It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[the record spot]

And does fr0g (or was it someone else) really believe we're complete fools to believe there's no audible difference between MP3 and CD, does he???

It's this kind of thoroughly offensive condascension that I can't swallow, or won't. To quote Sting - I'm too full to swallow my pride.

Well, it wasn't me either, but having spent a lot of time listening to Spotify at 320kbps and find it indistinguishable from CD, I'd suggest this sits alongside the post I made earlier about perceptions, beliefs and expectations. Some people hear a difference, or claim to, others don't.

If somebody wants to sit down and convince themselves that any difference they think they hear is worth the time spent ("ooh, that treble sounds a mite clearer...") good luck to them. Those are minutes wasted for some (me included), but no doubt for others, they're time well spent. Given the - if any - miniscule differences involved, it's perhaps no wonder that the hobby attracts derision at times.

 

[Anonymous]

Ummm, I'm sorry, but I think I'm lost. I was looking for the Onkyo TX-8050 thread? I was told "you can't miss it, just look for the longest thread you can find...........". :doh:

I bet even the tireless non-audiophiles Jaxwired referred to wouldn't say they thought that just sounded the same as everything else

 

[the record spot]

You're right Steve, I wouldn't. And because...

1) Life is too short,

2) It doesn't matter if it does or if it doesn't because it's what it does and does so well that I like it, not that it is better than AN Other amp or source,

3) I've no inclination, in fact it's probably even less than none, to go down the route of that whole thing. However, it doesn't sound any worse or massively better than my other setups - it simply sounds extremely good, but with the added bonus that it delivers more.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi TRS, no offence intended to you or anyone else, totally agree with you. I was genuinely just trying to have a bit of a jest and compare the amount of interest the two threads have created. The Onkyo thread struck a positive cord with me because the enjoyment of music shone through - wasn't really commenting on the 8050 itself (certainly not negatively) or trying to open up that discussion again, or trying to take this thread off on any tangents.

It's late, I'm having a drink and listening to music, and was trying (unsuccessfully) to be lighthearted and raise a smile.

Next time I'll follow the B&W advice and listen with my eyes shut

Best.

 

[Anonymous]

wasn't really commenting on the 8050 itself (certainly not negatively) or trying to open up that discussion again

I see from your other post TRS I'm too late, forgive me people, for I have sinned ray:

 

[the record spot]

No worries Steve; no offence taken! Although this thread has demonstrated the kind of thing I've moved away from to some degree. I'm sure if Onkyo deliver a follow-up to it I'll be having a close look at it!

 

[fr0g]

i think manicm should shut us all up, and post the results of his flac/wav ab-x test. :help:

It is not and never was my intention of proving any scientific fact or results for what some of us perceive differences of whatever nature be it between lossless/uncompressed or others. Paul Stephenson has not provided any scientific evidence as far as I can tell, but truly believes Naim can hear differences.

If Naim have an agenda then so do Linn. And as someone posted here, if our ears are unreliable what must I rely on, my posterior??? Please!!!!!

I'm not denying any scientific evidence or measurements, but a corollary stands that you also need to prove that during playback there are no differences between different formats. And none has been provided.

No, the theory is that certain formats are audibly indistinguishable. To discount a theory, you have to prove it wrong. Just like nobody has ever come up with any evidence against evolution(by natural selection) since Darwin first discovered it, nobody (as far as I know) has come up with evidence that (for example) WAV and FLAC sound different. You can't prove a negative.

And does fr0g (or was it someone else) really believe we're complete fools to believe there's no audible difference between MP3 and CD, does he???

I believe most people cannot tell them apart at high bit rates, yes. Again, I've seen the results of quite a few ABX tests and so far I've not seen a positive result. That doesn't mean nobody can tell them apart, I never claimed that. However I don't believe you can. And it's easy to prove me wrong. And if you do, then I'll congratulate you on your remarkable hearing.

It's this kind of thoroughly offensive condascension that I can't swallow, or won't. To quote Sting - I'm too full to swallow my pride.

And it's this kind of misguided righteous indignation that many people who simply want to do the science can't stomach. Nobody has been condascending as far as I can remember. You are working yourself up into a frenzy over other opinions when to be fair, most on the thread have discussed rather than ranted.

 

[proffski]

If sadly as is the growing trend these days, the comparisons were made using MP3 then the original statement would be true.

 

[shooter]

like a lot of things in audio, jitter isn't a problem.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

For shooter 69..

There's many other such studies published online..

Sure.

As an example, take a CD player with a jitter output of 150ppm. The jitter originates from the [word] clock.

If you take the same CDP and add a dedicated clock that outputs 1ppm, you have a measuable difference that can be heard.

Jitter is basiaclly timing errors, better the timing, better the sound.

Edit:

I read an analogy someplace about jitter and how to perceive it:

A hazy Friday night is like timing error, two days later and all is clear!

