Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.

[2leftears]

You should try working on a manufacturing company that makes these audio product components or even aerospace industry. You'll soon find out there's hardly any scientific rigour existing there but rather everything is empirical and statistically driven

My dad worked in the aerospace industry (aircraft component fatigue testing, to be specific), and I always took a keen interest in what he was working on. You could't be further off the mark.

Statistics do play a big part there, but don't make the mistake of thinking statistics isn't scientific rigour.

 

[BS5711]

I’m not quite sure what the point of announcing that one refuses to have further debate with a poster to another poster..then several more chime in to do the same.

Seems passive aggressive.

Would you prefer just normal aggressive ?

Most folks here seem to prefer to be at least somewhat polite.

I'm just chilling and putting some thoughts that are triggering to the "ministry of audio science"

Is that the purpose of your ongoing nonsensical posts in several threads at once, just to chill and trigger people ?

We get it, you have said it already several times over. You only believe objective data that aligns with your subjective feelings and dismiss that which doesn’t, you trust your ears implicitly despite acknowledging psychological influences because somehow they don’t apply to you, you could so easily distinguish certain things in a blind test that you don’t need to bother with the blind test, your eyes and ears are interconnected, I am sure there are other little highlights that I have missed.

Really just standard audiophile nonsense except turned up a notch of two and you seem to have more time on your hands than most to want to sit, chill and attempt to trigger people.

 

[theveterans]

Is that the purpose of your ongoing nonsensical posts in several threads at once, just to chill and trigger people ?

It is only nonsensical to those that adhere to a predefined absolutist of audio science. None of those absolutist science are used when manufacturing great sounding audio gears that actually make people cry and have goosebumps from sheer sound quality

 

[BS5711]

It is only nonsensical to those that adhere to a predefined absolutist of audio science. None of those absolutist science are used when manufacturing great sounding audio gears that actually make people cry and have goosebumps from sheer sound quality

Oh that is a lovely image.

What is nonsensical to me is ignorance towards psychology of audio and selecting when it matters and when apparently it doesn't apply to you like you have some control over it.

You know full well that it is an important factor, your lovely mental image above is all about psychology in audio, yet you ignore the other facets of it because in those scenarios it doesn't suit your feelings and/or the tenuous correlations you draw.

I see your mate has entered the room, I sure he will back you up all the way, EDIT - no he left, even he doesn't have the capacity for the ongoing crazy talk, I guess he has triggered his share of science blokes for the moment

 

[colonelkernel8]

It is only nonsensical to those that adhere to a predefined absolutist of audio science. None of those absolutist science are used when manufacturing great sounding audio gears that actually make people cry and have goosebumps from sheer sound quality

Sheer sound quality will never make anyone cry unless the music itself could already make them cry.

 

[BS5711]

Sheer sound quality will never make anyone cry unless the music itself could already make them cry.

Indeed.

I have had one or two deeply emotional experiences just singing a song in my head.

That might have been after a few wines but, regardless, there was no high end audio involved, although I did sound better in my own head than I do if singing out loud, that might have played into it.

 

[bigshot]

I'm aware of that and that's the reality that I perceive from my system and to @eq1849 and others who performed those tests on behalf of us subjectivists. We rely on multiple views of objective measurements using multiple instruments and not just on the analog output of a DAC from an AP555B where other parameters cannot be measured to see where we perceive a potential change in sound can be loosely attributed to objectively

You’re making it all up and sticking to your guns even when you know you’re wrong. That’s no way to participate as a peer here. It just gets you dismissed as someone who isn’t worth the time to deal with.

 

[theveterans]

Indeed.

I have had one or two deeply emotional experiences just singing a song in my head.

That might have been after a few wines but, regardless, there was no high end audio involved, although I did sound better in my own head than I do if singing out loud, that might have played into it.

Sure, I do too. The mode of getting there is different but end result is the same. However, speaking of a sound system giving me emotional experiences, to me it's the sheer musicality and believability of presentation that gives me that not the actual music itself whereas if I think of a music in my head, it's the music itself that trigged my emotional experience

You’re making it all up and sticking to your guns even when you know you’re wrong. That’s no way to participate as a peer here. It just gets you dismissed as someone who isn’t worth the time to deal with.

Only those that deal in absolutes that can write this statement

 

[BS5711]

Only those that deal in absolutes that can write this statement

Perhaps you could to try to strike a balance between dealing in absolutes and dealing in bias influenced feelings, imagination and perceptions.

Maybe you are already but it doesn't seem so.

There is no value discussing stuff here when the supporting evidence is only your ears and feelings, there are all manner of other places in Head Fi that love that stuff and are happy to embrace as much of it as they can get it seems.

If implicit trust in your hearing and what you feel works for you personally that is just fine but saying that ABC does XYZ because you hear and feel it when it flies in the face of what technical details indicate should be happening is pointless, I would have thought that would have been self evident long ago but here we all still are.

 

[bigshot]

There’s no reason to expect that your arguments hold any merit because you make no effort to guarantee that they do. Stop being intellectually lazy and I’ll start listening.

