Vintage vs Modern 2 ch receivers question - Page 15 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 140Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 430 Old 12-02-2019, 07:14 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,199
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5550 Post(s)
Liked: 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
As I have said before, because of the digital edits...these "tests" are absolutely bunk.

You are wasting your time even listening to the files. Both should be 100% raw dumps.
So since I don't touch "A", [the pristine, better product's signal] whatsoever, I guess your concern is that inferior product "B" with the supposedly "bad sound stage"/ "bad dynamic range" (or whatever) gets, um, "magically repaired so it sounds just like the more expensive product" via the level change I apply, including of course the noise/distortion my volume alteration injects, and that's the only reason the two are indistinguishable in an ABX test . . . hmm. . . .if that's indeed true--which I highly doubt but I'll play along for now--then this means instead of buying expensive products like "A" all we have to do is buy inexpensive products like "B" and then apply the same tiny volume tweak I apply in software. BINGO: $200 products now sound just as good as $20,000 products but you save a ton of dough.
DreamWarrior and 3db like this.
m. zillch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 430 Old 12-03-2019, 12:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DreamWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dirty South Jersey
Posts: 2,279
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
So since I don't touch "A", [the pristine, better product's signal] whatsoever, I guess your concern is that inferior product "B" with the supposedly "bad sound stage"/ "bad dynamic range" (or whatever) gets, um, "magically repaired so it sounds just like the more expensive product" via the level change I apply, including of course the noise/distortion my volume alteration injects, and that's the only reason the two are indistinguishable in an ABX test . . . hmm. . . .if that's indeed true--which I highly doubt but I'll play along for now--then this means instead of buying expensive products like "A" all we have to do is buy inexpensive products like "B" and then apply the same tiny volume tweak I apply in software. BINGO: $200 products now sound just as good as $20,000 products but you save a ton of dough.
Exactly -- if you follow his logical fallacy through to the end, it still doesn't work in his favor, !
m. zillch likes this.

Last edited by DreamWarrior; 12-03-2019 at 12:13 PM.
DreamWarrior is offline  
post #423 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 03:09 PM
_tk
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior View Post
This is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. You want to use science to administer the rule of variable control but fail to realize the science says there exists a variable (level of audio) that must be controlled (somehow) for the results of the test to be valid. We have many ways to implement said level control, however that same science has "proven" that digital level control can best analog level control (especially in this domain where the level changes may be too precise for a typical analog volume ladder to compensate for). So...which is it? Or do you always get to have your cake and eat, lol?

Regarding all the other "crap" -- seriously, we need to test all those things for the results to be valid? By what part of the scientific method is that required? The variables under test are the two files and the audible difference thereof. The variable to control, to avoid false-positives (and, likely, based on other known (soft) science regarding human statistical preference, the "win" going to the louder file), is the level. The method to control said variable was chosen as digital modification to the file. I really don't see what the problem here is, except it doesn't jive with your agenda!

Of course, your previous beef was that it "modified the digital bits"...I suppose after debunking that you must back-pedal and find something else to whinge about?

Seriously, logic = fail in this world -- I don't know what to do anymore....

edit: to remove my..."personal issues" -- and to say:

The methods to control the variables must not introduce any more which are not then controlled. However, in that regard, I'd also posit that digital level control introduces fewer variables than an analog resistor ladder or another attenuating control was put in place (for only the singular, louder, file) given that digital volume leveling is "lossless" (unless you clip or dip under the noise floor...which isn't different from analog volume).

The length that some folks will go to to try and justify any modification of a file is beyond me (especially by someone with a bias). I'm not back-peddling on anything. I'm just tired of the goalpost moving in here by the "scientists". Either follow the methods or don't...you cannot pick and choose to suit your fancy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
So since I don't touch "A", [the pristine, better product's signal] whatsoever, I guess your concern is that inferior product "B" with the supposedly "bad sound stage"/ "bad dynamic range" (or whatever) gets, um, "magically repaired so it sounds just like the more expensive product" via the level change I apply, including of course the noise/distortion my volume alteration injects, and that's the only reason the two are indistinguishable in an ABX test . . . hmm. . . .if that's indeed true--which I highly doubt but I'll play along for now--then this means instead of buying expensive products like "A" all we have to do is buy inexpensive products like "B" and then apply the same tiny volume tweak I apply in software. BINGO: $200 products now sound just as good as $20,000 products but you save a ton of dough.

My concern is an invalid test because of any software modification, period. Don't look beyond the scope into what you think I'm afraid I will "hear".



Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior View Post
Exactly -- if you follow his logical fallacy through to the end, it still doesn't work in his favor, !

Please explain, in layman's terms, my logical fallacy. Obviously I cannot comprehend all the "jumps" that are being made in here as to why it's ok to edit raw files in software to try and skew the outcome of the experiment. If we're doing this, we need to see all the different variations of this experiment (as I've already stated).

