I’m not saying I won’t, but I also acknowledge that I have expection bias here. That’s why I’m far more interested in seeing evidence from Al than in performing a subjective listening test on a topic that, for reasons you listed a few posts back, is pretty well defined.
How long do we need to wait? A day? A week? A month?
It's funny how people with weird claims rarely have the evidence ready when making the claims. Most of the time the evidence never comes. I wonder why…
An open mind is nice it's about hearing it not a paper telling us it's perfect. He tracks has many fake samples I don't buy from them anymore. Yes some are ok but many are not. Of you take the time to analyze it's visually obvious with the noise on top.
I am out of ny it's New Year's Eve. I'll post it some time tomorrow I promise
My place
Room built for purpose 20/9/55 ft
speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
mark levivson pre no 26 Amps no 33
mogami gold mic interconnects , new soon
digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO 2.20 and cust Linux Kernal for NAS
player roon server , dac PC HQ player USB power cut at main board
network isolators cat 7a shielded , LPS for all pcs and network switches and routers. Audio network ips dedicated nas is music and network switch and router. Dacs lampi various
I have no dog in this argument it's real very real. Not some hey did you hear that bull. I know based on data it's ok but it's not true in sound
Same is true for above 44.1 too but it's not noise floor it's layers so if this is also good enough by data it's also not a true value in life. I am 61 now soon to be 62.
I will post my rooms f setup if ok.
An open mind is nice it's about hearing it not a paper telling us it's perfect. He tracks has many fake samples I don't buy from them anymore. Yes some are ok but many are not. Of you take the time to analyze it's visually obvious with the noise on top.
Fake samples? Have we moved from fake news to fake samples?
Visually? You listen to the music with your ears, not with your eyes. One of the most important things to learn about digital audio is that things don't sound the way the look. When you understand digital audio you know in what ways the visual representation is different. For example this looks perfect 2000 Hz square wave sampled at 44100 Hz:
But it isn't! It sounds bad, not what 2000 Hz square wave should sound. In fact it is an "illegal signal." No real life signal correctly bandlimited and sampled at 44100 Hz gives this. Instead the correct 2000 Hz square wave sampled at 44100 Hz looks like this:
It looks worse, but it sounds better, because it's the correct bandlimited digitized version of analog squarewave signal. This is just one example of visual aspects telling you the wrong thing. To a person who knows the theory and secrets of digital audio the visual side can tell a lot, but it takes trained eyes to interpret things correctly.
CD audio isn't perfect techically (that would take near infinite sampling rate and perhaps 64 bits (?) of dynamic range to record molecules in the air hitting each other and ants farting in China, but it's good enough for human ears. In that sense it's perfect. The science tells it and numerous carefully done listening tests tell it backing up the science.
Same is true for above 44.1 too but it's not noise floor it's layers so if this is also good enough by data it's also not a true value in life. I am 61 now soon to be 62.
At your age 15 kHz is a real challenge, so in fact 32 kHz sampling rate would be enough! I just turned 48 and listening to stuff above 16-17 kHz is a thing of the past.
Yes, but the post doesn't prove your claims about high resolution formats being better. It just shows that you have invested a lot of money to your sound gear. The problem is this: What you say indicates expectation bias, lack of deeper understanding of digital audio and lack of careful (double) blind listening tests to back up your claims. If you have believed for years that high resolution formats are superior, it might be difficult to let go such belief, so I understand your situation. You are desperate to prove "us" wrong so you can keep your beliefs, but it's not necessory to do such a thing. Whether you keep your beliefs and continue living in your delusions as you have done so far (not much harm done really) or you learn new things, get wiser and perhaps save a few bucks not paying extra for 24 bit high resolution files.
Hahaha no man no dog in the fight. It's about proving your claim wrong based on databases papers that all. No disrespect in any way.
Here is one is dsd 128 better then dsd 64 ? What's your view plesee no bull
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
