous times that your assertions are BS!

but i dont feel like needing to give in to the crap talk just because i have a different opinion than you guys

But you have given in to the crap talk, your own crap talk because you don’t even know the difference between “science” and a “different opinion”!

also i hear with MP3 vs FLAC the most difference in bass, it might be more revealing to listen on full range speakers.

The most difference is actually in the treble but don’t let the facts get in the way of yet another BS assertion based on nothing but your deluded hearing and mediocre HiFi. After all, it wasn’t scientists/engineers who invented MP3 or FLAC, they were invented by unicorns living on a flat earth who don’t have human hearing or full range speakers! lol

G

 

[Ghoostknight]

The most difference is actually in the treble but don’t let the facts get in the way of yet another BS assertion based on nothing but your deluded hearing and mediocre HiFi. After all, it wasn’t scientists/engineers who invented MP3 or FLAC, they were invented by unicorns living on a flat earth who don’t have human hearing or full range speakers! lol

As you "may" have noticed, i wrote " i hear the most difference in bass ", it was an opinion yet again , i know these damn opinions are hard to spot between all the "facts"

You guys hang yourself up on my opinions, thats not my fault, even if a topic goes off topic then...

 

[VNandor]

maybe im part of the audiophile cult because " i push the message " with writing my own opinion but honestly i believe i lie somewhere in the middle because i dont deny science completely... there are things to gain from "both cults", tho honestly i feel like i dont wanna be part of any one of them, this just makes you close-minded IMHO

Dude, you put rocks on top of your DAC hoping to improve their sound. This is the audio equivalent of healing crystals and homeopathy. You are not "somewhere in the middle" you're gone off the deep end. This is not being open minded, this is just being extremely gullible.

There's a decades old satirical website that came up with/collected some of the most delusional ideas, including putting crystals on top of your electronics for "improvements". It used to be a joke like 20 years ago and for any sane person it still is.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Dude, you put rocks on top of your DAC hoping to improve their sound. This is the audio equivalent of healing crystals and homeopathy. You are not "somewhere in the middle" you're gone off the deep end. This is not being open minded, this is just being extremely gullible.

There's a decades old satirical website that came up with/collected some of the most delusional ideas, including putting crystals on top of your electronics for "improvements". It used to be a joke like 20 years ago and for any sane person it still is.

you can bash the topic as much you want "because it doesnt make sense to you", i wrote the theory into a spoiler a few posts ago, funny enough the spoiler is tagged "non-scientific" even as it is, pretty sure that this is measureable if you know how to, so to say "it doesnt make sense at all" is far off from "i dont believe it makes a overall sound improvement ", and with the second quote we land again in the usual regions of audiophiles hearing a difference and objectivist dont "because it doesnt make sense to them and objectivists are actually more biased than anyone else..."

But i guess the crystal topic is the perfect attack area for you guys