[Yuri Korzunov]

Perhaps that 97% is the result of marketing and adverts for sports cars.

I don't thought about the topic same way.

Same thing for overpriced boutique DACs, perhaps 97% of audiophiles believe they can hear the difference. Never underestimate the power of imagination.

I'd replace "belive" word to "hear".
I suppose, that people who "hear" (subjective approach), that one unit's sound better other unit's sound, are not more trusting to ads, than people who "like numbers" (objective approach).
If somebody "hear", that sound better, it is not result of advertizing always.

As developer, I rely to numbers only. Because, it is base, that may be used for further dialog and control of results.
However, numbers are nothing without accounting of psychoacoustics. And the psychoacoustics may be changed with time.
Also "subjective" perception of better sound in unbelievable case (from objective point of view) may have pure technical reasons. Bugs, as example.

I'd use both approaches (subjective and objective) for checking of results two ways.

 

[StanD]

I don't thought about the topic same way.



I'd replace "belive" word to "hear".
I suppose, that people who "hear" (subjective approach), that one unit's sound better other unit's sound, are not more trusting to ads, than people who "like numbers" (objective approach).
If somebody "hear", that sound better, it is not result of advertizing always.

As developer, I rely to numbers only. Because, it is base, that may be used for further dialog and control of results.
However, numbers are nothing without accounting of psychoacoustics. And the psychoacoustics may be changed with time.
Also "subjective" perception of better sound in unbelievable case (from objective point of view) may have pure technical reasons. Bugs, as example.

I'd use both approaches (subjective and objective) for checking of results two ways.

I don't listen to crickets.

 

[StanD]

Perhaps that 97% is the result of marketing and adverts for sports cars. Same thing for overpriced boutique DACs, perhaps 97% of audiophiles believe they can hear the difference. Never underestimate the power of imagination.

yep probably just placebo

Guided by chatter of the forum mobs, the adverts making the usual unusual claims, more bits are better, special filters, etc. contribute to the imaginative rendition of SQ.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

I don't listen to crickets.

But may be you heard one enough famous hypothesis why FLAC and WAV sound differently?

 

[castleofargh]

in the end it's a matter of perspective:
some tend to wait for evidence to believe in something.
some wait for evidence that it doesn't exist to stop believing.
and some will reject anything that doesn't agree with them because thinking they are right matters more to them than the truth.

and people are free to do what they like. but when we're discussing facts, only facts matter! where are the facts about 24bit sounding better than 16bit? many empty claims, a few uncontrolled anecdotes, people who fail to even make sure the 2 files are the same master, that one guy who will record cheat to pass his abx(haxorz exist in all games). and that's about it.
24bit can store data with a lower noise floor, that is a fact and can be verified by anybody. but 24bit files sound different from 16bit, now as far as I know this is not a fact.

 

[StanD]

in the end it's a matter of perspective:
some tend to wait for evidence to believe in something.
some wait for evidence that it doesn't exist to stop believing.
and some will reject anything that doesn't agree with them because thinking they are right matters more to them than the truth.

and people are free to do what they like. but when we're discussing facts, only facts matter! where are the facts about 24bit sounding better than 16bit? many empty claims, a few uncontrolled anecdotes, people who fail to even make sure the 2 files are the same master, that one guy who will record cheat to pass his abx(haxorz exist in all games). and that's about it.
24bit can store data with a lower noise floor, that is a fact and can be verified by anybody. but 24bit files sound different from 16bit, now as far as I know this is not a fact.

+1
Ultraviolet light exists, however, I can assure that I cannot see it. Is that like I need a higher sample rate? I can market special glasses, someone will buy it.

 

[bigshot]

The special glasses would have to convert the ultraviolet frequencies to a frequency in the visible spectrum if you are going to see it. It's the same with ultrasonic content. You'd have to transpose the ultrasonic sound down a few octaves to be able to hear it. But then you aren't hearing ultrasonic frequencies. You could transpose it in other ways than even harmonics, but that would just sound like distortion.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

where are the facts about 24bit sounding better than 16bit? many empty claims, a few uncontrolled anecdotes, people who fail to even make sure the 2 files are the same master, that one guy who will record cheat to pass his abx(haxorz exist in all games). and that's about it.
24bit can store data with a lower noise floor, that is a fact and can be verified by anybody. but 24bit files sound different from 16bit, now as far as I know this is not a fact.

