65 posts / 0 new
Last post
dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
I see that frog is busy

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical.  I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

pauln's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 26/02/2008 - 13:10
Posts: 1259
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical.  I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

 

 

 

 

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3440
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical.  I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

That's pretty ironic. Short and sweet (unlike your tedious headphone "reviews"), but you still haven't grasped the logic of where the burdon of proof lies. It's on your doorstep Mr Thorn. Outlandish claims require proof, not claims that simply stick to the current accepted science.

Goodbye.

 

dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
pauln wrote:

pauln wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical.  I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

Just tell us that you're joking, yes?  A FLAC and its unpacked WAV equivalent aren't the same when they are in those different formats.  When the FLAC is unpacked to WAV format, then the WAV and WAV are the same, if they started out the same.  There is no guarantee absolutely that I'm aware of that a music player will perfectly unpack a FLAC in real time while playing it, although it may do a perfectly fine job of it.

There are a few people, and Diament as well as the other guy may be two of those, who have found that really identical files can sound slightly different when affected by external circumstances that they're not aware of OR in control of.  I don't have a problem with *that* claim, however, 2 files that checksum identically are in fact identical for purposes of archiving, backing up, mailing, normal playing, i.e. all forseeable uses.  But, computers are complex little beasts, and two files that are identical for all normal digital purposes (i.e. really and truly identical) can exist in certain different states, for example one file may chkdsk as being split up into 100 non-contiguous pieces on a FAT table, while an identical copy may be fully contiguous.  Now before you go waving your arms around virtually speaking, just admit that I'm right, that these 2 files could exist in these states and that there's some possibility (however small) that it could affect their performance.  If you refuse to accept that difference, never mind any hidden assumptions about what else I might be implying (nothing that I don't state actually), then you don't know digital computers and storage.

I know something of Creationists too.  I know that great scientists believe all sorts of nonsense when paid to do so - it's called fraud and corruption in many cases - a very normal human trait.  As far as Creationists and religion are concerned, you can't prove a negative.  Now for the people who are absolutely and smugly certain that science is always right (as opposed to the Scientific Method, which is not science), here's a little heads-up.  I'm a very experienced photographer, who came to know that the Shroud of Turin contains a perfect photographic negative of a body, front and back, and about 6 feet in length.  According to "science", it must have been created circa 1300 AD, but when I posited that on several professional photo forums where the pros know perfectly well that such a thing was absolutely impossible in the 1300 timeframe, I got no answer.  See if you can find credible photographers who'll back the "scientists".  I think the real world may be too complex for you.

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

pauln's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 26/02/2008 - 13:10
Posts: 1259
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

pauln wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical.  I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

Just tell us that you're joking, yes?  A FLAC and its unpacked WAV equivalent aren't the same when they are in those different formats.  When the FLAC is unpacked to WAV format, then the WAV and WAV are the same, if they started out the same.  There is no guarantee absolutely that I'm aware of that a music player will perfectly unpack a FLAC in real time while playing it, although it may do a perfectly fine job of it.

There are a few people, and Diament as well as the other guy may be two of those, who have found that really identical files can sound slightly different when affected by external circumstances that they're not aware of OR in control of.  I don't have a problem with *that* claim, however, 2 files that checksum identically are in fact identical for purposes of archiving, backing up, mailing, normal playing, i.e. all forseeable uses.  But, computers are complex little beasts, and two files that are identical for all normal digital purposes (i.e. really and truly identical) can exist in certain different states, for example one file may chkdsk as being split up into 100 non-contiguous pieces on a FAT table, while an identical copy may be fully contiguous.  Now before you go waving your arms around virtually speaking, just admit that I'm right, that these 2 files could exist in these states and that there's some possibility (however small) that it could affect their performance.  If you refuse to accept that difference, never mind any hidden assumptions about what else I might be implying (nothing that I don't state actually), then you don't know digital computers and storage.

Of course I agree with that, like you say, that's how storage works and I also accept that on a very badly fragmented hard drive in a 15 year old computer, there might be some glitches in the playback of a flac. In the "real world", which ironically you think might be too complex for me, there isn't a problem and the two will sound and measure identical to each other because unpacking the flac is such a trivial task for modern reasonably well sorted computers let alone one with a quad core i7 and an ssd. Would you agree with that?

dalethorn wrote:

I know something of Creationists too.  I know that great scientists believe all sorts of nonsense when paid to do so - it's called fraud and corruption in many cases - a very normal human trait.  As far as Creationists and religion are concerned, you can't prove a negative.  Now for the people who are absolutely and smugly certain that science is always right (as opposed to the Scientific Method, which is not science), here's a little heads-up.  I'm a very experienced photographer, who came to know that the Shroud of Turin contains a perfect photographic negative of a body, front and back, and about 6 feet in length.  According to "science", it must have been created circa 1300 AD, but when I posited that on several professional photo forums where the pros know perfectly well that such a thing was absolutely impossible in the 1300 timeframe, I got no answer.  See if you can find credible photographers who'll back the "scientists".  I think the real world may be too complex for you.

