[webreaper]

each to their own conclusions then. same can be said about cable changes or amps and anything else happening in audio world. some notice the difference, some don't, and each group will try to push their conclusions to the other group. both are just as bad for me. this is a hobby after all, whatever the person thinks work for them and make them happy

The point he's making is that a lot of this is audiophile nonsense, that's been prevalent for years and in many cases is utterly absurd. There's a huge amount of selection bias and placebo going on - and that drives peoples' thoughts that they can hear differences, when actually they can't. Unless the differences are very significant, the only way to be absolutely sure is a double-blind test. I think it would be really interesting if you ran a double-blind test to see if you could identify the differences between the codecs. My hunch is that in most cases you wouldn't, but it would be interesting to find out.

Why is it so important to you to tell him what he can or can’t hear and how in the world have you any way of knowing what he can hear?

Because it's really important to cut through the chaff and get to the crux of the matter. When people are saying they can distinguish between the undistinguishable, it makes any thread like this ("are x better than why? If so how?") utterly pointless and useless. It's been a pervasive problem with audiophiles for decades (hence my 'green pen' comment, which will have gone over many of your heads). People who claim to be able to tell the difference between one high-end interconnect cable or another. People who put high-9 copper power supply cables onto their kit, and claim it makes a difference (despite their house wiring being a bit of crappy cheap domestic electric cable). People who buy ridiculously expensive HDMI cables (https://www.amazon.co.uk/AudioQuest-Diamond-HDMI-Black-Cable/dp/B003CT79OQ) or other gold-plated digital interconnects. And people who believe that a different brand of HDD in their NAS genuinely has any perceptible effect on sound quality (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm).

 

[webvan]

Talking of blind tests there is a module in Foobar to do exactly that and I'd encourage anyone to give it a try, even with a lot of patience and concentration it's hard to distinguish between samples that should be obvious according to some "experts", say MP3@320 and FLAC

 

[james444]

I think it would be really interesting if you ran a double-blind test to see if you could identify the differences between the codecs. My hunch is that in most cases you wouldn't, but it would be interesting to find out.

Talking of blind tests there is a module in Foobar to do exactly that and I'd encourage anyone to give it a try, even with a lot of patience and concentration it's hard to distinguish between samples that should be obvious according to some "experts", say MP3@320 and FLAC

The page I linked to in my last post consists of live ratings from such tests:
http://soundexpert.org/encoders-320-kbps

You can download test files, contribute your own grade and help the rating become more accurate:
http://soundexpert.org/testing-room

At maximum bitrate, SBC, aptX and AAC artifacts will all be below the threshold of human perception. However, aptX and AAC have more headroom in sound quality, so any fallback to lower bitrates (e.g. due to limited CPU resources, low wireless signal strength, or high wireless interference) will result in relatively better perceived sound quality for the latter codecs.

http://soundexpert.org/encoders-320-kbps

 

[nc8000]

The point he's making is that a lot of this is audiophile nonsense, that's been prevalent for years and in many cases is utterly absurd. There's a huge amount of selection bias and placebo going on - and that drives peoples' thoughts that they can hear differences, when actually they can't. Unless the differences are very significant, the only way to be absolutely sure is a double-blind test. I think it would be really interesting if you ran a double-blind test to see if you could identify the differences between the codecs. My hunch is that in most cases you wouldn't, but it would be interesting to find out.


Because it's really important to cut through the chaff and get to the crux of the matter. When people are saying they can distinguish between the undistinguishable, it makes any thread like this ("are x better than why? If so how?") utterly pointless and useless. It's been a pervasive problem with audiophiles for decades (hence my 'green pen' comment, which will have gone over many of your heads). People who claim to be able to tell the difference between one high-end interconnect cable or another. People who put high-9 copper power supply cables onto their kit, and claim it makes a difference (despite their house wiring being a bit of crappy cheap domestic electric cable). People who buy ridiculously expensive HDMI cables (https://www.amazon.co.uk/AudioQuest-Diamond-HDMI-Black-Cable/dp/B003CT79OQ) or other gold-plated digital interconnects. And people who believe that a different brand of HDD in their NAS genuinely has any perceptible effect on sound quality (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm).

So in other words you are saying that your oppinion is what is fact and what anybody else is saying or hearing is wrong if it does not agree with your oppinion ?

Who appointed you the ruler here ?

