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

[John Duncan]

And we were doing so well.

Any more of this **** and it's locked.

 

[manicm]

moon - read frogs post - he believes others may tell the the difference but not me. By frog's logic I clearly should not be ok :rofl:

 

[manicm]

And we were doing so well.

Any more of this **** and it's locked.

I agree, but frog claims he knows me very well...as I said read his post.

 

[moon]

moon - read frogs post - he believes others may tell the the difference but not me. By frog's logic I clearly should not be ok :rofl:

Ive tried to read everything, in lets face it one of the longest threads in recent history..... yes even longer than the Onkyo8050 thread. It just seems a shame users have to get so worked up.... it just spoils the forum sometimes.... i like the humour but dont like the anger. Music and Hifi as two combined hobbies should be enjoyed, my view is that once it becomes anything more than this then it looses its appeal.

It sounds like you truly belive your stance.... and that my friend is all that matters

 

[the record spot]

fr0g - your name says it all - your response is a croak and that's all there is to it.

This is the kind of thing that was disappointing - the thread had opposing views, but cheap shots like this end up with closed threads. It's a pity as fr0g had made some good points in many of his preceding comments, as well as in the post that prompted this reply.

 

[moon]

Sorry the Onkyo thread is still longer........... by one post!

 

[steve_1979]

CA StreamMagic 6 (pre-prod) | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i

Hi John.

I see you've got a new system at the moment. Are you replacing the Naim Uniti or is it just temporary change? How would you say the Cambridge Audio kit compares to the Uniti?

 

[Clare Newsome]

CA StreamMagic 6 (pre-prod) | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i

Hi John.

I see you've got a new system at the moment. Are you replacing the Naim Uniti or is it just temporary change? How would you say the Cambridge Audio kit compares to the Uniti?

Covered in this thread:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/ooo-1

 

[steve_1979]

Covered in this thread:

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/ooo-1

Ooops. I missed that one. Cheers Clare.

 

[moon]

look this isnt a conest ....

level

 

[Anonymous]

moon - read frogs post - he believes others may tell the the difference but not me. By frog's logic I clearly should not be ok :rofl:

Maybe it depends on whether you go to this store or not eh!

 

[Anonymous]

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

"No, that's not tape hiss, that's Emma - she hates Bartok."

 

[fr0g]

So you don't believe I can tell the difference between MP3 and WAV?? You so acquainted with me frog? I'm sorry but your unintelligible rant does not merit the honour of any half-a***d reply. I won't dignify such green and ripe idiocy.

When I studied English 'O' level (yes, I am that old), we did English comprehension. Is that still part of the curriculum?

The reason I ask, is that you seem to want to a) misunderstand what I am saying and b) attack me personally.

moon - read frogs post - he believes others may tell the the difference but not me. By frog's logic I clearly should not be ok :rofl:

quote exactly where I said that...to quote my dad..."sheesh"

The point I was trying to make is that "I do believe it may be possible, but because of the countless tests I have done, and the countless negative reports I have read, I do not believe ANYONE when they simply report the fact that they can...without some sort of evidence...not that they are lying, but because of the fact that people CAN hear/see/taste/smell differences where there are none, simply by suggestion and expectation. Those variables can be eradicated by a simple abx test in the case of audio.

My "I don't believe you can" quip was meant to inspire you to prove me wrong (which maybe you can), but by the sound of it you won't even try. Fair enough, that's up to you.

Again, I am trying my best to keep it friendly, even in the face of such unwarranted vitriol as your reply/s

And (yet again to be clear), I have no problem with folk that have no interest in testing themselves in a scientific manner, or just find the whole idea mindnumbingly boring, I am simply telling it how I see it, for better or worse.

 

[Craig M.]

well, just in case this thread ends up locked - which would be a real shame - i'll share this. CLICKY


if you have a genuinely curious mind about some of this stuff, i think this is one of the best, and most interesting, audio blogs around. amps, sources, cables, high res 'v' 16/44.1, a/b-x, etc. it might change what you think about audio reproduction.

 

[Anonymous]

Extract (in case too small to read) from Letters to the Mad Hi-Fi Editor:

Dear Hi-Fi Editor,

My turntable persists in revolving in the wrong direction. I cannot listen to my favourite music, what should I do?

Belinda Matrix

Portland, Ore.

Let the darned thing revolve any way it wants. No true Hi-Fi fan cares about music. It's the sound that's important.

-Ed

 

[SteveR750]

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

You're completely missing what Dr Lodge has said. Yes the files may be identical when decoded to WAV using whatever software on a PC, but during playback FLAC, ALAC, WMAL all have to be decoded by the player, incurring processing overhead however miniscule, and this is where, my friend, that jitter could occur.

And you are completely missing the point. Jitter is not a relevant factor until after the conversion has taken place. (and even then, studies show, it still isn't)

It's the point that modern playback systems are so powerful as to render any small conversion algorithm irrelevant. The FLAC is converted to PCM before playback. Jitter isn't an issue.

WAV and FLAC sound identical because they are identical at the point at which it matters.

Wow, that is a sweeping statement, and utter nonsense IMHO. Jitter isn't an issue? Really???

I recall WHF did a readers review where they tried different NAS hard drives which according to your statements above should make no difference since the digitally stored music is identical. But the readers were able to tell a difference, or perhaps they were imagining it all? If hard drives can make a difference, it stands to reason that may other factors can make a difference too...networks, cabling, racks, main cables etc. I'm not saying they do make a difference, only that they might, and no one can prove either way. Certainly the absence of any difference can never be proved.

