Flac 16 bit or 24 bit Qobuz

[gregorio]

Stop quoting me.

If you’re going to post BS, then I’m going to quote it and demonstrate it’s BS.

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.

No one here cares in the slightest what would “be a more productive conversation” for you, because this is not your forum, it’s the Sound Science forum! And you are NOT welcome to derail threads, with squirrel droppings or any of the other BS you’ve posted!!

G

 

[Quazar]

Could we ask for a little moderation?
This style is not going anywhere.

 

[71 dB]

You guys can say whatever you want. The proof is in the pudding.. I hear what I hear.

Why do we "want" to say what we say? We say these things because we want to fight disinformation. We fight disinformation by telling what the facts are.

You hear what you hear. I hear what I hear. Doesn't matter. Our senses are NOT reliable! We can't trust 100 % what we hear. If you believe B sounds better than A, you are likely to hear it that way even if that wasn't the case. Listening tests have to be conducted carefully in ways that remove placebo effect/conformation bias. What do you hear in proper double blind tests? Such tests have been done extensively and he message is 16/44.1 is transparent and more bits or higher sampling frequency doesn't change anything. That is the proof we need (but hi-res sellers obviously hate it).

People that are streaming music on lower quality distorted setups might not be able to tell the difference between bit rates, but on my speaker setup (and IEM/portable rig) the difference is clear as day.

Bitrate matters when it is about lossy formats. 128 kbps mp3 obviously doesn't offer the same fidelity as 256 kbps mp3, but the latter might be hard to tell apart from original lossless version.

 

[71 dB]

Again. I have no frame of reference as to what "Amir" is hearing or not hearing.
On my very finely tuned "Audiophile" system, a 2 year old can spot the differences.
It's not subtle, it's a very clear night and day difference.
Unlike you, I have no use for "Amir" and his theories, I've done the work.
I'm speaking from years of personal experience.

There ARE differences in audio! A remastered re-realise of an old rock album will sound very different from the original. A hi-res version of an album will sound different from a CD quality version if different masters are used. There are differences, but for WHAT reasons? The reason is not because hi-res is inherently more transparent. If you use the exact same master to produce the hi-res and CD quality versions, they will sound identical in proper double blind tests.

Scientific theories are subservient to observation, not the other way around.

These are not just theories. You need to observe to gain empirical support for your theories, but the observation part has to be carried out in ways that gives reliable results. Subjective listening tests ridden with placebo effect and confirmation bias are worthless.

 

[71 dB]

Stop quoting me.

Everytime you write something on a discussion board you risk being quoted. Every discussion board sets limits and guidelines as to how members are allowed to post, but within that framework posts can be quoted anyway people want. You simply can't tell people to stop quoting you. You don't have the authority unless you are actually an admin/owner of the discussion board setting the rules.

I have zero interest in having this back n forth with you.

So your interest is just to spread misinformation on the section of a discussion board that is for addressing audio related misinformation with scientific facts? How well has that worked for you so far? You are already shouting at people to stop quoting you. This place will only make you angry and frustrated. You might feel more at home in discussion boards were hi-res marketing BS is actually welcome and subjective impressions rule over science.

I'd much rather discuss the consistency of squirrel droppings with a homeless badger.

Hopefully you find a place online where such discussion is relevant. This is obviously wrong place for that.

That'll be a more productive conversation for me.

If you feel that way man...

 

[sunjam]

Misinformation or not is the question.

How can one tell who is spreading misinformation?

Is there any peer-reviewed scientific research that proves the 24-bit version of an analog audio signal would sound the same as the 16-bit version of the same analog audio signal?

If it does, could anyone show us the research? If there is any such research, it could conclude who is spreading misinformation.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

Misinformation or not is the question.

How can one tell who is spreading misinformation?

Is there any peer-reviewed scientific research that proves the 24-bit version of an analog audio signal would sound the same as the 16-bit version of the same analog audio signal?

If it does, could anyone show us the research? If there is any such research, it could conclude who is spreading misinformation

They are the keepers of the information.
People in this "sound science" cult are maybe a step or two away from burning heretics at the stake

Sharing of personal repeatable experiences by millions of people from all over the world is anathema to their scientific sensibilities.
They get to decide what misinformation is...they're the priestly class, the intellectual royalty.

 

[sunjam]

They are the keepers of the information.
People in this "sound science" cult are maybe a step or two away from burning heretics at the stake

Sharing of personal repeatable experiences by millions of people from all over the world is anathema to their scientific sensibilities.
They get to decide what misinformation is...they're the priestly class, the intellectual royalty.

I have Galileo in my mind when I read your reply.

 

[Davesrose]

People in this "sound science" cult are maybe a step or two away from burning heretics at the stake

No, people in this "sound science" thread can quote you and civilly provide information that's counter to your claims.

Sharing of personal repeatable experiences by millions of people from all over the world is anathema to their scientific sensibilities.

It seems you started stating your bias for DSD being the best, hires PCM being next best, then everything else bad. And also saying the only way you could tell the difference is if you have high end audio gear: that means you're a minority of people (who are now listening to music of BT through their phones or streaming mp3 over bookshelf speakers).

It has already been raised that if a 16bit file or a 24bit file comes from the same master, they'll sound identical. Are there many examples of an analog source having the same mastering for 16bit vs 24bit audio distribution? One might think comparing the DSD layer or redbook layer of a SACD might work, but they usually had different masters. The case is also true for streaming audio/movies vs discs. For streaming movies (Dolby Digital Plus), I notice their sound levels are different than if I play a blu-ray (TrueHD/DTS-MA). I have to adjust volume to equalize.

