AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: The Results So Far - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 147Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 457 Old 08-05-2014, 07:57 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post
Ya know, when you don't read Amir and you don't read tubetwister, AVS is just a much better experience.
Well said..... Oh wait!

Calvin: "Dad, are you vicariously living through me in the hope that my accomplishments will validate your mediocre life and in some way compensate for all of the opportunities you botched?"
Dad: "If I were, you can bet I'd be re-evaluating my strategy."
Calvin to his mom, later: "Mom, Dad keeps insulting me."

tubetwister likes this.
amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 457 Old 08-05-2014, 08:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,727
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5349 Post(s)
Liked: 2306
NorthSky is offline  
post #183 of 457 Old 08-05-2014, 09:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
granroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,335
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
The differences were track and experiment specific. In one case for example I listened for a faint notes of a background instrument and how it differed from the other version. In another, I would listen to how the channels separated. In another it would be the tonal quality. These are very subtle things that are hard to put in words.

[snip interesting stuff on digital systems -- thanks for that]
That makes a lot of sense. I would expect that a trained ear would be able to to detect differences like those if such differences existed.

I don't know that that helps out with the question about CD-quality vs high-res, though. It sounds like the differences you heard were likely related more to the re-encoding than to any properties that would be inclusive of high-res and exclusive of redbook. That is, your training might help with something like determining differences between encoding engines, but maybe wouldn't be as useful to determine if an arbitrary track had content that was beyond what redbook allows (frequency or dynamic range).

To clarify, do you claim the ability to determine if a track is high resolution after listening to it? I know you didn't attempt that with this test, but in general, do you think or have you shown that you can?
granroth is offline  
post #184 of 457 Old 08-05-2014, 09:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
granroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,335
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
granroth,

Does that respritory mask or filter or oxygen mask ( or is it laughing gass?) in your avatar offer respritory protection from Ebola? Can you listen to hires or any res with that on ?
My respirator and ebola? Reminds me of a Simpsons episode:

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

So yes... yes, my respirator does protect me from ebola.
krabapple and tubetwister like this.
granroth is offline  
post #185 of 457 Old 08-05-2014, 10:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Good news! While examining the spectral analysis shown in my video for specific parts I thought looked promising, due to their dynamics, separation, harmonic structure and spectral balance, I had a thought to briefly test out a theory that popped in my head. I loaded the first versions of Mosaic A and B I stumbled upon in my messy, disorganized files, from different locations on my hardrive [I've downloaded them a few times now but can never remember where I put them. DOH!] and started to listen.

Listened for a bit and thought I heard something, maybe. Listened some more and decide it was worth taking a stab at it, even though the difference was extremely subtle and I wasn't even sure if it was entirely in my imagination. "Correct, 50% chance due to luck". Oh OK, I guess worth at least taking another crack at it while I already have the files loaded and it takes me forever to find them when I need them. [and boy was the difference subtle]. "Correct again, 2/2, odds of it being by chance alone 25%". Hmm, maybe I should take this more seriously rather than making hasty decisions and really carefully listen more intently...."3 correct"..."4 correct"! At this point I start trembling that here I am, casually doing what I thought was only going to be a quick, casual, sighted, A/B comparison of a possible lead to then explore later and I'm showing really good results. I'm terrified to jinx it though and get out of my chair to shut the window [to block street noise] because I'm on a winning streak!

It took me another hour, almost, for this test session [look at this test and my last's trials' time stamps] listening for an entirely different thing from my last posted test of Arny's first keys jangling, but each time I vote my decision is uncertain and with barely enough confidence in my tenuous selection to even cast a vote. And then I hit some clunkers! WRONG ANSWER! OH NO! But I decide to keep going and to stop when I hit a strong confidence level, if I can. Here are the results:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report


foobar2000 v1.3.3


2014/08/05 16:33:15


File A: C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Tempor ary Internet


Files\Content.IE5\EW19B10F\Mosaic_A[1].wav


File B: C:\Users\Me\Desktop\Mosaic_B.wav


16:33:15 : Test started.


16:40:17 : 01/01 50.0%


16:40:51 : 02/02 25.0%


16:41:24 : 03/03 12.5%


16:42:19 : 04/04 6.3%


16:43:12 : 05/05 3.1%


16:44:38 : 05/06 10.9%


16:46:05 : 05/07 22.7%


16:46:41 : 06/08 14.5%


16:47:54 : 07/09 9.0%


16:50:03 : 08/10 5.5%


16:53:03 : 08/11 11.3%


16:53:51 : 08/12 19.4%


16:54:05 : 09/13 13.3%


16:54:07 : 10/14 9.0%


16:58:01 : 11/15 5.9%


16:59:08 : 12/16 3.8%


17:00:06 : 13/17 2.5%


17:01:18 : 14/18 1.5%


17:04:18 : 15/19 1.0%


17:12:34 : 16/20 0.6%


17:18:49 : 17/21 0.4%


17:19:42 : 18/22 0.2%


17:23:35 : 19/23 0.1%


17:24:01 : Test finished.


----------


Total: 19/23 (0.1%)

I easily beat the common p.<.05 confidence level [<5% possibility due to chance], so pretty good statistical significance I'd say. I could have kept going but decided to quit while I was ahead since the traffic noise was only getting worse.


And now the bad news. I now have discovered and used here yet another way to hear a difference between A and B, entirely different than the method I used before on Arny's keys jangling, and this method is also not cheating. So going forward I now will completely discount this foobar ABX test method as being bullet-proof to manipulators, not looking so much for differences between hi-res and normal music, but rather subtle audible differences between what they get when they hit the "Play A" button, "Play B" button, and "Play X" button with these differing sampling rates and bit depths, for forum posting. I advise everyone to do the same.

