Since They will No Longer Make CD's

Tour2ma

Brock,
I totally agree that repeating past positions does get old fast, but give the guy a break and at least supply the links to your earlier posts on the subject. Keep a catalog of "The Best o' Brock" links handy in a Word Doc on your desktop... or attached to an e-mail at work...

BeefJ,
While I applaud your stamina, you should know that you cannot outlast the Polk Pack mentality on full display here in all its "glory". Not that there is a path to victory open to you (there isn't), but I have a couple bits of advice for you.

Even when you know you are right, do not tell a pack member they are "wrong" (at least not until page three or four... :twisted: ). It only pisses off the pack and draws in more, like sharks to blood in the water. It's likely that by page four you'll no longer care... so WTH.

You also need to understand that long, thoughtful posts that break down others' posts logically, addressing them point by point, is not a winning approach. Just save some 0's and 1's for the long haul by keeping replies short and simple.

Most of the pack will not bother to read your longer posts in any case. Most of this Pack sub-group doesn't matter, as they could not understand your posts anyway. Their only interest is in reinforcing their meager, pack bona fides, throwing in the occasional "yipping" post here and there, so they can continue to run with the pack and perhaps earn a promotion somewhere down the line. Easy to spot these... ignore them.

Of those that do read every word, most can, at best, only feign objectivity. Tougher to spot, unless they resort to forum-cuss, but most will display a basic misunderstanding of your point(s), either intentionally or unintentionally...

So at best what you are left with only two or three with an opposing view actually engage in a civil, meaningful exchange, e.g., tb and H9. Focus on them, ignore the noise and have a blast...

F1nut wrote: »

A dose of reality, the RIAA figures for 2010
CD - $3.4 billion
Downloads (singles and albums) - $2.2 billion
Vinyl - $87 million
Who really thinks the record industry is going to give up $3.4 billion? Not me.

Who really thinks that $3.4B would totally evaporate? Not me...
Who really thinks the industry bases decisions upon gross sales? Not me... nor Warren Buffet... nor Willard Romney....
We think it is even possible that the 2010 Net Profit from the Downloads was greater than that of the CD's.

A better use of the RIAA data is for trend analysis...
- CD $'s were down 21.4% from 2009, while...
- All Download $'s were up 10.2%.
Who really thinks the trend makes the OP rather prophetic?

SIDE NOTE: Coolest of all... LP/EP sales were up 44.4%... :exclaim:

F1nut wrote: »

Hopefully this is clear enough for you, GFY!

Pssst... Jessie, you can stop running for CP Member of the Year now... a winner has already been declared...

tonyb wrote: »

Anyone can spout their theory, also viewed as an opinion, but unless you have put any of it into practice....aka experience, your opinions don't carry much weight.

And here I was thinking that I formed my opinions based upon my experiences and that theory was educated speculation subject to scientific validation... Silly me...

I've uploaded the RIAA data for those interested in it.
RIIA 09-10 Data.pdf

It's telling from the RIAA data that the "CD value" is $14.8862/ unit while the Downloaded Album's is $9.9735/ unit. As the CD is more expensive, it must be better...

And since good old vinyl was a whopping $21.75/ unit, it proves once and for all that vinyl is the best medium of all! :cheesygrin:

snow

Tour2ma wrote: »

Brock,
I totally agree that repeating past positions does get old fast, but give the guy a break and at least supply the links to your earlier posts on the subject. Keep a catalog of "The Best o' Brock" links handy in a Word Doc on your desktop... or attached to an e-mail at work...

BeefJ,
While I applaud your stamina, you should know that you cannot outlast the Polk Pack mentality on full display here in all its "glory". Not that there is a path to victory open to you (there isn't), but I have a couple bits of advice for you.

Even when you know you are right, do not tell a pack member they are "wrong" (at least not until page three or four... :twisted: ). It only pisses off the pack and draws in more, like sharks to blood in the water. It's likely that by page four you'll no longer care... so WTH.

You also need to understand that long, thoughtful posts that break down others' posts logically, addressing them point by point, is not a winning approach. Just save some 0's and 1's for the long haul by keeping replies short and simple.

