The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests - by Sean Olive - Page 12 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 159Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #331 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 11:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,779
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 487 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
First step would be to measure it. If we have significant differences there, then we can proceed to see if it is audible. I will put it only long TODO list to do .
And if we find it audible, we might want to ponder the 'size' of the 'effect'.

Occasionally, 'alternative' medicines are tested formally (randomized double-blind trials). Occasionally they turn out to have some small real effect (typically this means, for some small proportion of subjects, a small positive effect was seen).

Does that mean that those who claim 'echinacea cured my cold!" are probably right? Does it mean we *should* take echinacea for colds because it *probably will* help us? Or just because it *might*?

It's easy to get hysterical about 'effects' when there is no consideration of scale. It's pretty much what the audiophile press, audio fan forums online, and too much audio marketing, are all about (when they aren't raving about *placebo* effects). Why do you feed that beast, Amir?

Last edited by krabapple; 01-29-2015 at 11:51 AM.
krabapple is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #332 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 11:49 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
And regarding that assumption, are you aware that Floyd Toole spends an whole chapter covering 'Reflections and Speech Intelligibility' in his book, 'Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms'? It begins:

"A sound reproduction system can have no greater fault than impaired speech intelligibility. Lyrics in songs lose their meaning, movie plots are confusing, and the evening news....well. "

Would you please inform Dr. Toole that speech intelligibility measurement is in fact irrelevant to home audio fans? Thank you for your service.
What speech intelligibility measurement? If you are going to say there is such a thing, you need to quote that, not some unrelated sentence.
Charles R and F.Cook like this.
amirm is offline  
post #333 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 11:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 3,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 160
Very interesting thread. I used to be more into high end audio and always questioned how it always seemed that super-pricey, boutique products sounded perfect every time according to reviewers. The other question Id ask is: Do the mfgers of these high end products use certain parts to get certain sound qualities? Is it a crapshoot? Is it just BS?

I dunno - after being out of this industry for a while it occurred to me a while ago that there was plenty of "snake oil" out there. If REAL blind tests were conducted, I firmly believe that the esoteric high-end gear market would be exposed for what it is: Super-expensive hardware that doesnt really sound any better than reasonably priced gear but it LOOKS better on your gear rack and does boost the ego a bit. Thats fine - A Timex watch keeps great time, just like a Rolex or a Tag. But, two of those three look better on your wrist

Im not saying that budget AVRs or cheap crap sounds good - but there is a point when not only does audio gear become a "diminishing returns" situation but it actually becomes a ZERO returns situation. Meaning that it cannot and will not sound any better no matter how overpriced your mono-block amps are Sorry. The magazines and reviewers can harp all they want how $10,000 amps sound "better" than $1500 amps but they really dont. No way they could tell with true double blind tests. Thats why they dont do it that way. Gotta see the nameplate to make the eh-hem "proper assessment".

Speakers make the most difference anyways..... right?

Samsung PN64H5000
LG BP 540
Sony DH550 AVR
Polk Tsi, RSi, Bookshelves & PSW sub-woofer
s2mikey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #334 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,779
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 487 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
What speech intelligibility measurement? If you are going to say there is such a thing, you need to quote that, not some unrelated sentence.
I fear even such a diligent and incredibly prolific cut and paster as yourself would be daunted by the prospect of transporting pp. 161-169 of Toole's book to an AVSF post.

But Google Books lets you read them. "For free!"

It's not rocket science to look things up, Amir. Even a biologist can do it.

Last edited by krabapple; 01-29-2015 at 12:02 PM.
krabapple is offline  
post #335 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 12:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,779
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 487 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post
Very interesting thread. I used to be more into high end audio and always questioned how it always seemed that super-pricey, boutique products sounded perfect every time according to reviewers. The other question Id ask is: Do the mfgers of these high end products use certain parts to get certain sound qualities? Is it a crapshoot? Is it just BS?

