[bigshot]

I am trying to help people discover where their own threshold of transparency is. You obviously aren't interested in learning that.

 

[FFBookman]

  I am trying to help people discover where their own threshold of transparency is. You obviously aren't interested in learning that.

Nice phrase for "compromise" or "good enough".  That's not exactly your mission to help people, it's to try to embarrass people like me. But I know too many engineers producers and musicians (actual bigshots) to back down from internet bigshots. 
 
If you want convenience, have it. If you are arguing convenience you have a good argument. I won't bother you with that.  5mb per song is more convenient than 250mb.
 
But don't argue sound quality with down sampled or lossy files.  You can't knowingly degrade something then deny that you did that.
 
You are trying to find where is "good enough" based on data rate.  I get it.  I wish you understood that's what you were doing too.

 

[bigshot]

You're just blowing hot air now. You've got your samples. Go listen to them and get back to me. BUH BYE!!

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
Wow that is what you are doing.  Searching and searching for a way to convince us all that 320k = 4000k in digital audio.
 
 
Or that humans only have the hearing capability to process around 320k of stereo audio data.  That is false.
 
Or that humans can't hear digital compression artifacts and the filtering and masking used in MP3.  Also false.
 
Or that everyone in the world listens to horribly produced music from the last 10 years on $5 headphones.  False again.
  
Or that nobody cares anyway, because this is confusing and they just want convenience.  More false every day.

Unfortunately Bookman you fell head first into the "bigger is always better" trap. Your little equation of "320k = 4000k in digital audio" does work provided that the equal sign is replaced with the phrase "functionally equivalent".
 
Having spent over 30 years as a mechanical engineer I learned that bigger is not necessarily better but it damn sure is wasteful. Let's take a simple example:
 
A contractor is building a house and would like to use a few I-beams to support the roof. Now an 8" I-beam would be more than adequate to support the roof but everyone knows that a 24" I-beam, being bigger, is better so the contractor goes ahead uses the 24" I-beams. Meanwhile another contractor uses the 8" I-beams. When the houses are finished the one with the 24" I-beams is now 30% more expensive than the one with the 8" I-beams (increased height, increased beam and support sizes due to the extra weight of the 24" I-beams, etc.), Needless to say the bigger is better contractor quickly goes out of business.
 
The FUD you mentioned in a earlier post is really about the fear of not having the biggest - biggest power amp, biggest cables, biggest file sizes, biggest whatever.

 

[krismusic]

All these analogies are a bit pointless IMHO. I actually think FFB may well be right. I just wish he would take the dang test. However flawed it could be really interesting. If he nailed it a good few, including me, would have to re assess.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

All these analogies are a bit pointless IMHO. I actually think FFB may well be right. I just wish he would take the dang test. However flawed it could be really interesting. If he nailed it a good few, including me, would have to re assess.

I beg to differ I believe that the analogies are very useful since many people feel that digital audio should strive to be more analog.
 
Edit: All kidding aside, it is FFB who is playing the numbers game and mathematics is all about analogies. No one is arguing that lossy audio files contain as much data as lossless audio files, they don't. What Bigshot is saying is that there are lossy audio files that contain enough data so that one can tell them apart by simply listening to them.

 

[krismusic]

I beg to differ I believe that the [COLOR=FF0000]analog[/COLOR]ies are very useful since many people feel that digital audio should strive to be more [COLOR=FF0000]analog[/COLOR].

Maybe someone can create an app to introduce rumble and surface noise into digital recordings.

 

[dprimary]

Maybe someone can create an app to introduce rumble and surface noise into digital recordings.

Like this?
 
https://www.izotope.com/en/products/effects-instruments/vinyl/

 

[knucklehead]

 
Nice phrase for "compromise" or "good enough".  That's not exactly your mission to help people, it's to try to embarrass people like me. But I know too many engineers producers and musicians (actual bigshots) to back down from internet bigshots. 
 
