[GearMe]

That would appear to be the authority of your personal beliefs and nothing else.OK, you have some bizarre personal theories. You also don't seem to know how to spell the word versus. Why should I suspend disbelief to become one of your disciples?

Nice...personal attacks and correcting grammer grammar; well done, sir, well done!

 

[edstrelow]

   
 
 
Since it's also impossible to compare 2 sounds by playing them at the the same time, that only leaves memory.  If memory is also invalid for comparisons then there's no way left for humans to compare any sounds at all.

Not true.  You just do different types of experiments.  The typical study proposed in these forums is a study with a group of untrained observers and as one of the few persons in this forum who has done human experimenting for a living, I can say this is not how research studies of such topics are carried out.  Essentially the statistical noise in these studies is just too large and the odds are that you will not find any differences.  BTW research journals generally don't publish null results for this reason and because they could  be the reuslt fo sloppy experimenting.
 
The original post is perfectly correct, in comparisons of two sounds at different times, memory and immediate perception are hopelessly confounded, unlike in vison or touch.  How might you get around this?  One technique is the method of adjustment  in which you change the nature of the stimulus as the listener is hearing it to see how much change a listener needs before it is detectable.  We  do this in vision for example when we change the characteristics of a photo, eg., adding more color.  Generally I can see the change as it is happening better than if I were given 2 pictures to compare at the same time.   I should add that none of these techniques are perfect and that gaining real knowledge of the senses is quite difficult to achieve.

 

[CountryBoy]

^ 'memory and immediate perception are hopelessly confounded' - the very heart of the A/B listening debate (along with confirmation bias/placebo effect).

 

[CarstenF]

I have found that the point of audible transparency with lossy formats is 320 for LAME MP3 and 256 for AAC.

I just read an interview with one of the inventors of MP3 (MPEG layer 3) from Fraunhofer Institute in Germany. He said that they could correctly reproduce almost all sounds with MP3 but they could not get castagnettes (English castanets?) to sound right. He said that when they developed AAC as a successor they got this right. That's why he recommends AAC over MP3.

 

[Harry Manback]

Nice...personal attacks and correcting grammer grammar; well done, sir, well done!

I have Arny blocked because this behavior is the norm for him.

 

[upstateguy]

 

Nice...personal attacks and correcting grammer grammar; well done, sir, well done!

I have Arny blocked because this behavior is the norm for him.

You may want to revisit that.

 

[Harry Manback]

You may want to revisit that.

Care to elaborate?

 

[upstateguy]

 

You may want to revisit that.

Care to elaborate?

PM sent

 

[reginalb]

  Not true.  You just do different types of experiments.  The typical study proposed in these forums is a study with a group of untrained observers and as one of the few persons in this forum who has done human experimenting for a living, I can say this is not how research studies of such topics are carried out.  Essentially the statistical noise in these studies is just too large and the odds are that you will not find any differences.  BTW research journals generally don't publish null results for this reason and because they could  be the reuslt fo sloppy experimenting.
 
The original post is perfectly correct, in comparisons of two sounds at different times, memory and immediate perception are hopelessly confounded, unlike in vison or touch.  How might you get around this?  One technique is the method of adjustment  in which you change the nature of the stimulus as the listener is hearing it to see how much change a listener needs before it is detectable.  We  do this in vision for example when we change the characteristics of a photo, eg., adding more color.  Generally I can see the change as it is happening better than if I were given 2 pictures to compare at the same time.   I should add that none of these techniques are perfect and that gaining real knowledge of the senses is quite difficult to achieve.

 
Also because most people don't find them interesting, and there is less grant money in null results. Null is a result, but in my experience, the reason you've given has literally never been why one wasn't published.
 
