is there such thing as high dynamic range headphones?

[fr0g]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

***, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.

Shame you named the person. I fear there are mental problems to be honest and I didn't want to say anything personal.

I do like a bit of argument, but when claims such as *** come along it's hard not to simply tear your hair out in amazement that people can be so stupid/ ignorant / gullible / whatever.

 

[dalethorn]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

***, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.

Shame you named the person. I fear there are mental problems to be honest and I didn't want to say anything personal.

I do like a bit of argument, but when claims such as *** come along it's hard not to simply tear your hair out in amazement that people can be so stupid/ ignorant / gullible / whatever.

Well, speaking of emotional matters and issues, you have certainly exposed, umm - maybe that's not the right word, umm, explained yourself quite clearly. Here I thought this was a serious headphone forum where I would get to help people, and you're turning it into your own personal issues rant platform. I gave you all the info you needed in those two names, and all you can do is rant about the one and ignore the other. That's really pathetic.

 

[pauln]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

***, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.

Shame you named the person. I fear there are mental problems to be honest and I didn't want to say anything personal.

I do like a bit of argument, but when claims such as *** come along it's hard not to simply tear your hair out in amazement that people can be so stupid/ ignorant / gullible / whatever.

Well, speaking of emotional matters and issues, you have certainly exposed, umm - maybe that's not the right word, umm, explained yourself quite clearly. Here I thought this was a serious headphone forum where I would get to help people, and you're turning it into your own personal issues rant platform. I gave you all the info you needed in those two names, and all you can do is rant about the one and ignore the other. That's really pathetic.

Hardly a rant Dale.

 

[fr0g]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

***, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.

Shame you named the person. I fear there are mental problems to be honest and I didn't want to say anything personal.

I do like a bit of argument, but when claims such as *** come along it's hard not to simply tear your hair out in amazement that people can be so stupid/ ignorant / gullible / whatever.

Well, speaking of emotional matters and issues, you have certainly exposed, umm - maybe that's not the right word, umm, explained yourself quite clearly. Here I thought this was a serious headphone forum where I would get to help people, and you're turning it into your own personal issues rant platform. I gave you all the info you needed in those two names, and all you can do is rant about the one and ignore the other. That's really pathetic.

If you say so dear.

No. I asked you for links for evidence for your claim that "everything is audibly different".

Telling me the names of 2 people is not that. The fact that someone else took the time to look one up and find he appears to be rather discredited is nothing to do with me. I have no intention of doing leg-work based on 2 random names to look for "evidence" that I know doesn't exist anyway.

Post some actual links to actual, scientific evidence to support your theory perhaps?

As for headphone forum ? Well, it's a small category on a British Hi-fi and AV forum, yes. And there's nothing wrong with your advice. In general I'd say it was excellent, but any forum has posts that veer off on tangents. This is one. Not surprising really given the OT.

 

[The_Lhc]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

***, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.

Shame you named the person. I fear there are mental problems to be honest and I didn't want to say anything personal.

I do like a bit of argument, but when claims such as *** come along it's hard not to simply tear your hair out in amazement that people can be so stupid/ ignorant / gullible / whatever.

I don't think alantiggger is ashamed of his views, quite the opposite. I don't know about mental health issues either, I do know he's deeply religious, which is where those "young earth" beliefs come from. You might think that constitutes a mental health problem but I couldn't possibly comment, despite not agreeing with him.

 

[fr0g]

Reading around a little bit, Barry Diament has very little credibility it seems and is actually regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot these days due to his increasingly ridiculous claims. Not just golden eared but diamond encrusted platinum ears.

Why does that not surprise me?

Reminds me bit of another WHF forumite(who shall remain anon) who is convinced the Earth is under 10K years old and once posted links to sites that "prove it".

***, although I think there's at least one other who thinks that.

Shame you named the person. I fear there are mental problems to be honest and I didn't want to say anything personal.

I do like a bit of argument, but when claims such as *** come along it's hard not to simply tear your hair out in amazement that people can be so stupid/ ignorant / gullible / whatever.

I don't think *** is ashamed of his views, quite the opposite. I don't know about mental health issues either, I do know he's deeply religious, which is where those "young earth" beliefs come from. You might think that constitutes a mental health problem but I couldn't possibly comment, despite not agreeing with him.

I know quite a few deeply religious people. Most are decent folk. Many are pretty intelligent.

But when ideas so outstandingly ridiculous as "young earth" are promoted you have to fear mental problems, surely?

If believing in £1000 HDMI cables is a 1 on the "gullible nutjob" scale, "young earth" is a 10. No scrap that, it's a resounding "But it goes up to 11!".

