Measure the frequency response of a headphone with a certain dac / amp ... then measure it with another dac / amp that sounds completely different to you ... look at the frequency response ... it would be a checkmate, right?
The question is whether the difference is in fact audible.Yes, but any knowledgeable person knows that if one is trying to 'hear' difference between formats, such comparisons are useless.
Un-knowledgeable persons need not be taken seriously on the matter.
I agree it is a kind of search for a euphoric feeling of being connected to lifelike sound, and it can be elusive. Not sure it is so age-related. In all honesty, and as I've said in other threads, it is easier and cheaper to get there with a decent-measuring system and a little THC than hoping your exotic tube amp and horn speakers will give it up instead of be annoying today.I have a theory that subjectivists in audio are constantly striving for the feeling that they got with that first hit - the sound they heard on their first proper hifi system with decent speakers. The jump forward in quality from whatever midi system, etc they listened to music on previously. But the problem is they were much younger - it's impossible to get that same sound again due to natural age related hearing loss.
The question is whether the difference is in fact audible.
How else should a knowledgeable person perform this test, to know the knowledgeable difference?
To paraphrase Duke Ellington: There are only two types of high fidelity judgements: the good ones, and the other kind.
Duke Ellington has several records on Storyville than doesn't sound good.Duke said 'if it sounds good, it is good.' He didn't say why it sounds good. Which is the mistake subjectivists make.
Scrambled word salad---Ellington's recordings go back to the 1920's, sound quality varies accordingly. Ellington pointed to good and ignorable music. So this is metaphor, not documentation.Duke Ellington has several records on Storyville than doesn't sound good.
Sound good: thing for subjectivists.
Why are you insinuating my ignorance, when you haven't even taken the time to check whether that's the case?To not take mastering into account, before embarking on such a test, would demonstrate ignorance. You would not be testing what you think you are testing.
When the mastering of A and B is surely the same -- e.g., when encoding a particular lossless source to lossy yourself, and comparing before/after -- it's not an issue.
You have a serious problem. Take a temesta or a Prozac.Scrambled word salad---Ellington's recordings go back to the 1920's, sound quality varies accordingly. Ellington pointed to good and ignorable music. So this is metaphor, not documentation.
You've missed the point.Duke Ellington has several records on Storyville than doesn't sound good.
Sound good: thing for subjectivists.
When you speak about Ellington, speak about some one you know.You've missed the point.
Why are you insinuating my ignorance, when you haven't even taken the time to check whether that's the case?
Ellington wasn't talking about Storyville.You have a serious problem. Take a temesta or a Prozac.
Product categories Duke Ellington
storyvillerecords.com
You plan to water the wrong way round for a long time. Example of delusional subjectivityI wasn't replying to a post of yours.
When you speak about Ellington, speak about some one you know.
You plan to water the wrong way round for a long time. Example of delusional subjectivity