I don't really want to get into religion other than to say that I despise it because of the millions that have been killed and tortured in wars between different religous groups over the last couple of thousand years and it still goes on today. A more hypocritical group of people would be hard to find.

I don't know what you're implying when you say that you think the real world may be too complex for me... a cheap shot maybe but it doesn't really matter a jot to me what you think because you don't know. This kind of meaningless "debate" on a hifi forum is just a bit of "bored in a hotel room in the middle of nowhere" light entertainment in my simple world. Keeps me out of the bar though.

dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
pauln wrote:

pauln wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

pauln wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I see that frog is busy trolling again (that's his personal problem or should be), and I will reiterate that his contention that "it cannot be heard" is both unprovable and illogical.  I provided names of 2 serious and very accomplished engineers who have contributed to the field, and frog (who is not accomplished) merely sputters insults.

Well here's someone who seems to be able to prove it:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-vs-mp3-vs-m4a-experiment-94/

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/flac-vs-wav-part-2-final-results-155/

and I would contest your assertion that it is illogical that two identical digital files should sound the same, provided that the computer is up to the job of unpacking the flac file - which is of course lossless in the same way that a zip files is lossless. It seems to me to be plainly obvious that they should sound the same because they are the same! Incidentally, playing a flac file on my laptop through a USB dac increased the processor useage from 0% to... 0%, jumping to a whopping 1% every 10 seconds or so. Memory usage increased by a barely perceptible 20 meg (out of 16 gig). Playing a wav file was exactly the same. Repeating the experiment using the laptops soundcard and internal speakers gave the same result. Seems that playing wavs or flacs on a modern well specified computer is a trivial task.

What I could hear very clearly was the difference in sound quality between my HD650's and the laptop speakers proving to me that although I would never claim to be golden eared, unlike the sound engineer I'm currently working with, I could justifiably claim to be slightly tarnished silver eared...

Could it be that the engineers you refer to above have any kind of ulterior motive? Would they be well past their peak in terms of working life and doing a bit of self publicity or would they perhaps be the music industries equivalent of 'creationists'? Or all of the above?

Just tell us that you're joking, yes?  A FLAC and its unpacked WAV equivalent aren't the same when they are in those different formats.  When the FLAC is unpacked to WAV format, then the WAV and WAV are the same, if they started out the same.  There is no guarantee absolutely that I'm aware of that a music player will perfectly unpack a FLAC in real time while playing it, although it may do a perfectly fine job of it.

There are a few people, and Diament as well as the other guy may be two of those, who have found that really identical files can sound slightly different when affected by external circumstances that they're not aware of OR in control of.  I don't have a problem with *that* claim, however, 2 files that checksum identically are in fact identical for purposes of archiving, backing up, mailing, normal playing, i.e. all forseeable uses.  But, computers are complex little beasts, and two files that are identical for all normal digital purposes (i.e. really and truly identical) can exist in certain different states, for example one file may chkdsk as being split up into 100 non-contiguous pieces on a FAT table, while an identical copy may be fully contiguous.  Now before you go waving your arms around virtually speaking, just admit that I'm right, that these 2 files could exist in these states and that there's some possibility (however small) that it could affect their performance.  If you refuse to accept that difference, never mind any hidden assumptions about what else I might be implying (nothing that I don't state actually), then you don't know digital computers and storage.

Of course I agree with that, like you say, that's how storage works and I also accept that on a very badly fragmented hard drive in a 15 year old computer, there might be some glitches in the playback of a flac. In the "real world", which ironically you think might be too complex for me, there isn't a problem and the two will sound and measure identical to each other because unpacking the flac is such a trivial task for modern reasonably well sorted computers let alone one with a quad core i7 and an ssd. Would you agree with that?

dalethorn wrote:

I know something of Creationists too.  I know that great scientists believe all sorts of nonsense when paid to do so - it's called fraud and corruption in many cases - a very normal human trait.  As far as Creationists and religion are concerned, you can't prove a negative.  Now for the people who are absolutely and smugly certain that science is always right (as opposed to the Scientific Method, which is not science), here's a little heads-up.  I'm a very experienced photographer, who came to know that the Shroud of Turin contains a perfect photographic negative of a body, front and back, and about 6 feet in length.  According to "science", it must have been created circa 1300 AD, but when I posited that on several professional photo forums where the pros know perfectly well that such a thing was absolutely impossible in the 1300 timeframe, I got no answer.  See if you can find credible photographers who'll back the "scientists".  I think the real world may be too complex for you.