Again, I refuse to disclose the exact method I'm using due to the makeup of the audience here, some of whom I consider about as trustworthy and honest as $%#&(^@!*, but I will give a crude analogy. If every time you hit "A" there is a 25ms latency before the music comes out, but when you hit "B" it is only 24ms latency, and I happen to be able to detect that tiny difference yet nobody else can, I'm not cheating as far as I'm concerned. I'm picking up on a subtle distinction which would elude most other people's detection. Sorry, my analogy isn't great because the thing I'm taking advantage of is truly a sonic distinction, not timing, however what I hear different between buttons A and B one might just as easily hear if the files weren't music but were instead just the same, simple, constant 1kHz test tone, from the same source, recorded at the two different sampling rates and bit depths, [but I'm not dead sure on that point, I would need to test it]. It's fleeting in nature and would be completely invisible if it weren't for the phrase repeat function which allows you to repeat a tiny slice of time over and over again, in my case about .9 seconds long.


Unfortunately there are some people who after watching the magician The Amazing Randi explain exactly how he can replicate "bending a spoon with his mental powers", they walk away from the explanation thinking "Well just because Randi can do it his way doesn't prove Uri Gellar isn't using his mental powers to do it psychically". That's sad. :


P.S. Should anyone see any part of this post and/or my findings factually misrepresented, distorted, and/or twisted around to meet another person's agenda, claiming I supposedly can, for example, "hear what makes hi-res sound better and/or different", in this or any other thread, please do the right thing and hit the report post icon in the lower left to report the manipulation/fabrication to the moderators. You know such behavior is immoral and you know it is wrong. Thanks.




tubetwister likes this.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-06-2014 at 09:22 AM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #186 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 12:33 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post
My respirator and ebola? Reminds me of a Simpsons episode:

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

So yes... yes, my respirator does protect me from ebola.
COOL now I don't have ta worry about you if it gets out!

Very funny ( and maybe relevant to thread topic in a way in certain conditions ) conversation you just quoted
rates a very funny strong 3½ and a like ☺☺☺½ ...............2 funny ¬

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 01:41 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #187 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 12:52 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillch
P.S. Should anyone see any part of this post and/or my findings factually misrepresented, distorted, and/or twisted around to meet another person's agenda, claiming I supposedly can, for example, "hear what makes hi-res sound better and/or different", in this or any other thread, please do the right thing and hit the report post icon in the lower left to report the manipulation/fabrication to the moderators. You know such behavior is immoral and you know it is wrong. Thanks.
Zillch ...... good post ................. I take after some training and repetition you were able to increase your confidence and likewise
positive result outcome ? ............................. Butt the music in your opinion didn't sound any better right ?

Kinda like or maybe opposite when I figured out I could see mpeg artifacts on Dish HDTV (and other) and did not know about HD lite digital re transmission besides it didn't make the picture look any better anyway quite the opposite ! but then nobody ever claimed it made the picture look better anyway ! cool post!............. rates very strong a 3 and a like !☺☺☺ ..........¬ quite a 3½ close though has to funny 2 for that !

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 01:46 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #188 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 12:59 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Well said..... Oh wait!

Calvin: "Dad, are you vicariously living through me in the hope that my accomplishments will validate your mediocre life and in some way compensate for all of the opportunities you botched?"
Dad: "If I were, you can bet I'd be re-evaluating my strategy."
Calvin to his mom, later: "Mom, Dad keeps insulting me."
(See image above ) .......... ha ha pretty funny ! rates a strong funny 3½ ( ☺☺☺ ½ ) and a like too funny ¬!.............. that's two today !
Fixed it !

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 01:42 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #189 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 01:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
Zillch ...... good post ................. I take after some training and repetition you were able to increase your confidence and likewise
positive result outcome ? ............................. Butt the music in your opinion didn't sound any better right ?
Right, no better, only very subtly different, for a split second, due to the "carrier" they were delivered to me by, I suspect. Think of it like this: I noticed the B button was rusty, needed oiling, and made a tell tale "sqeak" noise that the "A" button didn't: THAT"S HOW I PASSED THE TEST, but the squeak is so quiet 99% of people wouldn't even catch it, but I did. It has nothing to do with the "quality" of the music.


One of the things I love about ABX is it doesn't test for "better "or "worse", it only tests for "audibly different to a human (under these conditions, on this day, for this listener, with this music file) or not audibly different to a human?"


When a person passes an ABX test [successfully shows an ability to hear a difference with strong statistical significance] and then goes on to brag, "I passed the test which proves I can hear a subtle nuance in the upper, lower midrange of massed strings presented through my $178,000 Dominator MX-10 speakers, thanks to my superior training." Red flags and flashing warning lights should go off in your head. They are either stupid and don't understand ABX or more likely they are hoping at least some of their readers don't fully grasp that ABX doesn't "prove" that at all. [It only proves suggests that under those particular set of conditions some sort of a difference, maybe deemed good by some people, maybe deemed bad by others, seems to have occurred.]


On a side note, there is this extremely common trait for listeners, when they do indeed register a true difference, which is subtle, to automatically fall into a trap and assume that the more expensive option must be the one with higher fidelity to the master source. That's not always true. Dissuading them from this notion is mind bogglingly difficult.


An example which was used earlier: What's better? A $20 steak or a $30 steak? Without question everyone (except me) went along with the premise that more expensive steaks have to be "better".


Food isn't a good analogy actually because people have different tastes. Some may like a juicier steak, yet others a drier steak. There is no "correct" way to cook it. This however does NOT [or should not] apply to audio.


Hifi, or high fidelity, means "a high truthfulness/honesty/accuracy" to the original source your replication came from. I haven't heard the term in years but the audio industry was once called "sound reproduction". Are you hearing Anna Case sing to you in your parlor or are you hearing a sound reproduction system attempting to replicate what it would sound like if Anna Case sang to you in your parlor? We don't "pick" what the tonal balance of her voice pleases us the most, her real voice dictates what the correct tonal balance should sound like. We want to reproduce it, not editorialize, manipulate, or alter it. [And she shouldn't alter her voice to match our crummy sound reproduction system, in an ideal world at least, but she did for marketing purposes it would seem.]