Most of the pack will not bother to read your longer posts in any case. Most of this Pack sub-group doesn't matter, as they could not understand your posts anyway. Their only interest is in reinforcing their meager, pack bona fides, throwing in the occasional "yipping" post here and there, so they can continue to run with the pack and perhaps earn a promotion somewhere down the line. Easy to spot these... ignore them.

Of those that do read every word, most can, at best, only feign objectivity. Tougher to spot, unless they resort to forum-cuss, but most will display a basic misunderstanding of your point(s), either intentionally or unintentionally...

So at best what you are left with only two or three with an opposing view actually engage in a civil, meaningful exchange, e.g., tb and H9. Focus on them, ignore the noise and have a blast...


Who really thinks that $3.4B would totally evaporate? Not me...
Who really thinks the industry bases decisions upon gross sales? Not me... nor Warren Buffet... nor Willard Romney....
We think it is even possible that the 2010 Net Profit from the Downloads was greater than that of the CD's.

A better use of the RIAA data is for trend analysis...
- CD $'s were down 21.4% from 2009, while...
- All Download $'s were up 10.2%.
Who really thinks the trend makes the OP rather prophetic?

SIDE NOTE: Coolest of all... LP/EP sales were up 44.4%... :exclaim:


Pssst... Jessie, you can stop running for CP Member of the Year now... a winner has already been declared...


And here I was thinking that I formed my opinions based upon my experiences and that theory was educated speculation subject to scientific validation... Silly me...

I've uploaded the RIAA data for those interested in it.
RIIA 09-10 Data.pdf

It's telling from the RIAA data that the "CD value" is $14.8862/ unit while the Downloaded Album's is $9.9735/ unit. As the CD is more expensive, it must be better...

And since good old vinyl was a whopping $21.75/ unit, it proves once and for all that vinyl is the best medium of all! :cheesygrin:

Would you repeat that rambling incoherent verbal diarrhea again please, as an obvious member of the "sub-pack" I neither read nor understood every word :cheesygrin:



REGARDS SNOW

inspiredsports

. . . and since good old vinyl was a whopping $21.75/ unit, it proves once and for all that vinyl is the best medium of all! :cheesygrin:

I'm not sure what the price point proves, but I've spent 8 hours (so far) today listening to vinyl when I could have listened to anything I wanted to

P.S.: I'm too dumb to understand it all also; that's why I only excerpted the last couple dozen words.

SCompRacer

Whenever I went skiing and fell, my butt always found the sub-pack.

inspiredsports

SCompRacer wrote: »

Whenever I went skiing and fell, my butt always found the sub-pack.

. . . and watch out for those water skiing enemas!

BeefJerky

Okay, I'm going to take a different approach with this post. For the most part I will be addressing the whole group, but there will probably be a few parts at the end that are aimed at specific people. Hopefully it won't be too long, but I offer no guarantees on that; I tend to be wordy.

First, I will explain why I even bother making the posts that I do. Simply put, I think the scientific side needs representation. If it weren't for people like me, this forum would be full of pure speculation and hearsay.

I consider myself a skeptic, so research and proof is important to me if I want to believe something. I will not believe something is true just because someone says it is, nor do I believe everything I read on the internet or see on TV. I do my own independent research to confirm or deny something. If I say something is true, it's because I've done enough research to confirm it. If I don't know the answer to something, I will be forthcoming and readily admit it. Science that is well established and research is absolutely something I am willing to put my faith in.

The science behind how digital devices operate is very well established. This is not something that someone just recently came up with, nor is it something that isn't thoroughly researched. This is what I have based my posts on here, and because I've done my own research on the subject, I won't hesitate to stand behind them one-hundred percent.

Being that I believe in and understand science, I will also admit that science can (and has) been proven wrong in the past. However, for a part of scientific knowledge or belief to be overturned, there must be proof. Take for example the flat-earth theory. It was wrong, but it was only overturned when actual evidence of a spherical earth was presented.

