Zp 24/96
A
Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 6 / 41
The benefit of this experience is now being able to hear Harbeth quality sound from the Connect Amp to the same extent I can even now from a 140wpc Quad 909 amp. With all the convenience that Sonos brings to the table.
Lol, I can't really explain why, but this response reminds me of the scene in the movie Patton when George C. Scott views the oncoming German Afrika Korps through his field binoculars. Knowing he has seen everything they are to throw at him and thus knows how to defeat them, he screams out "Rommel, you magnificent *******, I READ YOUR BOOK!!!"
I think that there is still plenty of room for audio improvement, but not so much along the bits per second or sample bit depth vectors. The trap is that, at this point in technology development, more bits is easy and more must be better, right? What some of us are claiming is that, since the benefit of more bits has been hard to demonstrate and clogging the network path with more data does have an easy to demonstrate impact on the number of players that can be reliably supported, stuffing bits seems like a step back.
---
I once was in the audience during a binaural playback demonstration of a "haircut" with a "snip", "snip", "snip" around our heads and down our necks. In this headphone demonstration there was no claim of "flat response", "low distortion" or any of the usual things audiophiles bark about, they were using a pinnae transform in their processing. All I can say about the demo is that, in turn, the hairs on my neck stood up and waited to be harvested. The companion demonstration without headphones, using speakers in a room, was not very convincing.
In my opinion the frontier is math transforms and room accommodation (either with more math or physical help), not more bits. Simply capturing, then releasing the original wavefront in our listening room is the wrong approach -- unless the studio room happened to be exactly the size and texture of our listening room.
---
I once was in the audience during a binaural playback demonstration of a "haircut" with a "snip", "snip", "snip" around our heads and down our necks. In this headphone demonstration there was no claim of "flat response", "low distortion" or any of the usual things audiophiles bark about, they were using a pinnae transform in their processing. All I can say about the demo is that, in turn, the hairs on my neck stood up and waited to be harvested. The companion demonstration without headphones, using speakers in a room, was not very convincing.
In my opinion the frontier is math transforms and room accommodation (either with more math or physical help), not more bits. Simply capturing, then releasing the original wavefront in our listening room is the wrong approach -- unless the studio room happened to be exactly the size and texture of our listening room.
I run QUAD ESL-63's, considered by many to be among the top 10 speakers ever produced. I've tried many amps with them, but quickly came to the realization, as QUAD's Peter Walker always said, that quality amplifiers, kept within their limits, all sound alike. That is, they don't color the signal in any way. An amp that measures well will always sound good, as it won't add anything to the signal.
It's senseless to spend ridiculous sums on amplifiers, yet fools do it, thinking they'll somehow get better sound. They never, ever reach nirvana, so continue on their fool's journey, spending more, listening to the charlatans of the "high end", seeking perfection, while those who understand how amplifiers work simply laugh at them and enjoy the music. How pathetic the audiophools are.
Been there, done that. For ten years with amps ranging from an EL34 valve based 35wpc Unison amp to a Conrad Johnson 250wpc solid state. No audible differences which isn't surprising because they were all good hifi 2 channel amps to start with, defined by a flat frequency response within their designed power delivery limits. A hifi 2 channel amp is an even older solved problem than digital audio, and any measured difference from this flat response is no longer at audible levels for modern examples. If your speakers drive the amp out of its comfort zone by a higher power draw for the desired music/sound levels, the resultant distortion/clipping is audible though.
The benefit of this experience is now being able to hear Harbeth quality sound from the Connect Amp to the same extent I can even now from a 140wpc Quad 909 amp. With all the convenience that Sonos brings to the table.
+8
So why not find a great hi end audio store near you and listen, assuming there are any stores near you ... good bricks and mortar stores have become unfortunately a dying breed.
Without knowing much of any of the three bits of kit you are referring to, I can't comment on the startling claim. For instance the speakers may be just power hungry and need more watts than the Onkyo can deliver. If so, there would be a very audible difference.
But there is a third possibility too, to my being deaf or dead - that you are deluded:D.
+8
Beyond what point.? and certainly there are diminishing returns, and that it can become not better but different. But you can't tell me that if one takes a pair of lets say Wilson Sasha speakers and compares an Onkyo receiver to a pair of D'Agostino Momentum's that the difference isn't going to startling.. If you guys really think that there is simply no reason to even continue on since that means that you're deaf or dead 🙂
I agree, 100% to the first part. Along with some others here, I am only pointing out that beyond a point the better gear does not result in better sound - once the brain is deprived of any other evidence than the input from ones ears, and recognising the ways in which the brain can be fooled into SQ impressions.
