Thread: Good news, bad news

Posts: 168
Page: prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17
Post by Jonty November 30, 2009 (161 of 168)
DSD said:

I think I know who, I went through my back-up DVDs looking for music files I deleted because I didn't like the sound or the music. I found some 24/96 single movements of Mozart Violin Concertos from 2L that were part of their free downloads and they sound every bit as bad as the music file you posted so I am guessing the mystery company is 2L.
Thank God, the SACD of the Mozart Violin Concerti sounds good.
Post by Petrus November 30, 2009 (162 of 168)
DSD said:

I think I know who, I went through my back-up DVDs looking for music files I deleted because I didn't like the sound or the music. I found some 24/96 single movements of Mozart Violin Concertos from 2L that were part of their free downloads and they sound every bit as bad as the music file you posted so I am guessing the mystery company is 2L.
OK, you have found out the source, but you have not found out yet which parts are bad and which parts are truly bad...
Post by Petrus December 2, 2009 (163 of 168)
Paul Clark said:

Why does everyone complain that it sounds like s***?
I just noticed a post by "Disbeliever" saying:

"I have just been listening to Mozart Violin Concerto no 4 in D minor (Stereophile Record to Die for)"

This is actually the test file, the free demo download from 2L: W.A.Mozart: Violin concerto in D major (KV 218) - Allegro

If it has got a "record to die for" from Stereophile not everybody considers it as bad as DSD does.

Maybe we can now consider the test file sound, at least good enough as a testbench for a hearing test. Which NOBODY so far has passed.
Post by Karlosak December 2, 2009 (164 of 168)
Petrus said:

Maybe we can now consider the test file sound, at least good enough as a testbench for a hearing test. Which NOBODY so far has passed.
Petrus,
there is a reason why the standard ABX protocol is used for telling two audio sources apart. I won't dig into details here, but I suggest you to look over to http://www.hydrogenaudio.org.

One of them is the miserable long-term aural memory of our brains. If you want to spot tiny differences between samples A and B, you definitely need to make sure that:

1) musical samples to be compared are very short (no longer than 1-2 seconds)
2) duration of both samples is identical, covering exactly the same passage
3) ability to switch between samples in real-time

These are the prerequisites I found during my tests of lossy codecs. And it's not just my fabrication, just ask any experienced authority. Foobar2000 ABX comparator or WinABX utility is ideal for this.

Your proposed test file cannot be tested according to above standards. If you provided two separate files, one of them run through the 16/44.1 bottleneck, the situation would change and maybe you would get more replies (just for your interest, this exact test was already performed at HA, feel free to look up the details).

Now on a different note, I was quite annoyed when I first saw the TROLL label next to your moniker, not agreeing with Stephen on this. I even wanted to start a new thread to dispute it, since I'm quite a liberal and open-minded person and don't fancy this type of discrimination. Even though some of your posts were misleading or simply wrong, I found the discussion interesting and your attitude quite civilized (there are worse examples that would deserve the "label").

However, my RSS reader has been turning red recently with your repeating posts. Do you really need to spam every open thread? Just one example - your recent "Record to Die for". Maybe I'll reevaluate my stance on your TROLL status. Enough said.
Post by Petrus December 2, 2009 (165 of 168)
Sorry to have annoyed you, Karlosak.

One of the reasons to make the test file was the fact that MANY posters REPEATEDLY claim to hear the difference between high and low rez IMMEDIATELLY.

Thus let's make a file with low & high resolution portions, with instant changeover. Goldeared persons should be able to hear the difference right away.

They do not.

Question: what is the hulabaloo about clear high resolution advantage, if it can not be heard in a real life situation?

This same thing has come up repeatedly in different disguises: Meyer & Moran test (nobody heard the difference even with the real hi-rez SACDs). BIS thread. The discovery that many, if not most, supposedly high resolution SACD disks have no high frequency (PCM 44.1 editing and/or recording?) content even though they get highest marks for sonic exilence from reviewers. The fact that the self proclamed DSD experts can not tell DSD recordings apart from PCM ones (Linn case). Etc etc.

All this leads, in my mind at least, only to one conclusion: the whole high resolution thing is actually an illusion. In real life, none of you could in a blind test tell RBCD apart from higher resolution formats.