There are some folks here who post views that go against the well established knowledge of how digital devices work, yet none of those people are willing to post proof. When someone is going against scientific knowledge, the burden of proof is on them. Simple claims of "I hear a difference" or "I saw it" aren't proof. These are not considered proof in modern science, and for good reason. Some people claim to have seen the lochness monster or that they hear the dead talking to them, so it's clear that relying on ones senses alone isn't enough. So, forgive me if I am skeptical of your claims that go against established scientific knowledge. However, if any of these people can actually provide proof, I will be the first to stand up and say that science as well as my own beliefs in it were wrong. However, until then, I will remain a skeptic.

Now, I know the typical response will be that some changes in audio just can't be measured.
"Look at a frequency response graph for these two speakers; they are both flat, but they sound so different!"
It's all about using the right tools and measurements for the job. A frequency response chart isn't actually very helpful in terms of audio science since there are other factors that affect how something sounds. Some examples of these are timbre, distortion, harmonics and linearity - none of which will be shown on a simple frequency response graph. For those you actually need to look at the waveform. This can be done with a simple oscilloscope for real time observation. Or, if you want to chart the waveform over a period of time, you can use a more advanced digital oscilloscope or a computer with appropriate software.

In fact, our very own DarqueKnight has proven this to be true. I know he has done extensive testing with different cables, both before and after break-in. He showed clear and discernible differences via the use of an oscilloscope, both between different cables, and in some cases before and after break-in. I was a skeptic myself on cables, but he certainly helped to open my eyes by actually providing evidence.

For those who claim to hear a difference between two lossless files (i.e. an Apple Lossless and FLAC file) or between a bit-for-bit copy of a CD and the original CD, proving it would be easy if there really is a difference. However, I don't see that happening. This is partially because too many people here are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is (so to say). The other reason is that I don't believe it can be proven. However, as I said earlier, I will be the first to stand up and admit that science and my beliefs in it were wrong if you can actually provide proof.

sucks2beme wrote:

one thing we have to be careful about. That is the guys who create hi-res files from lower res music files and make these available to the public. Unless you go back to the tapes and re-create the higher res music, it's worse than useless.A lot of the CDs made back in the day were not remastered. This made the CD version of a lot of music sound bad. Media changes should mean re-mastering to that format. I messed around here a bit with that, and the music NEVER gets better by changing format. 44.1 is as good as cd music gets.

This is a very valid point. I've seen this, as well as FLAC uploads that were converted from a lossy source (i.e. MP3). You can't magically make the missing data or audio information reappear.

tonyb wrote:

Sounstage width and depth, tone......1's and 0's and science can't tell me that.

Sure they can. Those 1's and 0's are what define the waveform, which in turn defines what your ears hear. Without which you wouldn't have any sound, nevermind soundstage width, depth or tone.

Tour2ma wrote:

While I applaud your stamina, you should know that you cannot outlast the Polk Pack mentality on full display here in all its "glory". Not that there is a path to victory open to you (there isn't), but I have a couple bits of advice for you.

I actually enjoy these kinds of discussions/debates, so stamina really isn't an issue. I'm still having fun, and it's a good distraction from real life.

Tour2ma wrote:

You also need to understand that long, thoughtful posts that break down others' posts logically, addressing them point by point, is not a winning approach. Just save some 0's and 1's for the long haul by keeping replies short and simple.

That's not going to happen; I'm just too wordy. I've been told I should have been a lawyer, but my ethics and morals stand in the way of me being successful as one.

Of those that do read every word, most can, at best, only feign objectivity. Tougher to spot, unless they resort to forum-cuss, but most will display a basic misunderstanding of your point(s), either intentionally or unintentionally...

So at best what you are left with only two or three with an opposing view actually engage in a civil, meaningful exchange, e.g., tb and H9. Focus on them, ignore the noise and have a blast...

But that takes some of the fun out of it. Exposing those who have no case and those who feign objectivity are part of the fun.

@The many who seem saddened by my inability to just enjoy the music:
You couldn't be more wrong, and that is just an incorrect assumption on the part of multiple folks here. Just because I look at and put faith in the scientific aspect doesn't mean that I can't or don't enjoy the music. I was listening to (and enjoying) music while posting my previous posts, as well as when doing my research. I am also listening to music as I type this post, specifically Long Train Runnin' by the Doobie Brothers, which is a fantastic song in my opinion.

