On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 19:52 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
> >unless you can detect them in a double blind test, they do not exist.
> >this has been hashed to death in audiophile journals for ten years, with
> >those claiming that double blind tests are not needed resorting to all
> >kinds of completely bizarre and utterly dubious statistical theories.
>
> Come on Paul - just admit it: you simply don't agree with the concept that
> these differences exist, and think anyone who does is nuts.
> That's your *opinion*, not an irrefutable fact.
> If these 'scientific' theories, tests, and evidence are your religion and
> scripture - fine.
> I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion, and in the final analysis,
> that is all science is - another dogma, and another religion.
> I left a scientific career in academia because I found the dogma too
> restricting.
>
Science is *not* a religion. Religion is belief based on faith (not
that I'm knocking faith). Science requires proof. You've offered no
proof of your perceived differences in sound between two digital copies
of the same audio files on two different hard drives. You've sent links
to a couple of articles by a guy who thinks that moving a CPU changes
the sound of a digital file. Double blind tests are a valid method of
proving that you *do* hear differences in sound and that your perception
of those differences is repeatable. Neither you nor the author of that
article performed any tests that show that this is anything other than
your and his biased opinions that the sound is different.
> >first, audio CD "copies" are not "digital file copies" at all. audio CD
> >playback mechanisms have error correction built in, and it is certainly
> >true that making a copy of an audio CD may not result in a
> >"perfect" (ie. bit-level) copy.
>
> I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing here.
> I am talking about taking a .wav file on a hard-drive, and proceeding to
> burn that exact same file onto audio CDs at different burn speeds.
> The equalization sounds different at different speeds.
> But as you say, this is something altogether different than copies of the
> same .wav files on a hard-disk or different hard-disks.
>
> >copying from one .wav to another .wav on a hard drive will never, ever
> >produce any difference of any kind, and if you claim otherwise, you are
> >either completely ignorant of how digital audio works or being
> >deliberately ridiculous.
>
> Your opinion - not fact.
> I am describing exactly what I hear, and you are free to interpret that in
> any fashion you choose.
>
Sorry, this is a fact, not an opinion. It can be easily proved.
There's that ugly word again - proof.
> >find me one person who can do this in a double blind situation, and we can
> >take it seriously.
>
> I submit that I can, but I don't think there will be an opportunity to test
> that out.
> I couldn't care less whether you 'take it seriously' or not - I am not
> trying to convince you of anything whatsoever.
> Believe what you wish.
> (I don't believe for one minute that you would take it seriously in any
> case.)
>
If you can get an unbiased third party to administer the tests then
we would take it seriously.
> >your complaints are not specific to open source digital audio, but are
> >about about digital audio in general.
>
> I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks as *complaining*.
> My intention was to *discuss* the issue of digital fidelity and how it
> might be improved.
>
> >although we have a few wizards of the DSP here, you'd better off in a more
> >general forum
>
> Doubtless you would prefer that I leave - perhaps I will, perhaps not.
>
> >(which i am sure will roast claims like
> >"i can hear the difference between two digital copies" as vigorously as
> >anyone here)
>
> Roasting a claim does not constitute disproving it.
>
Neither he nor anyone else on this forum is "disproving" your claim.
For us to disprove it you must first prove it using accepted methods.
That would be those double-blind tests again.
You apparently believe that most of the people on this list aren't
musicians but merely programmers. This is the Linux Audio User list.
Most of the people on this list are musicians. If you want to talk to
the programmers you need to post on Linux Audio Dev. There are a number
of people on this list who are both musicians and programmers. I've
been a musician for 44 years and a programmer for 30. I've been playing
professionally for about 30 years. So, no, we're not a bunch of
soulless geeks. But no one here is going to take you seriously unless
you can offer up proof of what you're saying. I've offered a web link
by an engineer showing the frequency response of various tape recorders
versus a low end digital card and you've offered up a web link from a
mastering house doing a lot of hand waving. It's their business to
convince you that they have "golden ears" and that you need to use their
service to get the magical sound that you so desperately need. This all
comes down to one word - proof.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
