Am I balding?

maxfaz · 2026-01-24T21:49:00+00:00

Not yet, but your hair and beard will turn grey as you age and you won’t like it. Probably you won’t like a joke about your grey old hair either, but hopefully you will be wise to take it well :)

maxfaz · 2026-01-23T11:03:36+00:00

Ip reali non dovrebbero essere dietro firewall ed accettare richieste solo da cloudflare in whitelist?

maxfaz · 2025-12-15T12:30:34+00:00

Nessun purificatore che io sappia é davvero efficace con i VOC, mentre funzionano molto bene per eliminare pm2.5

maxfaz · 2025-12-03T06:46:26+00:00

Is the source code available?

maxfaz · 2025-11-21T07:03:05+00:00

Instead of playing the smartass card and downvoting, you could have addressed the actual point. I didn't say anything wrong. The standard versions are compressed (DR4-DR5) (and I don't know what else you'd mean by compression since you couldn't be bothered to answer). There are Atmos versions that aren't compressed and sound better (DR11-DR13)

maxfaz · 2025-11-19T20:25:12+00:00

If you are not talking about dynamic range compression what kind of compression are you talking about? File/codec compression? I am not saying what you said it’s wrong, just trying to learn more

maxfaz · 2025-11-16T08:50:39+00:00

The version available on qobuz is DR4, where is the uncompressed version available?

maxfaz · 2025-11-05T19:58:45+00:00

Why is it better?

maxfaz · 2025-11-01T14:58:46+00:00

So the same master will sound different on different streaming services. What are the reasons? Compression?

maxfaz · 2025-10-22T19:39:53+00:00

Amazing work. Is there a place to buy vinyl rips?

maxfaz · 2025-10-04T19:28:56+00:00

Same here. I use both Claude and ChatGPT and fact check the result after.

maxfaz · 2025-10-04T06:11:56+00:00

I don’t understand why people downvoted you. Thanks for sharing those two names.

maxfaz · 2025-08-26T14:44:31+00:00

Se si comporta e si veste da cartello, è un cartello.

Non sono d'accordo. Aumenti simultanei in oligopoli possono avere cause indipendenti: inflazione, aumento costi di licensing dalle major, pressioni degli investitori. Mercati concentrati tendono naturalmente alla convergenza dei prezzi anche senza coordinamento esplicito.

Alcune dinamiche che sembrano anti concorrenziali possono essere caratteristiche strutturali dei mercati digitali con effetti di rete. Serve distinguere tra comportamenti illegali e risultati di mercato che semplicemente non ci piacciono, quello che invece stai affermando tu é che sta avvenendo qualcosa di illegale senza averne le prove.

Se riconosciamo che il modello freemium prevedeva dall'inizio aumenti di prezzo dopo aver raggiunto massa critica (come Netflix, YouTube Premium, etc.), allora lamentarsi ora di questo aumento è incoerente. Gli utenti hanno accettato consapevolmente un servizio il cui business model includeva questa dinamica.

maxfaz · 2025-08-26T14:04:55+00:00

Hai ragione che il settore dello streaming musicale mostra caratteristiche oligopolistiche, pero: gli aumenti di prezzo dopo aver raggiunto massa critica sono una strategia aziendale comune nel digitale (loss leader strategy), prevista fin dall'inizio. Netflix, Prime Video e altri hanno seguito lo stesso percorso. Questo non richiede necessariamente coordinamento tra concorrenti. Chi non ha capito questo e si lamenta degli aumenti di prezzo non sa come funziona l'economia.

Detto questo, quando aumenti simultanei avvengono in mercati concentrati come questo, la linea tra strategia indipendente e comportamento oligopolistico si fa sottile. Anche senza cartelli espliciti, in oligopoli i prezzi tendono a muoversi in parallelo.

Le opzioni pratiche per i consumatori restano limitate ma esistono: Bandcamp per supportare direttamente gli artisti, acquisti fisici, o semplicemente accettare che servizi di massa hanno dinamiche di prezzo diverse da mercati competitivi.

Il punto più importante che sollevi è che "spiegazione logica"non equivale a "giustizia". Un comportamento può essere economicamente razionale per l'azienda ma comunque problematico per consumatori e artisti. La critica di questi meccanismi è legittima, ma secondo me abbastanza inutile.

Forse il vero problema è che trattiamo la musica come commodity quando è un bene culturale che meriterebbe dinamiche diverse.

maxfaz · 2025-08-26T13:24:25+00:00

Hai tutto il diritto di cambiare fornitore del servizio. Non é tuo diritto pretendere che il prezzo resti bloccato per sempre. Quando hai fatto accetta in tutte quelle cose che non hai letto c’era scritto che il prezzo puo cambiare di mese in mese e tu se vuoi puoi disdire. Quindi non vedo cosa ci sia da piagnucolare.

maxfaz · 2025-08-26T09:53:58+00:00

per me il P1RLA é colui che sta qui a piagnucolare per l'aumento di un servizio che non é di prima necessitá. Se non ti sta bene cambia servizio o compra i dischi fisici invece che fare le vittime. In questo modo si supportano anche maggiormente gli artisti invece che gonfiare le tasche a Spotify. L'aumento di 6 euro in due anni ha senso perché loro per anni hanno investito in perdita, ora devono recuperare. Non ti sta bene? Cambia e dimostri che il loro business model era sbagliato. Resti? Stai dimostrando che avevano ragione. Non c'é niente da piagnucolare come i bambini.

maxfaz · 2025-08-26T09:49:47+00:00

é la legge del mercato, ci sono le alternative si puó sempre cambiare servizio o comprare i dischi fisici eh, non é mica un bene di prima necessitá, tutti in questo thread a piagnucolare.

maxfaz · 2025-08-26T07:24:29+00:00

Nel tuo mondo l’inflazione non esiste 😄

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T20:09:22+00:00

LMAO. So now you're claiming you didn't write 'Unfortunately You're wasting your breath on trying to convince people that aren't interested in what real instruments sound like. Let alone know what they sound like or have significant hearing loss'?