I suppose that will be all for now, however, I'm sure I'll think of more to say later.

P.S. I'm now listening to the song Emily by Jewel, another fantastic song.

BlueFox

BeefJerky wrote: »

Okay, I'm going to take a different approach with this post. For the most part I will be addressing the whole group, but there will probably be a few parts at the end that are aimed at specific people. Hopefully it won't be too long, but I offer no guarantees on that; I tend to be wordy.

...snip

@The many who seem saddened by my inability to just enjoy the music:
You couldn't be more wrong, and that is just an incorrect assumption on the part of multiple folks here. Just because I look at and put faith in the scientific aspect doesn't mean that I can't or don't enjoy the music. I was listening to (and enjoying) music while posting my previous posts, as well as when doing my research. I am also listening to music as I type this post, specifically Long Train Runnin' by the Doobie Brothers, which is a fantastic song in my opinion.

I suppose that will be all for now, however, I'm sure I'll think of more to say later.

P.S. I'm now listening to the song Emily by Jewel, another fantastic song.

Great post. I wish I could type fast enough to be coherent in a long post. One point to keep in mind is some people seem to get fixated on a technology (CD for example), and lose sight that the objective is to hear music with the best reproduction possible, and if it costs less then that is even better. Anyway, thanks for posting. I like information.

Drenis

I read the first page and the last page... Kind of glad I took a couple days off from the site. Looks like I missed some serious drama.

Off topic, I'd still like to hear a true, lossless file through my system cause my crappy 128-320kbps rips through the DAC's of my Pio Elite sound damn good.

Also, from a PC perspective, 1's and 0's in digital are JUST that. There are NOT different variations of 1's or 40 types of 0's in a digital file. People need to come to terms with the fact (At 26 even I have to do this) that some things that are digitized have been done right and have exceeded it's analog counter part. However, there are some things that have not yet come close to surpassing it's digital opponent. A good example of this is photographs. Digital cameras can NOT match what a analog film camera takes. I believe analog film is somewhere (without looking this up to confirm) 20-25 mega pixels per image. Anyone who thinks there smart phone with a 5MP camera takes better pictures than there old 35mm Fuji film camera please exit over there... --->

There is ongoing debates regarding HDMI cables and the quality of cable as it passes a controlled digital signal. A $6 cable does exactly what the $100 cable does without a noticeable difference. Unlike speaker cable debates, I seem to read that HDMI and digital signals is a whole different ball game.

This thread strikes me as a Analog vs. Digital debate. People who use and have lived with CD's vinyl and alll that associating source material are so accustomed to it, no one likes to change. You never fix what isn't broken and with that statement. Some old dogs just prefer not learning any new tricks. Will it get them the same result? Yes. Will it be easier or more convenient? Perhaps...perhaps not. I think it's a personal preference. The same applies to how people interrupt how music sounds.

steveinaz

With HDD capacity so cheap anymore, I can't see why anyone wouldn't go lossless.

Problem with the "bit is bits" argument is that there is a lot more involved in electronics than simply passing 1's and 0's--if it were that simple, as I said before, we'd all be rocking Hello Kitty $19 cd players.

Analog=infinite sampling, be it photograhy or music. The problems arise with quiet/noiseless analog; though good Turntables come damn close, and many find the trade-offs worth the warm overall tonal quality on vinyl.

heiney9

Sorry Beef I am not just going to take "your word" because you say it's true. I am a skeptic and I do my own research and then I listen, listen, listen and try to convey my experiences. I don't ever deny the "science" end of any of it, but in the end it's how it makes me feel and what I hear that determines it for me. Not mathematical formulas, spec sheets, plots, etc. All are helpful to the big picture, but no single aspect really is dominate.

H9

steveinaz

Science

---

Experience

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Drenis

As with the majority here, I think the phrase, "If it sounds better to me and I hear a difference for the better, that's all that matters" applies here.

steveinaz

Ed zachry. Your hobby, your equipment, your dime, YOUR choice.

sucks2beme

steveinaz wrote: »

Analog=infinite sampling, be it photograhy or music. The problems arise with quiet/noiseless analog; though good Turntables come damn close, and many find the trade-offs worth the warm overall tonal quality on vinyl.