If you want convenience, have it. If you are arguing convenience you have a good argument. I won't bother you with that.  5mb per song is more convenient than 250mb.
 
But don't argue sound quality with down sampled or lossy files.  You can't knowingly degrade something then deny that you did that.
 
You are trying to find where is "good enough" based on data rate.  I get it.  I wish you understood that's what you were doing too.

 
Thank you for this "nugget" post. This one is golden, and why I (mostly) observe these threads.
 
ego,ego,ego ....
 
(that should be, good enough based on perceptibility)
 
/decloak

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
but it's not really the point. he's been posting everywhere anytime the subject comes up, that mp3 sounds really bad. on the pono troll topic, he's been saying that an old walkman playing a k7 tape sounded better than a mp3 in a modern DAP. so if only for the tape hiss, if mp3 is worst, audibility should really never be a problem right?
then he goes on saying that no test is right to test that.

see the irony? so obvious you don't need a test, so tricky a test can't be used. pretty funny. and of course as always with people against blind testing, he has no better alternative to offer but sighted evaluation. and we all know what that's worth and how accurate it is.

 
 
 
I didn't take bigshot's test because I believe that an ABX is a more accurate way to go at it, and have done it countless times. but between nothing and his test, I take his test any day.
and I also don't believe blind tests to be perfect, but I just don't pretend like I can know better in a sighted evaluation, because that's a joke.

 
Does Frauhauffer pay you people to defend MP3 sound quality online by spreading FUD about "lossless"?  I thought that program ended in the 90's.
those guys have spent many years trying to kill mp3 to make AAC the only format. sorry wrong conspiracy theory.
 
Why are you convinced that 320k = 4000k, but only in digital audio?  
first I personally never ever said that mp3@320 was equal to higher resolution formats. you keep on trying to dumb down everything that I say and make a false caricature, but it's just not something I ever said. all I said was that it was super hard to actually tell the difference just by listening.
 
second, when you keep saying stuff like 320k = 4000k you're just showing that you don't understand digital sampling too well, because mp3 isn't a PCM format, sure it's only vocabulary for you but there is still a reason why and in the end it's like comparing the weight of apples to the number of oranges and ask why we refuse to admit that the bigger number is better.
I already told you that but you have no trouble at all using the same mistakes again and again without even trying to understand where you're wrong. 
 
  also you mistake, like our good guy Neil Young, compression algorithm for something that only cuts into the data like it was some solid piece of fabric. talking about bitrate with no relation to how compressed the data really is, that's kind of like saying that if flac cuts a file size in 2 compared to wave, then it has only half the data and is only half as good.
some part of mp3 is lossy, but not all of it so giving it value based on the size of its data is irrelevant. maybe start by saying something accurate and then you will get legitimacy when asking us why we insist on saying that you're wrong.
 
Why do you denigrate your hearing capabilities so easily to think that your ear-brain only can process what equals 320k of audio data at a time?
maybe because I use testing and known research on the subject instead of believing that I'm some almighty being that can tell anything is different if it's measurable. as if we were somehow as good as measurement devices...
 
Why would you support a test that tricks people into thinking that 320k = 4000k?
see above about the 320k = 4000k nonsense. I support any form of test and never thought abx or bigshot's test to be perfect. but until I can find better, it's still far more accurate than a guy not testing anything and pretending to know.
 
You've already said in previous threads that any artist or producer that purchases samples at higher than 16/44 quality is a fool, which makes you a fool in my book.
 yeah sure... if I ever said something like that, then I also would believe that I'm a fool. except I didn't. I don't even understand what you're saying, an artist purchasing samples of what? his own music? to do what with it?....
 
No tests needed, just add up your points --- No one can hear more than 320k of lossy data?  Yet everyone seems to hear it. So a test is devised to show that most of the time people aren't sure what's going on. Confusing people doesn't prove anything and your emotional crutch in believing a compressed, lossy, audio format designed for dial-up modems sounds the same as professional audio is fascinating, it keeps me posting. I can't help the intervention in your backwards thinking.

answers in red.