I dunno - after being out of this industry for a while it occurred to me a while ago that there was plenty of "snake oil" out there. If REAL blind tests were conducted, I firmly believe that the esoteric high-end gear market would be exposed for what it is: Super-expensive hardware that doesnt really sound any better than reasonably priced gear but it LOOKS better on your gear rack and does boost the ego a bit. Thats fine - A Timex watch keeps great time, just like a Rolex or a Tag. But, two of those three look better on your wrist

Im not saying that budget AVRs or cheap crap sounds good - but there is a point when not only does audio gear become a "diminishing returns" situation but it actually becomes a ZERO returns situation. Meaning that it cannot and will not sound any better no matter how overpriced your mono-block amps are Sorry. The magazines and reviewers can harp all they want how $10,000 amps sound "better" than $1500 amps but they really dont. No way they could tell with true double blind tests. Thats why they dont do it that way. Gotta see the nameplate to make the eh-hem "proper assessment".

Speakers make the most difference anyways..... right?
Perhaps the most interesting -- or at least the most entertaining -- results of such tests would be when difference *is* confirmed...but the 'boutique' gear is *less preferred*.

Why do you think a 'budget' AVR can't sound good?
krabapple is offline  
post #336 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 12:08 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
I fear even such a diligent and incredibly prolific cut and paster as yourself would be daunted by the prospect of transporting pp. 161-169 of Toole's book to an AVSF post.
Not really. If there is a measurement as you claimed, you should be able to post it without just saying "here is a chapter of the book." I have read the book many times, am friends with Dr. Toole and have spent considerable amount of time with him. When I challenge you on something like this, it is not a random request. Please indicate what the measurement is for intelligibility in that chapter.

Quote:
It's not rocket science to look things up, Amir. Even a biologist can do it.
Then look it up and tell us what it says. I have asked twice now.
Charles R likes this.
amirm is offline  
post #337 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 12:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,779
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 487 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Not really. If there is a measurement as you claimed, you should be able to post it without just saying "here is a chapter of the book." I have read the book many times, am friends with Dr. Toole and have spent considerable amount of time with him. When I challenge you on something like this, it is not a random request. Please indicate what the measurement is for intelligibility in that chapter.

Then look it up and tell us what it says. I have asked twice now.
It's rather odd that as your ally Mr. Cook already referred to STIs, you still ask me if that sort of 'measurement' exists (which is what I asserted). Even Wikipedia lists four intelligibility measurements. (And now having seen that page I'm loving the new phrase 'infant-directed speech'. )

But fear not, I only have your best interests in mind. I truly think the exercise, even if it's rereading, will do you good, Amir. If nothing else it will keep occupied with something other than devising villainous 'gotcha' forum posts., which, really, is not healthy. It's pages 161-169 of Toole's book, in case you forgot. Or you can just call Floyd.
krabapple is offline  
post #338 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 12:56 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
This is actually wrong. Yes, when pushed they will use this not to accept an explanation of science but a debating defense of last resort. If what you said were true, they would not go after anyone expressing differences the way they do. They genuinely believe there is no possibility that the person heard the difference between amps, DACs, etc.


Great. Then you should appreciate it that what you say on forums with strong conviction better not be a "lie" itself. Reading and repeating what is said on forums will give you no assurance of that. Nor will ad-hoc testing you may have done. There may very well have been differences in the test you ran. But you were led to believe that any test will do as long as it is "blind." That of course is not remotely true when differences get smaller as I have been explaining. One look at the recent test results shows that while you may not hear a difference, if I said there is and showed it to be so in ABX DBT test, then it reasons that it was not a lie. Absence of my input though, or trust in what I say, you would say otherwise and commit the very mistake you say is so grave.


You are convinced based on no evidence though. The only way we would know if there was any test of value is to hear what it was and how it was done. Notice how we could not get that out of spkr. And I am typing this not knowing what test you did either. So the fact that something convinced you to change your views about audio, is important and useful to you, but of no value to the rest of us. Yet we go on giving ourselves the title of objectivists and lecture others on how it is done.

Good news is that the probabilities are in our favor. That a poorly done blind test has a much higher chance of showing a false negative than false positive. So we get away with it but it is not right. We are advancing a "lie" to use your wording. Bad data is just that: bad. It is unreliable no matter how much we want to be believe it is right.


I don't know how you can take the position of wanting to lecture everyone on truth about audio, basing that on your own personal "blind tests" yet not have critical listening abilities to know that your hearing is better than most people in perceiving distortions.

That kind of thing would work if you want to lecture the general public. But not in an enthusiast forum. It is entirely possible that the person you are lecturing has much better acuity than you. Again, we have seen this clearly demonstrated in how others beside me have managed to come out of woodwork and pass the test.