This important concept is expressed in my signature, below.
FreeFire and tubetwister like this.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-06-2014 at 03:11 AM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #190 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 04:57 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillchHifi,
or high fidelity, means "a high truthfulness/honesty/accuracy" to the original source your replication came from. I haven't heard the term in years but the audio industry was once called "sound reproduction". Are you hearing Anna Case sing to you in your parlor or are you hearing a sound reproduction system attempting to replicate what it would sound like if Anna Case sang to you in your parlor? We don't "pick" what the tonal balance of her voice pleases us the most, her real voice dictates what the correct tonal balance should sound like. We want to reproduce it, not editorialize, manipulate, or alter it. [And she shouldn't alter her voice to match our crummy sound reproduction system, in an ideal world at least, but she did for marketing purposes it would seem.]

Thats a very good analogy (s) and narrative above. I have some 1940's big band needle drop files I've altered in sound editors and using commercial software specifically t-racks stand alone and same hosted in DAWS . (Digital Audio Workstation)

I added a touch of vintage vacuum tube compression and some classic tube or passive EQ to raise the noise floor a bit and give it some ambiance and fatten it up when needed the thing is a little is good and a lot is bad frequently.

It varies by selection what I do . Cool thing is T-racks can emulate a lot of the famous classic /vintage
EQ/Compressors/and limiters , modern stuff also and you can daisy chain them in a project and tweak them as you will or bring them in and out using the replicas of original HDWE in a GUI . ofc you have to learn how to work each piece of emulated gear just as you would in real life and know just which buttons to push and dials to tweak on the ladies to get them to do what you want nothing you are going to learn quick or easy and some the ladies can be quite fickle .

ofc this is commercial studio production software and not cheap. I leave most of the vinyl noise (~85-99.9%)in for ambiance start taking to much out and other stuff comes with it and it can sound lifeless .you can micro chop and micro surgery it if you like not my thing.

It's one of those things where just a little of this or that can yield spectacular results on an OG track some times
but to much of anything will usually destroy the music.

ofc I keep the originals in like folders as OG tracks and the edits designated as edits also some times more than one edit and differences are noted in title and metadata. Only way to keep track of edits reliably. Sometimes I listen to the OG files but more often successful edits . Time consuming and sometimes lots of trial and error to get it right but when it's right some of those old girls can knock your socks off !


OTOH some of the remasters out there are pretty good I listen to those also sometimes I touch them a little bit sometimes not . Same thing for much of my music but the more modern end user stuff is often sometimes compressed and or normalized so much it's best to leave it be .

My take on the hires if you can get some tunes with better mastering and recording you can't get otherwise there is the most (sometimes substantial )value but other than that IMO it's all about the money just new tricks and the new girls running with different clowns ,usually working different johns and all with shiny new G rides (playback hdwe) just follow the money.

Same job for the lady's as always make the cash how ever you can nothing much new to see here.

Looks like you batted a grand slam with bases loaded a solid 4 and another like ! ☺☺☺☺

Oh sig is cool also !

Regards

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 05:53 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #191 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 07:00 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post
I don't know that that helps out with the question about CD-quality vs high-res, though.
It is the first critical step toward that direction. Until now, it was said that these tests could not generate positive results. That truncated any further testing or exploring of differences.

The other issue up to now was the cold blanket that was thrown over this topic. No one really tried to listen critically to find differences. They would play a second or two, think that there is no difference, remember that thousands upon thousands of posts saying you can't find a difference and they would give up. I am hoping moving forward people try harder to find these differences and become a critical listener.

Quote:
It sounds like the differences you heard were likely related more to the re-encoding than to any properties that would be inclusive of high-res and exclusive of redbook. That is, your training might help with something like determining differences between encoding engines, but maybe wouldn't be as useful to determine if an arbitrary track had content that was beyond what redbook allows (frequency or dynamic range).
This is what is "broken" about ABX tests. It is a forced binary choice and gives no more insight than a difference was heard. This is why I said in the industry ABX has very limited role. So you are right that based on these test results you can't go there. But that doesn't mean my abilities are limited that way . My training was not about differentiating but figuring out what sounded better.

Quote:
To clarify, do you claim the ability to determine if a track is high resolution after listening to it? I know you didn't attempt that with this test, but in general, do you think or have you shown that you can?
In these tests? No. Per above, in the past that was my job. When we accept these results and more people can repeat them then we can move on to next steps of quality rating (as opposed to forced choice ABX).
amirm is offline  
post #192 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,570
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by granroth View Post
That makes a lot of sense. I would expect that a trained ear would be able to to detect differences like those if such differences existed.

I don't know that that helps out with the question about CD-quality vs high-res, though. It sounds like the differences you heard were likely related more to the re-encoding than to any properties that would be inclusive of high-res and exclusive of redbook. That is, your training might help with something like determining differences between encoding engines, but maybe wouldn't be as useful to determine if an arbitrary track had content that was beyond what redbook allows (frequency or dynamic range).

To clarify, do you claim the ability to determine if a track is high resolution after listening to it? I know you didn't attempt that with this test, but in general, do you think or have you shown that you can?
Quite. If one cannot hear >20kHz, yet one can distinguish audio files that should *only* differ in their ultrasonic content and their noise floors, what is one to conclude?

Btw, using headphones helps *a bit* too . (Has anyone claimed victory here with anything like a normal loudspeaker-based listening setup? You know, where the listener is a few feet away from the loudspeakers?)

So would being able to adjust volume to crank up parts of the signal that would normally be very background. (Have people been reporting whether they are gain riding or not?)

But hey, it's still 'conclusive proof' that if you've got the right mojo, all you need to do is listen, right?
krabapple is offline  
post #193 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,570
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

It took me another hour, almost, for this test session [look at this test and my last's trials' time stamps] listening for an entirely different thing from my last posted test of Arny's first keys jangling, but each time I vote my decision is uncertain and with barely enough confidence in my tenuous selection to even cast a vote. And then I hit some clunkers! WRONG ANSWER! OH NO! But I decide to keep going and to stop when I hit a strong confidence level, if I can.
'keep going and stop when I hit a strong confidence level' is NOT how to do such a test.

