1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Objectivists board room

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by joe bloggs, May 28, 2015.
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281
  1. JaeYoon
    Doesn't anyone dislike it when a snobby audiophile is like
    "What a waste of an audio player, if you are using lossy encoding just your phone or a crappy ipod instead.

    Yet no one who makes that snobby remark has any proof they have surpassing evolutionary ears beyond the normal human being to consistently show that they can hear the difference between a lossless and a lossy encoding in a noisy urban environment.

    Yes that would be fantastic if someone has a ABX test log of them listening to lossless vs lossy in a urban environment and pass the test consistently.
  2. bigshot
    The crappy iPhone or iPod might very well have better specs than what they're using.
    JaeYoon likes this.
  3. Argyris Contributor
    It's been a while since that sort of stuff bothered me. I've written off the entire segment of the hobby that says stuff like that—there's no convincing them otherwise, and it's not like the rest of the world doesn't already think they're off the path, so any newcomers who wander in and end up believing that guff probably already wanted to believe it. They definitely had advance warning that this hobby is filled with unsubstantiated bunk.
    JaeYoon likes this.
  4. reginalb
    Not worth a thread, but I spotted a couple new Blue Note releases of music that I didn't own yet, since I stream most of my music (John Coltrane Blue Train and Miles Davis Take Off: The Complete Blue Note Albums) they advertised the DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM Stereo, so I ordered them. Multi-channel is all I buy separately at this point - Play Music All Access (which also comes with YouTube Red) provides all the music I could need. But if it's music I really like, and it's in multi-channel, I do pick that up from time to time.

    They're in stereo. They used the DTS-HD and TrueHD containers for 2 channels. I guess that's a common thing with Pure Audio blu-rays, but I didn't realize that. So annoying. Just venting, I should have done more due diligence and not assumed those would be multi-channel, but I didn't, and that's my fault.
  5. bigshot
    There's a lot of that. I got tricked with a Japanese SACD that had a 5.1 track, but it had gone out of print and when it came back into print, it was 2 channel only. The cover looked identical. I bought it and got a similar nasty surprise.
    reginalb likes this.
  6. reginalb
    Frustrating stuff. But we're in the minority if we're looking for multi-channel. I think that's the most frustrating part of the hobby for me, that there are areas where we could really have real improvement - instead we get ever higher bit-rates, re-releases of the same 2 channel masters of the same old albums, but now they're in DXD!

    Anyway, it's still good music. :)
  7. bigshot
    I have a theory about the impedance experts... I think outside of sound science, half baked paraphrases of concepts with buzz words fly. People say, "Wow! I don't understand that, so that guy must know his stuff!" They judge knowledge against their own ignorance. Then the armchair expert stumbles into a place where people actually know what the words mean and they're shocked to find out they aren't an expert at all. That sends them running back into the safety of their box. They think they are the outside world and we are the box, but it's the other way around... or perhaps they're right and the world runs on ignorance and half baked paraphrasing of ideas.
    reginalb likes this.
  8. Argyris Contributor
    This sounds depressingly accurate.
  9. bigshot
    It's interesting though. You can get them to run for the door faster by just asking them for a simple specific answer than by burying them in technical details. They're used to piles of meaningless technical details. They just vomit them back to you filtered through a funhouse mirror.
  10. castleofargh Contributor
    explain something technical to someone who knows nothing of that domain, and listen to him tell what he thinks he understood. that's often enough to go from legit stuff to science fiction. and the worst part is that nobody is trying to fool anybody.
  11. reginalb
    I'd say it's better or worse in different domains. And I've never seen it as bad as it is in audiophilia.
  12. Zapp_Fan
    As far as hobbies that are regularly discussed online go, I think audiophilia is one of the worst. A close analogy: I used to be quite active in audio production forums, and there is a significant amount of superstition and mumbo-jumbo (audiophiliac ideas creep in, like a digital summing algorithm being "warmer" than another ... didn't know a plus sign had tonality, but OK) but it's nowhere near as bad. I think it's because people trying to create music usually have much bigger problems than e.g. the phase accuracy of their EQ - like their mics being crap, or their room being crap, or their song not being very good, etc. Also, in music production there are occasional cold showers of reality, where some 15-year-old kid comes along and blows all the gearheads out of the water with some free software and hand-me-down Sony cans for mixing. Talent/skill can't be ignored, so people tend to stop talking about gear and get back to work.

    At the pro level I've heard a few people get deep into audiophile superstition, but at the amateur level, an extreme focus on gear is secondary to trying to figure out how to use the gear.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
    CarlosUnchained likes this.
  13. danadam
    This reminds me, The Lowdown on Downloads (wav vs flac strikes again):
    and later:
    RRod likes this.
  14. Niouke
    I can see the comparison "test" already, Everyone is blunted and the hosts plays a flac - "It's crap right? can't you hear the soudstage?" - "Yeah I'm down bro!"
    RRod likes this.
  15. Zapp_Fan
    That's probably what happened. The most generous explanation is they resampled from (say) 96khz to 44.1 with the worst possible converter and generated a lot of artifacts by accident while transcoding to FLAC.
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281

Share This Page