 

[dalethorn]

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical. I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

 

[pauln]

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical. I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

 

[fr0g]

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical. I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

That's pretty ironic. Short and sweet (unlike your tedious headphone "reviews"), but you still haven't grasped the logic of where the burdon of proof lies. It's on your doorstep Mr Thorn. Outlandish claims require proof, not claims that simply stick to the current accepted science.

Goodbye.

 

[dalethorn]

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical. I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

Just tell us that you're joking, yes? A FLAC and its unpacked WAV equivalent aren't the same when they are in those different formats. When the FLAC is unpacked to WAV format, then the WAV and WAV are the same, if they started out the same. There is no guarantee absolutely that I'm aware of that a music player will perfectly unpack a FLAC in real time while playing it, although it may do a perfectly fine job of it.

There are a few people, and Diament as well as the other guy may be two of those, who have found that really identical files can sound slightly different when affected by external circumstances that they're not aware of OR in control of. I don't have a problem with *that* claim, however, 2 files that checksum identically are in fact identical for purposes of archiving, backing up, mailing, normal playing, i.e. all forseeable uses. But, computers are complex little beasts, and two files that are identical for all normal digital purposes (i.e. really and truly identical) can exist in certain different states, for example one file may chkdsk as being split up into 100 non-contiguous pieces on a FAT table, while an identical copy may be fully contiguous. Now before you go waving your arms around virtually speaking, just admit that I'm right, that these 2 files could exist in these states and that there's some possibility (however small) that it could affect their performance. If you refuse to accept that difference, never mind any hidden assumptions about what else I might be implying (nothing that I don't state actually), then you don't know digital computers and storage.

I know something of Creationists too. I know that great scientists believe all sorts of nonsense when paid to do so - it's called fraud and corruption in many cases - a very normal human trait. As far as Creationists and religion are concerned, you can't prove a negative. Now for the people who are absolutely and smugly certain that science is always right (as opposed to the Scientific Method, which is not science), here's a little heads-up. I'm a very experienced photographer, who came to know that the Shroud of Turin contains a perfect photographic negative of a body, front and back, and about 6 feet in length. According to "science", it must have been created circa 1300 AD, but when I posited that on several professional photo forums where the pros know perfectly well that such a thing was absolutely impossible in the 1300 timeframe, I got no answer. See if you can find credible photographers who'll back the "scientists". I think the real world may be too complex for you.

 

[pauln]

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical. I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

Just tell us that you're joking, yes? A FLAC and its unpacked WAV equivalent aren't the same when they are in those different formats. When the FLAC is unpacked to WAV format, then the WAV and WAV are the same, if they started out the same. There is no guarantee absolutely that I'm aware of that a music player will perfectly unpack a FLAC in real time while playing it, although it may do a perfectly fine job of it.

There are a few people, and Diament as well as the other guy may be two of those, who have found that really identical files can sound slightly different when affected by external circumstances that they're not aware of OR in control of. I don't have a problem with *that* claim, however, 2 files that checksum identically are in fact identical for purposes of archiving, backing up, mailing, normal playing, i.e. all forseeable uses. But, computers are complex little beasts, and two files that are identical for all normal digital purposes (i.e. really and truly identical) can exist in certain different states, for example one file may chkdsk as being split up into 100 non-contiguous pieces on a FAT table, while an identical copy may be fully contiguous. Now before you go waving your arms around virtually speaking, just admit that I'm right, that these 2 files could exist in these states and that there's some possibility (however small) that it could affect their performance. If you refuse to accept that difference, never mind any hidden assumptions about what else I might be implying (nothing that I don't state actually), then you don't know digital computers and storage.

Of course I agree with that, like you say, that's how storage works and I also accept that on a very badly fragmented hard drive in a 15 year old computer, there might be some glitches in the playback of a flac. In the "real world", which ironically you think might be too complex for me, there isn't a problem and the two will sound and measure identical to each other because unpacking the flac is such a trivial task for modern reasonably well sorted computers let alone one with a quad core i7 and an ssd. Would you agree with that?

I know something of Creationists too. I know that great scientists believe all sorts of nonsense when paid to do so - it's called fraud and corruption in many cases - a very normal human trait. As far as Creationists and religion are concerned, you can't prove a negative. Now for the people who are absolutely and smugly certain that science is always right (as opposed to the Scientific Method, which is not science), here's a little heads-up. I'm a very experienced photographer, who came to know that the Shroud of Turin contains a perfect photographic negative of a body, front and back, and about 6 feet in length. According to "science", it must have been created circa 1300 AD, but when I posited that on several professional photo forums where the pros know perfectly well that such a thing was absolutely impossible in the 1300 timeframe, I got no answer. See if you can find credible photographers who'll back the "scientists". I think the real world may be too complex for you.

I don't really want to get into religion other than to say that I despise it because of the millions that have been killed and tortured in wars between different religous groups over the last couple of thousand years and it still goes on today. A more hypocritical group of people would be hard to find.