As far as photography goes, the film has limits. 400asa film will really show you the trade off of sensitivity and quality.
Analog has limits as well. It's not infinite either. The issue here is that the CD storage and equipment was limited 30+ years ago.
The media hasn't kept pace with technology. And few are willing to drop the coin to invest in new tech.
So it's caught in limbo. There's a few SACD, DVD-a, and a few HI-res downloads. Until a format catches fire,
we are stuck with a media that is limited(or flawed, as some would say).

tonyb

heiney9 wrote: »

Sorry Beef I am not just going to take "your word" because you say it's true. I am a skeptic and I do my own research and then I listen, listen, listen and try to convey my experiences. I don't ever deny the "science" end of any of it, but in the end it's how it makes me feel and what I hear that determines it for me. Not mathematical formulas, spec sheets, plots, etc. All are helpful to the big picture, but no single aspect really is dominate.

H9

Yep, besides, wasn't it science long ago that said the world was flat ? If science is your only guide in audio, then what can we say. Your loss I guess.

inspiredsports

BeefJerky wrote: »

. . . Now, I know the typical response will be that some changes in audio just can't be measured. "Look at a frequency response graph for these two speakers; they are both flat, but they sound so different!" It's all about using the right tools and measurements for the job. A frequency response chart isn't actually very helpful in terms of audio science since there are other factors that affect how something sounds. Some examples of these are timbre, distortion, harmonics and linearity - none of which will be shown on a simple frequency response graph. For those you actually need to look at the waveform. This can be done with a simple oscilloscope for real time observation. Or, if you want to chart the waveform over a period of time, you can use a more advanced digital oscilloscope or a computer with appropriate software.

BeefJerky wrote: »

. . . For those who claim to hear a difference between two lossless files (i.e. an Apple Lossless and FLAC file) or between a bit-for-bit copy of a CD and the original CD, proving it would be easy if there really is a difference. However, I don't see that happening. This is partially because too many people here are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is (so to say). The other reason is that I don't believe it can be proven. However, as I said earlier, I will be the first to stand up and admit that science and my beliefs in it were wrong if you can actually provide proof.

It seems you may be arguing both sides of the fence.

I'm curious if science has yet to determine how to quantify "other factors that affect how something sounds." in the realm of "1's" and 0's". Or do you believe it's already "perfect"?

BeefJerky wrote: »

. . . @The many who seem saddened by my inability to just enjoy the music:[/I][/B]
You couldn't be more wrong, and that is just an incorrect assumption on the part of multiple folks here. Just because I look at and put faith in the scientific aspect doesn't mean that I can't or don't enjoy the music. I was listening to (and enjoying) music while posting my previous posts, as well as when doing my research. I am also listening to music as I type this post, specifically Long Train Runnin' by the Doobie Brothers, which is a fantastic song in my opinion.

I'm glad I was wrong.

steveinaz

sucks2beme wrote: »

Analog has limits as well. It's not infinite either.

How many samples are in a 5 second span of a song, on a vinyl album?

headrott

inspiredsports wrote: »

It seems you may be arguing both sides of the fence.

I'm curious if science has yet to determine how to quantify "other factors that affect how something sounds." in the realm of "1's" and 0's". Or do you believe it's already "perfect"?

Electrons that make up the 1's and 0's are affected. It's whether or not the scientific instruments can detect how and how much they are affected. I would argue my ears can detect it much better than scientific instruments. Of course, I cannot prove my personal experience to anyone else unless they have my ears, brain and consciousness. But, anyone (assuming a person's ears, brain and consciousness are at full capacity) has the potential to hear the same thing and prove it to themselves.

Greg

steveinaz

The example given already about 2 speakers measuring the same in freq response, sounding completely different. There's your scientific approach. Science misses one key element, human interaction. That's a mighty BIG element to miss. It also fails miserably on another element--personal preference.

here's an experiment for you labcoat types:

Sit in your favorite listening position, and play some music with which you are familiar. Now, take both index fingers and push the middle outer part of your ears forward, about a 1/16 of an inch. Notice anything?