Gotta agree with Dr Lodge here, fr0g, with whom Naim would agree as well - in their latest standalone streamers they're making a big deal about reducing instruction/algorithm set sizes in their players to reduce processing overhead as much as possible which they believe affects the sound. So it's not just about throwing fast chips at the board.

Agree all you like. My personal belief is that the company you mention are milking it. Processing overhead was a non-issue 10 years ago. What do you think the processing changes in the sound these days? A £50 Nokia phone can do it, so I imagine a £3000 streamer could manage quite well...don't you?

Don't agree entirely froggie old boy with what appears (I haven't read everyones post, too much testosterone floating around) to be a predilection for logic, and lets be honest music defies logic; it is beyond any rational argument, and to try to do so is a bit anal perhaps. Nonetheless, I do agree with this. Jitter is a perhaps great example of a little knowledge proving dangerous

 

[Anonymous]

Time to lock Clare before this rapidly falls apart and gets more personal?

 

[SteveR750]

Time to lock Clare before this rapidly falls apart and gets more personal?

It was just getting a bit less serious and light hearted!

 

[steve_1979]

i'll share this. CLICKY


if you have a genuinely curious mind about some of this stuff, i think this is one of the best, and most interesting, audio blogs around.

That's a really really good blog. CLICKY

Honestly. If you're genuinely interested in hifi then you owe it to yourself to spend half an hour reading that blog carefully.

Even if you don't want to openly admit it on the forum you should still read that blog. It may save you many thousands of pounds and years of hifi fustration.

 

[bigboss]

This video regarding audio myths is a bit long, but you can forward to your relevant interest.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033511/Audio-Myths-Workshop-video

 

[shooter]

years of hifi fustration.

I'm not frustrated.. :shifty:

 

[fr0g]

Don't agree entirely froggie old boy with what appears (I haven't read everyones post, too much testosterone floating around) to be a predilection for logic, and lets be honest music defies logic; it is beyond any rational argument, and to try to do so is a bit anal perhaps. Nonetheless, I do agree with this. Jitter is a perhaps great example of a little knowledge proving dangerous

Yes, some people may find the whole idea of making audio playback a logical puzzle a little odd.

And yes, the emotional response it engenders appears on the surface to be beyond logic (with current knowledge of the brain), but many aspects of it are testable.

And while it may seem anal, it isn't particularly time-consuming and relieves many symptoms of excessive audiophilery - An hour spent on Foobar has saved me a fortune and put my mind at ease, as well as reducing the burden on my wallet.

-

And I do hope the thread isn't locked for the sake of one or two individuals. I think it's good to have this type of discussion in one place, with or without the curtain twitchers. Anyone who is disinterested can switch off, and anyone with anything positive to add (ideally some testing that can shed doubt on my own beliefs).

 

[Frank Harvey]

That's a really really good blog. CLICKY

Honestly. If you're genuinely interested in hifi then you owe it to yourself to spend half an hour reading that blog carefully.

Even if you don't want to openly admit it on the forum you should still read that blog. It may save you many thousands of pounds and years of hifi fustration.

You mean the blog that links to the Matrix Audio blind test that you know the outcome of before you get to any sort of summary because of how negatively they're talking about the more expensive system? Hmmm.....

 

[Lee H]

My take - having re-read the whole thread with a coffee - is:

Some like to ABX. Their opinion is that most people cannot tell the difference between format/bit rate/cable "a" and format/bit rate/cable "b". This group is content in the knowledge that they have proved to themselves there is no difference and they need not buy certain pieces of kit

Some have the opinion that there is a difference between "a" and "b" and that they can hear/feel it. They don't worry about proof as they trust their own judgement. If buying a certain piece of kit enhances their enjoyment then so be it.

Both camps are actually correct. One gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they have tested themselves, proven their own aural capabilities and have the optimum set-up for them. The other group gets greater pleasure from their listening by knowing they've made a change that they hear to be better; real or not is irrelevant, they hear it so to them it's very real.

The issue arises when either camp insists the other is wrong. It's wrong for the testers to insist on proof, just as it's wrong for the hearers to insist that proof is irrelevant. Personally, sitting around ABX testing is tedious when I could just be watching/listening to something. For me, I don't have the budget to make expensive mistakes (only cheap ones) so I just enjoy what I have. That puts me in the hearing camp I guess. If you want to ABX, then fair enough, it's your call but please don't ram it down others throats as the only way forward. If you don't ABX, again fine, but accept that some do and that telling them that it proves nothing is just as wrong.

 

[Craig M.]

That's a really really good blog. CLICKY

Honestly. If you're genuinely interested in hifi then you owe it to yourself to spend half an hour reading that blog carefully.

Even if you don't want to openly admit it on the forum you should still read that blog. It may save you many thousands of pounds and years of hifi fustration.

You mean the blog that links to the Matrix Audio blind test that you know the outcome of before you get to any sort of summary because of how negatively they're talking about the more expensive system? Hmmm.....

are you being serious? the people listening had no idea what they were listening to, and could only go by their ears. perhaps you'd like to tell me what you think is wrong with the test, other then the cheapo system doing just as well as the high end one?

edit: just to check, this is the test you are referring to? click because i don't see any negative speak, just a cheap system cobbled together on wooden chairs and wired using the cheapest stuff they could find, holding it's own against a high-end system on proper supports and using very expensive cabling.