Cool analogy on lossless/I-pod and computer driven formats

I just re-read the last couple of posts and I'd like to clarify one thing. On Friday, one hour after high noon, I will still be doing this test. I just think that instead of me trying to prove something, how 'bout we turn it around and y'all prove it to me.

I like that better.

How can we prove we don't hear something we don't hear?

That's for you to figure out.

See, I'm liking this already.

That's for you to figure out.

See, I'm liking this already.

That Jesse!!!!!

That's for you to figure out.

See, I'm liking this already.

That Jesse!!!!!

The best defense is a good offense!

Wes Phillips told me, in person, that lossless formats were not all that. CD's were still better.

tell you what. i'll make a live recording of a buddy's band(they're a journey cover band), simultaneously recording to the Tascam and to the PC using Y cables of the same length to each recording device and see if you can tell the difference. And..I'll use the second DVD drive to make a recording at a much higher resolution and see if we can pick it out also. You can pick the system, room, whatever as long as it's in cabin 12

ray

Lazy ass.

You know, we could provide a ride the entire 1/4 mile to the next cabin.

I think the burden of proof should be placed on those who think that it all sounds the same rather than those who don't.

Damn Jesse, when did you join the staff at Stereophile? Sounds suspiciously like their thinking Either you can tell the difference or you can't. Sounds simple....at least to this deaf guy.

As for the 'burned' CDs sounding different than stamped types, based on the fact that the 'recording' method was of another type....you're joking right? Maybe we'll figure a way to test that also? Say burn a copy on a PC or my Tascam, play them back on 2 of the same player and see who(if anybody) can identify either.

In 2009 Jesse burned some copies of his newly released Beatles 'Revolver' on some really good discs. Must say they sound great. I can't hear the difference between that and my store bought copy of the same album. Shoulda save the big$$.

I like this thread...

ray

If you look up "common fallacies", you will com across this one

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Exactly and that's why the samesayers can't prove one sounds the same as the other. Where's the graphs and charts? My God man, where are they!?!

Wouldn't one of Bob's "null-tests" be able to prove or disprove it ??
2 inverted signals going into the same amp or something??

Wouldn't one of Bob's "null-tests" be able to prove or disprove it ??
2 inverted signals going into the same amp or something??

Someone back in the thread suggested that. Maybe Bob can show us how to do it...unless he has flashbacks to Santa Fe.

ray

Should be easy... 2 main sets of outputs, 2 pairs of RCAs, one of them wired "wrong" and both into "Y" cords into the preamp no?

Wouldn't one of Bob's "null-tests" be able to prove or disprove it ??
2 inverted signals going into the same amp or something??

No, because Bob also said that null-test get you close but not close enough.

Ed Zachary.