How might we apply this experiment to someone who may have ears shaped this way naturally? How may their choices in loudspeaker selection be affected by this human "element" (variable)? How might that element influence this person to select something that may not be "accurate" in a scientific sense?

Getting my point yet?

Science is only a part of the entire picture.

sucks2beme

No samples, but don't think the machine cutting grooves can break the laws of physics.
And regardless of how careful you are, every playback slowly changes the grooves
via friction. Tapes degrade over time. Every electrical device and mechanical device has limits.
The mics used in recording, the mixing board, the media used to save the master on. The
process of turning the master into a pressing has errors and limits. Nothing can sense or
reproduce dc to daylight. Or do it at 100% accuracy. My point is, as always, the CD has hard limits.
I don't care how much money you throw at a CDP, it can't make the music anything more than
these limits. We can beat the specs to death, but in the end there's a lot of room for improvement.
Records have pops, tape has hiss, and CD's are an old technology with hard limits in sampling and
dynamics. The only reason I'll ever miss the cd is due to DRM. Thank you Steve Jobs for helping
the music biz screw us again.

nwohlford

tonyb wrote: »

Yep, besides, wasn't it science long ago that said the world was flat ? If science is your only guide in audio, then what can we say. Your loss I guess.

Science as we think of it now did not start until the 16th Century after it was well established that the world is round.

headrott wrote: »

Electrons that make up the 1's and 0's are affected.

I think that you mean current pulses that make up the 1's and 0's. If you say electrons, then it makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about.

While I agree that all measurement has to be done by an individual person if you want results that apply to you, the scientific method still has a place if you want to tell if there is a difference between two or more things. In most cases this would be a blinded test with you doing listening in your normal way. If you are happy without knowing for sure whether there is a difference, then it is fine to trust your senses with out some sort of scientific test. I know I do this for a lot of things with audio, but I would never say for sure that one is better (or even different) than the other.

inspiredsports

sucks2beme wrote:

. . . Analog has limits as well. It's not infinite either.

And what's the sampling rate of the human brain? And is it infinite?

sucks2beme

We know vision has a rate. That why moving pictures on a reel work.
It called MOVIES. But I'm out of here. It appears human though has some limits as well.

BeefJerky

inspiredsports wrote: »

It seems you may be arguing both sides of the fence.

I'm curious if science has yet to determine how to quantify "other factors that affect how something sounds." in the realm of "1's" and 0's". Or do you believe it's already "perfect"?

steveinaz wrote: »

The example given already about 2 speakers measuring the same in freq response, sounding completely different. There's your scientific approach.

This is something that I had already addressed in my previous post. I gave specific examples of "other factors that affect how something sounds," as well as the method needed to show those things. I'll repeat again that those things will show up as part of the waveform, which can easily be shown and measured with the use of an oscilloscope.

tonyb wrote: »

Yep, besides, wasn't it science long ago that said the world was flat ? If science is your only guide in audio, then what can we say. Your loss I guess.

This was something that I had already addressed in my post as well. Science was wrong in that instance, but it took proof to change it. This is the whole root of the discussion we are having here. Scientific research and data clearly shows that lossless files are no different then a bit-for-bit copy of the CD, and one lossless format will be no different that another lossless format. Some folks here are claiming otherwise without even attempting to provide evidence. I've already stated that if proof can be provided to the contrary, I will be happy to admit that science was wrong, as well as my belief in that aspect of it.

steveinaz wrote:

Science misses one key element, human interaction. That's a mighty BIG element to miss. It also fails miserably on another element--personal preference.

This is not something I've ever denied, however, this was not what the debate focused on. The debate centered around claims that lossless files sounded different whilst scientific data showed otherwise. Personal preference doesn't even come in to play when there is no difference between two things.

here's an experiment for you labcoat types:

Sit in your favorite listening position, and play some music with which you are familiar. Now, take both index fingers and push the middle outer part of your ears forward, about a 1/16 of an inch. Notice anything?

How might we apply this experiment to someone who may have ears shaped this way naturally? How may their choices in loudspeaker selection be affected by this human "element" (variable)? How might that element influence this person to select something that may not be "accurate" in a scientific sense?

Getting my point yet?

