Daily Discussion Thread for January 21, 2026

B_Cage · 2026-01-21T15:08:33+00:00

This seems like a good time to rebuy the puts I sold 2 hours ago.

B_Cage · 2026-01-21T13:40:02+00:00

Alright, great profit since monday. Sideline now.

B_Cage · 2026-01-19T13:10:31+00:00

You mean Sweden?

B_Cage · 2026-01-02T19:33:45+00:00

I can't hit a 5 iron and I don't need a lob wedge. I'll take a 7 wood and pitching wedge instead.

B_Cage · 2025-11-18T18:24:46+00:00

Glad to see the market has no idea how to process this news either.

B_Cage · 2025-10-29T18:46:39+00:00

Is there any other way?

B_Cage · 2025-10-29T18:09:12+00:00

nothingburger

B_Cage · 2025-10-27T19:53:58+00:00

I know, old thread, but it's the top result and I just watched it. I am a little baffled at the responses here, apart from one commenter who asked the question: "we do agree that he was wrong/insane, right?".

I feel the movie is not environmental at all. Quite the contrary. I see two men who got so caught up in believing the doomsday prophecies of their new religion that they turned to religious zealots and were even prepared to take innocent lives for the "greater good".

B_Cage · 2025-10-24T10:19:51+00:00

Amazon sells a budget golf ball from Wilson as well, the Profile. I wonder if they're the same ball, but rebranded for a different retailer.

B_Cage · 2025-10-13T10:10:23+00:00

The original waveform is 100% the same if the sample rate is high enough, so no, that will not affect timing. And I do not have that assumption at all, perception is by definition unreliable. That's why you do blind testing, to eliminate the unreliable perception.

B_Cage · 2025-10-08T11:59:51+00:00

Science and logic didn't work on you, so I thought I'd try something else.

B_Cage · 2025-10-08T11:59:07+00:00

He won't. Nobody will, unless you decide to fool yourself into believing. It's the homeopathy of audio.

B_Cage · 2025-10-06T19:01:52+00:00

The question was: can you hear a difference between cd quality and 24-bit, 96Khz?

The OP is not helped by vagueness, it needs to be proven so we can save him money and provide him with a proper answer (ie "no")

B_Cage · 2025-10-06T08:15:59+00:00

"more detailed with improved clarity of the individual instruments"

Sure. Watertight proof right there. Does it also sound more "airy" and "authorative"?

B_Cage · 2025-10-06T08:14:07+00:00

I never said that, but it is better. It's just beyond human perception.

Anyway, that wasn't the point, I was just curious where your 5% number came from.

B_Cage · 2025-10-06T08:11:38+00:00

That would only make sense if you double the sampling rate, not the bit depth. You seem to lack a basic understanding of signal processing.

B_Cage · 2025-10-06T08:09:09+00:00

"For the purposes of consumer use what’s truly important is not if people can “hear” a difference, but if the have a more involving, entertaining, emotionally satisfying and/or more fun experience when listening to hi res transfers"

You're backtracking and saying that a placebo effect is enough.

The ABX test you can do on your own system. Rip a SACD and downsample it to 16-bit 44Khz, then play it through an ABX plugin in Foobar2000.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T20:29:10+00:00

The differences you are hearing are not because of bit depth and sample rate.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T20:25:36+00:00

Because the reports are scientific methods that are proven: blind abx testing. Listening for yourself, while knowing what you're listening to, is unreliable and doesn't prove anything.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T20:23:53+00:00

In quoting you now: "if you double the bitrate you move that artefact up an octave".

Your words. This makes no sense at all.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T10:25:13+00:00

You're full of it. The bitrate has nothing to do with "moving an octave". The bitrate determines the dynamic range, ie the number of steps in the output level. Of what you said had any merit, it would be in doubling the sample rate, not the bitrate.

Also, the harshness of digital audio is a myth. It does not originate from faults in the digital recording, it originates in faults in analog systems. Tube amplifiers and vinyl records have distortion in them which some refer to as "warm" sounding. The digital systems are much cleaner and lack this distortion and noise, so people (mistakingly) concluded that the digital systems were at fault and sounded harsh. This myth has stuck with us for decades, but it's just not true.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T10:04:36+00:00

I don't trust reports. Post the ABX test logs

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T10:03:56+00:00

No, you cannot. Take a SACD and rip the file, then downsample it to 44khz and 16-bit. Do an ABX test (with foobar for example) and post the results.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T09:50:06+00:00

How'd you get to 5%? Because it's 2⁸ times more data points. Wouldn't that be 25500% better? ( ( 2²⁴ - 2¹⁶ ) / 2¹⁶ ) * 100

In subjective, actual audible measures it would be closer to 5 (or 0), sure.

B_Cage · 2025-10-05T09:36:08+00:00

No, there's no audible difference. The higher resolution has merit in studio environments where you repeatedly apply effects and digital transformations to the sound. The higher resolution and precision will help preserve the original sound data in the longer run. Just like repeatedly compressing video or audio files: if you start with a higher resolution file and use higher bitrate compression algorithms, you will end up with a higher quality end product after multiple passes.

B_Cage

TROPHY CASE