fortuneandserendipity said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Well at least we've solved the riddle of your super hearing. My ears are on my head, where the hell are yours?!

I don't know but I know with my cat if I push her ears right the way forward, I can talk to her through her skull! (I know this because she miaows back at me)

How often does she meow back? If it's not 50% of the time you haven't proven anything

fortuneandserendipity said:

Mindflux said:

Nobody said that deaf people "hear music the same", so your point is moot. What the article (and deaf people) say is that they can "hear" something and still get enjoyment from it.

As to the rest- I put up a study that, whilst not conclusive, shows that some people can hear the difference and that's all I needed to do to counter your assertion that NOONE can tell the difference. You have yet to put anything forward to back up your claims - all you've done is dispute, with no evidence, the argument and data put forward.

So, to this end, I'm done - cos it doesn't really matter anyway, does it? You're happy with your 320 mp3s and I'm happy with my cds (and flacs when I'm out and about - given that digital storage is not very limited these days - I have 144Gb on my phone alone!).

BTW, I did start the Philips Golden Ear challenge, but my 2 year-old managed to put an end to it half-way through the Silver Ears stage (an untimely slam of his palm on the keyboard!) and it sent me back to the beginning It had already taken about an hour to get through Basic and Bronze and, being a busy man (and having a 2 year-old), I can't see me having a spare few hours to go through all that again! But, safe to say, I had no problems getting to Silver and was sailing through that too (even the Recognising mp3 artifacts section!)

The study cited doesn't lend any evidence to anyone discerning the quality between highest bit rate and cd quality. The samples that are illustrated in the study findings basically show no better odds than tossing a coin, so i don't know why ~50% should be significant. If the trained listeners are the musicians and sound engineers, then who the hell are the experts? Why cite another study without evidence presented thereof, and that at the same time goes no way to proving correct methodology and codecs used. After all, some of the early encoders were damn shite, presumably because they compressed music indiscriminately from the entire audio spectrum, so who's to say how it was set up. Until someone can prove the difference via objective testing- the world is big and the internet ubiquitous- then it's only fair to assume noone can.

You alluded before to how i referred to sound frequencies- outside the normal range - being reproduced by a high end set up, but claimed I was contradicting myself because of some inference that they therefore should be heard. But that is not what I said. CD reproduces frequencies up to 44100 hz, and some speakers and headphones can emit signals up to 30000 hz, but none of that means they're actually perceptible and able to be heard. Vibrations outside the normal range of 20-20000 hz (and that's if you've got exceptional hearing) don't suddenly become audible vibrations once they hit the cochlea, or alternatively some random bone in the body, and to say otherwise would make james randi roll his eyes.

This is my last comment on the subject, because it is astounding just how many things you get wrong whilst pretending to know what you are talking about (like when you claimed that FLAC is IDENTICAL to the original audio, which it is not - the audio is perceived to be lossless, but information has been removed, that is how they compress it and make a smaller file).

CD does not reproduce "frequencies up to 44100hz", that is the SAMPLING rate. Cd actually reproduces frequencies up to 22.05kHz (the Nyquist frequency of 44.1kHz).

You can argue all you like over subjective criteria, but when you consistenly get indisputable facts wrong in your posts, it doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your argument.

And you continue put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about frequencies outside of the human hearing range should be heard? Please, quote me! I said you were contradicting yourself, because you had implied that high-end equipment is a con and no better than standard equipment and then, in your next post, started talking about high-end equipment that can produce frequencies other equipment can't!! It would be nice if you could remember what you said, remember what I said and remain in a consistent position. And, really, that shouldn't be hard, seeing as all this stuff is fucking written down! I don't know about James Randi rolling his eyes, but I certainly am.

Now, do yourself a favour and go and do something worthwhile because, as I said in what I thought was my last post, this really doesn't matter, does it? (Apart from getting FACTS right, of course )

fortuneandserendipity said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Well at least we've solved the riddle of your super hearing. My ears are on my head, where the hell are yours?!

I don't know but I know with my cat if I push her ears right the way forward, I can talk to her through her skull! (I know this because she miaows back at me)

http://www.iflscience.com...headphones

[Edited 9/28/15 9:50am]

just cancelled Tidal free trial with 10 days to go...

Mindflux said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

The study cited doesn't lend any evidence to anyone discerning the quality between highest bit rate and cd quality. The samples that are illustrated in the study findings basically show no better odds than tossing a coin, so i don't know why ~50% should be significant. If the trained listeners are the musicians and sound engineers, then who the hell are the experts? Why cite another study without evidence presented thereof, and that at the same time goes no way to proving correct methodology and codecs used. After all, some of the early encoders were damn shite, presumably because they compressed music indiscriminately from the entire audio spectrum, so who's to say how it was set up. Until someone can prove the difference via objective testing- the world is big and the internet ubiquitous- then it's only fair to assume noone can.