Comparison 16 and 24 bit technically impossible.
Somebody suggets multiple 16 bit to 256 and compare both source and multiplied stuff at single 24 bit DAC.
But in both cases meanful (non-zero) music stuff played back in different bits. So we have different distortions. And result depend on implementation of the DAC.
Discuss right now, there are the distortions are audible or not, have no sense. Because need to learn each DAC separatelly.

Ultraviolet light exists, however, I can assure that I cannot see it. Is that like I need a higher sample rate?

Higher sample rates were not used to ultrasound playback. It is analog filter low steepness matter, begining from ADC.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

The special glasses would have to convert the ultraviolet frequencies to a frequency in the visible spectrum if you are going to see it. It's the same with ultrasonic content. You'd have to transpose the ultrasonic sound down a few octaves to be able to hear it. But then you aren't hearing ultrasonic frequencies. You could transpose it in other ways than even harmonics, but that would just sound like distortion.

Some times ago I wrote the article "Ultrasound as Ultraviolet. Audio as Optics" even http://samplerateconverter.com/content/ultrasound-ultraviolet-audio-optics http://samplerateconverter.com/content/ultrasound-ultraviolet-audio-optics

 

[StanD]

Higher sample rates were not used to ultrasound playback. It is analog filter low steepness matter, begining from ADC.

With that kind of attitude you will never become a proper audiophile and be welcome in certain forums. This can be head despite any of your arguments, ask anyone.
You will also disappoint the marketing department which is preparing adverts for sales of new ADCs

 

[StanD]

The special glasses would have to convert the ultraviolet frequencies to a frequency in the visible spectrum if you are going to see it. It's the same with ultrasonic content. You'd have to transpose the ultrasonic sound down a few octaves to be able to hear it. But then you aren't hearing ultrasonic frequencies. You could transpose it in other ways than even harmonics, but that would just sound like distortion.

I preferred the glasses that were advertised in comic books, the ones you could use to see whatever it was that you were looking for.

 

[TYATYA]

Bit depth? You guys use hybrid SACDs and feel the different when reading each layer? Yes! Different.

But Flac and mp3 256, I can classify. For a dts track, if transfer to wav, I hear the decrease of bass impact.

For same bitrate, mp3 128 has more distort than aac64 sample.

Number and spec somehow nomeaning in SQ some case

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

With that kind of attitude you will never become a proper audiophile and be welcome in certain forums.

I suppose, that I'm audiophile - I love good sound As manufacturer, I look for reasons of good sound.
While I don't stumbled such forums.

This can be head despite any of your arguments, ask anyone.
You will also disappoint the marketing department which is preparing adverts for sales of new ADCs

Advertizing strategy must show: why and who really need a product. It give confidence in manufacturer and easier sales.

 

[StanD]

I suppose, that I'm audiophile - I love good sound As manufacturer, I look for reasons of good sound.
While I don't stumbled such forums.



Advertizing strategy must show: why and who really need a product. It give confidence in manufacturer and easier sales.

Staying in business means creating more stuff to sell to unsuspecting consumers. The marketing plan is to hoodwink them. Simple as that. Even if one can make a better mousetrap, things cannot keep improving without an end in sight, after all we cannot. As humans we have limitations.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Staying in business means creating more stuff to sell to unsuspecting consumers. The marketing plan is to hoodwink them. Simple as that. Even if one can make a better mousetrap, things cannot keep improving without an end in sight, after all we cannot. As humans we have limitations.

It is too hard way of business. To implement it need many efforts and money.

There all simple: look for demands, create or modify product for satisfying the demand.
Customers ask about its demands via email, them write it at forums, social networks, etc. There no need invent a things, that you can sell.