A dangerous cocktail is created when the person then combines such anecdotal test data with lay understanding of electronics. They are the set to clearly mislead people. Folks like you are talking about proceed to repeat the same messages thinking it is true, only to find themselves in an uncomfortable situation when they run into a me or JJ.

There is just no common sense to this. We don't act like doctors and lawyers this way why do we think audio is that much simpler?


My reply is that you are not an objectivist if your inclination is to oppose any data opposite to your audio beliefs. When that data is presented by someone with far more credentials than you, you need to listen. You need to not be aggressive in your stance that you must be right even when you accept to not have critical listening abilities. Nor any appropriate professional and educational experience. Objectivity calls for unbiased conduct. No unbiased conduct would say you should pick heated arguments in thread after thread against the people who do everything better than you. They run more tests. They report on more tests. They back their arguments with more references. etc. And when I say "you" I mean the generic "you."
The gloves come off. Fine by me.

You don't have to be an engineer to listen to music, and you don't have to have credentials to post on a forum, so you will not bully me out of here.

And yet your trained ears, your credentials, your deep knowledge of engineering, your emmy awards, a thousand employees under you, your knowledge of correct blind tests did not prevent you from failing the test 3 out of 5 times .

This happened listening to a crappy mp3, the ones that the current generation settled for blah blah, in your own home, your own time, with your own equipment. Your hearing abilities are no better than anyone else, certainly not under realistic conditions (you know, playing a song and listening to it without segmenting and going back and forth). FIVE attempts and you were still shooting in the dark.

Please.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #339 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 01:02 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
It's rather odd that as your ally Mr. Cook already referred to STIs, you still ask me if that sort of 'measurement' exists (which is what I asserted). Even Wikipedia lists four intelligibility measurements. (And now having seen that page I'm loving the new phrase 'infant-directed speech'. )
He didn't ask what sorts exist as in any measure, accurate or otherwise. He is asking how you can replace a human with a measurement when it comes to speech.

As to Wiki, did you actually click and read what it says about STI?

Speech Transmission Index (STI) is a measure of speech transmission quality. The absolute measurement of speech intelligibility is a complex science.

See the distinction between a measure (STI) and general characterization of speech intelligibility? Just because there is a measurement, it does not mean it is sufficient.

Wiki goes on to say:

The influence[1] that a transmission channel has on speech intelligibility is dependent on:

the speech level
frequency response of the channel
non-linear distortions
background noise level
quality of the sound reproduction equipment
echos (reflections with delay > 100ms)
the reverberation time
psychoacoustic effects (masking effects)


STI does not remotely take all of this into consideration. And even if it did, it aims to say this:

STI predicts the likelihood of syllables, words and sentences being comprehended.

Our interest in high fidelity reproduction of music and movies goes way beyond this per below. STI and such are decent measures if you are building a room for speech and such. But you can't remotely confuse that for the totality of what we mean in the context of our music and movie sound.

Quote:
But fear not, I only have your best interests in mind. I truly think the exercise, even if it's rereading, will do you good, Amir. If nothing else it will keep occupied with something other than devising villainous 'gotcha' forum posts., which, really, is not healthy. It's pages 161-169 of Toole's book, in case you forgot. Or you can just call Floyd.
I don't need to call Dr. Toole for a topic I understand, and a chapter of the book I have read. If you were similarly situated you would be seeing this graph from that chapter:



The are two listening test results, not measurements, overlaid on that graph. The one on the left and up high shows the comprehension of speech relative to noise level represented on the X axis. 0 db means the signal, speech, is the same level as the noise. We see that our comprehension of speech remains incredibly high despite very high levels of noise and poor signal to noise ratio.

The key is the second set of listening test results, NOT measurements, that show that while we may be able to understand most of what is said per the previous graph, the one to the right shows that when signal to noise level is low, it is not a comfortable thing. At 0 db where noise and speech are equal for example, comprehension is nearly 100%. But so is discomfort. We need another 15 db of signal to noise ratio to get the comfort up to the same 100% level.

So no, STI doesn't tell you hardly anything in our application. But maybe you surprise and shock us all by showing how Dr. Toole uses STI for anything.

