Flac 16 bit or 24 bit Qobuz
- Thread starter damians
- Start date
"....... the testing of theories against the evidence obtained"
I don't see much indication where you undertook that bit of the definition, not robustly at least, robustly as would be required to state with the level of conviction that you do that current scientific understanding is nonsense and you know better.
It seems you made plenty of observations and established your theories then assumed your theory was right and therefore trumped science and went on your merry way.
That is what most audiophiles do and is why you have no trouble finding people that agree with your theory that science knows nothing and your ears are better gauges of fidelity.
Oddly, as I have said a few times but it is ignored, that is the theory that ridicules the very same technology that provided the files that contain the audio data that they are listening to when they say the science is garbage, that is nonsensical.
I don't see much indication where you undertook that bit of the definition, not robustly at least, robustly as would be required to state with the level of conviction that you do that current scientific understanding is nonsense and you know better.
It seems you made plenty of observations and established your theories then assumed your theory was right and therefore trumped science and went on your merry way.
That is what most audiophiles do and is why you have no trouble finding people that agree with your theory that science knows nothing and your ears are better gauges of fidelity.
Oddly, as I have said a few times but it is ignored, that is the theory that ridicules the very same technology that provided the files that contain the audio data that they are listening to when they say the science is garbage, that is nonsensical.
Last edited:
Diet Kokaine
100+ Head-Fier
Almost all Audiophile "Myths" have a basis in observation.
Observation as carried out by millions of people all around the world.
Good science would try to integrate this massive amount of data into further refining existing "Theories".
A good scientist is always refining the scientific method. The idea that you already know everything there is to know, especially in the face of such vast amounts of anecdotal evidence is stupidity disguised as intellectual authority.
Instead of arguing endlessly on Audio forums, I wish some of the people here would practice the scientific method and get to the experimentation part of this debate.
"
1. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation"
I have done the observing and I have done the experimenting.
I find the existing theories wholly lacking.
Observation as carried out by millions of people all around the world.
Good science would try to integrate this massive amount of data into further refining existing "Theories".
A good scientist is always refining the scientific method. The idea that you already know everything there is to know, especially in the face of such vast amounts of anecdotal evidence is stupidity disguised as intellectual authority.
Instead of arguing endlessly on Audio forums, I wish some of the people here would practice the scientific method and get to the experimentation part of this debate.
"
science
noun1. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation"
I have done the observing and I have done the experimenting.
I find the existing theories wholly lacking.
Last edited:
castleofargh
Sound Science Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Posts
- 10,989
- Likes
- 6,838
Good science does not try to willingly integrate bad testing.
Observation is assumed to be proper observation with control over as many of the extra variables as possible that might affect the result, so that we can actually verify causal relation between changes to the variable we test(here would be 16 vs 24bit encoding of the same 24 bit file and something to test audibility between those files).
Anything else that's been ignored in your "observation", and might affect the result, will make the 16 vs 24bit inconclusive. It's obvious, as we do not want to say that 16bit caused a change if some other variable actually did it.
At least that would be the logical explanation. In practice, most people know better before they even do anything, and because they're very stronk and smart, so they don't need complicated testing methods to know everything and always be right.
step 1, use a naive understanding of yourself and the world around you.
step2, feel like it's super easy to know stuff in that naive simple worldview.
step3 profit!
It's not the setting of science, it's the setting for a physics troll meme.
Observation is assumed to be proper observation with control over as many of the extra variables as possible that might affect the result, so that we can actually verify causal relation between changes to the variable we test(here would be 16 vs 24bit encoding of the same 24 bit file and something to test audibility between those files).
Anything else that's been ignored in your "observation", and might affect the result, will make the 16 vs 24bit inconclusive. It's obvious, as we do not want to say that 16bit caused a change if some other variable actually did it.
At least that would be the logical explanation. In practice, most people know better before they even do anything, and because they're very stronk and smart, so they don't need complicated testing methods to know everything and always be right.
step 1, use a naive understanding of yourself and the world around you.
step2, feel like it's super easy to know stuff in that naive simple worldview.
step3 profit!
It's not the setting of science, it's the setting for a physics troll meme.
Last edited:
Could you explain the detailed experimenting that lead you to your conclusion.
What you are debating isn't a theory it is the merits of different digital data formats that were developed for a specific purpose after a great deal of testing.
Your theory in essence is that science doesn't understand the function of something that it it was used to design.
Why don't you take an hour and try the 16 bit versus 24 bit online test that is shown in that video, that should be a breeze for you and your system despite that the results for just about everybody else that did it were no better than guessing and chance.
What you are debating isn't a theory it is the merits of different digital data formats that were developed for a specific purpose after a great deal of testing.
Your theory in essence is that science doesn't understand the function of something that it it was used to design.
Why don't you take an hour and try the 16 bit versus 24 bit online test that is shown in that video, that should be a breeze for you and your system despite that the results for just about everybody else that did it were no better than guessing and chance.
