Ponder the question, factor in all the recent talk of high-res and DSD.Max, no offence but any chance of you posting a topic that doesn't involve your belief all formats/digital media/cables sound the same? Perhaps something about all amps sounding the same might be a welcome change .
Assuming a recording engineer doesn't when creating a recording from a master,...
The constant assumption is that we listeners are 'passive' and that we just sit there receiving 'information'.
Do tell: Just how wide should we make the 'criteria for human hearing'? Two people can respond entirely differently to the same sound, indeed the notion of 'same' might become problematic when talking of consciousness.
Max, no offence but any chance of you posting a topic that doesn't involve your belief all formats/digital media/cables sound the same?
Two people can respond entirely differently to the same sound, but if none of hundreds of test subjects respond at all, you might possibly conclude that the sound is inaudible.
Even if a number of the test subjects did respond, Max would automatically say they were imagining things or suffering expectation bias.... and I think you might, too.
That itself is quite a big assumption and not a very solid premise in my opinion.
The constant assumption is that we listeners are 'passive' and that we just sit there receiving 'information'. In fact, the human brain is known to process/manipulate/interprete that external 'information' in all sorts of ways.
Listening involves the equipment and the listener. No two listeners are alike, how they 'interprete' the sound is unlikely to be identical. The tendency to ignore the active involvement of the listener is what leads to the 'Serge' school of audio design...where the listener is an unresponsive 'given' with no real role other than not to argue.
NB: I know Serge is not the only proponent of this, he's just good at stating it.
Even if a number of the test subjects did respond, Max would automatically say they were imagining things or suffering expectation bias.... and I think you might, too.
Max,by chance I looked at your home forum a couple of seconds ago and I find exactly the same topic from exactly the same person. What are you trying to achieve here? Pinkfish is rather more liberal than your home site, and less likely to swallow the orthodoxy.
As it stands I think myself and others are more prepared to buy SACD or other hi res formats now than before you started to push the orthodox line. You seem a nice chap, but maybe you need to start questioning (metaphorically) the drum you're banging.
The constant assumption is that we listeners are 'passive' and that we just sit there receiving 'information'. In fact, the human brain is known to process/manipulate/interprete that external 'information' in all sorts of ways.
Listening involves the equipment and the listener. No two listeners are alike, how they 'interprete' the sound is unlikely to be identical. The tendency to ignore the active involvement of the listener is what leads to the 'Serge' school of audio design...where the listener is an unresponsive 'given' with no real role other than not to argue.
NB: I know Serge is not the only proponent of this, he's just good at stating it.
Andrew, it's nice of you to ask but completely off topic.Max.
If I did a blind ABX between DACs and then afterwards between different bit depths , codecs etc. would you accept the results even if it meant people heard a difference?