And I've still not seen any comment on my request of the delta's between the two raw files. I remember doing that experiment with 128kb mp3's vs 256kb mp3's vs raw .wav files back in the day. It was interesting to see what got "dumped".
_tk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #424 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 03:25 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,199
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5550 Post(s)
Liked: 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
My concern is an invalid test because of any software modification, period. Don't look beyond the scope into what you think I'm afraid I will "hear".
I assume you think a volume tweak to make one sound match another in level via hardware similarly mangles the sound making the test "invalid". Yes?

Last edited by m. zillch; 12-04-2019 at 03:54 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #425 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 03:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,199
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5550 Post(s)
Liked: 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
Obviously I cannot comprehend all the "jumps" that are being made in here as to why it's ok to edit raw files in software to try and skew the outcome of the experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
Yes, it's different and I'm astounded that people aren't picking up on this trick. You are editing the raw files themselves.
In both of these sentences you say "files", plural, yet I have stated repeated that only one of the two files gets (I guess in your mind) mangled/distorted/butchered/adulterated in software, or as I would call it "adjusted in volume level to match the supposedly better file". This better file is however left 100% completely untouched. Since only one file is adjusted in level, not two, you need to use the singular form: "file".

In Foobar ABX tests have you ever used its auto level match feature? This is not a rhetorical question so please respond, thanks.

Last edited by m. zillch; 12-04-2019 at 04:28 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #426 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 04:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,199
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5550 Post(s)
Liked: 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
And I've still not seen any comment on my request of the delta's between the two raw files. I remember doing that experiment with 128kb mp3's vs 256kb mp3's vs raw .wav files back in the day. It was interesting to see what got "dumped".
Personally I have no interest in what exactly is the difference between the two files but rather are the two audibly different to the ear. For that you need humans conducting level matched, synchronized, double blind tests such as Foobar ABX.

Last edited by m. zillch; 12-04-2019 at 04:18 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
post #427 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 04:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DreamWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dirty South Jersey
Posts: 2,279
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
The length that some folks will go to to try and justify any modification of a file is beyond me (especially by someone with a bias). I'm not back-peddling on anything. I'm just tired of the goalpost moving in here by the "scientists". Either follow the methods or don't...you cannot pick and choose to suit your fancy.
I read this as you don't trust him (fine, no real reason to), but you should trust the method (assuming it was performed "honestly").

Digital level matching is the "modification"; either trust, or not, that this is a valid means of level-matching.

edit: and we're not "picking and choosing" anything...in fact, you're simply failing to realize that we're following the scientific method (seemingly because you don't understand how digital editing of raw PCM works).
Quote:
Originally Posted by _tk View Post
Please explain, in layman's terms, my logical fallacy. Obviously I cannot comprehend all the "jumps" that are being made in here as to why it's ok to edit raw files in software to try and skew the outcome of the experiment. If we're doing this, we need to see all the different variations of this experiment (as I've already stated).
Nope, not required. You seem to think digital level matching of the file ruins it, I've explained it doesn't, you won't believe me, I don't really give a crap.

That said, I really can't / won't bother helping you any longer, sorry. I don't have more time or energy; my job requires my brain at 100% and you're dragging it down into the fanciful world of the illogical wherein you seemingly reside.

Suffice it to say, you apparently can't move past a "modified file"; this despite some modification (i.e., level matching) NEEDING to be done to make the test VALID! This is INDISPUTABLE if you agree with SCIENCE and the scientific method!

I really don't have the desire to say any more to you. If we can't move past this, it's not worth more time; honestly I've already spent too much -- wanna pay my hourly rate to continue to debate this stupidity with you, fine...FYI: it clocks in north of $100 an hour.

If you simply want to further belly-ache about zilch's chosen means of level matching, do it with him. I already tried to explain why it's just as good (or even better) than an analog match. You're either ignoring or not comprehending this.

Last edited by DreamWarrior; 12-04-2019 at 04:47 PM.
DreamWarrior is offline  
post #428 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 06:40 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,199
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5550 Post(s)
Liked: 3986
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior View Post
I read this as you don't trust him (fine, no real reason to), but you should trust the method (assuming it was performed "honestly").
As I've mentioned previously, I can film the entire production from start to finish, showing the entire process with no edits, and the video will include the SHA1 hashes of the files (~digital fingerprints) so people who download the test can verify the file they saw me create in the video is indeed the one they just downloaded for the test.
m. zillch is offline  
post #429 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 07:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
DreamWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dirty South Jersey
Posts: 2,279
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
As I've mentioned previously, I can film the entire production from start to finish, showing the entire process with no edits, and the video will include the SHA1 hashes of the files (~digital fingerprints) so people who download the test can verify the file they saw me create in the video is indeed the one they just downloaded for the test.
I believe you, though I don't really don't care, lol. That said, I hope you didn't take that (or this) as me questioning your integrity. As for you producing the aforementioned information, do you think it'll help? I...don't .
DreamWarrior is offline  
post #430 of 430 Old 12-04-2019, 08:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,199
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5550 Post(s)
Liked: 3986
No problem.

I should have made it more clear I was addressing the general audience.
m. zillch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2-Channel Audio

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