The chapter surely has a lot of measurements in it. But they are not measurements of intelligibility. But rather, they are objective measurements such as room reflectivity and attempting to correlate such with speed intelligibility. If what you say is true that Dr. Toole has measurements we can use instead of a human, then that whole part of the chapter would not exist. He would give you the measure and that would be that.

But there is no such thing. You are simply mistaken about the content of the book, Dr. Toole's position, or the science itself. The best thing you can do is to buy a copy of the book Steve and read it. If you have questions, ask them. But please don't bluff hoping the other guy knows less than you....
Charles R and F.Cook like this.
amirm is offline  
post #340 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 01:14 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
And yet your trained ears, your credentials, your deep knowledge of engineering, your emmy awards, a thousand employees under you, your knowledge of correct blind tests did not prevent you from failing the test 3 out of 5 times .
You are misunderstanding that data. I explained the very thing to you on the next page. How could you ignore it??? https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-aud...l#post26614217

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
First, good morning to all . I hope we keep in mind that we are discussing a hobby and not any matters of life and death. So let's keep emotions out of these posts and just talk about the technical topic.

As to your point, your interpretation of what I post is not correct. Both theory and reason I post what I post is not understood.

A lossy audio compressor is constantly analyzing segments of audio (called frames) looking to see how much it can compress it while staying within its bit budget (320 kbps/sec in this instant). As such, the level of distortion varies constantly in sub-second intervals.

Let's look at an extreme but easier to understand example of 5 seconds of complete and total silence (digital "zero"). The entropy coder (back end of the codec) can compress this down to nothing. It wouldn't even need 64 kbps let alone 320 kbps. Ditto for a pure tone. Simple redundancy of data allows it to crunch such content with ease.

At the other extreme but difficult concept to understand are high frequency transients. There is no redundancy per se in a signal that all of a sudden sharply shoots up for a few milliseconds and then goes back down. The lossy encoder's frame now expands before and after the transients most likely. As it attempts to requantize (roughly speaking truncating frequency bands), it will spread that distortion to before and after the transient. What is after the transient will be masked usually. But not nearly as much for what comes before the transient. We call this type of distortion "pre-echo," i.e. echo that happens before the signal itself. As you can imagine, this type of distortion can be quite annoying depending on the amount of it.

What does this mean in this context? There is no such thing as hitting play and instantly being able to recognize the compressed version. Despite my training, there distortions that are inaudible to me as much as it is to you.

What I have shown in the test results is the full process from me starting the test to finding a critical segment that sounded different per above description. I am being transparent here showing you the failures until I found the difference. I could have of course restarted the test when I found the difference and show you perfect scores. But I thought there is education in learning how this type of testing works.

As to why occasionally I fail to tell the difference like that sample in the middle, again, remember this is not life and death discussions . I am listening to these files on my day to day laptop I am using for these posts. I am sitting in our living room while the TV is on and someone else watching it. We also have two dogs that have had a lot of practice barking . So it is not the ideal situation for critical listening.

Also, the way I do these tests is I play A and then B until I can classify in my mind which one sounded which way. As I run the tests, occasionally I confuse A for B because I don't play them again. I play X and Y and based on what I hear, I vote. The smaller the differences, the more I can make mistakes remembering what the difference was through so many trials.

Remember that the standard in such tests is 0.5% probability of chance. That is, we accept some amount of mistakes such as above. Outcomes with 0.5% error are considered proper and "scientific." So there is no requirement for perfect scores.

My results were: Total: 22/26 (0.0%). As you see, I achieved 0% probability of chance. Per above this exceeds the standard. What this means is that there should be no doubt that I found differences and could reliably tell the files apart. To call my results "rediculous" makes absolutely no sense. These are superlative results for double blind tests.

As I have said before, we are not at all used to seeing positive results in double blind test. As such our ability to analyze them is quite low as this discussions shows. Let's put aside emotions and allow the information to add to our audio knowledge and advance our learning. It takes a lot of work to keep answering these challenges (above was Krabapple's claim that I could not tell 320 kbps apart). This is rare kind of data/insight that we should celebrate having rather than showing such angst against it.
I have highlighted the part you keep missing in red now.

Quote:
This happened listening to a crappy mp3, the ones that the current generation settled for blah blah, in your own home, your own time, with your own equipment. Your hearing abilities are no better than anyone else, certainly not under realistic conditions (you know, playing a song and listening to it without segmenting and going back and forth). FIVE attempts and you were still shooting in the dark.

