chef8489
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Posts
- 3,694
- Likes
- 1,360
You do realize there are very few real dsd/dxd music. The majority was pcm at one point so they can mix and edit it.
24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
- Thread starter gregorio
- Start date
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Using your own bias to make yourself happy is perfectly fine if you just keep it to yourself. The problem comes when you try to recommend your particular brand of placebo to other people. Head Fi is full of people doing this. It doesn't help. It hurts by muddying the water for people who actually want to use rational means of improving the sound quality of their system, not self hypnosis.
There are ways of actually improving sound quality. Spending money to build validation bias or being attracted to sales pitch full of glittering generalities and pseudo science to build expectation bias aren't ways to do that.
I'm guessing he doesn't care and has no interest in knowing how digital audio works or how to improve fidelity in objective ways.
There are ways of actually improving sound quality. Spending money to build validation bias or being attracted to sales pitch full of glittering generalities and pseudo science to build expectation bias aren't ways to do that.
I'm guessing he doesn't care and has no interest in knowing how digital audio works or how to improve fidelity in objective ways.
Last edited:
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
You kind of answered your own question here. Nobody says your DSD 256 files don't sound fantastic. I am sure they do, but I also know that if you make 16 bit/44.1 kHz PCM versions of them they wills till sound just as fantastic, at least in blind tests without placebo effects. Well composed, played, produced and mixed music tends to sound fantastic. Pretty much all my SACDs sound fantastic too, because those are really well made recordings, but the CD-layer sounds just as good if you forget it is not multichannel (SACD stereo layer sounds the same as the CD layer).
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
I've found that not all redbook layers are the same mastering as the SACD layer. I've even found some that were completely different mixes. This sort of monkey business is especially prevalent in legacy album rock releases.
peskypesky
1000+ Head-Fier
I find it sad when people are fooled into wasting money. You don't find it sad. So...we're different.
I also find it sad when some people in the 21st century still are unable to believe in science and math. You don't. So...we're different.
Last edited:
peskypesky
1000+ Head-Fier
some day, you'll realize how bad those DSD 256 files sound when they come out with super duper DSD 1024 files.
peskypesky
1000+ Head-Fier
At the age of 55, my hearing peaks at about 11.5kHz.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
I read a study that asked people to compare two samples: one full range response and the other everything removed from the top octave above 10khz. They asked people if they could hear a difference; and if they could, which one sounded better to them. The majority of people said they couldn't hear a difference and they sounded the same. A percentage (if I remember correctly, it was about 20-25%) said they could hear a difference; but almost all of them said that even though they could hear a slight difference, they didn't think one sounded any better than the other. It came out to something like 99% of people saying that the top octave made no impact on sound quality.
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
I can believe this being the case with old rock albums, but my SACDs are classical music mostly from BIS label and also CPO + some discs from other labels.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Classical usually doesn’t do that.
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
Yeah, I remember that study. It is quite shocking how little frequencies above 10 kHz matter to sound quality.
peskypesky
1000+ Head-Fier
this is probably why in over a hundred ABX tests, I haven't been able to tell the difference between FLACs and high-bitrate lossy files (mp3, aac, ogg, opus). The high frequencies that are "lost" don't make a difference to my ears. Especially not at my age.
Brahmsian
500+ Head-Fier
Yes, indeed. There are inly a handful of labels that do pure DSD.
I’m not recommending it to other people. Just the same, other people might already be enhancing their enjoyment that way.
I tend to agree with you. I was just reacting to the belief that it is so, so sad that some of us buy hi res music.
OK. You keep being sad about it, and I’ll keep enjoying my music.
They already have DSD 512, but those files are too big even for me.some day, you'll realize how bad those DSD 256 files sound when they come out with super duper DSD 1024 files.
I posted a meta-analysis that found that people could hear a difference. It was dismissed over supposedly bad methodology. I posted a Consumer Reports article claiming that in their audio lab they did indeed hear a difference. I was accused of cherry picking because they *also* said that the average consumer shouldn’t bother with high res files since the difference is so minuscule and, moreover, most people don’t have that kind of audio equipment. There was another study where subjects were ABXd and two sound engineers, trained tonmeisters, scored significantly above average, and the researchers wanted to have them back for further evaluation. But that was also dismissed out of hand, even by the researchers themselves, who basically discounted it as an anomaly. They just placed a big question mark over the sound engineers who scored so well. Not that I am convinced by the meta-analysis or by Consumer Reports, but it is clear that people have made up their minds and that having even a sliver of your thinking open on the subject is not allowed. The matter has been settled and anything that goes against it clearly has to be wrong.
My last post wasn’t an argument against the settled science but a reaction to peskypesky’s characterization of his brother as a poor dupe who is afraid to ABX because he might find that he couldn’t tell the difference and would then be filled with remorse because he paid extra for hi res files. I don’t know all the specifics there, but I wonder whether his brother would agree with that characterization and what he would say in his defense. As I see it, it’s more like buying extra warranty coverage for products that will probably never require it, i.e., peace of mind. For instance, if a label records in DSD 256 and doesn’t convert the file to DXD for processing and sends a copy of the DSD 256 file to NativeDSD, that’s the one I’ll choose because it’s basically an exact copy of the master. That file might not sound any better to me than the 320kb file were I to take the time to actually compare them, but since I don’t care to take the time to compare them, and since I know that the DSD file received directly from the label is as close to the source as you can get, that’s the one I choose. I don’t have to worry about it being converted, degraded, or manipulated in some way. If you don’t see the point in that, fine. But why call somebody else a dupe when possibly all they want is peace of mind that they’re getting the best product available?
Last edited:
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
You know. if you want to preserve your placebo illusion, it would be best to not post in Sound Science. Every time you post you hold up your balloon and hand us a dozen pins. You've been down this road before and got nowhere and left with your tail between your legs. Why do you keep coming back for more? Do you have some irresistible urge to be debunked? I'm just warning you that this isn't the best place for your peace of mind.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