Davesrose
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,723
- Likes
- 459
You should probably have not attempted to get into this. Your analogy has no basis in reality. You can't play a 4K file on a 720P TV set. 720P sets are part of the HD standards-digital TVs that support 1280x720P or 1920x1080P resolution sources (as well as traditional "SDR" colorspace that's 8bit). UHD is a newer standard that has 4K and even 8K resolutions, as well as a higher dynamic range (current TVs rendering 10bit color space while video codecs will allow up to 14). 4K has gotten popular as displays get larger, and our eyes exceed the specs of current HDR dynamic range (visual detail is determined by resolution, contrast range, and optical qualities of the lens).
These analogies don't apply with audio, because human hearing for music reproduction does not exceed CD quality (music is not mixed to have a dynamic range above CD quality, and resolution meets hearing for any age group).
Diet Kokaine
100+ Head-Fier
I've said everything that I have to say on this subject.
Peace.
Peace.
Diet Kokaine
100+ Head-Fier
Blah blah blah.Good science does not try to willingly integrate bad testing.
Observation is assumed to be proper observation with control over as many of the extra variables as possible that might affect the result, so that we can actually verify causal relation between changes to the variable we test(here would be 16 vs 24bit encoding of the same 24 bit file and something to test audibility between those files).
Anything else that's been ignored in your "observation", and might affect the result, will make the 16 vs 24bit inconclusive. It's obvious, as we do not want to say that 16bit caused a change if some other variable actually did it.
At least that would be the logical explanation. In practice, most people know better before they even do anything, and because they're very stronk and smart, so they don't need complicated testing methods to know everything and always be right.
step 1, use a naive understanding of yourself and the world around you.
step2, feel like it's super easy to know stuff in that naive simple worldview.
step3 profit!
It's not the setting of science, it's the setting for a psychics troll meme.
It's fitting that you're the moderator here.
Child like tantrums and petulant rants are a hallmark of this religious cult.
Last edited:
sunjam
BannedAKA sunjam2, sunjam3
Not everyone hear hi-res the same (and not every system reproduce hi-res the same too)
To simplify the analysis, have a look at the following picture:
Both the blue wave and the red wave show a sine wave with different dithering noise (due to different quantization). Do they sound the same?
Some would say yes, and some would say no.
As an analogy, based on Newton's second law of motion, the net force acting on an object is equal to the product of its mass and acceleration (i.e. F=ma).
Do you think F=ma correct in describing motion?
If your answer is yes, then I bet you would find both the blue wave and red wave would sound the same.
The proof is indeed in the pudding but the pudding is not in what you or your girlfriend think you hear, it is in the actual facts!
Really, how? What is wrong with your speaker setup and IEM rig?
Theories and text books is where digital audio comes from!
Indeed it does but you seem oblivious to how your analogy is actually analogous! 192/24 is analogous with “4k files” and speakers and human hearing are analogous to “720p TV sets”!
You’re joking, please explain how science made this observation of digital audio. You think maybe ADCs, CD players and DACs grow on trees, are mined or were observed orbiting the Earth? You don’t seem to understand what science is, nor apparently have you even thought about what you’re claiming! If you don’t know the difference between “basic science” and “applied science” then why not look it up in an encyclopaedia (try Wikipedia here) BEFORE posting nonsense here? “Basic science” is “to explain observation” but in audio we’re dealing with “Applied science”, because digital audio obviously does not exist in nature. And lastly, if observation really did take precedence, then are you really claiming all the observations of Bigfoot, fairies, mermaids, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abduction, poltergeists and all manner of other nonsense take precedence over proven scientific theories?!
Sure, science is subservient to Bigfoot and Santa Claus. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Which is effectively that you don’t know what science is, that observations of ghosts and mermaids, etc., take precedence over science and that you’re willing to argue all that in an actual science discussion forum! lol
It’s your choice to belong to the religious cult that places reported observations over the science/actual facts and your choice to exhibit the hallmarks of that cult. However, that is obviously not acceptable here!
G
Last edited:
Diet Kokaine
100+ Head-Fier
"Sure, science is subservient to Bigfoot and Santa Claus. Thanks for the enlightenment!"
Sound Science Strawman gibberish.
@gregorio well done.
Sound Science Strawman gibberish.
@gregorio well done.
What do you mean “@gregorio well done”, you’re the one who’s done it! You’re the one who claimed science is subservient to observation and there’s been any number of reported observations over the centuries, from fairies to Bigfoot, the Earth being the centre of the universe, etc.
So “yes”, it is Sound Science gibberish, because you are posting gibberish to Sound Science and it would be appreciated if you desisted!
G
Diet Kokaine
100+ Head-Fier
Sorry I can't take anything you say seriously.
I'm not even reading your insane posts.
Last edited:
But you can take seriously the BS you’re posting, of science being subservient to observations (Eg. Bigfoot)?!
How did you quote and respond to it then, did Bigfoot read it to you? lol
G
Diet Kokaine
100+ Head-Fier
Stop quoting me. I have zero interest in having this back n forth with you.
I'd much rather discuss the consistency of squirrel droppings with a homeless badger.
That'll be a more productive conversation for me.
I'd much rather discuss the consistency of squirrel droppings with a homeless badger.
That'll be a more productive conversation for me.
Users who are viewing this thread