I don't know what you're implying when you say that you think the real world may be too complex for me... a cheap shot maybe but it doesn't really matter a jot to me what you think because you don't know. This kind of meaningless "debate" on a hifi forum is just a bit of "bored in a hotel room in the middle of nowhere" light entertainment in my simple world. Keeps me out of the bar though.

 

[dalethorn]

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical. I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

Just tell us that you're joking, yes? A FLAC and its unpacked WAV equivalent aren't the same when they are in those different formats. When the FLAC is unpacked to WAV format, then the WAV and WAV are the same, if they started out the same. There is no guarantee absolutely that I'm aware of that a music player will perfectly unpack a FLAC in real time while playing it, although it may do a perfectly fine job of it.

There are a few people, and Diament as well as the other guy may be two of those, who have found that really identical files can sound slightly different when affected by external circumstances that they're not aware of OR in control of. I don't have a problem with *that* claim, however, 2 files that checksum identically are in fact identical for purposes of archiving, backing up, mailing, normal playing, i.e. all forseeable uses. But, computers are complex little beasts, and two files that are identical for all normal digital purposes (i.e. really and truly identical) can exist in certain different states, for example one file may chkdsk as being split up into 100 non-contiguous pieces on a FAT table, while an identical copy may be fully contiguous. Now before you go waving your arms around virtually speaking, just admit that I'm right, that these 2 files could exist in these states and that there's some possibility (however small) that it could affect their performance. If you refuse to accept that difference, never mind any hidden assumptions about what else I might be implying (nothing that I don't state actually), then you don't know digital computers and storage.

Of course I agree with that, like you say, that's how storage works and I also accept that on a very badly fragmented hard drive in a 15 year old computer, there might be some glitches in the playback of a flac. In the "real world", which ironically you think might be too complex for me, there isn't a problem and the two will sound and measure identical to each other because unpacking the flac is such a trivial task for modern reasonably well sorted computers let alone one with a quad core i7 and an ssd. Would you agree with that?

I know something of Creationists too. I know that great scientists believe all sorts of nonsense when paid to do so - it's called fraud and corruption in many cases - a very normal human trait. As far as Creationists and religion are concerned, you can't prove a negative. Now for the people who are absolutely and smugly certain that science is always right (as opposed to the Scientific Method, which is not science), here's a little heads-up. I'm a very experienced photographer, who came to know that the Shroud of Turin contains a perfect photographic negative of a body, front and back, and about 6 feet in length. According to "science", it must have been created circa 1300 AD, but when I posited that on several professional photo forums where the pros know perfectly well that such a thing was absolutely impossible in the 1300 timeframe, I got no answer. See if you can find credible photographers who'll back the "scientists". I think the real world may be too complex for you.

I don't really want to get into religion other than to say that I despise it because of the millions that have been killed and tortured in wars between different religous groups over the last couple of thousand years and it still goes on today. A more hypocritical group of people would be hard to find.

I don't know what you're implying when you say that you think the real world may be too complex for me... a cheap shot maybe but it doesn't really matter a jot to me what you think because you don't know. This kind of meaningless "debate" on a hifi forum is just a bit of "bored in a hotel room in the middle of nowhere" light entertainment in my simple world. Keeps me out of the bar though.

"In the "real world", which ironically you think might be too complex for me, there isn't a problem and the two will sound and measure identical to each other"

Is that because you say so, or because you have the God-spot and have excluded every other possibility? I'm sure you don't really know, and you're just one of those 'scientists' who know better than ordinary people. Rejected!

 

[pauln]

Is that because you say so, or because you have the God-spot and have excluded every other possibility? I'm sure you don't really know, and you're just one of those 'scientists' who know better than ordinary people. Rejected!

Yes Dale, only you know the truth.

 

[cheeseboy]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

 

[dalethorn]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com. I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis. But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.

 

[dalethorn]

Is that because you say so, or because you have the God-spot and have excluded every other possibility? I'm sure you don't really know, and you're just one of those 'scientists' who know better than ordinary people. Rejected!

Yes Dale, only you know the truth.

A wise man once said:

"He who knows he knows, knows nothing. But he who knows he knows of nothing, really knows."

If we know that we don't have all the answers, or even 100 percent of any answer, then we won't be so adamant in saying that "You can't hear blah blah blah because it's inaudible."

 

[pauln]

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here...

A lot of people put an awful lot of stuff on the internet. It's easy these days. Sadly, there's no quality control. Actually though, as a number of headphone/hifi sites have banned you, perhaps there is.

 

[fr0g]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com. I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis. But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.

There is one person in this argument who is bludgeoning, and it's you.

Nobody here is trying to "prove" a negative as you keep repeating like a stuck record.

We are simply saying that is what we believe and that it makes sense. I personally have ABX'd these things and found nothing. I have seen links to others who have done the same.

