or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense - Page 14

post #391 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

This thread has run it's course and serves no purpose other than which "expert" can piss further into the wind without getting wet.

Well, you can change that by contributing technically to the topic. As I noted, if you want things to be different, then decide what you can do differently. Don't keep demanding that others change while you are don't contribute positively yourself.

BTW, don't look but what you demonstrate above is an example of being passive aggressive with that velvet-wrapped insult .
post #392 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Again Amir, you vastly overestimate your importance.

Then I wonder why you keep responding to my posts in these threads .

Quote:


You also overestimate the degree to which the relevant authorities agree with you.

Relevant authorities? I am the only one in this thread or on HA who has first hand experience in in 50+ decoders shipped in billions of devices. And had a job related to the very topic at hand.

Quote:


Finally, you have this bad habit of drawing on references that their own authors say are obsolete, as happened in this particular case.

The author never said anything is "obsolete." Nor was his point related to our conflict which related to the numerical accuracy of decoders relative to slight level changes.

Quote:


What is unclear about: "....differences like occasional missing single samples, variations in the exact start and stop times, and files that were different by one or two bits or just a few bits. " ?

Aren't those all measurable differences?

They are. You are forgetting that I put forward that evidence after you objected to my statement that we should use the right decoder when looking at measurement differences. You did not write those words but the author of that test did. You spun that as 0.0003% distortion or whatever to say it is immaterial whereas in this situation, differences are material.

Quote:


Or Amir are your computer tools so crude and inaccurate that you can't measure them? Or, is that you've forgotten how to use them?

Inquiring minds what to know why you make so many glaring mistakes like this, Amir!

OK, whatever .
post #393 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

This followed with a second statement of putting me on the ignore list when I pointed out that he was reading and responding to my posts. Honestly don't understand why people use such tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As you saw, no good deed goes unpunished by AJ . I have explained all of this over months and literally hundreds of posts but the man is not interested in the topic. He is interested in the *person* so he will keep going no matter what your technical response is. Hence the reason I ignore his posts now.

After tens of posts about AJ. I couldn't help and dared ask:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

I am really glad you are "ignoring" AJ. I can't dare think what would happen if you didn't!

And then I learned why this so-called "tactic" is OK when amir uses it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Oh, there is greater good here .

First, I am creating a nice archive of all the non-constructive things people say in the pretense of discussing audio. I am good with Google but it still takes a lot of time to weed through false positives to get the links. Next time someone says all is well with this forum, we can link to this thread and let folks see that it is not.

Second, AJ might think he is getting attention but even someone with his low social sensibilities has to face the pain of all the bad things being said about him. The Bigus quotes where priceless as the commercial goes . And the links to those threads have lots more.

Third, my hope is that a lot more people get the context of where these people come from as they judge their posts in the future. As I said, their intentions are to be personal first, and share info second. Someone had to document it all in one place and I was happy to do it.

Forth, and continuing from the above point, it is useful to know that you can never get anywhere with some of these people. Save your energy. And don't give him motivation. But if you do, you better be prepared for the man to follow you forever and folks like yourself, giving him tacit help .

Finally, I do enjoy seeing him squirm as I mention his name. Don't ask why but I do enjoy him jump up and down and say, 'what about me? what about me?" He also keeps pointing to a thread that I *love* for people to read on my blind testing of DACs. It shows he was wrong all this time to claim I had never documented them here. But importantly, it shows an era for AVS where discussions were tough, but not nasty. Hope someone takes that point and reports posts that deviate from that.

Kinda similar to rules on use of Wikipedia as a reference:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I do better per above. I don't rely on wikipedia if that is what you mean .

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlarsen View Post

When someone uses a wiki citation to bust one of your incorrect assertions, wiki is crap. Now you cite it freely? Double-standard much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

you know enough to know if the Wiki citation is true or not, then it is fine to use it.

post #394 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Well, you can change that by contributing technically to the topic. As I noted, if you want things to be different, then decide what you can do differently. Don't keep demanding that others change while you are don't contribute positively yourself.

BTW, don't look but what you demonstrate above is an example of being passive aggressive with that velvet-wrapped insult .

I didn't see him mention your name in that post. What makes you think he was referring to you?
post #395 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

What I'd like to see is hi-rez music (stereo or MC (MultiChannel)) standardize on 24/96.

Not to disagree with your general point , but while 24/96 is talked about the most, 88.2 Khz is a better rate as it is a nice multiple of CD's 44.1 and saves us a bit of space. 96 became popular because it is 2X of 48 Khz which is used for video as a baseline. For pure music product, that is not a relevant factor.