Please.
If your hearing is the same as mine, please run and report the same results. You too can miss the few instances. Get Krab, Spkr, etc. to run it too. After all, if you all hear the same, it would be good to have you document 0% probability of chance as I have shown.

Such data won't come of course because what you are saying violates the ABCs of audio science in this regard. Or how we conduct listening tests.
amirm is offline  
post #341 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 01:30 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
You are misunderstanding that data.
What is there to misunderstand? Given your background, that you explained and repeated over and over again, you should be able to tell an mp3 from a wav without any difficulty. An MP3! You know, that audio format that 2/3 of this forum and every other forum in the world (except hydrogenaudio) considers the worst crap ever conceived by mankind, the one you have to be deaf not to hear how much it sucks.

Instead, you have to look for segments and hope to find something. Is this how you listen to music? Does anyone in the world does it?

AND YOU MISSED FIVE TIMES! FIVE!

Last edited by antoniobiz1; 01-29-2015 at 01:34 PM.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #342 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 01:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 806 Post(s)
Liked: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by F.Cook View Post
Lastly, there can be no successful argument put fourth against the fact that Harmon's outpost has a limited selection of products to contrast, and what is being contrasted is most certainly against their own product offerings. This fact produces a prime question: Is it practical and therefore profitable for Harmon, to invest in an environment which evidences other brands as superior to their own. - I think not! I think it's highly probable that a bias is present, by means of product filtration (AKA Censorship).
I worked for a competitor of Harmon in the MI/Pro (Musical Instrument) division for a while. We spent most of our time developing products that would be competitive with Harmon and others in that market segment. In most cases we would evaluate our efforts in side-by-side single-blind testing with the most popular speaker in that particular application. We would use a variety of listeners for feedback, and would fine-tune our designs accordingly.

I'm sure Harmon and others do the same thing (although I doubt if they regularly utilize their AE chambers for listening tests). Discerning what was the preferred speaker was relatively simple, in that we only considered speakers that were, to some extent, already proven as somewhat preferred due to their sales (please holster the Bose analogies). I guess you could call that "product filtration."

The challenge, then, wasn't determining which speaker sounded "better" -- it was trying to determine what it was that made it the preferred speaker, and adapting that understanding to the design of a new product that would be competitive.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #343 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 01:47 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
What is there to misunderstand?
All the points I made. You don't understand the system under test which I keep saying is a necessity before one jumps into running or interpreting listening test data.

Quote:
Given your background, that you explained and repeated over and over again, you should be able to tell an mp3 from a wav without any difficulty. An MP3!
And I did so with no difficulty:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
If you mean mass market, sure. But not people with good ears and critical listening abilities. Here is me passing the test of 320 kbps MP3 which is higher fidelity than the 256 offered by stores:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3

19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01 50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02 25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03 50.0%
19:47:03 : 03/04 31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05 18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06 10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07 6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08 3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09 2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10 1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11 0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12 0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13 0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14 0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15 0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16 0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.

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


And Scott/Mark file:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/31 15:18:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav

15:18:41 : Test started.
15:19:18 : 01/01 50.0%
15:19:30 : 01/02 75.0%
15:19:44 : 01/03 87.5%
15:20:35 : 02/04 68.8%
15:20:46 : 02/05 81.3%
15:21:39 : 03/06 65.6%
15:21:47 : 04/07 50.0%
15:21:54 : 04/08 63.7%
15:22:06 : 05/09 50.0%
15:22:19 : 06/10 37.7%
15:22:31 : 07/11 27.4%
15:22:44 : 08/12 19.4%
15:22:51 : 09/13 13.3%
15:22:58 : 10/14 9.0%
15:23:06 : 11/15 5.9%
15:23:14 : 12/16 3.8%
15:23:23 : 13/17 2.5%
15:23:33 : 14/18 1.5%
15:23:42 : 15/19 1.0%
15:23:54 : 16/20 0.6%
15:24:06 : 17/21 0.4%
15:24:15 : 18/22 0.2%
15:24:23 : 19/23 0.1%
15:24:34 : 20/24 0.1%
15:24:43 : 21/25 0.0%
15:24:52 : 22/26 0.0%
15:24:57 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 22/26 (0.0%)
The fact that you think there was difficulty is due to your misunderstanding of the topic. Not one person who does this professionally or in research would side with you. Not even remotely.