If just one of you could reliably pass my test I would be satisfied. It would be a pleasant surprice, I am not against high resolution formats, I am against illusions and marketing and scientific dishonesty.
Post by Karlosak December 2, 2009 (166 of 168)
Apology accepted, but watch out! (maybe there is still hope that TROLLS can learn new tricks ;-))

I would agree with your above post, except:

"The discovery that many, if not most, supposedly high resolution SACD disks have no high frequency"

Again, you're drawing generalizations from a limited sample (whose quality is dubious). I get your point, but such sweeping statements are offense to many, if not most, quality labels and recording engineers out there who strive for true-to-source high resolution recordings.

There was a time, when searching for the "truth" was the main point of my audio pursuit. I really wanted to debunk the great cable controversy, power cords, green pens, etc. All the voodoo, mambo-jumbo stuff.

But with acquired experience and knowledge, one very striking observation emerged - when performing objective blind tests, even with very long times, under no pressure, ... the differences were extremely small and most of the times I failed (depending on the test subject). Once the objective testing methodology wasn't obeyed, human psychology (and all that placebo stuff) kicked in and differences emerged. Yes, and indeed some components sounded better and some worse to me after that.

I went as far, that I even tried to eliminate the supposedly heard differences between two cables under a sighted test out of my mind. And I partially succeeded, if you free your mind, don't distract yourself with the shiny cable jackets, and mechanically switch one cable with the other, the differences disappear.

But I'm no longer doing such mental aerobics. Maybe I'm getting old ("Phew, 26 years and old you say...?") Audio is above all about passion and hobby for me, and if I were confronted with the fact that my audio setup is as good as I can hear - that would practically mean a stop to all the DIY, tweaking, etc. which I find great fun in.

One thing I don't understand, why there must be such a strong fence between the objectivists' and subjectivists' camp. I have each of my foot in one of them personally. I know that my mind is playing tricks on me, but it's worth it for the fun (OK, there is a reasonable threshold, buying $10.000 worth cables is no longer funny!)
Maybe if more people accepted this simple fact, there won't be those never ending heated debates... But wouldn't be audiophile's life boring without them? ;-)

Regards
Karel Koubek (alias Karlosak)

P.S.: I look at so called high-resolution recordings as added value, peace of mind. Even if I can't (supposedly) hear the differences, why not have it captured as true to the source as possible? Especially if the technology is there and quite cheap... Similar matter as high-resolution scans and gigapixel photography of famous paintings. Why do it, if your eye cannot discern all the nuances in book-sized illustration? Because of archiving all the great work of masters long gone.
But thinking about it, the analogy is quite a bad one. The paintings could be re-scanned again, though music is a singular moment in time. There is no redo or reload...
Post by Petrus December 3, 2009 (167 of 168)
Karlosak said:

P.S.: I look at so called high-resolution recordings as added value, peace of mind. Even if I can't (supposedly) hear the differences, why not have it captured as true to the source as possible? Especially if the technology is there and quite cheap...
This is true, but I protest the marketing BS connected with selling the hi-rez files/disks.

About why engineers prefer and "hear" the high resolution: They can not afford not to "hear" the difference. Professional credibility. Bissie is the child who said hi-rez has no clothes.

About $10000 cables: I now a (basket) case where this individual had spent almost 100 000 euros on set of speaker cables. Triple wired with the most expencive cables he could find, with active components... For his peace of mind, he said. Now, if we think that bad cables worsen the signals, what is the best solution? NO CABLES AT ALL. It is that simple. This just never crossed his mind: place power amps right next to the speakers and hardwire them together. Place DAC right next to the power amp and hardwire. Digital cables have absolutelly no signal degradiation, and are cheap (like 10€ a pop). Perfect and free solution to speaker cable "problem."
Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (168 of 168)
DSD said:

I think I know who, I went through my back-up DVDs looking for music files I deleted because I didn't like the sound or the music. I found some 24/96 single movements of Mozart Violin Concertos from 2L that were part of their free downloads and they sound every bit as bad as the music file you posted so I am guessing the mystery company is 2L.
Good work!
Page: prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17

Closed