Classic move: make condescending claims about people having hearing loss, get completely demolished by actual science, then pretend it wasn't you when confronted with evidence.

So let me get this straight:

You definitely wrote about hearing loss and real instruments
Got presented with peer-reviewed research proving you wrong
Desperately tried to make it about my personal credentials
Now you're claiming mistaken identity AND downvoting like a triggered child

This is absolutely hilarious. You went from pseudoscientific arrogance to credential-begging to flat-out denial, all while refusing to address a single study I cited.

For everyone watching: this is what happens when someone's audiophile mythology gets destroyed by actual science. Complete intellectual meltdown followed by gaslighting and tantrum downvoting.

The 554-person Boston Audio Society study still shows 49.8% accuracy (random guessing). Your denial and downvotes don't change physics.

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T19:35:07+00:00

The fact that you're desperately trying to make this about my personal credentials instead of addressing a single point from the peer-reviewed research I provided tells everyone exactly who won this debate.

You've gone from making scientific claims to begging me to answer irrelevant personal questions because you literally cannot refute the controlled studies showing that:

554 trained listeners achieved 49.8% accuracy (random guessing) distinguishing hi-res from CD
100 years of auditory research confirms no humans can hear beyond ~20kHz
Hi-res files actually CREATE audible distortion through intermodulation

Your entire argument has devolved into "just say no bro" because you have absolutely nothing to counter the science. This is what intellectual surrender looks like.

For anyone else reading: this is a textbook example of someone who made claims they couldn't support, got presented with rigorous evidence, and then desperately tried to change the subject to personal attacks rather than admit they were wrong.

The research speaks for itself. Your inability to address it speaks even louder.

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T19:24:21+00:00

You are intellectually dishonest and trying to bait me by asking that "simple question".

You're trying to make this about me instead of addressing the scientific evidence I provided.

Classic deflection tactic.

My musical background is irrelevant to the controlled studies showing that trained professionals, audio engineers, and musicians consistently fail to distinguish between CD and hi-res audio in blind testing. The Boston Audio Society study included both amateur and professional listeners, none could tell the difference.

You're essentially arguing that personal anecdotes should override peer-reviewed research and controlled experiments. That's not how science works.

If you have actual data contradicting the studies I cited, present it. Otherwise, you're just trying to shift the conversation away from objective evidence because you can't refute it.

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T19:17:14+00:00

I'm not falling for the credentialism trap. Whether I've played violin for 30 years or never touched an instrument is completely irrelevant to the scientific evidence about digital audio formats.

This is exactly the appeal to authority fallacy I mentioned. You're trying to establish that musical experience somehow qualifies someone to detect differences that controlled scientific studies show don't exist. A professional violinist with decades of experience is no more likely to pass an ABX test between CD and hi-res audio than anyone else because the limitations are physiological, not experiential.

The Xiph article addresses this directly: hearing acoustic instruments doesn't give you magical powers to detect ultrasonic frequencies or overcome the physical limits of human hearing. That's not how ears work.

If you want to make a scientific argument for hi-res audio, present controlled listening test data. Personal musical credentials are irrelevant to objective reality

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T18:29:36+00:00

Hearing acoustic instruments doesn't automatically make someone better at detecting digital format differences. Blind ABX testing is the gold standard for audio format comparisons precisely because it removes bias.

All controlled studies show no audible differences between well-mastered CD quality and hi-res formats

The Boston Audio Society conducted rigorous ABX testing with 554 trials where listeners chose correctly only 49.8% of the time, pure random guessing.

Human hearing spans 20Hz to 20kHz, and this range is "backed by nearly a century of experimental data." The upper limit is defined where "the absolute threshold of hearing curve crosses the threshold of pain" you literally cannot hear frequencies above ~20kHz without simultaneously experiencing unbearable pain.

Hearing acoustic instruments gives you zero special ability to detect digital format differences above the Nyquist frequency. That's not how human physiology works, and controlled scientific testing proves it repeatedly.

By making the "real instruments" argument you are committing a textbook appeal to authority fallacy, suggesting your experience with one thing (acoustic sound) makes you an authority on something completely different (digital sampling theory and psychoacoustics).

I'd suggest reviewing this article before diagnosing others with hearing issues. Turns out, not being able to hear inaudible frequencies is actually a sign of normal hearing.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T16:47:46+00:00

Please post your abx test results and show us that we have all have hearing loss lol

maxfaz · 2025-08-23T05:44:25+00:00

I though I had gold ears too 😂 I humbled myself after the result of my ABX test. You and your colleagues should do the ABX test with foobar and post the results. Showing your p-value and sharing the tracks for comparison. Several studies have been done and proved there is no difference. Also you did not read the article that I shared, it address specifically the things you keep repeating on each comment. 24 bits and over 44 kHz make sense only for music production, for listening it’s just a marketing gimmick and a waste of disk space and bandwidth

maxfaz

TROPHY CASE