You alluded before to how i referred to sound frequencies- outside the normal range - being reproduced by a high end set up, but claimed I was contradicting myself because of some inference that they therefore should be heard. But that is not what I said. CD reproduces frequencies up to 44100 hz, and some speakers and headphones can emit signals up to 30000 hz, but none of that means they're actually perceptible and able to be heard. Vibrations outside the normal range of 20-20000 hz (and that's if you've got exceptional hearing) don't suddenly become audible vibrations once they hit the cochlea, or alternatively some random bone in the body, and to say otherwise would make james randi roll his eyes.

This is my last comment on the subject, because it is astounding just how many things you get wrong whilst pretending to know what you are talking about (like when you claimed that FLAC is IDENTICAL to the original audio, which it is not - the audio is perceived to be lossless, but information has been removed, that is how they compress it and make a smaller file).

CD does not reproduce "frequencies up to 44100hz", that is the SAMPLING rate. Cd actually reproduces frequencies up to 22.05kHz (the Nyquist frequency of 44.1kHz).

You can argue all you like over subjective criteria, but when you consistenly get indisputable facts wrong in your posts, it doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your argument.

And you continue put words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about frequencies outside of the human hearing range should be heard? Please, quote me! I said you were contradicting yourself, because you had implied that high-end equipment is a con and no better than standard equipment and then, in your next post, started talking about high-end equipment that can produce frequencies other equipment can't!! It would be nice if you could remember what you said, remember what I said and remain in a consistent position. And, really, that shouldn't be hard, seeing as all this stuff is fucking written down! I don't know about James Randi rolling his eyes, but I certainly am.

Now, do yourself a favour and go and do something worthwhile because, as I said in what I thought was my last post, this really doesn't matter, does it? (Apart from getting FACTS right, of course )

I never said all high-end equipment is a con, you're misquoting me right there. First, high-end gear that can produce frequencies other cheaper gear can't is a waste of time, there's no audible difference in respect to frequencies. Second, the price of high-end cd players, amplifiers, dacs is in no way justified relative to what they cost to manufacture. In blind tests people who might consider themselves audiophiles have failed to tell the difference between the cheapest and much more expensive amplifiers https://numeralnine.wordp...-consumer/ (see point 3, key point here being a cheap amplifier as long it's well designed is indistinguishable from top-end model, their words not mine but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true)

Speakers and headphones are a different matter, more along the lines of you get what you pay for. But frequencies capable of being produced above 20 khz and below 20 hz with this gear, most reasonable people will argue is overkill, unnecessary. Overall though, the front end is really important and where consumers should really spend the money. That being said, a £1200 headphone good in its class isn't going to sound 4 times better than a £300 headphone that's good in its class. It's the law of diminishing returns I'm afraid. Unless my ears are lying to me.

About the nyquist frequency, I had forgotten since reading about it last how complex the process is concerning sampling and the need for anti-aliasing when oversampling to minimize any distortion introduced. The bigger picture is, this poses no problem for CD as long as the mastering is done correctly. Also, granted the fact CD provides adequate frequency and amplitude range that can possibly be picked up by the human ear, there are people despite this who complain 44.1 khz and 16 bit is insufficient.

Regarding your argument about FLAC, the wikipedia definition is right here "identical copy of the original audio data". Compression similar to a rar or zip file then? I never said FLAC wasn't compressed, I merely pointed out the obvious, that compressing beyond wave won't affect the sound.

You said before and I quote "the information removed is supposed to be stuff you would not hear. But other arguments suggest [citation needed] that whilst mathematically speaking that should be true, you might not be able to know how these frequencies are affecting other frequencies in the piece. It is precisely why a subwoofer does more than give you extra or deeper bass- it has an effect over the full frequency range"

So contrary to your earlier argument, frequencies are omitted through the flac compression process? Or they're not? In the physicists world they wouldn't be audible anyway, but if you say so. Maybe you're talking along the lines of Beats Headphones for instance, and their poor colouration of sound, but this is all logical reasoning, not what you're arguing, that vibrations that are not immediately audible have a bearing on the sound of vibrations which are.

And in probably most people's view, your very first reply to mine, you got it wrong when you said the difference between wave and mp3-(highest bit rate) was "night and day". No it's more likely your preconception of what you're listening to stuff through that is making the real difference. Try listening to your favourite songs when you're in a really bad mood and dig them as much.