I think a much better method is unlimited repeats of any section of ABX. Whenever I've been able to hear an artifact in one example of a track, I can quickly and easily confirm it, from memory. It's not really that difficult. And the point of using an untrained listener is to get at cost-benefit. If you have to go through extensive training, then strain to try to hear a difference between two formats, most people aren't going to want to shell out a significant additional sum of money to get said format.  It doesn't help with enjoyment of the music, and cost usually outweighs benefit.
 

All of that said, if you have an enormous amount of money to spend, who cares? My problem is shoveling snake oil at people, such that they strain their budget for something that wasn't ever worth it in the first place. I don't care about the guy spending $100,000 on his vinyl system, he can probably afford it. I care about the guy that makes 30k a year spending 5% of that on an MP3 player. To say that iriver is doing anything beyond leveraging information asymmetries to make a quick buck (I know you aren't, I'm on a rant here) is a mistaken belief, if you ask me. /rant

 

[castleofargh]

it's probably a little bit of everything.
for a scientist, getting a null result mostly shows the failure to identify differences. it can give an incentive not to care too much about a format, but it doesn't prove that no audible difference exists.
 
then as mentioned, it's not like there is a CD lobby doing marketing and sponsored research to prove CD is as good as highres. nobody cares to demonstrate that. myself, I don't feel much of a need, I sure did my own experiment involving me and myself, and drew my conclusions. but for the next guy, don't know, don't care. it's not my job to pick his audio format. there is no driving force behind CD like when it was a new format.
 
lastly, as it's been perfectly demonstrated through marketing, something doesn't really have to be, for people to believe it is. so at some point if I was an industry insider with big power, I would probably put most of my money on marketing instead of research.

 

 

[AtrafCreez]

Newbie. Is audio streaming like Tidal, spotify, etc always higher quality audio than youtube streaming/
Thanks

 

[peterinvan]

When will we finally be able to try Tidal MQA streaming?
 
I have my Meridian Explorer 2 in place, ready and waiting.
 
Hope to hear an announcement this week from the CES.

 

[peterinvan]

Just downloaded two tracks from 2L.   Bjørn Morten Christophersen: Oak & Mayfly in 24/96 and MQA.  $6 downloads
 
https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/
 
24/96 is 152Kb
 
MQA is 85Kb
 
Listening thru Foobar2000 > iFi IUSB > Jitterbug > Meridian Explorer2 > EL84 tube amp > Mission V63 towers.
 
I am disappointed that the MQA green light did not show on the Explorer2.
 
The MQA version is playing at 44.1 Khz.
 
I cannot hear any difference between these two tracks. 
 
P.S.
Also downloaded a track from MEZZOTINTS.  Nice SQ, but no MQA light on Explorer.

 

[peterinvan]

CES news...
 
...from a technical point of view we can confirm the Tidal/MQA service works. Here at CES Unveiled there was a working demo on a Mac laptop through the MQA-enabled Meridian Explorer 2 DAC and headphones, with MQA music files provided via music label 2L on Tidal.
 
Does anyone have a clue how to stream MQA tracks on Tidal?

 

[spruce music]

  Just downloaded two tracks from 2L.   Bjørn Morten Christophersen: Oak & Mayfly in 24/96 and MQA.  $6 downloads
 
https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/
 
24/96 is 152Kb
 
MQA is 85Kb
 
Listening thru Foobar2000 > iFi IUSB > Jitterbug > Meridian Explorer2 > EL84 tube amp > Mission V63 towers.
 
I am disappointed that the MQA green light did not show on the Explorer2.
 
The MQA version is playing at 44.1 Khz.
 
I cannot hear any difference between these two tracks. 
 
P.S.
Also downloaded a track from MEZZOTINTS.  Nice SQ, but no MQA light on Explorer.

Don't have an MQA capable DAC, but are you sure Foobar is setup for bitperfect playback with no other things going on?  Using WASAPI or ASIO.  You also might try another piece of playback software.  Also, is there a bit of driver software for the Explorer 2 required for operation above 96 khz (usually there is when using Windows)?