Apodizing filter

[71 dB]

either you heared the difference yourself or you didnt, not much more to say

Hearing is no 100 % objective. Ears are kind of biological microphones, but our brain does a lot of analyse and that analyse is affected by many things such as assumptions and biases.

there is no point starting arguing with people that also say all op amps sounds the same and many other examples...

The circuits around op amps matter more than the op amps. If op amps are used close to their limits then obviously there will be some kind of differences in the performance (audible or inaudible), but if the limits are not close, I don't thing the op amp matters at all.

i guess it goes by "you live what you preach", honestly this counts for both camps but apparently most subjective experiences are honest ones where objective arguing goes by "no, look at this study, cant be!", honestly im sick of it, not so much about this specifically but more of you guys trying to force your opinion on others "because its the only true one"

Objective studies try to eliminate the influence of subjectivity. That's why they are called objective. If you think being affected by placebo and what not is more reliable then that's your business, but this is sound science forum. That means objectivity, not subjectivity. You'll find people that think like you on other kind of forums were science and objectivity doesn't matter much.

We are just stating scientific facts. That's not forcing anything. Facts are just facts and they don't care about your feelings or subjective opinions. If you feel you are being forced on something and you don't like it then maybe you should leave and find another place online that suites you better? Again, this is sound science forum. We are in the correct place. You not so much apparently.

you are missunderstanding what i (and others i guess) do,
sure you can say its OCD, but if you trust you ears you can take half an hour time to compare things, and just use the one you like best, tho my last take on resampling/filters was more of a conclusion of multiple half hour sessions (and a bit of reading to understand things better, so i could somewhat connect the dots...)

How much can you trust your ears? If you compare A to B, you should not know which one you are listening to in order to eliminate subjective biases. For example chances are you like A more for whatever reason (higher price, better design, better tactile feel, more respected brand etc.) and you hear it sounding better for subjective reasons to justify choosing it over B.

the thing is also, with slow roll off and the dac PLAYING at 44,1khz i definitely heared cons in the sound, tho this becomes unimportant when upsampling to higher samplerates before the dac and in these cases i actually preferred the slow roll off types

there is a point where you start listening for (natural) transients and overall natural-ism and imo thats the point where you start hearing differences with different filters

I don't really listen to transients, I listen to the music. Melodies, harmonies, rhythms, timbre, etc. are so much more interesting that transients. If I someday get fed up listening to music, I start listening to transients instead. Instead of Alessandro Scarlatti's Cantatas, I will listen to test signals. That's when the stuff you write about may become relevant, but as of now, music is what I am listening to.

 

[bigshot]

either you THINK you heared (sic) the difference yourself or you didn't THINK you did, not much more to say

Fixed that for you.

If everyone makes no attempt to find out why things might or might not sound different, and everyone makes no attempt to test in a manner that minimizes bias and perceptual error, then one opinion is the same as any other and there’s not much more to say. But if you do your research and apply critical thinking, you can actually *know* and your opinion can hold more weight. There’s no reason arguing with people who are intellectually lazy. They aren’t interested in listening and understanding. You can just state what you know for the benefit of other people who may be listening.

Transients as they can be reproduced by DACs and amps are vanishingly small compared to transients in music. Ringing in digital audio is inaudible. You don’t need fancy filters. Just use the standard one size fits all one built into regular DACs and digital players.

 

[Ghoostknight]

I don't really listen to transients, I listen to the music. Melodies, harmonies, rhythms, timbre, etc. are so much more interesting that transients. If I someday get fed up listening to music, I start listening to transients instead. Instead of Alessandro Scarlatti's Cantatas, I will listen to test signals. That's when the stuff you write about may become relevant, but as of now, music is what I am listening to.

thats the thing with transients, it applys to every genre universally (tho some are better to "show off" than others), imo you "should" learn to listen for it

of course you can never reach "full realism" but specially with better transients i noticed a jump towards realism, specially of "classical" instruments (including all kind of guitars for example or specially stuff like piano and such)

 

[bigshot]

Another thing that puzzles me is why someone would choose to be a punching bag. Walking into a forum based on knowledge and arguing for ignorance is just asking for it. Is there no other forums that will gladly have you?

 

[Ghoostknight]

Another thing that puzzles me is why someone would choose to be a punching bag. Walking into a forum based on knowledge and arguing for ignorance is just asking for it. Is there no other forums that will gladly have you?

i guess we are back to living the culture live, i kinda feel like i have to share my opinion here between all this "non audible" nonsense you guys share, because beginners get way missleaded imo (and most probably think you guys know better...) this kind of stuff just slowed down my progress in understanding what is "really" audible and what not, because "IF" you hear differences but cant put your finger on what exactly does them then its way harder to get a good whole picture...

 

[BS5711]

"IF" you hear differences but cant put your finger on what exactly does them then its way harder to get a good whole picture...

And many of those "differences" are just as likely to be imagined as they are to be real, actually probably more likely in reality.

That is the simple truth but your default seems to be to look for a "technical" reason to explain something you believe you hear when the actual reason may very well be the grey matter between your ears.

Understanding psychology is just as "technical" as all that stuff that seems to occupy your mind.

 

[bigshot]

All opinions are not created equal. Some are informed and some are not. You’ve been given the facts and they’ve been patiently explained to you many times. Repeating an incorrect opinion over and over doesn’t make it any more valid. It just makes the person look oblivious. That’s the domain of Dunning Kruger. If you really want to help beginners, you would stick to subjects you know, not just the ones you feel. You aren’t making the impression on readers that you think you are.

 

[Ghoostknight]

its laughable what you guys say is audible transparent, no further discussion needed thanks

 

[bigshot]

I’m virtually smiling a sad smile and patting you on the head.

 

[Ghoostknight]

I’m virtually smiling a sad smile and patting you on the head.

bliss yourself on the feeling having won once again against the evil subjectivism

 

[BS5711]

Blissful ignorance indeed.

 

[VNandor]

Go back and put some crystals on your schumann resonator to see if that improves the sound of your system instead of posting here.

 

[Ghoostknight]

Go back and put some crystals on your schumann resonator to see if that improves the sound of your system instead of posting here.

i think i can do both

 

[bigshot]

Fool’s names and fool’s faces often appear in public places.

Laugh, clown, laugh.

 

[gregorio]

there is no point starting arguing with people that also say all op amps sounds the same and many other examples...

Sure but as no one here is arguing all op amps sound the same, you’re just inventing a strawman argument!

but apparently most subjective experiences are honest ones where objective arguing goes by "no, look at this study, cant be!",

How on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion? Most subjective experiences are not honest, because they’re typically misrepresented (as being actually heard, audible differences in the sound, caused by some magical property that can’t be measured) and the “objective arguing” does not go by “look at this study”, a single study is only one element in the much bigger picture of science/objective fact. So both of your two assertions above are false!

honestly im sick of it, not so much about this specifically but more of you guys trying to force your opinion on others "because its the only true one"

Firstly, you’re honestly sick of what, just another strawman argument you’ve invented? No one is forcing an opinion, we’re forcing the science/facts not an opinion and you repeatedly misrepresenting science as merely an opinion, even after it’s been explained to you multiple times, is therefore a deliberate lie! Secondly, we’re actually the ones who are “honestly sick of it”, honestly sick of your continuous strawman arguments, false assertions and deliberate lies or misrepresentations of science/fact. For god’s sake, give it a rest!

but if you trust you ears you can take half an hour time to compare things

How would you know, you don’t trust your ears! If you really did trust your ears then you could “take half an hour to compare things” using ONLY your ears but you obviously don’t trust your ears, what you actually only seem to trust is your sighted impressions!

the thing is also, with slow roll off and the dac PLAYING at 44,1khz i definitely heared cons in the sound …

Sure, so how are these “cons” somehow “beneficial” as you claimed?

there is a point where you start listening for (natural) transients and overall natural-ism and imo thats the point where you start hearing differences with different filters

That’s nonsense, how do you start “hearing differences with different filters” when there aren’t any differences? Different filters affect Dirac Impulses but what reliable evidence do you have that they affect (naturally occurring) musical transients?

thats the thing with transients, it applys to every genre universally (tho some are better to "show off" than others) …

You mean “that’s the thing with transients” that you’ve just invented and is completely false! With classical and some other acoustic music genres we typically try to preserve the transients, at least as far as studio microphones allow. However, with rock and popular genres we always heavily affect the transients, with multiple rounds of compression, limiters, some other effects and even with specific “transient shaper” plugins. So, your assertion is again completely false!

its laughable what you guys say is audible transparent

As what us guys “say is audibly transparent” is based on the relevant science, which is; a wealth of scientific studies and objective tests going back many decades that clearly define the limits of human hearing, as well as considerable knowledge of the anatomy/physiology of the human ear and in addition, objective evidence that the artefacts of standard digital filters (used for 44.1kHz) do not even register in the auditory cortex and therefore cannot be audible!

Therefore, what you are saying is “laughable” is science, the scientifically demonstrated facts. If you think science is “laughable” but your personal sighted opinions and those reported by other audiophiles should be taken seriously, then firstly, you’re delusional and secondly, you’re in the wrong forum. You need a flat earth forum, a religious/cultist or some other anti-science forum!

G