If the need for a subjective experience rules out such criteria, there is nothing to be said.
You are mixing two different things here - 2 channel music at home and the home movie experience.
The 2 channel music audio problem is what is a solved one, except where speaker quality and room response is concerned.
The movie thing is a different beast, and even now the home experience has a long way to go on the audio front as well. For example, you can't get the sound of a helicopter passing overhead from front to the back of the room by speakers at the side. Or at the rear. Well, you can, but it can be done better, and I won't be surprised to see the current 9.1 or whatever to go up to many more speakers/channels.
None of these things are found in the real world of music listening where the performances happen on a stage in front of you. You don't ever listen to a jazz trio where one player is on the stage, one is above and the third is behind you. Even a symphony orchestra is on a stage in front of you. Audibly improving this listening experience, once some minimum equipment levels are met, now revolves around speakers and the room response part of the home music audio thing.
+8
Is this really what you think? Once the music starts playing I freaking LISTEN! I absorb It, I let it move me.. Better sounding equipment enables me to understand the music better. Better sounding equipment allows more of the artists intent to come through, better gear allows the recoded music to create more emotional involvement in the listener.. That's what good audio equipment is supposed to do.. Listening to music is a subjective experience.. When one starts applying objective standards to the hobby of listening to music the whole point is lost..
"What does the poor audiophile do? Once the music is playing what is there to do, other than gaze at the one block of aluminium milled cabinet, see the dancing VU meters backlit in amber colour and other such stuff? Even the volume control that is high on tactile feel, milled on CNC machines is used occasionally"
"What does the poor audiophile do? Once the music is playing what is there to do, other than gaze at the one block of aluminium milled cabinet, see the dancing VU meters backlit in amber colour and other such stuff? Even the volume control that is high on tactile feel, milled on CNC machines is used occasionally"
It's very much like the folks on Corvette forums that argue that a Vette is every bit as good as a Ferrari because all the Vette's performance parameters are as good or better than the Ferrari. When in truth the Vette guy just wishes he had the coin to be able to own the Ferrari, and is just simply jealous..
Not a good analogy. Blindfold the ordinary car driver on the street, put him in the passenger seat of both cars and take him for a spin, even on a normal road. It would be quite easy for him the identify the car he is in, where such a difference is concerned. Probably even if you plugged his ears. Indeed, it would take a driver of some skill to drive the two in a way that they don't feel different to said passenger.
But this raises an interesting point. Every hobby has in it the seeds of over the top, even OCD behaviour. A lot easier to justify for cars because the car is the way you interface with the road, for every minute of the driving experience. Change your suspension set up enough, and the difference comes through all the time, as one example, even it may not be for the better. Something similar can be said for cameras - one actively interfaces with it to take every picture. Two of the same spec, but with one that is more of a pleasure to use to take pictures will see more use, and more good pictures over time.
What does the poor audiophile do? Once the music is playing what is there to do, other than gaze at the one block of aluminium milled cabinet, see the dancing VU meters backlit in amber colour and other such stuff? Even the volume control that is high on tactile feel, milled on CNC machines is used occasionally. Human nature then leaves one with no other way out but to insist that it sounds better, controlled DBT evidence notwithstanding. It has to. The complete lack of science while coming to such conclusions is what makes this a unique hobby compared to cars, cameras and others.
Women seem exempt - on the other hand, they have shoes and handbags.
Easily won by you, jgatie! Acknowledged!
Crockett: Knowing the answers doesn't make it any easier, does it?
Tubbs: In this job you're lucky if it doesn't make it any harder.
+8
There is no point in arguing over these types of issues especially with those here that are master debaters..
It's very much like the folks on Corvette forums that argue that a Vette is every bit as good as a Ferrari because all the Vette's performance parameters are as good or better than the Ferrari. When in truth the Vette guy just wishes he had the coin to be able to own the Ferrari, and is just simply jealous..
It's very much like the folks on Corvette forums that argue that a Vette is every bit as good as a Ferrari because all the Vette's performance parameters are as good or better than the Ferrari. When in truth the Vette guy just wishes he had the coin to be able to own the Ferrari, and is just simply jealous..
Again, no answers to my questions, no refutation of facts, no reliable scientific data to back your assertions, nothing except flippant remarks. I think we can all easily discern where the "victory" occurred in this little exchange.
So while an interesting tangent, the above says nothing about 16/44.1 audio vs. 24/96 audio. There have been extensive tests which show that when coming from the same masters, even "golden eared" trained listeners are unable to distinguish 16/44.1 audio vs. 24/96 2-channel audio in a properly conducted ABX test. Because of this, it is concluded that all of the audible differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96 2-channel tracks can be chalked up to differences in the mastering. So it is not whether I "believe" it or not, the science says that nobody hears a difference when bias is ruled out. And once again; if you show us a rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment that proves this wrong, then science will have evolved, and we will all start believing that there is a difference. Good luck in your quest!