Science is only a part of the entire picture.

Agreed. I don't remember ever claiming that science knew everything about audio. In fact, the way the human ear perceives and processes sound still needs a lot of research before we understand it. However, this goes for any of the human senses, as well as the brain as a whole. However, my point in the discussion was regarding the parts that science does know and understand.

heiney9 wrote: »

Sorry Beef I am not just going to take "your word" because you say it's true. I am a skeptic and I do my own research and then I listen, listen, listen and try to convey my experiences. I don't ever deny the "science" end of any of it, but in the end it's how it makes me feel and what I hear that determines it for me. Not mathematical formulas, spec sheets, plots, etc. All are helpful to the big picture, but no single aspect really is dominate.

Please don't just take my word. I encourage you, as well as everyone else here, to do their own research. I only have an issue with those who refuse to acknowledge facts and valid scientific data. Those who turn a blind eye to those things and pretend they don't exist are not only lying to themselves, but they are also misinforming others.

falconcry72

this whole thread

tl;dr

inspiredsports

BeefJerky wrote: »

This is something that I had already addressed in my previous post. I gave specific examples of "other factors that affect how something sounds," as well as the method needed to show those things. I'll repeat again that those things will show up as part of the waveform, which can easily be shown and measured with the use of an oscilloscope.

I guess I'm missing something here. We agree there are factors outside of 2 identical frequency response curves for 2 different speakers that make them sound different.

Are there factors outside of oscilliscope traces of 0's and 1's that science has yet to identify? If there are (or are not), where is your proof?

BeefJerky

inspiredsports wrote: »

I guess I'm missing something here. We agree there are factors outside of 2 identical frequency response curves for 2 different speakers that make them sound different.

Are there factors outside of oscilliscope traces of 0's and 1's that science has yet to identify? If there are (or are not), where is your proof?

I'm not 100% sure what you are asking, but I will try to clarify.

Yes, there are factors outside of two identical frequency response curves, such as timbre, distortion and harmonics. Those factors (and differences) will show up when looking at the raw waveform. To clarify, the waveform is different from a frequency response curve and is a visualization of the of the raw component that makes up what we hear as sound (the sound wave). The tool I mentioned (oscilloscope) lets you view the waveform, therefore you will be able to see the differences that are not shown on a simple frequency response curve.

If you want a quick explanation of waveforms, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveform

If you were asking something different, please be more specific and I will try to answer.

Face

falconcry72 wrote: »

tl;dr

+1... :cheesygrin:

headrott

nwohlford wrote: »

I think that you mean current pulses that make up the 1's and 0's. If you say electrons, then it makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about.

OK, but what is current made up of? Electrons, correct?

Greg

inspiredsports

OK, so back to BeefJerky's first beef posted as post #18 of this thread

rromeo923 wrote: »

Why the love for CD's??
They just take up space. I think lossless digital files sound as good. The only reason I have cd's are for my car but I rarely listen to them there either. If I want a cd I just burn one.

BeefJerky wrote: »

They do sound just as good, because they lossless. There is absolutely no difference between the output from a CD versus a lossless file.

If you hear a "difference" you are either using an incorrectly coded lossless decoder (highely unlikely), or the placebo effect. This is 100% mathematically provable, and is fact; it is not subjective in any way.

My undestanding is that "absolute" lossless uncompressed AIFF and WAV files really would have identical sonic profiles.

However, most seem to be using FLAC or Apple Lossless which in reality are "compressed" lossless files. And therein, I believe, lies the difference. The coder/decoder algorithm (codec) required for real-time on-the-fly "recomposition" of the file requires increased processor power. That resource penalty is placed directly in the signal path.

I don't know how to measure the phenomenon scientifically, but I'm certain this is what's responsible when people say they can hear the difference.

I guess in this analogy it's the codec/processor combination that imparts "timbre / distortion / harmonics / linearity / etc." used as an example about speaker frequency response curves mentioned in a later post.

It's not as you say, "If you hear a "difference" you are either using an incorrectly coded lossless decoder (highly unlikely), or the placebo effect." . . . It's the very fact that a codec is used, and its execution imparts audible changes to your precious "100% mathematically provable" file.