On 05/3/31 11:20 PM, "Maurits van de Kamp" <maurits@...> wrote: > > That's a hars way of putting it, but haven't we all noticed how our > > (customers') opinions change overnight on one and the same mix? :o) This is my final post on the subject (unless someone has something to add), because we're going around and around. Maurits and others: To sum this up - you are simply stating the bleeding obvious. Everyone knows that two identical files will sound identical. But the fact that psychological factors can influence what we hear does not mean that every difference we hear is merely psychological. It's simply patronizing, arrogant, and frankly rather insulting to keep discounting what we've heard by saying that. The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW that the multiple files we're talking about are identical. If they're mixed through different systems, they're probably not. And I and some other people have discovered beyond a doubt that unless successive tracks in a DAW do something different, files transferred through different cables can sound different. Audible phase reversal is not the same thing as a bit-for-bit comparison of two files. Rather than just calling us fools, might it now be more productive for you to simply run the tests yourselves? -- Nick Batzdorf - editor Virtual Instruments magazine (the world of softsynths and samplers) www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com 1-877 VImagzn (846-2496), 818/905-9101, cell 590-9101

> To sum this up - you are simply stating the bleeding obvious. > Everyone knows that two identical files will sound identical. In fact some people claim that audiofiles will sound worse after they're copied, even though they are identical. These people hide behind the "it's not all ones and zeros" and "the scientists will be able to explain this later" that I'm warning about. Last but not least, in this discussion I responded to the idea that the digital bus (with identical resolution) can influence the sound. All other examples, apparantly actually talking about different soundfiles and hence irrelevant, came later. So no I'm not just stating the bleeding obvious. In fact, this discussion started about _identical_ data going through different buses, and you had to drag in an example that later turned out to be about different files, don't blame me for that. > But the fact that psychological factors can influence what we hear > does not mean that every difference we hear is merely psychological. Of course not. But it also shouldn't be ignored while at the same time expecting new mysteries on the digital side. > It's simply patronizing, arrogant, and frankly rather insulting to > keep discounting what we've heard by saying that. You're just not reading what I write and keep changing my point. What I REALLY wanted to say, both about IDENTICAL files and about the fact that psychologically perceived differences are NOT UNREAL so that it has nothing what so ever to do with insulting or patronizing, has completely passed you by, probably because you like to be insulted. > Rather than just calling us fools, I'm not, but you obviously don't want to listen. > might it now be more productive > for you to simply run the tests yourselves? The "test" and the "us" have been gazillions of different situations by now, all completely unrelated, and you have all glued my reactions to them into one big personal insult to you. You have completely lost me by now so I wouldn't know what to test. Maurits.

On Apr 3, 2005, at 3:55 AM, Nick Batzdorf wrote: > Audible phase reversal is not the same thing as a > bit-for-bit comparison of two files. > Right, so that is why I suggest the next time you run the test (if you ever do) to record the phase reversed sound (or seeming lack of sound) back into a sequencer and normalize the file and see if there is something in there that is identifiable aside from white noise.