 

[bigshot]

He's gone. He won't be back for a while. When he comes back it will be like we never said anything at all. That is how he exists in his mental vacuum. He blocks any evidence to the contrary.

 

[mironathetin]

 
answers in red.

Don't waste your time trying to teach someone who is completely resistant to learn. 
 
We have to admit that sound science and digital compression is a complex and highly mathematical topic. It even has a subjective component and this can lead to these endless discussions. Everybody can contribute, but not everybody is qualified or takes the time to understand the math - and that is fine. 
Just accept it.
 
This is not the only example where science is non-intuitive. Companies use that fact to fool customers (or companies fool themselves, as I believe Neil Young has the best intentions).

 

[Ruben123]

 
I beg to differ I believe that the analogies are very useful since many people feel that digital audio should strive to be more analog.
 
Edit: All kidding aside, it is FFB who is playing the numbers game and mathematics is all about analogies. No one is arguing that lossy audio files contain as much data as lossless audio files, they don't. What Bigshot is saying is that there are lossy audio files that contain enough data so that one can tell them apart by simply listening to them.

It bothers me that he (and his pals) can get away with the same claims in the DBT free zone. Which causes "innocent" people to buy gear they dont need, because guys like he say that 320=4000 is BS (which it is though) and if you want to hear real analog music (not just sound) you need blablabla
 
Now the Pono player has a comparison app built-in. Your 24 bit files could be downgraded to 16 bit lossless and MP3 so you can hear the differences for yourself. People actually HEAR differences with the app, it makes it feel suspicious...

 

[castleofargh]

 

 
I beg to differ I believe that the analogies are very useful since many people feel that digital audio should strive to be more analog.
 
Edit: All kidding aside, it is FFB who is playing the numbers game and mathematics is all about analogies. No one is arguing that lossy audio files contain as much data as lossless audio files, they don't. What Bigshot is saying is that there are lossy audio files that contain enough data so that one can tell them apart by simply listening to them.

It bothers me that he (and his pals) can get away with the same claims in the DBT free zone. Which causes "innocent" people to buy gear they dont need, because guys like he say that 320=4000 is BS (which it is though) and if you want to hear real analog music (not just sound) you need blablabla
 
Now the Pono player has a comparison app built-in. Your 24 bit files could be downgraded to 16 bit lossless and MP3 so you can hear the differences for yourself. People actually HEAR differences with the app, it makes it feel suspicious...

as I got locked out of the pono topic for talking about that very feature using too many words like "biasaladeen" "blind testaladeen" and "methodaladeen", for currawong's taste. maybe I can still say it here in the headfi ghetto where it's ok to try and tell the truth without being flagged for using words necessary to explain it... 
each time I get a post deleted for saying blind testingaladeen or abxaladeen, I feel like headfi is ruled by supreme leader Aladeen. how can it be considered ok to limit freedom of speech like that is beyond me. headfi should just script a replacement for all the words they don't like just like that, they already do it for swearing it's not hard to implement at all, less people would end up being deleted or banned and at least it could make some of us laugh.

 
 
 
 
so the test in the pono works with that logicaladeen:

it's not a test of anything as you have a nice screen telling you what you're listening to and you are in controlaladeen so it's in fact a sighted testaladeen trying to pass for some unbiased testaladeen. of course it's better than nothing, but it's certainly not the kind of stuff that would attenuate prejudice and placeboaladeen.
 
 @mironathetin you're right, some people are not permeable to reason and rational arguments. but letting his posts go unchallenged and not showing that what he said is wrong would let other members to maybe mistake that for him being right. and that troubles me a great deal. it should be a civic duty when someone is BSing a crowd, to tell that crowd what is going on and give them enough information to make their own informed decisions. after that they can believe whatever they want, it will be from their own decision.

 

[krismusic]

Like this?

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/effects-instruments/vinyl/

Ha ha ha. "Get the perfect amount of scratchy, noisy, grit to dirty up even the cleanest tracks."!!!