Actually that’s my analogy!! :rofl:

 

[shooter]

The other remark that caught my attention was Frog's comment that the idea of Hifi is "to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion- free sound as is possible"; and that there were too distinct paths: 1] Accurate or 2] Coloured, where the latter isn't considered hifi.

Rather twisting my original meaning I think. I didn't get a "God doesn't play dice" quotemine at least. And no I'm not comparing my futile efforts with the great Albert Einstein, but you get my drift.

And nothing is ever "too" distinct. I like distinction no matter how much there is.

There was no deliberate attempt to twist anything.....maybe a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say. You certainly made it sound like Path 2 is valid, but "not Hifi".

I am not saying you are wrong per se, only opening up another point of view.

No worries. I seem to have been misunderdtood a lot on this thread Michael J Fox seems to insist on misunderstanding me, but it's all good.

But essentially I do believe path 1 is more "Hi-fi" in the strictest meaning of the words "High" and "Fidelity", but that isn't to say path 2 is "wrong". What it usually is though, is more expensive, painful and drawn out. And from personal experience and internet chatter, it seems that most people who start or revert to path 1, don't go back...They aren't mutually exclusive paths, but for me at least, trying to understand the science at the same time as striving for the best I can afford leads to a far more zen-like end result.

For the most part though we live in a world that is high fidelity.

By definition high fidelity equipment has low noise, low distortion and a flat frequency responce. Those three fundementals are prevelent in most hi-fi electronics these days. The crux of it is that a speaker can't produce a perfectly flat frequency responce with our hearing capabilites. So the term "hi-fi" by definition is flawed from the outset. This means there is no right and there is no wrong.

If i want to persue what i think is an accurate portral of the recorded medium and how i percieve it to be then thats what i'll do. I know a piano sounds like a piano and i know a drum sounds like a drum but i'm never going to be able reproduce a full scale realistic interpretation of that sound in my or any other stereo system because it isnt a piano and isnt a drum. All i can do is reproduce what has been produced however that is. I have no power over the what goes on in a studio with miking and mixdowns and how they want us to interprit a sound or an artist. And in most cases it will be different to when you here them live.

For me if you want to listen to music in it's real form then listen to live music, if not be happy to listen to a producers redition of it but still be happy.

 

[shooter]

This is a well reasoned argument, and perfectly logical, but I have this thought to add....I think the term "Hi-Fidelity", or" Hifi", was coined as a marketing term used to describe the more realistic sound that the new-fangled LP stereo records played on expensive equipment brought about, compared to the old Gramophone.

It was, (me thinks marketing ploy!) but a slab of vinyl is no nearer a true rendition of what happened in a studio than cassette is. Both have there limitations and with vinyl you have to equalise it [RIAA] to get to sound somewhere near the original intention.

The truest form of reproduction we have to date is digital, though the argument continues which is best

 

[Anonymous]

 

[John Duncan]

1958. Plus ça change...

 

[AnotherJoe]

Yes, we agree However on the same principle, the use of different HDDs could not have any difference on the SQ, but the recent WHF review says otherwise. So I remain open minded as to whether audible differences can be explained logically.

What review are you referring to? Are you talking about the 'Big Question On Streaming Test' back last year where the test systems where set up incorrectly for network streaming?

 

[Clare Newsome]

I still don't understand why there has to be a singular, 'right' viewpoint. Why this 'either/or' polemic?

At this very moment, I am listening to a range of digital music being streamed from a laptop to active speakers. Am I loving it? Totally. It sounds mighty fine, and I have a ton of music readily available to me as I work.

And later I am likely to listen to vinyl - hell, even tape - in my second system. Will I enjoy that any less? No. In fact i'll probably enjoy it more - not because it's a more traditional set-up, but because by that stage i'll not be working, and have a glass of wine in my hand

 

[chebby]

CA StreamMagic 6 (pre-prod) | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1iYour 'signature' is far more interesting.Will you be starting a thread on the new system John?

 

[John Duncan]

Will you be starting a thread on the new system John?

What do you think?

 

[shooter]

:rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

 

[Anonymous]

It seems, for a chosen few, it is not necessary to ABX test to be sure they're making the right decision .........

 

[Anonymous]

Proof that it is not necessary to ABX test in order to ensure you're making the right decision....

 

[Anonymous]

It's not necessary to ABX test to ensure you're making the right decision, just have a little faith....

 

[Anonymous]

Or, if you insist, stick to science....

 

[Alec]

I still don't understand why there has to be a singular, 'right' viewpoint. Why this 'either/or' polemic?

My eyes glaze a bit when folk talk vinyl/tapes etc, but this hasn't really been an "'either/or' polemic" kind of thread far as I can see.

 

[Alec]

If sadly as is the growing trend these days, the comparisons were made using MP3 then the original statement would be true.

Original statement?

 

[John Duncan]

Steve, are we supposed to ABX those posts to see if we can spot the differences?