You are from HA -- you should read Pio's very nice sticky post there about how to do audio DBTs. Here's a relevant part:

Quote:
3. The p values given in the table linked above are valid only if the two following conditions are fulfilled :

-The listener must not know his results before the end of the test, except if the number of trials is decided before the test.
...otherwise, the listener would just have to look at his score after every answer, and decide to stop the test when, by chance, the p value goes low enough for him.

-The test is run for the first time. And if it is not the case, all previous results must be summed up in order to get the result.
Otherwise, one would just have to repeat the serial of trials as much times as needed for getting, by chance, a p value small enough.
Corollary : only give answers of which you are absolutely certain ! If you have the slightest doubt, don't answer anything. Take your time. Make pauses. You can stop the test and go on another day, but never try to guess by "intuition". If you make some mistakes, you will never have the occasion to do the test again, because anyone will be able to accuse you of making numbers tell what you want, by "starting again until it works".

Of course you can train yourself as much times as you wish, provided that you firmly decide beforehand that it will be a training session. If you get 50/50 during a training and then can't reproduce this result, too bad for you. the results of the training sessions must be thrown away whatever they are, and the results of the real test must be kept whatever they are.
Once again, if you take all the time needed, be it one week of efforts for only one answer, in order to get a positive result at the first attempt, your success will be mathematically unquestionable ! Only your hifi setup, or your blind test conditions may be disputed. If, on the other hand, you run again a test that once failed, because since then, your hifi setup was improved, or there was too much noise the first time, you can be sure that there will be someone, relying on statistic laws, to come and question your result. You will have done all this work in vain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Again, I refuse to disclose the exact method I'm using due to the makeup of the audience here, some of whom I consider about as trustworthy and honest as $%#&(^@!*, but I will give a crude analogy. If every time you hit "A" there is a 25ms latency before the music comes out, but when you hit "B" it is only 24ms latency, and I happen to be able to detect that tiny difference yet nobody else can, I'm not cheating as far as I'm concerned. I'm picking up on a subtle distinction which would elude most other people's detection. Sorry, my analogy isn't great because the thing I'm taking advantage of is truly a sonic distinction, not timing, however what I hear different between buttons A and B one might just as easily hear if the files weren't music but were instead just the same, simple, constant 1kHz test tone, from the same source, recorded at the two different sampling rates and bit depths, but I'm not really sure. It's fleeting in nature and would be completely invisible if it weren't for the phrase repeat function which allows you to repeat a tiny slice of time over and over again, in my case about .9 seconds long.

So, *can* you do this -- take a file, make an exact duplicate of it, call one A, call the other B, then 'distinguish' A and B using foobarABX, in , say, 13 out of 16 trials?
That would be an obvious thing to try at this point.

This btw would not necessarily explain what is happening using the Mac app ABX Tester, unless it too displays the same artifact.

Last edited by krabapple; 08-06-2014 at 07:25 AM.
krabapple is offline  
post #194 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 07:14 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Right, no better, only very subtly different, for a split second, due to the "carrier" they were delivered to me by, I suspect. Think of it like this: I noticed the B button was rusty, needed oiling, and made a tell tale "sqeak" noise that the "A" button didn't: THAT"S HOW I PASSED THE TEST, but the squeak is so quiet 99% of people wouldn't even catch it, but I did. It has nothing to do with the "quality" of the music.
If that is how you passed it, then you cheated, plain and simple. The test here is the audible difference between tracks. If you generated your results using other means, then your test results are not valid.

Also, just because you can shoot a video and fake the moon landing, it doesn't mean moon landing was a fake. In this case, just because you have found a way to cheat the system, it doesn't mean the rest of us did the same. I certainly did not take advantage of any of these "tells" as you call them. I listened to audible differences as played. Not any kind of fault in the ABX program.

And I was not alone. Here is Arny:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/28 07:53:00

File A: C:\Users\client64\Music\AVS\Keys jangling\keys jangling full band 2496 test tones f3 4416.wav
File B: C:\Users\client64\Music\AVS\Keys jangling\keys jangling full band 2496 test tones f3.wav

07:53:00 : Test started.
07:54:38 : Trial reset.
07:56:40 : 01/01 50.0%
07:56:55 : 02/02 25.0%
07:57:15 : 03/03 12.5%
07:57:21 : 04/04 6.3%
07:57:27 : 05/05 3.1%
07:57:35 : 06/06 1.6%
07:57:42 : 06/07 6.3%
07:57:55 : 07/08 3.5%
07:58:10 : 08/09 2.0%
07:58:27 : 09/10 1.1%
07:58:35 : 10/11 0.6%
07:58:52 : 11/12 0.3%
07:59:09 : 12/13 0.2%
07:59:15 : 13/14 0.1%
07:59:22 : 14/15 0.0%
07:59:52 : 15/16 0.0%
07:59:59 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)
--------------------------------

Obviously, I'm not going to BS anybody, this was a bogus test. I selected the level and the portion of the track that I actually listened to to maximize the audible difference based on nonlinear distortion in the crappy monitoring system in this PC producing more audible IM with the 2496 test file than with the 4416 file.
I like to see you come out and plainly state that Arny has used the types of cheats you are using and that he did not "listen to audible differences" in the portions he selected. I suspect you won't go there.
amirm is offline  
post #195 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 07:34 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Quite. If one cannot hear >20kHz, yet one can distinguish audio files that should *only* differ in their ultrasonic content and their noise floors, what is one to conclude?
We could start with the use of the word "should." You are using paper assumptions of ideal transforms. There is no such thing in real life. Take the first set of Scott/Mark's test files. Folks managed to hear the level difference. By your logic, that kind of thing could not happen. This is what you said before on this front:

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Does correctly resampled audio really require level matching?
Another critical word: "correctly resampled" without definition I might add. How do you spot correctly resampled audio?