 

[webreaper]

So in other words you are saying that your oppinion is what is fact and what anybody else is saying or hearing is wrong if it does not agree with your oppinion ? Who appointed you the ruler here ?

No, I'm not saying that at all - I don't think you read my post. I'm merely saying that people should be careful about stating that they can hear differences, when placebo effect is a very real thing. You might think you're hearing an improvement, but unless it's double-blind, you can't be certain. Your own ears can trick you.

The only way to compare for these sorts of subtle effects is with a double-blind test. If you've double-blinded, and can hear the difference between two different codecs, all power to you. But if you're just saying "don't buy product X because it doesn't use codec y and so sounds terrible", please caveat your comment with "but it wasn't a double-blind test, so I could be wrong". If you genuinely believe that you don't need to double-blind to remove selection bias, then you should probably go and do a double-blind test. You'll probably be surprised. I was - used to spend money on expensive interconnects and did the 'green pen' thing, until somebody explained it to me (a hifi shop, of all places). I double-blinded, and realised that I couldn't tell the difference at all, and that I was subconsciously hearing improvements when I connected up more expensive kit. Read the NAS article, and see for yourself. It's utterly bonkers - as is the fact that people pay hundreds of dollars for digital interconnects to 'improve sound quality', which is a scientific farce.

We all do it, implicitly, it's part of human nature. It's the same reason your car feels like it's quicker and smoother when you've just washed it - despite that having zero effect on performance.

Instead of throwing around accusations about people "appointing themselves ruler", maybe consider whether you're entirely unbiased on this. Historically, I've found that people (including myself) go through a sort of 'discovery rage' and push back when they realise that, through a double-blind test, the "huge improvements" they thought they were hearing simply don't exist. But once you realise the facts, you'll be happier because you'll understand that some money you're spending could be better saved because it literally makes no discernable difference.

But anyway, I wasn't meaning to offend you, and if you've taken offense, I apologise. We're here for mutual appreciation and discovery of good kit - there's no sense arguing over it. Keep it fun, eh?

 

[chinmie]

The point he's making is that a lot of this is audiophile nonsense, that's been prevalent for years and in many cases is utterly absurd. There's a huge amount of selection bias and placebo going on - and that drives peoples' thoughts that they can hear differences, when actually they can't. Unless the differences are very significant, the only way to be absolutely sure is a double-blind test. I think it would be really interesting if you ran a double-blind test to see if you could identify the differences between the codecs. My hunch is that in most cases you wouldn't, but it would be interesting to find out.

yup. and what i want to say is that just because we can't hear any difference doesn't mean the other party is lying. it's just like different shades of green: some might only say dark and light green, while others will name several other. did the former not see the difference? they might in fact actually see the difference, but to them not extreme enough to warrant a "registered change".

some says cable changes nothing. me? i know it changes something, but does it justify me buying thousands of dollars worth of cables? not for me. and i don't bash the people who do buy it, because they have the budget to justify it.

this is mostly talks similar to the realm of religion talk. there's no end to this, and nothing is gained from debating it, so I'll be quiet about this from now

on the side note, I've just received the Sabbat X12pro, nice openback sound like an earbud, especially for the price. support AAC, and battery is promised to be 6 hours, but I'm still doing some testing.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Why is it so important to you to tell him what he can or can’t hear and how in the world have you any way of knowing what he can hear ?

The only thing you have any right to say is what you can hear.

Like another poster said, when people are claiming they can hear differences that are physically inaudible, they are going to be giving purchase advice to others based on that, and people are going to end up wasting money on crap they don't need.

When posters around here play Emperor's New Clothes with codecs, bitrate, and snake oil cables and whatever else, it just supports the whole industry of carnies suckering audiophiles into emptying their wallets on garbage. You'll end up with people who are fairly new asking questions and thinking that they're getting shortchanged if they don't buy a product without this-or-that, when it's wholly unnecessary in the first place.

You can't hear LDAC. You just can't. A 256kbps mp3 is at transparency levels, 320 is absolutely indistinguishable in any blind test, what good do you think 990 is doing? It's no different than the garbage about expensive cables and burn-in. It's all voodoo, and it's making the hobby a complete quagmire of jargon and BS where shady companies can make a whole ton of money and people end up with gear that cost more than it should and isn't fitting their needs like something half the price could have.