 

[gregorio]

I'm aware of that and that's the reality that I perceive from my system …

You’re just going round in circles, making BS points that have already been addressed and questions put to you that you simply ignore and then just repeat the same BS again. It’s like explaining to a 5 year old that there is no tooth fairy, them just sticking their fingers in their ears and the next day insisting the tooth fairy visited again. Again, the “reality that you perceive” is a magical invisible speaker between the two stereo speakers, are you seriously arguing that is actually the case or, is it an obvious fact that what you perceive is NOT “the reality”?

We rely on multiple views of objective measurements using multiple instruments and not just on the analog output of a DAC from an AP555B where other parameters cannot be measured to see where we perceive a potential change in sound can be loosely attributed to objectively

Hang on, first it’s “trust your ears”, then it’s “I rely on my sight to hear”, now it’s “I/we rely on multiple views of objective measurements”, you can’t even get your own story straight! Also, if it’s “not just on the analogue output of a DAC” then what part of a DAC do you think you are listening to? Lastly, what “other parameters cannot be measured” on the analogue output of a DAC and if they cannot be measured how can they even be parameters?

"ministry of audio science"

So, I state you apparently don’t even have an understanding of science expected of a young school child and then you state the above, indicating you don’t understand the difference between religion and science, thereby proving my statement true. Well done, and thanks!

Bad noise spectrum: …
Good noise spectrum:
Audible? Absolutely to some people, but not to everyone of course because "all sources sound the same" absolute statements from the ministry of audio science

So let me get this straight, you’re sitting there listening to a 240MHz data signal (square wave/eye pattern) that apparently makes you “cry and have goosebumps” but that experience is ruined by noise that’s “audible absolutely to some people” which is more than 239.9MHz lower? So not at all delusional!

None of those absolutist science are used when manufacturing great sounding audio gears that actually make people cry and have goosebumps from sheer sound quality

So DACs do not use any math to implement filters, oversampling, clock recovery, etc., there’s no scientific measurement of signal input, great sounding gears do not use circuits, resistors or other electronic components based on and calculated with Ohms Law or the Maxwell’s Laws and 1+1=2 is not “absolutist”. How do you think DACs are designed and manufactured then, do you think they’re made by the intuition of magical little audiophile pixies which then travel to your sitting room to make your eyes water and give you goosebumps? Do these little audiophile pixies only work when audiophile are listening but go on strike when non-audiophiles are listening or objective testing is occurring?

I suppose it stands to reason that if you don’t understand what the word “science” means, then you also couldn’t understand what the word “technology” means either, as technology is the practical application of science. Keep flapping those arms, you’re doing a great job of getting even higher than Dunning-Kruger’s “peak of mount stupid”!

G

 

[castleofargh]

It is only nonsensical to those that adhere to a predefined absolutist of audio science.

Nope. The logic itself is nonsense. Or more precisely, logic tends to be missing from your arguments and that makes them nonsensical. Which is not surprising given how little you rely on facts and actual evidence to argue that your gut feelings validate reality more than anything else(a concept that is very false already).
I already acknowledged your feelings several times, only asking you to also acknowledge that all along, you've been talking about your subjective reality created in your head, not the objective world we all live in. But you won't. When it comes to that, you seem to be in denial.

The real world and facts are more important to the truth than whether you believe in them.
Logic is more important to arguments and establishing facts than your feelings that a story is somewhat believable and agrees with you.


Your posts are nonsense because they too often put arguments on top of false premises and baseless claims. And in recent posts your idea of correcting for that is to insert some random graph, and murder logic by trying to tell us that it correlates with some random feeling you have about sound change. Several of those graphs weren't even about the output sound, and do not have a known causal relation to hearing. It is not logical to tie them to your feelings from a different context on a different machine, under conditions that can't demonstrate the feelings are necessarily caused by sound. You have nothing. It's nonsense and at this point probably bad faith, and I'm starting to be fed up with it.

It is nonsensical to all those who will put logic and fact based knowledge above tribalism for more than a second. And just like about a month ago, I wonder why you keep posting that sort of nonsense when it hurts you and what you think you're defending, more than anybody else.

 

[bigshot]

I wonder why you keep posting that sort of nonsense when it hurts you

I’m beginning to get the feeling there are cognitive problems here.

 

[theveterans]

Your posts are nonsense because they too often put arguments on top of false premises and baseless claims. And in recent posts your idea of correcting for that is to insert some random graph, and murder logic by trying to tell us that it correlates with some random feeling you have about sound change. Several of those graphs weren't even about the output sound, and do not have a known causal relation to hearing. It is not logical to tie them to your feelings from a different context on a different machine, under conditions that can't demonstrate the feelings are necessarily caused by sound. You have nothing. It's nonsense and at this point probably bad faith, and I'm starting to be fed up with it.

This is just a roundabout definition of placebo effect

 

[bigshot]

Closer to expectation bias carried to desperate extremes.