You can't use paper assumptions in real experiments. You have shown no data or method of evaluating correctness or lack thereof in this test.

So no, you can't use the assumption of perfection and then question positive outcomes in ABX tests.

Quote:
But hey, it's still 'conclusive proof' that if you've got the right mojo, all you need to do is listen, right?
There is conclusive "proof" that such files can be differentiated in foobar ABX. This is what was claimed to be impossible before. We now have proof that this is not correct.
amirm is offline  
post #196 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 08:51 AM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1215
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
This is what is "broken" about ABX tests. It is a forced binary choice and gives no more insight than a difference was heard. This is why I said in the industry ABX has very limited role. So you are right that based on these test results you can't go there. But that doesn't mean my abilities are limited that way . My training was not about differentiating but figuring out what sounded better.
The above post is regrettably typical of the anti-DBT hypercritical posturing that has been spewed by high end audio eggspurts for decades.

It makes as much sense as saying that what's wrong with cars is that they make rotten canoes.

Hey, news flash: We have canoes and we have cars and you get to choose the right tool for the job. If you want to cross a lake, you probably want the canoe. If you want to cross the city, you probably want the car. Are you up to making this choice or is it too tough? The same applies to blind tests.

ABX is not a preference test, it is a difference test, and never in its 40 or so years of existence has anybody but the ignorant or the posturing tried to claim otherwise. But many have and here we go again.

It is also axiomatic that to have a valid preference, there must be a reliably perceptible difference.

Otherwise its like saying: I can't tell the difference between A and B, but I prefer B because... because... because B somehow makes me think of my favorite aunt Marie's cookies. ;-)

Surprisingly enough sales pitches like this one about my aunt's cookies have actually been tried and with some success... Welcome to the whacky world of sales!
67jason and tubetwister like this.
arnyk is offline  
post #197 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 09:20 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
In regard to the last 5 posts I will have to re read them amirmn brings up an interesting point I will quote in part e.g, "Another critical word: "correctly re sampled" without definition ".and the surrounding narrative OTOH arnys post above
is and interesting rebuttal (s) to some points made above also and may wight some points he made to his direction .


I suspect Amirmn has an intimate knowledge of what can and can not be done there surely far beyond the majority here . The link to Pio's very nice sticky postat HA provided by krabapple is interesting as well.

I would like airman and arny 's thoughts on the sticky and lastly any rebuttal that Zillch may offer although with my very limited knowledge and understanding (or lack there of) of these matters it would seem that the discussion for the moment may be weighted in arimins direction with regard to resample quality .

All I know is when the hires lady's are playing music here unless they meet arguably superior conditions that being recording and mastering the girls sound the same to this john when they are sounding off their attributes !☺☺☺

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 09:33 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #198 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 09:46 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnk
Otherwise its like saying: I can't tell the difference between A and B, but I prefer B because... because... because B somehow makes me think of my favorite aunt Marie's cookies. ;-)

Surprisingly enough sales pitches like this one about my aunt's cookies have actually been tried and with some success... Welcome to the whacky world of sales!
Without stepping into the mud too deep [ I have to behave ( for a while) the politburo sent me some love about that when the other thread closed or shortly thereafter for something or another☺ ]
I have to say upon recent review of the above that arny just brought to us it rates a swinging 3 ½ (♫ ☺☺☺½ )and a like let the games continue !

Think I'm going to get up outta here for a minute for some milk and cookies ! ☺☺

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 09:52 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #199 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 11:36 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
The above post is regrettably typical of the anti-DBT hypercritical posturing that has been spewed by high end audio eggspurts for decades.
Arny, there was nothing "anti-DBT." Or anything regarding DBTs. This is what I said which you quoted: "This is what is "broken" about ABX tests. It is a forced binary choice..." What I said is factual about *ABX* tests in that it is a binary choice. I said nothing about double blind tests having such problems which of course they do not as they can ask the listener to score the quality.

You can't be so sensitive about factual comments on ABX that not even pay attention to topic at hand and raise such strong objections.

Quote:
Hey, news flash: We have canoes and we have cars and you get to choose the right tool for the job.
But you don't let us, right Arny? The tests you demand and put forward are all ABX. You even told us to report results of a specific tool, foobar2000. So we play by your rules and ran the tests. Now people are asking for qualitative data and I have no choice but to remind everyone that ABX tests don't provide such data. I am sure you are in 100% agreement with that yet are upset about something here.

Quote:
ABX is not a preference test, it is a difference test, and never in its 40 or so years of existence has anybody but the ignorant or the posturing tried to claim otherwise. But many have and here we go again.
And this is what I said yet you are complaining.

Quote:
It is also axiomatic that to have a valid preference, there must be a reliably perceptible difference.
Looks like you are excluding other options. The universe is not just difference and preference. There is also accuracy. We once ran a DBT of MP3 against the source at low bit rates where MP3 does not preserve the full frequency response. One tester, a female, actually prefered the MP3 that had all of its high frequencies removed and sounded quite muffled. We asked her after the fact why she picked that and she said it sounded nicer than the source. And that the source was "too high pitched!" That is a preference but clearly not an accuracy test.

It is a common debating tactic to turn fidelity differences to preference difference. Such is not so at all in these types of tests.

Quote:
Otherwise its like saying: I can't tell the difference between A and B, but I prefer B because... because... because B somehow makes me think of my favorite aunt Marie's cookies. ;-)

Surprisingly enough sales pitches like this one about my aunt's cookies have actually been tried and with some success... Welcome to the whacky world of sales!
Nothing like this is going on here. Please read the posts before responding so strongly.
amirm is offline  
post #200 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
'keep going and stop when I hit a strong confidence level' is NOT how to do such a test.

You are from HA -- you should read Pio's very nice sticky post there about how to do audio DBTs. Here's a relevant part:.