It drives me up a damn wall because I'm seeing this hobby turn into a pointless numbers race all based on hokum that can't be heard anyway. DACs are touting how they can play at 96/384, everyone's screeching about how if you don't have FLACs then your high-end headphones are a waste of time, and I can just TASTE the day when people insist that if your Bluetooth set doesn't transmit in some new codec that goes at several MBps that they can totally hear it you guys.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

So in other words you are saying that your oppinion is what is fact and what anybody else is saying or hearing is wrong if it does not agree with your oppinion ?

Who appointed you the ruler here ?

That isn't even close to what he said. If you're gonna throw a hissy fit at someone at least actually read what they write before replying.

 

[plisandro]

Getting things back on track, i finally broke and ordered RHA's Trueconnect - found a nice discount online in a Swiss site. Will report back once i give it a try.

 

[nc8000]

Like another poster said, when people are claiming they can hear differences that are physically inaudible, they are going to be giving purchase advice to others based on that, and people are going to end up wasting money on **** they don't need.

When posters around here play Emperor's New Clothes with codecs, bitrate, and snake oil cables and whatever else, it just supports the whole industry of carnies suckering audiophiles into emptying their wallets on garbage. You'll end up with people who are fairly new asking questions and thinking that they're getting shortchanged if they don't buy a product without this-or-that, when it's wholly unnecessary in the first place.

You can't hear LDAC. You just can't. A 256kbps mp3 is at transparency levels, 320 is absolutely indistinguishable in any blind test, what good do you think 990 is doing? It's no different than the garbage about expensive cables and burn-in. It's all voodoo, and it's making the hobby a complete quagmire of jargon and BS where shady companies can make a whole ton of money and people end up with gear that cost more than it should and isn't fitting their needs like something half the price could have.

It drives me up a damn wall because I'm seeing this hobby turn into a pointless numbers race all based on hokum that can't be heard anyway. DACs are touting how they can play at 96/384, everyone's screeching about how if you don't have FLACs then your high-end headphones are a waste of time, and I can just TASTE the day when people insist that if your Bluetooth set doesn't transmit in some new codec that goes at several MBps that they can totally hear it you guys.

So because you can’t hear differences and don’t believe they exist it is emperors new clothes and snake oil when somebody else say they can hear differences as you are the ultimate authority. I get it

 

[webreaper]

Let's move on.

I took my Senns out for the first time today (I haven't left the house since I've had them...) and was pleasantly surprised at how secure the fit was, how comfortable they were (hardly felt them) and how good they sounded while out and about. The other thing I was impressed at was that I could put my phone in any of the four pockets (left, right, front, back) in my jeans and had no signal loss. The Jabras (and the PlusSound) used to start getting disconnect 'clicks' if I had the phone in the opposite pocket to the receiver (e.g., back left pocket, with the plussound unit on my right). So the connectivity is pretty rock-solid.

The other thing I was impressed at was the transparent mode - I used it when having a conversation with a person in a shop, and was able to hear them totally clearly, and at much better volume than with the Jabras.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

So because you can’t hear differences and don’t believe they exist it is emperors new clothes and snake oil when somebody else say they can hear differences as you are the ultimate authority. I get it

So because you don't know what you're talking about you're gonna throw widdle babby temper tantrums at people. Roger that. Godspeed.

 

[chinmie]

4:30 hours and counting. listening to music and occasional youtubes. i really like this for factor for home use, not much of noise blocking at all, like the earbuds form factor that i really like. good overall tuning and airy soundstage.

it sits flush on my ears like the earin (much more flush than the jabra). it can go in my helmet much better too, but i have to test this, because i prefer iems while riding to block noise.

let see if it lives up to the promise of 6-7 hours playtime

 

[jeffri]

I'll just leave this here: https://www.soundguys.com/ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-20019/

It isn't as simple as bitrate with Bluetooth codec. This isn't a simple lossy vs lossless comparison.

Also the aptX, aptX HD and SBC comparison: https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-aptx-and-aptx-hd-19914/

As the graph and measurement suggest, the noise level can be audible between different codecs. Frequency cut out is something I wouldn't worry about though.

 

[webvan]

4:30 hours and counting. listening to music and occasional youtubes. i really like this for factor for home use, not much of noise blocking at all, like the earbuds form factor that i really like. good overall tuning and airy soundstage.

it sits flush on my ears like the earin (much more flush than the jabra). it can go in my helmet much better too, but i have to test this, because i prefer iems while riding to block noise.

let see if it lives up to the promise of 6-7 hours playtime

What model is this ?