 

[castleofargh]

They are the keepers of the information.
People in this "sound science" cult are maybe a step or two away from burning heretics at the stake

Sharing of personal repeatable experiences by millions of people from all over the world is anathema to their scientific sensibilities.
They get to decide what misinformation is...they're the priestly class, the intellectual royalty.

Like you care what millions of people believe. Your posts so far have been very clear(mostly insults) about how you don't want to consider anything that doesn't support your own subjective beliefs. I think we have similar problems on the other side, but 2 wrongs don't make one right.
You're just barely containing yourself and still trying to shut down anything that doesn't go your way, with no actual argument or evidence of something else.
Your response to me discussing the merits of making sure something is correct was answered with "Blah blah blah". And you came back to edit because I guess that wasn't offensive and pointlessly provocative enough.
Someone with that behavior telling us about cult mentality is ironic.


There is nothing wrong with someone being skeptical of belief formed in dubious conditions. And there is nothing wrong with someone rejecting false logic. Both are very much at the core of science and fact based knowledge.
You can go into any thread and argue whatever your guts told you to believe based on the same casual, sighted way of listening, and the critics will always point out how weak your claims are.

"Repeatable experiences" so reliable that when actual listening tests are done, they struggle or more often fail to reach the minimum level for statistical significance. But you know better, you believe like many others that just about everything matters for your audio experience, except testing methods. For that, the bare minimum of sitting in a chair and having a feeling is all you will ever need to get definitive answers about audibility.

I think I will keep calling that mentality and world view naive from now on, it fits perfectly.

 

[castleofargh]

I have Galileo in my mind when I read your reply.

Sure, Galileo, the guy who heavily relied on controlled experiments and appropriate tools for observation, and even fabricated many to help get more reliable ways to test and observe events.
The guy who was an early champion of science and meticulous testing. Who was stopped by the church because his conclusions disagreed with the big book, and the general models of reality that many people had, thanks to casual observation and a deep desire to bring everything back to themselves.

Way to create fake drama, with one example that's the direct opposite of who you're defending.


It's so amazing how we can even pretend that there is righteousness and knowledge coming from an active opposition to controlled testing. When is it ever justifiable to say that we know more by testing poorly?

 

[sunjam]

Way to create fake drama, with one example that's the direct opposite of who you're defending.


It's so amazing how we can even pretend that there is righteousness and knowledge coming from an active opposition to controlled testing. When is it ever justifiable to say that we know more by testing poorly?

I can see illusions at work in your mind again. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not defending anyone here. Did I?

I am defending the truth.

To be exact, the following is the exact statement I am referring to when I said, "I have Galileo in my mind..."

They get to decide what misinformation is...they're the priestly class, the intellectual royalty.

Do you see some people acting like the priestly class, the intellectual royalty here? They are attempting to decide what's misinformation without supporting facts (like the peer-reviewed scientific research papers I am requesting).

Are we actually fact-based? Do we care about objective measurements like physiological measurements done by EEG instruments?

 

[Diet Kokaine]

Like you care what millions of people believe. Your posts so far have been very clear(mostly insults) about how you don't want to consider anything that doesn't support your own subjective beliefs. I think we have similar problems on the other side, but 2 wrongs don't make one right.
You're just barely containing yourself and still trying to shut down anything that doesn't go your way, with no actual argument or evidence of something else.
Your response to me discussing the merits of making sure something is correct was answered with "Blah blah blah". And you came back to edit because I guess that wasn't offensive and pointlessly provocative enough.
Someone with that behavior telling us about cult mentality is ironic.


There is nothing wrong with someone being skeptical of belief formed in dubious conditions. And there is nothing wrong with someone rejecting false logic. Both are very much at the core of science and fact based knowledge.
You can go into any thread and argue whatever your guts told you to believe based on the same casual, sighted way of listening, and the critics will always point out how weak your claims are.

"Repeatable experiences" so reliable that when actual listening tests are done, they struggle or more often fail to reach the minimum level for statistical significance. But you know better, you believe like many others that just about everything matters for your audio experience, except testing methods. For that, the bare minimum of sitting in a chair and having a feeling is all you will ever need to get definitive answers about audibility.

I think I will keep calling that mentality and world view naive from now on, it fits perfectly.

Zip it.
No way am I reading your walls of text.
You've proven yourself to be unworthy of any attention.

 

[castleofargh]

Case in point.

 

[gregorio]

They are the keepers of the information.

No, science, scientific papers, universities, text books and encyclopaedias are the keepers of the information.

People in this "sound science" cult are maybe a step or two away from burning heretics at the stake

Sound Science is not a cult, it’s science. The clue is in the name!

Sharing of personal repeatable experiences by millions of people from all over the world is anathema to their scientific sensibilities.

Well duh, even if “repeatable experiences by millions of people” were actually true, how is an argument based on such a common fallacy like “Argumentum ad Populam” not an anathema to science/“scientific sensibilities”? All you are doing is again confirming you don’t know what science is or even why it was invented in the first place but are nevertheless not even slightly ashamed to argue from a position of ignorance in an actual science discussion forum.

You've proven yourself to be unworthy of any attention.

No he hasn’t, he’s proven himself entirely worthy of attention. He’s clearly not worthy of your personal attention because you clearly don’t have any attention for science, actual facts or the truth. You apparently only have any attention for disseminating the BS you’ve made-up, as your refusal to address the actual facts, the points put to you and this made-up BS quote in response proves!

G