[ianmedium]

One last thing, me here for the sake or arguing!!!! Who is doing all the arguing! I stated something I can here, I have not set out to convince anyone, just give what I hear, it is you lot that never stop arguing due to your egoic need to be proven your right and anyone who dares not to play your game is wrong! That is narrow minded, I have not said what you hear is wrong have I? You hear what you want to hear so blind tests are pointless, you will never hear a difference because you don't want to, you want to prove there is no difference so if anyone is being influenced I would say it is those who approach this from a scientific and analytical one as you simply do not enter into it with an open mind.

You all prove that by your attacks on anyone who states an opinion outside of your narrow and closed thought fields, this is why it is an act of futility to argue with you lot, you always have carefully constructed answers for everything and are completely closed to anything outside of a box because you simply do not want to see it of it!

This is why that Randi fellow has never given he million dollars away, it is impossible to convince him of anything as he has the support of other people who refuse to use their other senses!

Now I am done as it is pointless trying to convince sheep to go anywhere where other sheep won't go!

 

[bigshot]

I have done extensive listening to 320/ALAC/AIFF/WAV.

You should try AAC. That's the codec I use. It's mpeg-4 which is much better than mp3. I did line level matched direct A/B comparisons against the original CD using a variety of well recorded jazz, popular and classical. At 256 and above, it achieved total transparency. No difference at all.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

One last thing, me here for the sake or arguing!!!! Who is doing all the arguing! I stated something I can here, I have not set out to convince anyone, just give what I hear, it is you lot that never stop arguing due to your egoic need to be proven your right and anyone who dares not to play your game is wrong! That is narrow minded, I have not said what you hear is wrong have I? You hear what you want to hear so blind tests are pointless, you will never hear a difference because you don't want to, you want to prove there is no difference so if anyone is being influenced I would say it is those who approach this from a scientific and analytical one as you simply do not enter into it with an open mind.

Huh? Nobody is stating that because they failed a blind test, everyone else is going to.  It's not possible for us to prove that there is no difference, but it IS possible for you to prove that you can hear one.  And by the way, I did want to hear the difference between 320 and FLAC, as I have a large number of FLAC files, but I didn't.

You all prove that by your attacks on anyone who states an opinion outside of your narrow and closed thought fields, this is why it is an act of futility to argue with you lot, you always have carefully constructed answers for everything and are completely closed to anything outside of a box because you simply do not want to see it of it!
This is why that Randi fellow has never given he million dollars away, it is impossible to convince him of anything as he has the support of other people who refuse to use their other senses!

I don't really care either way if different lossless/uncompressed formats sound the same. I'm not sure what I would have to gain there. It would certainly be an interesting revealation if that were to be proven wrong as it goes against the science behind the formats.

Nobody is attacking you here, just asking for evidence of your claims as they contradict computer science. Not sure where your hostility is coming from

 

 

[bigshot]

See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds.

As far as I know, AIFF and WAV are just wrappers around the file. The PCM audio inside the wrapper is identical. If you are saying you can hear a difference between them, that's a bit more than thinking outside the box. If you really are hearing a difference, there is something wrong with your equipment.

 

[bigshot]

I really now am gone

Goodbye. It was nice chatting with you.

 

[bigshot]

One last thing

Welcome back!

 

[xnor]

ianmedium, why are you so unwilling to do a simple test that only takes a few minutes?
 
And you call others narrow minded and arrogant despite you do not seem to know anything about the formats mentioned? Ohhh the irony.
 
A WAV and AIFF file containing uncompressed PCM contains exactly the same audio data.
 
Quote:

See, the whole point why I don't bother with these threads is the comments about my post above, there is no room for thinking outside their tight and safe boxes, they are right by the confines of their narrow thinking and minds. As for scamp, so your now capable of reading my inner most thoughts eh! Wow, such arrogance!

That is the problem with people who's whole lives need to be neatly contained within pre existing parameters you will never be able to feel or see that which cannot be proved by someone else's invented hypothesis.

All I can say is there is a difference, can I explain in in numbers or theorys, no, I can't but I trust my hearing a great deal more than I would ever trust your judgements as your very narrow in observation of things that are outside scientific proof.

I really now am gone, it is not my intention to prove anything as I know that there is more to something than the sum of its parts, I feel really sorry for those who think that all there is exists only if it can be proven on paper, your missing out on such a huge part of life in thinking that way. Thank God that the worlds greates mastering engineers, record producers and artists don't think the way you do, if they did all we would have to listen to are records like Adel's!

You and your ridiculous claims won't be missed.
 