No, of course this does not make it 100% proof, but the fact is, it looks like the probable truth to a fairly high statistical probability.

Your nonsense claims need proof, not ours that simply re-iterate the accepted truth.

And no, naming some people who disagree does not count as truth, nor does testing a few headphones and posting War and Peace style "reviews". Link to tests that go some way to verifying your claim. Otherwise it is simply background noise from a street drunk who is convinced he's Napoleon.. Maybe he is...but the accepted facts would tend to confirm he isn't.

 

[cheeseboy]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com. I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis. But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.

so that's a no then. OK, at least we know there's no proof for what you are saying, thank you.

 

[dalethorn]

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here...

A lot of people put an awful lot of stuff on the internet. It's easy these days. Sadly, there's no quality control. Actually though, as a number of headphone/hifi sites have banned you, perhaps there is.

A lot of people like you post personal attacks, which makes you what? A troll!!

 

[dalethorn]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com. I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis. But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.

so that's a no then. OK, at least we know there's no proof for what you are saying, thank you.

Proof? What the heck are you talking about? You're disinforming - admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, then refuse to accept it. Classic trolling!!

 

[dalethorn]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com. I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis. But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.

There is one person in this argument who is bludgeoning, and it's you.

Nobody here is trying to "prove" a negative as you keep repeating like a stuck record.

We are simply saying that is what we believe and that it makes sense. I personally have ABX'd these things and found nothing. I have seen links to others who have done the same.

No, of course this does not make it 100% proof, but the fact is, it looks like the probable truth to a fairly high statistical probability.

Your nonsense claims need proof, not ours that simply re-iterate the accepted truth.

And no, naming some people who disagree does not count as truth, nor does testing a few headphones and posting War and Peace style "reviews". Link to tests that go some way to verifying your claim. Otherwise it is simply background noise from a street drunk who is convinced he's Napoleon.. Maybe he is...but the accepted facts would tend to confirm he isn't.

Now you've gone from arguing to lying. I provided 2 names of very reputable and accomplished engineers, which you are definitely not. And how do you respond? See nothing, hear nothing, know nothing, then put it on someone else. Do some reading and learn something, and quit trolling.

 

[fr0g]

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names? have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com. I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis. But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.

There is one person in this argument who is bludgeoning, and it's you.

Nobody here is trying to "prove" a negative as you keep repeating like a stuck record.

We are simply saying that is what we believe and that it makes sense. I personally have ABX'd these things and found nothing. I have seen links to others who have done the same.

No, of course this does not make it 100% proof, but the fact is, it looks like the probable truth to a fairly high statistical probability.

Your nonsense claims need proof, not ours that simply re-iterate the accepted truth.

And no, naming some people who disagree does not count as truth, nor does testing a few headphones and posting War and Peace style "reviews". Link to tests that go some way to verifying your claim. Otherwise it is simply background noise from a street drunk who is convinced he's Napoleon.. Maybe he is...but the accepted facts would tend to confirm he isn't.

Now you've gone from arguing to lying. I provided 2 names of very reputable and accomplished engineers, which you are definitely not. And how do you respond? See nothing, hear nothing, know nothing, then put it on someone else. Do some reading and learn something, and quit trolling.

Lying? How?

I could name at least 2 well-respected people who insist that Noah's Ark was a real event., tell you to look them up and low and behold they would say it was so...Does that make it so? No, it's a fairy story made up a few thousand years ago, probably to scare children.

It's irrelevant and in utterly NO WAY "proof".

The only troll here is you Dale. You are constantly repeating the same stuff. As I said, the position I, and most take on your claim is that it is not true. It's the accepted truth that WAV and FLAC are audibly identical.

Naming 2 people is NOT linking to proof. It's simply mentioning 2 people who share your crackpot viewpoint.

Please, stop calling troll over and over like a stuck record and supply links to actual scientific studies that back up your claim. A good start would be successfully passed ABX tests carried out in properly monitored conditions.

Oh, what's that? You can't. Oh there's a HUGE surprise.

 

[steve_1979]

I couldn't decide which one of these pictures is the most relevant so I posted a link to them all.

Clicky

 

[cheeseboy]

Proof? What the heck are you talking about?

ok, let's try this again.

You said "and today we have learned that there are audible differences in everything"

I've asked for some direct links from you that back up that statement. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're disinforming - admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, then refuse to accept it. Classic trolling!!

No, it's not trolling, it was a genuine request for some proof to back up your statement. Just floating names isn't proof. Now, if you'd you'd care to link to the/a study, by those names or otherwise, that backs up what you are saying, I would be most grateful, and also interested to read.

So far, you've only provided two names, nothing else. Playing the troll card isn't going to work I'm afraid as I feel I've been very courtious in my requests and no personal insults have been used, however you seem to have now reverted to them, which is a shame quite frankly.