I don't disagree technically with any of that stuff Pio wrote, but please keep in mind this was just a casual, impropmtu test under less than ideal conditions, I thought to share with my buddies:

- I started the test not even knowing I was about to start a test; I thought I was just doing a casual sighted comparison of A vs B and didn't expect to be hitting the X button at all.
- Only when I realized "Wow, this subtle audible distinction between buttons A and B I thought to casually explore , [not to be confused with difference between the musical recordings A vs B] might actually exist!" did I then decide to keep going.
- Did I keep taking the test, over and over again, until I hit pay dirt? NO. I did a grand total of only one test, didn't throw out any data such as the clunkers, didn't cherrypick only the correct answers, and didn't hit "RESET" at any time.
- Did I do so few trials, say for example 4, that there was no strong statistical significance? No.
- Did I do so many hundreds of trials that I just waited until my statistical significance was momentarily peaking strongly for a brief time, only to most likely plummet the next moment, so I abruptly stopped the test at that very specific advantageous moment? Um, not really [but maybe in a certain sense technically one could say that]. I only did 23 trials, not an inordinate amount. And I got the last 11 straight answers correct, in a row, which is not easy to do "by luck". I'm pretty sure once I "got it" at that point I could have gone on indefinitely except that the traffic noise was only getting worse and the conditions were grueling, so I didn't dare continue, but like I said, I don't disagree with Pio's guidelines of how it all should be done properly.
-the difference was so subtle I was terrified to lose my concentration by even pausing briefly to just stand up to walk over to shut my window. Once I had keyed in on this tiny, tiny difference between buttons A and B, I didn't want to blow it by changing anything fearing I might "jinx" it. I also didn't know if I'd ever be able to find this exact .9 second passage where I hear this tiny, tiny difference between buttons A and B ever again.
-one of my clunkers was hit by mistake. I swear. It happens. Arny I believe mentioned the same goof happened to him in one of his recently posted tests, but yes, goofs need to be counted as indeed mine was counted on this one and only test I have ever taken for the song "Mosaic".


All excellent points though krabapple. If I was publishing a scientific paper vs. casually pointing out to a group of forum buddies, "Hey peeps, check out what I just noticed!" I'd say all your points here are 100% valid and that my data was sloppy. I too hate it when I see sloppy work done.

"-The test is run for the first time. And if it is not the case, all previous results must be summed up in order to get the result."

I adhered to both of these stipulations. The test was run for the first and only time, took a grueling hour out of my life I'm not looking forward to attempting to replicate since the difference was so miniscule that I had to switch back and forth dozens of times for each trial [that's why it took about an hour, and I didn't take any breaks during that time. It was intense and fatiguing but I trudged on.] And yes, all data was summed and none was thrown out.


m. zillch-- "I hear different between buttons A and B one might just as easily hear if the files weren't music but were instead just the same, simple, constant 1kHz test tone, from the same source, recorded at the two different sampling rates and bit depths, but I'm not really sure. It's fleeting in nature and would be completely invisible if it weren't for the phrase repeat function which allows you to repeat a tiny slice of time over and over again, in my case about .9 seconds long."


Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
So, *can* you do this -- take a file, make an exact duplicate of it, call one A, call the other B, then 'distinguish' A and B using foobarABX, in , say, 13 out of 16 trials?
Don't know. I wrote "but I'm not really sure", which in a later edit I changed to "[but I'm not dead sure on that point, I would need to test it]", posted before I read your post, by the way.

Krabapple-- "make an exact duplicate of it".

Ideally I would need two different files that went through the exact same multi-step process Scott described here:


"We realize that putting one version through two sample-rate conversions—even state-of-the-art conversions—will raise some eyebrows, and we are concerned that this could somehow introduce artifacts that might make it easier to distinguish the sound of the converted file. The other alternative was to downconvert the 24/96 file to 16/44.1, then convert both files to analog and back to digital at 24/96 using state-of-the-art DACs (digital-to-analog converters) and ADCs (analog-to-digital converters), but this also would have raised eyebrows by introducing multiple digital/analog conversions. In the end, we decided to go with the double sample-rate conversion to keep everything in the digital domain."


Does it matter? I don't know.



There is no doubt in my mind that in general a constant, non level changing 1kHz sine wave will sound the same through a hi-res and non hi-res system sampling rate/bit depth. If you or anyone who's posts I read can provide me with that test comparison, I will gladly attempt to test them. [I don't have the technical expertise to manufacture such files and the needed SRCs.]

Krabapple-- "This btw would not necessarily explain what is happening using the Mac app ABX Tester, unless it too displays the same artifact."

[Note: if there was some discussion about the Apple ABX tester in this thread, I wasn't privy to it]
"Artifact" would indeed be a good way to describe what I hear. The music sounds the same, it is in a sense the buttons which sound different. Again, think of it sort of as if one button is rusty and needs oiling, so it makes a tiny, tiny squeak noise that most people don't even notice, but I do. That's the best analogy I can think of. I personally wouldn't describe listening for this tiny "squeak" as either cheating or gaming the system though, I would describe it as noticing a subtle flaw in the switcher which unscrupulous people might take advantage of by not declaring that's what they are keying off of, and instead profess, "It is the superior sound of hi-res music that allowed me to pass the test". I on the other hand never claimed I hear any difference in the music; I'm pretty sure I'm just hearing a flaw in the "tester box", much like Arny can ID certain mechanical switch relays, even across the room, in certain early hardware ABX boxes made way back in the early days, at least when I'm presented with two files manufactured the way these two were. [Or maybe that part doesn't matter? I don't know.]


Also, not in this test nor the other one I posted , did I ever drive my system to the point of clipping and "game the system" by listening to differences in the distortion products generated by such manipulations.


P.S. This post, as well as other recent ones, took me well over an hour to compose, edit, reread, correct links/quotes etc. and I just don't have the time on my hands to keep this up. Sorry, but I have a lot on my plate and considering I have to dot every "i" and cross every "t", or else a vulture will swoop down and attack me, that I am defenseless against, I am going to have to lay low for a bit. Not talking about YOU krabapple, of course, all your points were good ones and it is good you are supporting the correct scientific method and keeping all of us on our toes.