Your mood does affect your perception, my point being the placebo effect will more likely be proven in future to have been underestimated if anything (brain scanning tech please!). There really is a scientific reason why homeopathy works and it's not the homeopathy, it's the power of suggestion!

Also you misinterpreted what I said about 1s and 0s within the context of data transfer from CD to hard drive. As long as the CD concerned isn't scratched to the point of non playing then it will provide perfect memory transfer to wav. Referring to my crappy PC CD player, what I omitted to say was the fact in play mode it does trip up over the most minor scratches, which through other gear plays fine. But it's never had a problem giving a perfect data transfer readout according to likes of foobar and dbpoweramp. So I just don't play my CDs through it.

[Edited 9/28/15 21:59pm]

TheEnglishGent said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

I don't know but I know with my cat if I push her ears right the way forward, I can talk to her through her skull! (I know this because she miaows back at me)

How often does she meow back? If it's not 50% of the time you haven't proven anything

She miaows every time i do it basically. All I do is press her ears forward against her head- so she can't hear anything, and then she'll just miaow constantly until I stop.

I'm genuinely excited about what this could mean for the future of sound reproduction. Now where's that link again...

[Edited 9/28/15 17:04pm]

that's what this thread reminded me of

[Edited 10/1/15 15:39pm]

It's like the difference between sound frequencies you can hear and the sound frequencies you can't

no wait thats not right... So it's the difference between the sound frequencies you can hear and the sound frequencies you can't... BUT the sounds you can't hear do affect the sounds you can hear if you have "golden ears" like me

oh wait that can't be right either... fuck it maybe it's just an ego problem

If they re-release Prince's music it shoudl be in a Blu-ray format audiophile release. Remastered by Bernie Grundman

PurpleMedley122 said:

Wrong. From first listen SOTT uses the same garbage master from the CD. Listening side by side with my US 1st Pressing vinyl rip, the vinyl still blows it out of the water. For example, check if you can hear the acoustic strumming panned to the left speaker (it should sound like Prince is literally plucking the string right next to your ear) on the CD/TIDAL version of Play in the Sunshine, cause it's there and a lot more prominent on the vinyl version. [Edited 9/8/15 18:35pm]

I know one thing. Forever In My Life on vinyl sure doesnt sound that good being crampled on teh end of it compared to the CD

Thizz said:

If they re-release Prince's music it shoudl be in a Blu-ray format audiophile release. Remastered by Bernie Grundman

I bet Bernie dials it all the way to 11

paisleypark4 said:

PurpleMedley122 said:

Wrong. From first listen SOTT uses the same garbage master from the CD. Listening side by side with my US 1st Pressing vinyl rip, the vinyl still blows it out of the water. For example, check if you can hear the acoustic strumming panned to the left speaker (it should sound like Prince is literally plucking the string right next to your ear) on the CD/TIDAL version of Play in the Sunshine, cause it's there and a lot more prominent on the vinyl version. [Edited 9/8/15 18:35pm]

I know one thing. Forever In My Life on vinyl sure doesnt sound that good being crampled on teh end of it compared to the CD

Although it is correct that the song closest to the center does not sound as good as the first song on the side, Side 2 of SOTT vinyl is only 21 1/2 min long. That's not cramped. 25-30 min would be cramped, in my opinion of course...

I say we need reel-to-reel editions:

.

Some audio critics claim this is the highest fidelity ever captured on 1/4-inch tape. That may be so, considering that each album is a first-generation copy dubbed in real time, at a leisurely 30 ips, directly from the original master tape. There is no mixing or remastering involved. In essence, this is the master tape. It doesn’t get any better than this. Better is live at Carnegie Hall.

.

If we had those we could do our own remasters! Seriously, consider the awesome work T did 15 years ago just using cassette copies when he did Dream Factory... However, such fidelity doesn't come cheap:

.

Vinyl fans may scoff at The Tape Project’s steep prices, but when licensing fees, production time (3.5 hours per album), and materials ($150 just for the blank tape) are factored into the equation, $450 seems almost reasonable to hear Lee Morgan’s trumpet riffs on The Sidewinder just as recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder heard them over half a century ago in his New Jersey studio. Incidentally, a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on tape doesn’t just sound better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on vinyl. It sounds better than a Lee Morgan trumpet riff on any audio format: CD, SACD, Pure Audio Blu-Ray, even Neil Young’s crazy 24-bit/192 kHZ hi-res files that take forever to download.

.

Seriously, go read that article. It's insane.