Why do my CD's still sound better than flac files?

There is nothing in any of my posts to support your assertions, nowhere have I suggested others are "not trying hard enough" and nowhere have I said anything about anyone's equipment. Neither is there any suggestion of my reality being anyone's but my own. So, please don't attribute your words or sentiments or interpretations to me. They are *your* own and I would ask you to own them yourself.

To the contrary, I have repeatedly said that my experience is that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of audio. What is plain to you, I may miss altogether. And vice versa.

What I *have* said is the difference is there in my experience.

Aside from this, why would anyone get so uptight about my experience? It has no impact on your experience or anyone else's. It is my experience. If you don't like my experience, that's fine. I'm not asking for anyone's approval and whether anyone approves or not, my experience will remain. Really, I'm not that important. Hear it as *you* hear it. And have the confidence to do so.

Happy Listening!
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Lee, with all due respect I think I can interact with Barry without any problem because he is presenting his experience as his experience only, but the pseudo-scientific points that you have brought into these threads really show that, if science is playing catchup with audio, you haven't even started playing catchup with science!

Or to be less rude: a documented phenomenon that later finds a way to be measured is not "scientific lag"!

 

Maybe files just don't sound better than a pressed medium.

 

agreed. respect/manners. fairly 101 stuff (you would think)

 

Mohini Geisweiller’s Event Horizon sounds splendid through my touch, ripped to wav

 

To be clear, FLAC is not 'so-called "lossless"' - it *is* lossless. Verifying that to be the case is a trivial exercise.

You're misrepresenting "science". It isn't simply using test equipment and taking measurements. If it is shown (via controlled trials) that some people can reliably hear "something" (be it FLAC "degradation", differences in burn speed...whatever), there doesn't need to be known cause for the results to be considered "scientific". Without the aforementioned controlled trials, though, you just have observations that may or may not be clouded by other factors.

 

Hi Andy,

Just one small point, which I believe I mentioned in an earlier post:
Many colleagues I've spoken with tell me their experience parallels my own.
That too doesn't alter my own experience and I don't expect it would alter anyone else's; just another piece of information.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I am not misrepresenting anything. I gave three good examples of the time lag that can occur as we gain understanding. That is true.

Even when we hear obvious improvements in hirez PCM encoding, it took a few years to get an AES paper showing that in listening tests. Listening tests themselves are difficult as it is difficult to separate the quality of the listeners' hearing.

I have a computer science degree Luke so I understand science fine.

 

Separate the quality of the listeners' hearing?

If there's a group of 10 people, and 8 can't reliably distinguish the difference between two things, yet 2 *can*, repeatedly, that's still something. Now, it may mean that the difference is something that most people won't be able to hear, but if some people *can* hear it reliably, that's enough to indicate there is in fact a difference.

 

Uten, please stop the personal attacks. Argue your point based on the merits of the argument or against my points.