Bye for now everyone!

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-06-2014 at 01:14 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #201 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 12:51 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1215
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
I suspect Amirmn has an intimate knowledge of what can and can not be done there surely far beyond the majority here .
I often wonder. Just lately we have been entertained for month after month after boring recitations how barely measurable, let alone audible HDMI jitter (nonlinear distortion) is allegedly ruining our lives.

Just for grins check this article out:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion#

How Much Distortion Can We Hear With Music? An Axiom Experimental Study by Alan Lofft, Ian Colquhoun and Tom Cumberland

Which is summarized as follows @ about 85 dB SPL:



and with a different piece of music:



and averaged over several pieces of music with about 92 dB SPL:



They conclude:

"
While it is has been recognized for years that human hearing is not very sensitive to low bass frequencies, which must be reproduced with much more power and intensity in order to be heard, what these results show is that our detection threshold for “noise” (made up of harmonically related and non-harmonically related test tones) is practically non-existent at low frequencies. (The “noise” test tones are noise in the sense that they are not musically related to tones commonly found in musical instruments.) In fact, the “noise” tones at 20 Hz and 40 Hz had to be increased to levels louder than the music itself before we even noticed them. Put another way, our ability to hear the test frequency “noise” tones at frequencies of 40 Hz and below is extremely crude. Indeed, the results show we are virtually deaf to these distortions at those frequencies. Even in the mid-bass at 280 Hz and lower, the “noise” can be around -14 dB (20% distortion), about half as loud as the music itself, before we hear it.

Conclusion

Axiom's tests of a wide range of male and female listeners of various ages with normal hearing showed that low-frequency distortion from a subwoofer or wide-range speaker with music signals is undetectable until it reaches gross levels approaching or exceeding the music playback levels. Only in the midrange does our hearing threshold for distortion detection become more acute. For detecting distortion at levels of less than 10%, the test frequencies had to be greater than 500 Hz. At 40 Hz, listeners accepted 100% distortion before they complained. The noise test tones had to reach 8,000 Hz and above before 1% distortion became audible, such is the masking effect of music. Anecdotal reports of listeners' ability to hear low frequency distortion with music programming are unsupported by the Axiom tests, at least until the distortion meets or exceeds the actual music playback level. These results indicate that the “where” of distortion—at what frequency it occurs—is at least as important as the “how much” or overall level of distortion. For the designer, this presents an interesting paradox to beware of: Audible distortion may increase if distortion is lowered at the price of raising its occurrence frequency.
"
tubetwister likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #202 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
granroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,335
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 580 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
[...]Until now, it was said that these tests could not generate positive results. That truncated any further testing or exploring of differences.

The other issue up to now was the cold blanket that was thrown over this topic. No one really tried to listen critically to find differences. They would play a second or two, think that there is no difference, remember that thousands upon thousands of posts saying you can't find a difference and they would give up. I am hoping moving forward people try harder to find these differences and become a critical listener.
I agree that this (very informal) test has definitely generated some very needed discussion on this topic. Alas... discussion akin to talking about religion or politics, but discussion nonetheless.

I don't know that the test is showing us what we wanted to see, though. It's not entirely correct to say that "it was said that these tests could not generate positive results" because there are some unstated assumptions behind that. That is, IF the ONLY differences between the two variants were the inclusion/exclusion of >20kHz sound and a potentially increased dynamic range (not sure if that was true), THEN the tests could not generate positive results unless a person could detect those differences. Clearly there were differences that were beyond the two expected differences, so the expectation that nobody would test positive is nullified.

I'm not going to say that detecting other differences was cheating (why the need for such inflammatory words in this thread, I wonder) since the stated question was just whether you could tell the files apart and you did. It does seem like it violates at least the spirit of why this test was created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
[granroth: can you tell the difference between high-res and cd-quality, in general]
In these tests? No. Per above, in the past that was my job. When we accept these results and more people can repeat them then we can move on to next steps of quality rating (as opposed to forced choice ABX).
Okay. Let's say that we do all accept the results (knowing that there are certain folks who never will), in your view, what would be the next step?

For the record, I'm personally fascinated in you because you are the very first audiophile I've encountered that will actually defend his abilities using practical methods. All other cases I've seen are in the "of course I can tell the difference but no I won't show this in any logical way" vein.
granroth is offline  
post #203 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,221
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 356
I'm not going to say that detecting other differences was cheating (why the need for such inflammatory words in this thread, I wonder) since the stated question was just whether you could tell the files apart and you did. It does seem like it violates at least the spirit of why this test was created.
I would say it's neither cheating nor "violating the spirit of the test." I would say it's demonstrating that the test cannot really test what we want to test.

If you want to test whether A and B are distinguishable, you can't run a test of AC and BD. It won't tell you anything at all.

So the answer to the question, "What's the next step?" is, "You haven't taken the first step yet."

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #204 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,570
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Don't know. I wrote "but I'm not really sure", which in a later edit I changed to "[but I'm not dead sure on that point, I would need to test it]", posted before I read your post, by the way.

Krabapple-- "make an exact duplicate of it".

Ideally I would need two different files that went through the exact same multi-step process Scott described here:
No, you don't, not if you are claiming that something about fooABX itself is making A and B distinguishable, which is how I am interpreting what you've written so far. If that's the case it's better just to use duplicate files as A and B.
krabapple is offline  
post #205 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 02:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 378
I hear an incredibly tiny difference between buttons A and B* but what I don't know is if it is dependent on:


- the particular passage I choose to put in the phrase repeater
- the pedigree of the sound file [lots of SRC going on, for example, and/or whatever final step(s) was decide upon to correct for the initial level discrepancy which was later dealt with in some manner which isn't entirely clear to me, maybe just because I'm not familiar with the programs used to make these files.]
- doesn't matter at all

Duplicate files I can run on my own and will attempt to when I have the time.