Quote:


And of course the 2nd thing I'd like is for hi-rez music discs (DVD_A or BD audio or whatever) to permit the bit perfect computer file to be able to be copied to one's PC HDD.

It is not going to happen with either one of those physical formats. Unfortunately, BDA requires that all commercial discs be AACS protected which means digital capture at higher than 16/48K is not allowed. And DVD-A is history.

Fortunately digital downloads are available and in unprotected form not governed by a consortium so we have what you are asking about .

Quote:


I mean I'm just not going to buy a hi-rez music d/l without having a disc as my proof of ownership.

Why would you need that? You can back up the downloads easily as they are not copy protected. So if you like, you can make a disc copy just the same.

Quote:


And if high priced DVD_A and BD audio discs won't permit this, then I'm NOT going to buy them. Q.E.D.

Per above, that is the case unfortunately. So other than concert videos, I am not seeing BD as a path to where we want to be.

Quote:


The music biz (and especially the video biz) seems to me to be doing it's best to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

You know, they are not as bad as they used to be . Lots of content is being made available in high-res on different sites. 10 years ago that would have never happened. Let's hope they continue to ignore the fact that we are getting non-copy protected high-res music .
post #396 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The author never said anything is "obsolete." Nor was his point related to our conflict which related to the numerical accuracy of decoders relative to slight level changes.

Amir, I quoted what he actually said once and you denied it, and this time you are picking on nits to again deny it. The discussion in HA stands on its own. Anybody who can read can see that the chart is about 12 years old and dates back to the bad old days when far more coders were problematical. the author doesn't think it is currently relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amir View Post

You know, they are not as bad as they used to be

Quote:
Originally Posted by arny View Post

What is unclear about: "....differences like occasional missing single samples, variations in the exact start and stop times, and files that were different by one or two bits or just a few bits. " ?

Aren't those all measurable differences?


Quote:
Originally Posted by amir View Post

They are.

Game, set, match!
post #397 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

After tens of posts about AJ. I couldn't help and dared ask:

I don't physically ignore AJ using forum tools as Krab claims:

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

May I instead suggest activating 'ignore' for him instead, as I have (re)done? It's like a stock power cable: 99.999% of the time it works fine. Though one can never say 'absolutely always'.

And post this kind of picture:



Quote:


And then I learned why this so-called "tactic" is OK when amir uses it:

Again, I have no one on my forum ignore list. So it is OK if I quote someone because I do see their posts. It is odd that Krab keeps saying I am on his ignore list, goes even to brag about how good it is to do that, confirms it with a snapshot of the forum UI, only to find him posting what I said here on HA and try to argue his point in my absence. It is silly and unnecessary.

Quote:


Kinda similar to rules on use of Wikipedia as a reference:

the "rule" is that you better not put forward information you don't know yourself to be correct. So when random Joe who is not a designer or engineer quotes Wiki, he better be prepared to defend it. I can certainly do that with any Wiki articles and as I noted in what you quoted from me, I didn't learn what I know about audio from those Wiki pages. I learned them because my job required/requires it to know.

Quote:



Right back at you .
post #398 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I don't physically ignore AJ using forum tools as Krab claims. Again, I have no one on my forum ignore list. So it is OK if I quote someone because I do see their posts.

Oh this is getting better:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

For example, I ignore AJINFLA and dionmanic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

the "rule" is that you better not put forward information you don't know yourself to be correct. So when random Joe who is not a designer or engineer quotes Wiki, he better be prepared to defend it. I can certainly do that with any Wiki articles and as I noted in what you quoted from me, I didn't learn what I know about audio from those Wiki pages. I learned them because my job required/requires it to know.

You use wiki to prove that you are right and base wiki's accuracy on the premise that "you were right". And you do it with a straight face.
post #399 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

the "rule" is that you better not put forward information you don't know yourself to be correct.

That "rule" doesn't apply to you, does it?
post #400 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

That "rule" doesn't apply to you, does it?

It is circular logic.
post #401 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

I didn't see him mention your name in that post. What makes you think he was referring to you?

Maybe Amir reached the obvious conclusion when someone said:

"(The AVS forum poster has a record of using graphics grabbed off the web to make dispositive points about lossy perceptual codecs, that aren't really supported by the graphics he cites. Hence the fact-check.)"
post #402 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Anybody who can read can see that the chart is about 12 years old and dates back to the bad old days when far more coders were problematical.

There were never "bad old days" any more than there are "good old days" now Arny. The differences were always subtle in mainstream PC decoders (not so in hardware products however). In this instance though, we do care about small differences since we were examining fractional db differences. That's all. No need to continue to be defensive on this topic as if the world is going to come to an end and so the line in the sand must be protected at all cost as to go and ask for troop re-enforcement at HA and continued posts here.

Quote:


Game, set, match!

There is no game Arny. For the 10th time, this was a side conversation. No one was trying to invalidate your audio beliefs. A simple fact was stated to use the right decoder. You now say you agree that there are such differences. So surely we are done.
post #403 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Oh this is getting better:

I am happy for you .

Quote:


You use wiki to prove that you are right and base wiki's accuracy on the premise that "you were right". And you do it with a straight face.

Careful. You seem to be putting me in the center of the conversation . Maybe you can fix that by posting something constructive/technical next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

That "rule" doesn't apply to you, does it?

You too .
post #404 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Careful. You seem to be putting me in the center of the conversation . Maybe you can fix that by posting something constructive/technical next.

No response What I thought.
post #405 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

No response What I thought.

I responded. It was in what you quoted from me. Seeing how you can't read and understand what I said the first time, I didn't think it was worth repeating it again.

So here it is again, slower. When you put someone on your ignore list using forum software, their posts are filtered out. Clearly then Krab shouldn't have seen my post yet he quoted it word for word on HA.

In my case, I don't have anyone on forum ignore list. I personally choose to read, not read, respond or not respond to posters. And with some like AJ, Dio, etc. I choose to ignore most of their posts if not all. But because I am not using the forum ignore list, I do see their posts. So if I quoted them or responded to them on occasion, it doesn't mean I made up the story about putting them on the *Forum* ignore list.

Do you understand the difference now? One had to do with me practicing self control, the other, a poster saying he has me on forum ignore list where all the data clearly points otherwise.
post #406 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Seeing how you can't read and understand what I said the first time, I didn't think it was worth repeating it again.

So here it is again, slower.

I was talking about the circular reasoning, but in any event where did the civility and politeness go? Geesh
post #407 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

I was talking about the circular reasoning, but in any event where did the civility and politeness go? Geesh

You think your posts that discuss me in a negative light rather than the technical topic are "civil and polite?" Do explain that circular logic

On second thought, please don't. You said what you wanted to say. I am happy to let them stand as is if you think you made your case.
post #408 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You think your posts that discuss me in a negative light rather than the technical topic are "civil and polite?"

Do they? Well all I did was quote your posts with little to no words of my own. I find it strange you find quoting your posts uncivil.

In any event thanks for clarifying when it is OK not to be "civil" and "polite". I will surely remember next time you complain about arny.
post #409 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

BTW, don't look but what you demonstrate above is an example of being passive aggressive with that velvet-wrapped insult .

LOL! That wasn't intended to be velvet wrapped. I thought it was pretty blunt.

Sorry, but sometimes you can't always be the king of the mountain.
post #410 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Do they? Well all I did was quote your posts with little to no words of my own.

You know, it would have been wonderful if you had said "little to no words." Sadly, you weren't remotely there with comments like this:

"And then I learned why this so-called "tactic" is OK when amir uses it:"
"Oh this is getting better:"
"And you do it with a straight face."


hd_newbie, you have not contributed anything technical to this thread whatsoever. Your only aim seems to be antagonizing remarks aimed to agitate people who are trying to talk about the technical topic. I wish you would take your own advice of being civil and polite and either not post, or focus on the topic.

Quote:


I find it strange you find quoting your posts uncivil.

My posts are fine. Stick to them and no additional spins and life would be well .

Quote:


In any event thanks for clarifying when it is OK not to be "civil" and "polite". I will surely remember next time you complain about arny.

What you should "remember" is to contribute constructively to the thread. Folks would then have a shot at learning something as opposed to watching grown men bicker . Can you do that? Or is it too difficult to say something technical as opposed to these posts?
post #411 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Can you do that? Or is it too difficult to say something technical as opposed to these posts?

I could try if you can stop yourself from asking to see my resume and professional references everytime I make an audio related comment that you didn't agree with. can you? or is it too difficult not to turn every discussion into a pissing contest?
post #412 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

I could try if you can stop yourself from asking to see my resume and professional references everytime I make a comment that you didn't agree with.

Yet another spin to position your poor conduct as a fault of someone else.

Let me help you as there is a simple solution to that: stop criticizing the other guy's resume and professional references that they *have provided!* You see, people ask to see your room when you criticize theirs. If you think that they shouldn't then don't go there in the first place.

Honestly, is there nothing that you can contribute that is not a snide remark against audiophiles? If there is, then you should have no fear as you expressed.

Crossing fingers that your next post will be something technical and not another snide remark.....
post #413 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Yet another spin to position your poor conduct as a fault of someone else.

Let me help you as there is a simple solution to that: stop criticizing the other guy's resume and professional references that they *have provided!* You see, people ask to see your room when you criticize theirs. If you think that they shouldn't then don't go there in the first place.

Honestly, is there nothing that you can contribute that is not a snide remark against audiophiles? If there is, then you should have no fear as you expressed.

Crossing fingers that your next post will be something technical and not another snide remark.....

If you are saying, you use the "argument over authority" tactic only when other side does it, that is not accurate (I was going to use another term, but trying to be polite). Everybody who knows you knows that. Do I really need to start posting examples where you started arguing from authority without any incitation from the other side and in response to honest technical remarks? You did that to me and many others, heck you even did that to arny when you didn't know who he was. I know you don't want me to start posting examples, so let's finish this here without further embarressment to you.
post #414 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Yet another spin to position your poor conduct as a fault of someone else.

OTOH, yet another spin to justify your attempts to always be the expert and/or correct and everyone else is incorrect.

Quote:


Let me help you as there is a simple solution to that: stop criticizing the other guy's resume and professional references that they *have provided!* You see, people ask to see your room when you criticize theirs. If you think that they shouldn't then don't go there in the first place.

Simple solution: Stop criticizing every word/phrase/example that others provide. No matter how you jump or dance...

Quote:


Honestly, is there nothing that you can contribute that is not a snide remark against audiophiles? If there is, then you should have no fear as you expressed.

What makes you the audiophile "go to guy"? Is there nothing you can contribute that is not a "passive" turnaround towards others when you are confronted?

Quote:


Crossing fingers that your next post will be something technical and not another snide remark.....

Crossing fingers that you will not post something that is off topic and nitpicking. Your time/assistance may be better served on "your" forum.

Your "tactics" don't work well here.
post #415 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

If you are saying, you use the "argument over authority" tactic only when other side does it, that is not accurate (I was going to use another term, but trying to be polite). Everybody who knows you knows that. Do I really need to start posting examples where you started arguing from authority without any incitation from the other side? Do you really want that? I know you don't, so let's finish this here.

If you want to live by my conduct, then you better post as much technical information as I have. Do you have some fresh insight, knowledge, or data you can share? Or must we endure more excuses for your sense of entitlement to comment on posters rather than the topic?
post #416 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

If you want to live by my conduct, then you better post as much technical information as I have. Do you have some fresh insight, knowledge, or data you can share? Or must we endure more excuses for your sense of entitlement to comment on posters rather than the topic?

yup side stepping as usual. you are not capable of conceding a simple point even when faced with overwhelming evidence (your actual posts). in stead you just side step because you must be right and you wonder why so many people attack you around here.

i am done for now.

but i will continue linking your conflicting posts when you start twisting and turning with others just for the sake of "being right". i know that annoys you when they see you said something completely different in the recent past than what you are saying at that moment. oh well, nobody said it was an easy thing to be always right.

Here is an example:

My post about in response to a question about jitter audibility:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

jitter produced by the typical consumer electronic product these days is below the audibility threshold of typical human. See this study:

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

Anything not technical or offensive about this? So instead of talking about subject Amir goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

If I were Steve I would ask you again if you are not Doug Winsor. There is such an appetite to pass on stuff read on the Internet as knowledge in the forums. Reading and understanding of such a technical paper is not easy. So please don't try to interpret them on your own.

But you get upset arny calls you "rookie", ever heard the saying about getting a taste of your own venom?. This is just one example out of hundreds.

I find the one you did this to arny particularly hilarious because of who he is and how you didn't know who he was and the usual twisting and turning followed. Shall I share? Really?
post #417 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

i am done for now.

Thank goodness. No substantive content from you whatsoever. I've been a member of this forum for 11 years now. AVS is a wonderful place but its moderators are overburdened, thanks in signficant part to these childish "am not" "are too" tantrums.

I come to this forum to learn, as do many others. Some of us do not know who is right or wrong on a particular topic, but we appreciate substantive discussion. The more evidence in support of a particular position, the better. In this way I (we) can make up my (our) own minds. So please, take your petty mind elsewhere if you cannot contribute substantively. Yeeeeeesh.
post #418 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

OTOH, yet another spin to justify your attempts to always be the expert and/or correct and everyone else is incorrect.

Everyone else? Nope. In this thread I was directionally in agreement with the article that it had linked to. I followed then with better research that set a somewhat higher bar. That research was done by Bob Stuart and I made little attempt to make it mine as I quoted him verbatim.

As to your point regardless, I do disagree with dumbing down audio reproduction based on superficial understanding of the science and technology. Conventional wisdom does not work with digital audio. Or else, adding "noise" wouldn't reduce distortion!

I explain the science not with pure opinion or by calling people Rookie this, Rookie that, but with authoritative third-party references. When Arny says quantization steps vanish due to reconstruction filter, I could insult him that he doesn't know the ABCs of digital audio and have it be that. But instead, I went for pages and pages of technical detail and explanation/simulations/measurements on how that was not the case.

For Arny's part, he called all of those authors names without even spending two seconds looking at their backgrounds or even carefully reading their work. That is not fair and proper in my book. I find it odd that you would choose to complain about me and not him this way. But I will live .

Sadly, you are fixated on the "person" rather than great set of topics we have covered from the ins and outs of digital systems to dynamic range of music, to how quiet recording venues are. Indeed, this has been one of the most information rich threads we have had. But your commentary remains bitter even though you have not been active in the discussion at all. Instead, you kept pouring cold water on the thread as you have in others. Here is how you entered the thread on page four and post 109:
Quote:

Divorce lawyers? Talk about passive aggressive! Thankfully we all ignored your post and covered other topics such as the loudness wars and how it is so damaging to music distributed. And that, more than anything else will be the reason we should move away from 16/44.1.

Quote:


Simple solution: Stop criticizing every word/phrase/example that others provide. No matter how you jump or dance...

You mean how Arny objected to my fist post in this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Interestingly enough this paper is neither an AES conference paper or a JAES article." At least I can't find it published that way. It appears to be a rewrite of a 1988 (24 year old!) article in the now-long-departed Audio magazine. It's a corporate white paper that has no standing as an industry standard or recommendation.

This paper is arguably part of the support for SACD and DVD-A which are now known to be failed technical initiatives that failed to make it in the mainstream consumer marketplace.

The paper in question is full of unsupported assertions. Probably the most honest statement it contains is:
[...]
The above is a mixture of technical truth and opinon stated as fact (OSAF). The technical truth is that "There is very little hard evidence to suggest that it is important to reproduce sounds above 25kHz." The OSAF is that "Instead there tends to be a general impression that a wider bandwidth can give rise to fewer in-band problems." In fact many careful workers have encountered serious problems with audible artifacts due to excessive bandwidth.

The key sentence above is: "... unnecessary reproduction of ultrasonic content diminishes performance."

Enough said, eh? ;-)

I am sorry but I am not going to not answer when there is an opportunity to a) discuss something very interesting and b) someone puts down one of the experts in the industry without being able to demonstrate properly why. Whether it meets your emotional needs one way or not is not a priority for me. I am not running an election or asking you to marry me!

Quote:


What makes you the audiophile "go to guy"? Is there nothing you can contribute that is not a "passive" turnaround towards others when you are confronted?

My "contribution" to the thread started with Bob Stuart paper summary. There was no "passive turn around" nor did it sanction audiophile beliefs for maximum sampling rate and bit depth. Indeed, it advocated that even 14 bits of resolution is good enough if you know what you are doing.

I have repeatedly said that I have used that paper to argue *against* audiophiles saying they need such high resolution audio, not the other way around. But folks are so afraid of slippery slope of believing anything audiophile related that every topic is fought to death. Look at what I just went through with the lossy decoders. Any mention, even remotely in the direction of us doing better as far as fidelity is considered blasphemy.

I realize these discussions are annoying you. I get it. Honestly, I do. But you are out of order. This *is* a discussion thread. It is not a thread to ask which button does what on the AVR. A controversial article was put forth and comments were sure to come from both sides. You honestly have no business complaining why people then argue, much less doing it one sided with me. This is what we are supposed to do in a thread like this. If you don't like it, just ignore the thread! How illogical is it that you keep up with the thread even though you are are annoyed by it???

Quote:


Crossing fingers that you will not post something that is off topic and nitpicking. Your time/assistance may be better served on "your" forum.

Your "tactics" don't work well here.

Sorry to disappoint you . I not only stayed on topic but used the "tactic" of still discussing something technical. I am pretty sure that is the way both forms want the members to discuss topics.
post #419 of 761
I will give you credit... you are "good" at what you can achieve with a keyboard.
Have fun and enjoy.
post #420 of 761
Cell phone dictation possibly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense