Originally Posted by isa
I'll try to be kind, but I'm rather disappointed in the quote above and similar.
I appreciate your kindness.
I agree a difference or differences has/have been detected. But we've not seen anything credible on what difference(s) has/have been detected, much less the underlying cause(s).
Now you know the problem with demanding forced choice, binary tests like ABX. It gives you no qualitative analysis. If you expected such, the nature of such testing is not understood.
I am glad you accept what has been accomplished. That a difference has been detected. The experimenters have proposed these tests as to show lack of differentiation between original file and the converted one to 16/44.1. As you say we have proven an audible differentiation exists. Therefore no claim of transparency can be made in these conversions.
I know this is a painful turn of events and it invalidates thousands of posts where we have said otherwise. Remember, all of those posts were based on what we had read, not what is in front of us in hard, tangible data and content. Nor have you ever been to question the people who have run these tests before.
A correlation that the differently-sounding files have different bit depth and sampling rates does not mean causation by bit depth or sampling rate by itself/themselves.
That is all that the experimenters say they have done to give us the two versions. This is what Scott/Mark have done. And this is what Arny has done.
Now, you could doubt the veracity of their statements and using instrumentation/measurements/etc. that shows that they have done more than what they say with respect to changing the sampling rate/bit depth. But you haven't done that. You are simply practicing FUD, hoping mere words can create doubt.
Remember, I repeated Arny's test as I post last night and the simple act of reducing the bit depth and sample rate in Audition CC allowed me to hear the differences in double blind, ABX, computer controlled testing. Countless people use this tool to create music from high-res to CD. This data says conversions done in this tool do not provide transparency using Arny's master file.
Several have appealed to using basic scientific method principles to investigate all that and eliminate possible sources of error or unintended differences before leaping to conclusions, but those appeals have apparently been unpersuasive.
Once again, you make this like I created the test and am reporting the results of the same. I did not. The test was created by others. Across multiple tests, positive outcomes have been achieved, not just by me but by others. You agree such a positive difference is heard. Yet you think there needs to be further objections?
The objections voiced are emotional and anything but "scientific." They lack understanding the very nature of the tests being asked to run. They lack protesters own data and results. They represent people who can't hear the differences and pass the same tests.
Any tests conducted in this thread have not yet established anything credible that confirms or refutes anything in the Meyer & Moran study. Lest we forget, their actual conclusions were as follows:
Yes, let's note what they have said:
"There is always the remote possibility that a different system
or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a
difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently
varied and capable systems and listeners, to state
that the burden of proof has now shifted. "
Seeing how you accept that I am hearing differences that others cannot, then it reasons that I may be one of those people with "finer attuned pair of ears." As are the others who have found differences in this thread.
Remember, the very objection you voice here applies to them in a huge way. You have no measurements whatsoever that when they ran the content through A/D to D/A that they actually changed the signal. We know from other data post their testing that their material may have lacked ultrasonic content.
In our situation Arny has been kind enough to post spectrums and others such as myself have confirmed that for sure the sampling rate and ultrasonic content has been changes. The credibility of what we are doing then is far higher than theirs if you are objective and data driven.
I appeal to everyone to avoid strawmans to make this thread a better use of electrons, time and disc space.
You can appeal all you want. What matters is data not personal appeals. Unfortunately you don't have any data to counter these results. There is nothing scientific about creating doubt with words and throwing terms like "strawman" around.
Tests were created by parties with no interest in the outcome that is produced.
You want to say their test fixture and content is faulty, please make your cased to them. Don't abuse the term "science" by going after listeners of the test.
You want to advance the discussion and not waste the electrons, run Arny's 32 Khz test vs 96 Khz. Focus and pay attention to what you are hearing. Remember that multiple people from different walks of life, equipment, gear, hearing ability, etc. have heard differences that are 100% reliable.
And oh, thanks again for your kindness.