*Sorry to make this even more confusing, but to be more specific, I hear differences between transitioning from A to B, B to A, B to X (when =A), B to X (when =B), etc. Also this tiny difference is not consistent, at least it doesn't seem to be. But it does seem to have a "trend".


There was some talk in an HA thread I was in a year or two ago about someone else, can't remember who, who thought they stumbled upon this same hiccup. It is not so much A and B buttons sound different, but the "tell" artifact you get when listening to the sound transitioning from one source to another is different than the "tell" artifact you get when simply repeating the same file over again. So this accidentally lets you deduce X.


At the time Arny dismissed the occurrences with some broad statement like, to paraphrase, "Although there are some subtle switching/transitioning anomalies which can create various ticks, pops, grunts, squeals, artifacts, etc., as one transitions from one source to another, as far as I can tell their occurrence is purely random, hence they won't inadvertently accidentally act as a 'tell' since they aren't reliable or consistent and therefor can't be assigned to A or B". Unfortunately my findings are that they aren't quite as random as Arny suggests. Are they consistent? No, I never said that, I described them as having a trend.


Goodbye for now...no really.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-06-2014 at 02:44 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #206 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 02:40 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnk

I often wonder. Just lately we have been entertained for month after month after boring recitations how barely measurable, let alone audible HDMI jitter (nonlinear distortion) is allegedly ruining our lives.

Just for grins check this article out:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion#

How Much Distortion Can We Hear With Music? An Axiom Experimental Study by Alan Lofft, Ian Colquhoun and Tom Cumberland

Which is summarized as follows @ about 85 dB SPL: for more see post 201 above

Never heard HDMI jitter not sure if anyone could hear it anyway or even if it exists in a practical result so as to readily apparently degrade any sound or video transmission quality on digital consumer devices so at this point for practical purposes IMO it is quite possibly just another audophool red herring !........... note: it is rarely if ever discussed in the video forums here by enthusiasts E.E. or broadcast engineers

Thanks for the info and the article links I liked the refernce to high neg feedback ampps on the70's
and distortion vs freq. audabibility.

My electrically serviced late 70's Pioneer monsters are like that some with .003 THD @ full ouput and full 20-20kHz

bandwidth on the lie sheets .

The modern stuff I use now with claimed .05 THD and less neg feedback sounds more lively,open and transparent to me

on *my speakers * for lack of better words than the old girls ever did . ofc the currently used gear has at least 3x the power (lots ) also.


This semester(seems that long ) has been at times as boring (often ) as a medicaly induced coma present company

excluded ofc !


I know about that medical coma stuff heartby pass in 06 avoid one if you can trust me !


OTOH the forum bloodsport was at times pretty entertaining but getting over the top and out of hand in the other

thread ....I know guilty as charged ☺☺☺

I got some love from the polotbeuro shortly thereafter for somthing or another I'm not sure from exacly where though

☺☺☺


After all this time it seems *some claim* (with effort) to hear slight unidentified as to cause or exact discription

differences in the music and key files resolutions. Some reports here claim positive test results and have posted

unqualified examples of same meaning results not independently verified by widley accepted scientific methods .

I've learned it is alleged to be able to hear these slight differences with training IMO not an unreasonable or unexpected result.

Also *most have not claimed that the music files sounded significantly better at either resolution .

The takeaway from this semester curriculum *for me* is the same opinion (s) I had almost a decade ago with SACD.
vs 16/44.1 use and unqualified sighted evaluation + same for current hires vs 16/44.1 which to wit is ,

"All I know is when the hires lady's are singing and or playing music here unless they meet arguably superior conditions that being recording and mastering the girls all sound the same to this john when they are sounding off their attributes" !☺☺☺

IOW this hires res business is about played out here for practical purposes
as it applies to the end user anyway some academic discussion may remain but nothing much will come of it in practical use for the end user IMO ...........

IMO nothing has changed in over 10 yrs at the end user in that hires likely only
presents a significant advantage when the media has arguably superior recording and mastering not otherwise
available in a conventional loss less format. that about wraps it up .
Quoted post above rates a swinging 3 (♫ ☺☺☺) and a like !

regards

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 04:02 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #207 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 03:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,566
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 629 Post(s)
Liked: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
OTOH the forum bloodsport was at times pretty entertaining but getting over the top and out of hand in the other thread ....I know guilty as charged ☺☺☺
And... the sequel coming soon to a thread near you.
Ratman is offline  
post #208 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 03:51 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,097
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post
And... the sequel coming soon to a thread near you.
nah taking a well deserved break besides this hires res business is about played out here for practical purposes
as it applies to the end user anyway some academic discussion may remain but nothing much will come of it in practical use for the end user IMO ........... You still with me RM ?



Gotta run mate and see if aunt bee is gonna breakout some of her yummy apple pie !☺☺☺

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-06-2014 at 04:00 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
post #209 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 04:03 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
I often wonder.
Well said.... Oh wait!



Quote:
Just lately we have been entertained for month after month after boring recitations how barely measurable, let alone audible HDMI jitter (nonlinear distortion) is allegedly ruining our lives.

Just for grins check this article out:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion#

How Much Distortion Can We Hear With Music? An Axiom Experimental Study by Alan Lofft, Ian Colquhoun and Tom Cumberland
A "study," eh?

This is what Axiom set out to determine, and to do so in a controlled experimental environment using blind and non-blind listening tests with a group of listeners ranging in age from 22 to 60.

Non-blind listening? No reference to ABX? Foobar? BS1116? UN regulation 11C14-UN625? Geneva Convention? Someone bring us the old Arny back, please!
tubetwister likes this.
amirm is offline  
post #210 of 457 Old 08-06-2014, 04:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,566
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 629 Post(s)
Liked: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
........... You still with me RM ?

Gotta run mate and see if aunt bee is gonna breakout some of her yummy apple pie !☺☺☺
Nope. Haven't been for quite some time.
No pie for you, Sarge. But, Gomer has joined the Marines and needs someone to pump gas while he completes his hitch.
Ratman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Tags
frontpage

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off