Thank God that there are not many people that "think" the way you do.
 
 
Quote:

As far as I know, AIFF and WAV are just wrappers around the file. The PCM audio inside the wrapper is identical. If you are saying you can hear a difference between them, that's a bit more than thinking outside the box. If you really are hearing a difference, there is something wrong with your equipment.

Or with his brain?

 

[tehwalris]

Quote:

 
So much of this is in our heads. Would be cool to see some scientific blindfolded group tests.

You could probably set up an online survey where the same part of a song is played in mp3 then flac in a random order and then people could say if the first or second sounded better. Just an idea

 

[MrMateoHead]

I should add that I don't care if I can't detect a difference - I STILL prefer to buy CDs! Hows that for rational?
 
It doesn't make sense to me to pay for an inferior audio format which is always vulnerable to the "delete" key.

 
One thing I would like to know, is if anyone has conducted any tests on the sampling side. I assume hearing differences would be very apparent.

 

[xnor]

What do you mean with tests on the sampling side?

 

[Brooko]

I found these bits particularly interesting ....... especially as I'd gone back through the previous posts, and I couldn't see where anyone was personally attacking Ian personally .....
Quote:

I don't really care that the flat earthers will bang on that there is no difference, I simply don't think they know how to listen to music!

 
Interesting that the above quote was in his fiorst post, and immediately set the tone .......
 
Quote:

<snip>I have not set out to convince anyone, just give what I hear, it is you lot that never stop arguing due to your egoic need to be proven your right and anyone who dares not to play your game is wrong! That is narrow minded, I have not said what you hear is wrong have I? You hear what you want to hear so blind tests are pointless, you will never hear a difference because you don't want to, you want to prove there is no difference so if anyone is being influenced I would say it is those who approach this from a scientific and analytical one as you simply do not enter into it with an open mind.
You all prove that by your attacks on anyone who states an opinion outside of your narrow and closed thought fields, this is why it is an act of futility to argue with you lot, you always have carefully constructed answers for everything and are completely closed to anything outside of a box because you simply do not want to see it of it!
This is why that Randi fellow has never given he million dollars away, it is impossible to convince him of anything as he has the support of other people who refuse to use their other senses!
Now I am done as it is pointless trying to convince sheep to go anywhere where other sheep won't go!

 
As far as I can see, a lot of people here (sound science) do have an open mind, but it is the one place on Head-Fi where the burden of proof is expected to be shown.  Considering how easy it is to run simple tests (foobar volume matched abx etc), and produce reports, it amazes me how often we see someone putting forward their ideas on subjectively hearing a difference - but when requested to show evidence, immediately resort to veiled insults.  Then the objectivists are accused of not being open etc - yet the subjectivists are the ones that always refuse to actually run the tests.  It continually amazes me .....
 
Makes the quote in my sig really quite apt to certain situations really.

 

[gnarlsagan]

A few minutes to run a test is not an impossible request to fulfill. I hope ianmedium comes back and tries it out. I have an open mind about it. I don't understand what a person hopes to accomplish by making a claim and then refusing to take the test, and not even acknowledging that a test would be a valid way to prove their claim. It's borderline trolling. 

 

[MrMateoHead]

Quote:

What do you mean with tests on the sampling side?

I mean, use a high quality, 24-bit, 96 Khz source sample, and re-rip it (always lossless), to a 44.1, and 22.5 khz sampling rate. Then listen for differences. I suspect it would be easier to detect than compression between CD and MP3, which preserves the sampling rate at 44.1 khz.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

I mean, use a high quality, 24-bit, 96 Khz source sample, and re-rip it (always lossless), to a 44.1, and 22.5 khz sampling rate. Then listen for differences. I suspect it would be easier to detect than compression between CD and MP3, which preserves the sampling rate at 44.1 khz.

 
Why don't you try it
 
I have actually tested the very same thing - and I couldn't detect any differences there either (I did 24/96 resampled to 24/48 and to aac256).  I do acknowledge though that my hearing (at the advanced age of almost 46) may not be as good as some of our younger members though 

.

 

[MrMateoHead]

Quote:

 
Why don't you try it
 
I have actually tested the very same thing - and I couldn't detect any differences there either (I did 24/96 resampled to 24/48 and to aac256).  I do acknowledge though that my hearing (at the advanced age of almost 46) may not be as good as some of our younger members though 

.

I'll try it if I can find a 24-96 khz music DVD somewhere. I had a great porcupine disc but can't remember where I left it. I really want to start from a very high resolution and work down the chain!
 
And please, Brooko, you are starting to make me want to return my headphones for an AIWA tapedeck.