I'm going to go have some wine and celebrate a human victory over audio. I'm 34 years late but what the heck! This is one piece of technology I will boldly mark done! Thank you.
First off, learn some facts/history about DVD/Blu-ray based movie soundtracks. DVD exclusively used lossy codecs (DD and DTS), Blu-ray mostly uses DTS-HD/MA and DolbyTrueHD, both of which are lossless. DTS-HD/MA and Dolby TrueHD are also mainly coded in CD resolutions (although some are actual hi-res 24/92/192). So any differences between DVD and Blu-ray can be chalked up to lossy vs lossless codecs, which not many dispute have real, if subtle, sonic differences. So in short, when discussing DVD vs Blu-ray, you are talking lossy vs. lossless, not hi-res vs Redbook. In other words, it is apples vs oranges.
So while an interesting tangent, the above says nothing about 16/44.1 audio vs. 24/96 audio. There have been extensive tests which show that when coming from the same masters, even "golden eared" trained listeners are unable to distinguish 16/44.1 audio vs. 24/96 2-channel audio in a properly conducted ABX test. Because of this, it is concluded that all of the audible differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96 2-channel tracks can be chalked up to differences in the mastering. So it is not whether I "believe" it or not, the science says that nobody hears a difference when bias is ruled out. And once again; if you show us a rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment that proves this wrong, then science will have evolved, and we will all start believing that there is a difference. Good luck in your quest!
Best to simply ignore those who Monty calls the willfully ignorant. Their hubris simply doesn't allow them to educate themselves. They always "know better", despite overwhelming evidence, and refuse to admit that they're subject to the well-known power of the placebo effect.
Sorry lot, they will forever be chasing "better", never accepting that digital audio is a long-solved problem, and they'd be far better off simply buying good speakers.
Sorry lot, they will forever be chasing "better", never accepting that digital audio is a long-solved problem, and they'd be far better off simply buying good speakers.
Sorry, I'm incredulous. You really think blu ray sounds on par or worse than red books? Movies are not sounding better to you at home over the past 10 years than they did in the DVD era? Really?
Still no answers? Just more childish, flippant comments containing nothing of substance? Just as I thought.
You love the :rolleyes:. Thank you! I'm seriously happy my investment in red books will carry down many generations. I've started a treasure trove of audio that my daughters and their children can only build upon! Probably the first time in the history of humanity a technology hasn't been improved upon. Errm...crap...fire is probably the same as it was when it was discovered...
You didn't answer the question (actually, you haven't answered any questions - typical of audiophiles). I'll ask again:
Is there something about the fundamental capabilities of human hearing which have changed since 1980? And if Redbook is fully capable of resolving every sound the human ear is capable of hearing (in 1980 and/or today), why do we need something "better"?If all you have in response is another flippant dog comment, you can save it. We all know you have no answer which refutes my position, no need to crack dumb jokes to try and cover up that fact.
Humans reached the apex of audio technology in 1980! I'm curious what dogs are doing!
And as to this strawman point: Is there something about the fundamental capabilities of human hearing which have changed since 1980? And if Redbook is fully capable of resolving every sound the human ear is capable of hearing (in 1980 and/or today), why do we need something "better"? Unless of course, humans have somehow been cloned with those dogs you so flippantly mention?
1 - cd-da red book 16 bit / 44.1K technology, released in 1980, is the BEST digital audio standard humans will ever invent. I wonder if dogs are working on anything? hmmm
2 - 24 / 96,192 blu ray audio doesn't sound better than cd. At best we can't tell the difference...it's probably worse than cd though.
3 - A scientific paper is always right and science never evolves.
Curse you Neil Young! I trusted you! ;)
Science evolves when a hypothesis is supported by rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experimentation, as the "scientific paper" you are questioning most definitely was (you did read the footnotes, didn't you?). Your hypothesis is that hi-res audio is superior to CD when sourced from the same masters. So far, every rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment conducted has disproven this hypothesis. Show us a rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment that proves this hypothesis and science will have evolved. See how that works? See how easy it is? Good luck in your quest, oh seeker of audio nirvana! :rolleyes:
3 - A scientific paper is always right and science never evolves.
No one here has said that. It always evolves to a better position based on better hypotheses proved by rigorous peer testing following double blind and other protocols deemed necessary to rule out subjective bias.
This has not been done anywhere for hi res 2 channel audio.
Page 6 / 41
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.