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

There is nothing you can do to make a $5k DAC w/ 16/44 sound better than $1kDAC w/ 24/96

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by chesebert, Jul 10, 2010.
1 2 3 4 5
  1. haloxt
    I'll explain the saying.
    Wheat is practical information. Even lies can be wheat if they lead to more good than evil, or are a good approximation of truth. Chaff is uncreative and functionless data, information with no real use and serve to make people feel, to use a favorite expression of Trout's, "like something the cat drug in".
    I get disappointed in audiophiles when they claim subjective impressions is a complete substitute for objective data, in which case they have abandoned reason for their imagination, but this is somewhat forgivable because they are always under attack by irritating naysayers, naysayers who tend to do the exact opposite of what they preach. They say they want proof but they sabotage it at every turn, here's a friendly hint, you can't call people unscientific and try to cajole them into doing scientific experiments for you. The fact there's all this bad blood I wouldn't even trust tests by pro-cablers, and you naysayers have no one but yourselves to blame scaring off pro-cablers from contributing, not that many naysayers know how to appreciate contributions.
  2. leeperry
  3. anetode


    Yes, I take it we both know the dictionary definitions of those terms. Are you also familiar with the philosophy of science, of the debate that factors in naturalism, or other uses of these terms, like Rand's (big O) Objectivism? There's more to the history and usage of these words than the dictionary definitions hint at (even if you use a good one, like the OED), much more. This is why I don't like to get caught up in semantics or use of out-of-place jargon in characterizing points of view. (edit: too late for the first one)
    As an example, in this paragraph you have misappropriated the terms "schizophrenic" "bulimic" and "science", not to mention a few others, nor the deeper concepts behind them. Some would let this go as use of a poetic license, I would call it flaunting one's ignorance and arrogance. Being a cynic is a harsh reality, being a cynic and a jerk is harsher still. You have my sympathy.
  4. haloxt
    Just because there are different definitions of objectivism and subjectivism does not mean my point is invalid. My point is simply that Pio2001's use of objectivist and subjectivist is utterly wrong.
    I know what these terms mean, and they fit perfectly well. Let me explain.
    Science is schizophrenic http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/box/438900a_BX1.html (note Giles is a moron pushing wikipedia)
    And people are mentally bulimic when you see debate but never any resolution. People can't stop to wonder why they argue, it's so much easier to resort to more and more personal attacks.
    And I used the word science to mean the many purveyors of "science" for the masses and lower technocrats. There are indeed people practicing real science, but they don't waste time trying to clear up all the nonsense put in the heads of the general public.
  5. anetode
    Thanks for linking to that article, I'm pleased to see some recognition for Connolley's work.
    As for Pio2001's use, well, indiscriminate labeling usually causes problems.
  6. n3rdling
    Over the years I've noticed chesebert has seemed to have heard everything.  I'm not kidding or exaggerating; every thread I've seen somebody mention a specific piece of gear as a suggestion or counter to him, he's responded that he "heard it briefly and it sounded x and y".  Chesebert, can you tell us how you've heard so much gear please?  I'm genuinely interested.
  7. nnotis
     Sorry to reply to a post from months ago.  But I have to agree with leeperry in his refusal to accept what the hi res audio seller said:
    "Last time a 24/96 audio seller came here on head-fi to tell us how 24/96 audio is sheer awesomeness, we kindly asked for 16/44.1 and 24/96 samples from the very same floating point master...but he started telling us that CD and HD audio couldn't possibly be mastered identically(you can easily end up w/ 8bit audio or worse on a CDDA if the volume's too low...a real problem for classical music for instance)"
    Yes, you'd want to add a dither when bouncing said files to 16 bit masters.  Whereas the low quantization noise at 24 bits makes dithering unnecessary.  But unless the recording is something like “Jet Engines Alternating with Virtual Silence”, where the virtual silence is musically relevant, his claim is ridiculous.  I’m sure there are quite parts to songs with only 8 bits of useful data.  And if one were to crank their amp up to make that quite part really loud, they’d definitely hear some noise.  Then the quite part would end, and the listener’s speakers and/or ears would blow up.  Quite parts a supposed to be quite.  There’s no sensible reason why 16/44 and high res audio should be mastered any differently.
  8. chesebert
    Whenever I go to Shanghai, New York and Beijing for trips/vacations I always like to spend a day or two listening to gears at local dealers. The beauty of those 3 cities is that most dealers are centrally located and you can demo lots of gear for a long time ("audiophile crawl").  I usually bring my own CD or rely on one of the many popular demo disks (e.g. Burmester demo CDs) that I am very familiar with.
    I am also pretty good friends with one of the audio dealers in Michigan, so I spend a lot of time listening to his gear (like a whole day at a time).
    I think its important to listen to alot of gear (both expensive and cheap) so you know what you like and what you don't like.  You are not so reliant on forum comments or magazine reviews.
    I have been doing this for many years.  Yes alot of gear, indeed.