I don't really want to get into religion other than to say that I despise it because of the millions that have been killed and tortured in wars between different religous groups over the last couple of thousand years and it still goes on today. A more hypocritical group of people would be hard to find.

I don't know what you're implying when you say that you think the real world may be too complex for me... a cheap shot maybe but it doesn't really matter a jot to me what you think because you don't know. This kind of meaningless "debate" on a hifi forum is just a bit of "bored in a hotel room in the middle of nowhere" light entertainment in my simple world. Keeps me out of the bar though.

"In the "real world", which ironically you think might be too complex for me, there isn't a problem and the two will sound and measure identical to each other"

Is that because you say so, or because you have the God-spot and have excluded every other possibility?  I'm sure you don't really know, and you're just one of those 'scientists' who know better than ordinary people.  Rejected!

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

pauln's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 26/02/2008 - 13:10
Posts: 1259
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

Is that because you say so, or because you have the God-spot and have excluded every other possibility?  I'm sure you don't really know, and you're just one of those 'scientists' who know better than ordinary people.  Rejected!

Yes Dale, only you know the truth.

cheeseboy's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 17/07/2012 - 10:50
Posts: 2078
dale, as requested, do *you*

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names?  have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
cheeseboy wrote:

cheeseboy wrote:

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names?  have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com.  I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis.  But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.  

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
pauln wrote:

pauln wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

Is that because you say so, or because you have the God-spot and have excluded every other possibility?  I'm sure you don't really know, and you're just one of those 'scientists' who know better than ordinary people.  Rejected!

Yes Dale, only you know the truth.

A wise man once said:

"He who knows he knows, knows nothing. But he who knows he knows of nothing, really knows."

If we know that we don't have all the answers, or even 100 percent of any answer, then we won't be so adamant in saying that "You can't hear blah blah blah because it's inaudible."

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

pauln's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 26/02/2008 - 13:10
Posts: 1259
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here...

A lot of people put an awful lot of stuff on the internet. It's easy these days. Sadly, there's no quality control. Actually though, as a number of headphone/hifi sites have banned you, perhaps there is.

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 3440
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

cheeseboy wrote:

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names?  have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com.  I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis.  But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.  

There is one person in this argument who is bludgeoning, and it's you.

Nobody here is trying to "prove" a negative as you keep repeating like a stuck record.

We are simply saying that is what we believe and that it makes sense. I personally have ABX'd these things and found nothing. I have seen links to others who have done the same.

No, of course this does not make it 100% proof, but the fact is, it looks like the probable truth to a fairly high statistical probability. 

Your nonsense claims need proof, not ours that simply re-iterate the accepted truth. 

And no, naming some people who disagree does not count as truth, nor does testing a few headphones and posting War and Peace style "reviews".  Link to tests that go some way to verifying your claim. Otherwise it is simply background noise from a street drunk who is convinced he's Napoleon.. Maybe he is...but the accepted facts would tend to confirm he isn't.

 

cheeseboy's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 17/07/2012 - 10:50
Posts: 2078
dalethorn wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

cheeseboy wrote:

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names?  have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com.  I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis.  But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.  


 

so that's a no then.  OK, at least we know there's no proof for what you are saying, thank you.

dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
pauln wrote:

pauln wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here...

A lot of people put an awful lot of stuff on the internet. It's easy these days. Sadly, there's no quality control. Actually though, as a number of headphone/hifi sites have banned you, perhaps there is.

A lot of people like you post personal attacks, which makes you what?  A troll!!

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

dalethorn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2011 - 21:10
Posts: 2047
cheeseboy wrote:

cheeseboy wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

cheeseboy wrote:

dale, as requested, do *you* actually have anything to back up what you have been saying, apart from banding around two names?  have you done any testing that you can give us the results of, or are you just hypothosising?

I have over 100 headphone reviews, mostly posted here, but you can see a plain-text list at dalethorn dot com.  I also have quite a lot of other tech things there, especially in software routines for automation and analysis.  But beyond that, the argument "proving a negative" is fallacious, and the other guy keeps hammering that argument as though he intends to win by bludgeoning.  

 

so that's a no then.  OK, at least we know there's no proof for what you are saying, thank you.

Proof?  What the heck are you talking about?  You're disinforming - admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, then refuse to accept it.  Classic trolling!!

Senal SMH1200, V-MODA Wireless2, Beats Studio3, Apple Airpods, DragonFly Red/Oppo HA2 DAC/amps, Lehmann Traveler amp.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments