«

In article <jgvb2h$tt$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> >> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >> > they can't.
> >>
> >> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
> >
> > i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
> > think you can.
>
> What you guarantee is pretty worthless without specifying bit rates, music
> types, listening conditions or any other relevant criteria, and also
> compensation when you fail to fullfill the guarantee!

you use the highest quality for each side.

unfortunately, people tend to use low or even medium quality of one and
compare it with the best of another and call that a proper test. not
surprisingly, they get the results they want.

> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> What YOU can manage is your problem!

when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?

like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
won't be able to do better than chance.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220122132526660%...
>> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the
>> copper
>> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
>> proves is the difference is not a major problem.
>
> do you have those measurements?

Give me the cables and I'll do it for you with certification to Australian
National standards if you want!

>didn't think so.

So you do then? YOU claimed there was no difference.


> *if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
> effect.

Right, or might not.

>some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
> difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.

So you agree with what I said. Good to hear. It's possible in some cases you
may hear the difference for significant fractions of an ohm though.


>>
>> There clearly is a *measureable* difference between wires.
>
> depends on the wire.

Coat hanger wire DEFINITELY has different conductivity to copper wire.


> 14 gauge lamp cord at pennies a foot is going to be the same as 14
> gauge monster cable at $5 a foot or whatever they charge, mainly
> because that's all that monster cable *is* (plus some fancy looking
> insulation to make it look cool).

The comparison was COAT hanger wire.


> nobody is suggesting that 30 gauge copper wire is going to sound the
> same as the same length of 12 gauge wire, especially with a high
> wattage amp behind it. obviously, there will be a very measurable
> difference between those.

Depends on length, probably less than with the coat hanger wire for the
length of a coat hanger.

Trevor.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220122141156801%...
>> So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the
>> difference,
>> you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit
>> rate.
>> What a sad deluded fool you are!
>> Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference
>> for
>> MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
>> research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you
>> though!
>
> thousands of tests? which ones show that someone can consistently and
> reliably the difference between 320 kbit aac versus the original
> uncompressed audio,


See NOW you must specify *ONLY* 320kbitS, because you know it CAN be done at
low bit rates! IF you had said that all along, you would be closer to
correct, and yet it has been demonstrated that some people can still tell
the difference with some source material in an A-B test, even at 320kbs.
That most people can't with most source material is also true, but not what
you originally claimed.

Trevor.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220122141197042%...
>> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using
>> an
>> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
>> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
>> What YOU can manage is your problem!
>
> when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?

Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!


> like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> won't be able to do better than chance.

And what YOU *think* is still wrong.

Trevor.

In article <jgvcn1$45i$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using
> >> an A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
> >
> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
>
> Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
> card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!

that's not a double-blind test.

> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>
> And what YOU *think* is still wrong.

prove it.

In article <jgveq0$afi$>, Doug McDonald
<> wrote:

> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
> >> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
> >
> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
> >
> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>
> Mr. nospam ... READ what he said: "at some bit rates"
>
> that means, oh, say 32 kbps stereo Mp3 on an orchestral recording.
>
> I suspect that anybody that claims to be able to tell a 32 kbps
> .mp3 file from the high quality master tape it was made from
> would indeed be able to do so.
>
> that's 32 ... not 320

a fair comparison is with the best of both, not the worst of one and
the best of the other. certainly you understand this very basic
concept, right?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:14:58 -0500, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
>> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
>> >> coat hanger of market research.
>> >
>> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
>> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
>> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
>> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
>> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
>>
>> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
>> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
>> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
>> to some sort of market share conclusion.
>
>then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
>said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere.

Oh, yeah. I forgot that you also visually estimate Apple's market
share based on what you see at Starbucks.

>second,
>just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
>company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
>consistent growth outpacing the market for many years

The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
but it is still a small percentage of the total market.

> and is now the
>most valuable tech company based on market cap?

>obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
>why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
>really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
>expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.

The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
still a lot of units.

>
>> >> >> but the music involved
>> >> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> >> >> the quality of the sound.
>> >> >
>> >> >it didn't.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
>> >> was used.
>> >
>> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>>
>> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
>
>nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
>
>if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
>difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
>could there be?

There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.

>> You are talking about
>> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
>> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
>> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
>> matter what wire was use.
>
>*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
>characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
>around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
>at all. it could be dc.

If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
Olufsen high-end speakers.

>> >do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
>> >if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
>>
>> The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
>> on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
>> two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
>> able to tell if they were different or not.
>
>actually, it *is* about what the electrons do.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220122240159231%...
>> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
>>
>> Many times, use the readily available A-B comparators and a decent sound
>> card to do your own tests and stop conjecturing!
>
> that's not a double-blind test.


Gee now you're really clutching at semantic straws!
Using an A-B comparator with random file presentation gives you no clue
which is which. Of course since you've never tried it you have no idea, like
everything else you clain.


>> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
>> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>>
>> And what YOU *think* is still wrong.
>
> prove it.

You made the original claim, you prove it, cos I sure don't give a rats what
nonsense you believe!

Trevor.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220122244576110%...
> In article <jgveq0$afi$>, Doug McDonald
> <> wrote:
>
>> >> But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file
>> >> using an
>> >> A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with
>> >> lower
>> >> levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular"
>> >> music.
>> >> What YOU can manage is your problem!
>> >
>> > when did you do a double-blind test that shows this?
>> >
>> > like i said, you might *think* you can, but in an actual test, you
>> > won't be able to do better than chance.
>>
>> Mr. nospam ... READ what he said: "at some bit rates"
>>
>> that means, oh, say 32 kbps stereo Mp3 on an orchestral recording.
>>
>> I suspect that anybody that claims to be able to tell a 32 kbps
>> .mp3 file from the high quality master tape it was made from
>> would indeed be able to do so.
>>
>> that's 32 ... not 320
>
> a fair comparison is with the best of both, not the worst of one and
> the best of the other. certainly you understand this very basic
> concept, right?

Better than you understand the concept of "arguing from the general to the
particular" being a debating fallacy obviously.
If YOU can't state what you *actually* mean, don't expect us to read your
mind (what there is of it) correctly.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> First, the moving coil (or whatever) of the speaker forms part of the
> output stage of the amplifier. The quality of the music depends upon
> the ability of the amplifier to control the peregrinations of the
> speaker. Impedance in the connecting wires interferes with the ability
> of the amplifier to do this so connection impedance should be kept to
> a minimum.

Right, with a point being reached where further reduction provides no
audible or even measureable benefits. This depends on many factors of the
amplifier/speakers involved, but often not as low as many imagine for home
audio cable length.


> Second, different speaker cables have their own unique sounds

Obviously, but you usually don't use speaker cables to produce "sounds",
most prefer musical instruments with normal strings, reeds etc. to do that!



> and this
> is invariably due to differences in the reactance of the cables. What
> you are hearing with these is not the music but the 'ringing' of the
> circuitry.

Perhaps, not a major problem with most amplifiers and moving coil speakers,
but certainly more so with some badly designed amps and difficult speakers.
Most of those are a problem regardless of what speaker cable you use
however.


>On one notorious occasion a cable was found to be so bad
> that it would blow up any NAIM amplifier it was connected to.

Now that's a bad cable AND amp then!


> I believe in lots of fine-strand copper and it seems to work for me.
> Nothing fancy: just good low impedance copper.

Works for most people.

Trevor.