XTF1
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Posts
- 1,008
- Likes
- 1,098
Congrats !!!
You and others are subject to such intense aging stress on the science forum that it must count as your 40th or 60th anniversary…
Apodizing filter
- Thread starter Digital Enigma
- Start date
You and others are subject to such intense aging stress on the science forum that it must count as your 40th or 60th anniversary…
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Thanks. The years here are like water on a duck’s back.
I don’t know how much the RMS value can change, in theory it could be a couple of dB or so but I’ve never seen more than about 0.5dB. It is not a “flaw of the codec”, in fact the opposite, the level is changed to accommodate ISPs and therefore avoid clipping. Of course the difference should be compensated in a DBT, the point of comparing a lossy codec to a lossless original is to try and discern the artefacts; the removal of (masked) frequencies, pre-echo, noise or some other distortion, not some tiny difference in volume that has zero effect because the consumer won’t hear it and will set their own volume anyway!
I’ve already explained how the difference between peak and RMS values get created!
1. No, MP3 doesn’t only remove high frequency, it removes masked frequencies, which can be anywhere in the freq spectrum but tend to be more in the mid and high freqs. And, they are not “theoretically” inaudible, the psychoacoustic models employed have been extensively tested and have evolved over the decades in response to that testing so that no one can discern the difference any more. So, it could not be more practical and less theoretical!
2. Potentially, although it depends where in the spectrum the masked frequencies are. So it is possible that it would boost the higher freqs more in some cases. But certainly you are “actually creating a bigger difference” and indeed, the difference between the original and the encoded MP3 is substantial but this seems to be where your understanding and logic end. You apparently believe that if there is a difference then it must be audible but what you fail to understand and therefore cannot accept is that you (and all other humans) could NOT hear those freqs in the lossless original and therefore removing them in the encoded (high bitrate) MP3 will sound identical, regardless of how big the difference!
G
Last edited:
Ghoostknight
Headphoneus Supremus
well, i believe this because my current clues led me to believe that
1. subjectively hearing a difference
2. done multiple DBT on mp3 vs lossless so far, unless its a very bad codec i cant reliable get 100% of the answers right but overall i have done multiple tests now completing the "confidence" parameter above 95%, imo its highly unlikely that the 5% chance to get this purely by guesses were actually the reason why i "completed" multiple tests now, for me this is more of a hint that im "potentially" hearing a difference, which my subjective tests definitely confirm
3. there are objectively cons on MP3, we are just arguing whether stuff is audible
the question is rather why i shouldnt believe i am hearing a difference
i get your reasoning behind " a small volume difference doesnt matters in the end, so we try to "purely" test what the codec beside volume adjustments does"
but on the other hand, just this reason, is for me enough to believe subjective comparisons could lead to indeed hearing a difference, you guys eliminating this additional volume difference variable makes it "less likely" to hear a difference, imo its simply wrong to compare subjective tests vs DBT at that point, maybe im too critical here...
Exactly, which brings us right back to where it always brings us back to with you, because your “current clues” are:
1. No proper testing, either just purely sighted testing or incorrect DBTs.
2. The BS you’ve made-up/invented to (falsely) explain what’s going on.
3. Your refusal to even go and look-up the science/actual facts, let alone understand or accept it!
The answer to that question (and pretty much all your questions) is dictated by the 3 points above. If you’re going to ignore the science/facts and rely instead on your highly flawed testing, the BS you make-up and complete lack of shame in (falsely) asserting it’s all the truth, then there’s no reason at all “why you shouldn’t believe you are hearing a difference”. However, you should obviously go and post about that elsewhere, not in a forum dedicated to the actual truth based on the established, demonstrated or proven science!
G
Last edited:
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
The truth rarely if ever passes his lips. (That is the nicest way I can put it.)
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
The question is which differences you can really hear and which differences you only believe you can hear.
Even when you really do hear a difference, the second question is does the difference matter? Two difference chocolate bars taste different and people can tell the difference but they can still both taste good, even equally good (just different). If WAV/FLAC sounds better to you than mp3, use WAV/FLAC whenever possible and be done with it. Why make a big number out of these tiny differences? To me there is so much more to music than the tiny differences of lossy/lossless coding or the even smaller differences of anti-alias filters. Katy Perry's new album "143" is garbage. Higher bitrates or better filters don't help at all! Give me quality music and I am content with decent/good sound quality. Who cares what the pre-ringing of the reconstruction filter is if the music kicks ass?
Last edited:
I agree, although in fairness the Sound Science forum is where people do care and is the place to discuss filter engineering aspects. Kick-ass music is more one for the Music forum perhaps.
Of course the artistic & sound engineering paradigms meet and overlap during playing, recording & mixing, but that is largely outside of the end consumers' control.
Incidentally; it is probably prudent to refrain from singling out individual artists/albums or calling them "garbage"; that is bound to ruffle the feathers of some fans and leads to heated OT discussions, even though it obviously only reflects a personal taste & opinion.
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
Sorry, I didn't know somebody here thinks good things about Katy Perry's 143. I don't have problems with people liking it. For me personally it was disappointing.
I have no idea; I have never heard the album, and the few songs I have heard by her are not my cup of tea. But a few die-hard Katy Perry fans are bound to like it.
Ghoostknight
Headphoneus Supremus
well you can think that but i dont see a major flaw with my two recent DBT so far (and some others i posted some time ago) where you simply concluded i faked them to keep your worldview intact
the real question is how many blindtest i have to make (with >95% confidence) until we can conclude its not by guessing lol, tho my guess is hardcore objectivist have to either expierence it themself to finally believe it or conduct the test, mambo jamboing the DBT with additional variables till its probably 50/50 again
Last edited:
71 dB
Headphoneus Supremus
How many die-hard Katy Perry fans do you think we have over here? I am probably the biggest fan of her music here and even I am not a "die-hard" fan. Regardless of what people here think about her music (and everyone is entitled to their taste in music), the consensus online seems to support the sentiment her newest album 143 is not good compared to her earlier efforts.
castleofargh
Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Posts
- 10,989
- Likes
- 6,838
How far do you plan to go to try and convince others that you're right about something? Look at the thread's name. I let it go when it was slightly off-topic but still about filters. That's long gone now.
As a pantopic comment, you oversimplify nearly everything at a level way beyond slight omissions. You jump to conclusion about the first intuitive explanation you come up with, and we often see you doing it almost in real time in front of us. You then forever stick to that as your discovered truth and make truly unreasonable generalizations while seemingly missing the critical distinction between an idea, and a fact.
I could say, like everybody else, as we all do it fairly often, it's in us after all. But you sure are skilled and prolific in those areas.
You only ever seem to care about a quick way to conclude that you've heard a difference, which in audiophile bird culture means you're strong, and your penis is long and hard, or something. But to us, it means nothing. In most disciplines, if you look for validation, you will find it. If you add BS experimentation on top, set for the sole purpose of validation, then you really can validate any belief, no matter how divorced from reality.
The scientific method, and really any serious objective approach, will try to disprove something instead of try to validate it with whatever. And of course, in the process, careful attention to all the potential variables and their exclusion or control is fundamental for the outcome to have any chance at being conclusive.
TBH I thought you didn't understand the purpose and merits in getting feedback about the correctness of your feelings and ideas, as you so often drew conclusions from casual impressions and barely guessed rationals to explain them. But
So you do understand how useful it is to find out when your impressions are incorrect. You just ignore the core principle of testing and validating when it doesn't agree with your already made beliefs. Congratulation, you're an elite audiophile(not a compliment).
Let's not fool anybody and confuse all that self validation for an attempt at increasing fact based knowledge. You're curious, that's why I thought you would rapidly start to move back toward the real world and the scientific method. But months have passed, many threads turned out exactly the same way, and I'm losing hope. You're just too eager to hear an impact from anything anywhere, and then run with the first idea that comes to minds to validate it.
Until you try and fix this, you will be wrong about more things than the average guy. And sadly, even when right, people won't trust you, like it probably happens with the abx. When it's so clear that your full efforts go toward self validation, of course people will end up thinking that you might do anything for it. Maybe you only ever lie to yourself, but we don't know that. The outcomes look very similar.
Ghoostknight
Headphoneus Supremus
Well my last word on this is: (in my book) it becomes very apparent why subjective test results will never line up with objective ones under these conditions we bespoke here, nothing new to many audiophiles, tho it was interesting to see some details that just go wrong in practice...
Ghoost, I am waiting for the thread where you talk about how the tin foil shield near your 4G router made your audio better.
As has been said, you seem to believe anything at all can affect audio so you implement something then listen for a change in audio quality, you hear it only because you are listening for it, then come up with a theory about why it makes a difference even when in reality the difference is probably only imagined.
You can get away with that in the tweaks threads but you can't expect not to be called out on it here.
I actually admire your enthusiasm and stickability but tempering that with a little common sense would be a good thing.
As has been said, you seem to believe anything at all can affect audio so you implement something then listen for a change in audio quality, you hear it only because you are listening for it, then come up with a theory about why it makes a difference even when in reality the difference is probably only imagined.
You can get away with that in the tweaks threads but you can't expect not to be called out on it here.
I actually admire your enthusiasm and stickability but tempering that with a little common sense would be a good thing.
Users who are viewing this thread