  9. n3rdling


    Here's the problem I have with that: you aren't eliminating enough variables to zone in on what a piece of gear sounds like.  In order to give an opinion on what the Alpha DAC, for instance, sounds like you need to either have the DAC at home in your system or take your system (not just the headphones, but also the amp, etc) with you to listen to the DAC.  Without doing this you're commenting on the entire system, not a component in particular.  You have an opinion on the entire system, you don't have an opinion on a component in particular.  I'm sure you can understand why this is extremely misleading behavior.  It'd be like me having my system at home and going to a local dealer to go cable shopping, hearing some expensive cable in a random system there, hearing a bright system, and then deciding I don't want the cable because "the cable sounded bright".  No it didn't - the system did.  The cable may very well sound bright but I have no real clue until I put it into my system that I'm very familiar with.  There is no way to induce the sound of a component without knowing the sound of every other component in the system already.  Period.
    Maybe I'm missing something you haven't mentioned yet, please let me know if so.  However if this isn't the case, you need to stop commenting on the sound of specific components and instead comment that you heard the component in a system with X amplifier and Y headphones/speakers.  It is a disservice to the community when people think they know what a specific piece of gear sounds like in a system foreign to them and it happens a TON on this forum.  I personally wish these people would get banned since it misleads the rest of us  - newbies in particular.  
    Again, if there's something I'm missing this obviously doesn't apply to you but I felt like getting that little rant out. :)
  10. chesebert
    I think it's fair to comment on a piece of equipment in a system you are not familiar with as long as you have several samples of other pieces to compare it with.  Even if I had hauled my speakers to the dealer, my opinion would still be based on a particular system, my system.  It's not practical to isolate the sound of any single equipment, because your comments are inevitably clouded by the 'sound' of your own equipments.
    My opinion on a piece of gear is just one data point.  I hope others post impressions of their experiences with gear, whether they heard it in a system they are familiar with or not, because only by having enough data points, we can hope that a consensus will emerge on the 'general' sound of a piece of gear.  Granted, even when there exist a consensus on a particular gear, it may still sound different in your system - that's the inevitable truth.
    Plus, you can generally tell the quality of an equipment even if you are hearing in a system you are not familiar with, as long as the system is revealing enough.  Of course, we are not talking about cables here, but equipments that can be easily identified by their sonic characteristics, e.g. speaker, amplifier, DAC, headphone, CDP, etc

  11. Currawong Contributor


    QFT.   I'd be more interested in the discussions in the Sound Science forum if I didn't feel it wasn't full of noise from people for whom science is their infallible religion.
    Back on track, if it hasn't been posted already:  24bit vs 16bit: The Myth Exploded
  12. Trysaeder
  13. Shike
    Measuring with ears?  Measuring what exactly, and to what level of accuracy?  Furthermore, you may want to rephrase that to ask "his" opinion.
    Oh wait, read a bit further and see you have no interest in this thread.  Nice trolling attempt, really makes a point? [​IMG]
  14. Currawong Contributor
    Sucked-in! (As we used to say in school.) [​IMG]

  15. haloxt

    Point is in the eye of the beholder, mr. bring measuring tools when shopping for headphones. I have no interest because most of you guys don't have the attention span to get what I'm saying.
1 2 3 4 5

Share This Page