Quote:
You know, that audio format that 2/3 of this forum and every other forum in the world (except hydrogenaudio) considers the worst crap ever conceived by mankind, the one you have to be deaf not to hear how much it sucks.
I am not accountable for what others say. I have explained the science to you. I explained how the fidelity of MP3 compression is dynamic. Anyone who assumes it is a flat line across all content doesn't know the first thing about it.

Here is a simple scenario. Let's say I have a 5 seconds silence in a track. Is it your assertion that if I jumped into that segment randomly in the test, I am supposed to instantly hear a degradation? Answer is no. There is a lot of redundancy there that can get reduced and at any rate, any distortion will be too low a level to be audible. Now switch to a transient that is not masked by other background sound and the distortions may very well be audible as I show in my results.

Quote:
Instead, you have to look for segments and hope to find something. Is this how you listen to music? Does anyone in the world does it?
I don't know how you listen to music but my system doesn't jump over the segments that all of a sudden create audible distortion . You are never going to understand this topic if you keep insisting on using lay logic and old fashioned metrics of fidelity where something has to be bad all the time or not at all. This is at the root of many misunderstandings on this topic. Yours is no exception although it is at the extreme of that. I am confident even Krab won't agree with your assessment.

Quote:
AND YOU MISSED FIVE TIMES! FIVE!
And I could miss it 100 times. If I can show with 0% probability of chance in the rest, and more so nail it in listen after listen, then you can take it to the bank that the track was degraded audibly to my ears. With those odds, I could get super rich playing in Vegas. And you would lose, and lose big against me. I know in your stomach this doesn't sound right but science doesn't owe you simplicity.

An oh, when do we see you replicating my results? You said everyone hears like me. Love to see that data.
amirm is offline  
post #344 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 02:06 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 19,533
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2441 Post(s)
Liked: 2281
Remember all those stories about Nuns beating your knuckles with rulers?
"You will listen to ME young man/lady!!"
They worked hard at proving a point. They are NOT "stories"!
Ratman is online now  
post #345 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 02:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
s2mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 3,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Perhaps the most interesting -- or at least the most entertaining -- results of such tests would be when difference *is* confirmed...but the 'boutique' gear is *less preferred*.

Why do you think a 'budget' AVR can't sound good?
Yeah, really. Great point! GULP.... You mean those $25,000 mono blocks actually sound worse than the $999 integrated amp from Denon or whomever? RUT ROE!

Ya know, I probably should have reworded the budget AVR sound thing. I actually own a budget AVR and I'll be damned, it sounds really good with my movies and does a decent job with straight audio too. Maybe what I meant was the absolute bottom of the bucket crap brands or whatever.

Samsung PN64H5000
LG BP 540
Sony DH550 AVR
Polk Tsi, RSi, Bookshelves & PSW sub-woofer
s2mikey is offline  
post #346 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 05:53 PM
 
F.Cook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
It's rather odd that as your ally Mr. Cook already referred to STIs, you still ask me if that sort of 'measurement' exists (which is what I asserted). Even Wikipedia lists four intelligibility measurements. (And now having seen that page I'm loving the new phrase 'infant-directed speech'. )

But fear not, I only have your best interests in mind. I truly think the exercise, even if it's rereading, will do you good, Amir. If nothing else it will keep occupied with something other than devising villainous 'gotcha' forum posts., which, really, is not healthy. It's pages 161-169 of Toole's book, in case you forgot. Or you can just call Floyd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F.Cook View Post
Thank you for your reply:


The fact remains that one would have to spend hundreds of dollars and hours in following your instructions, to eventually discover that intelligibility has become measurable, to a degree but not a certainty and only within prescribed acoustic conditions, and only for speech.


Unfortunately, now poorer for the experience most would probably still be left unsatisfied or at least remain misguided, left thinking that intelligibility measurements (and related index's) have something to do directly with music and therefore are significantly relevant to words sung, not spoken, within musical passages, which they don't!


Intelligibility Indexes are known as STI's - Speech Transmission Indexes, there is no acoustic index for intelligibility of sung words, within musical arrangements, at least not yet.


The intelligibility of words sung within musical passages cannot be reliably measured and indexed. In fact, no such index exists.


Here's an easy to read and understand link to the Bruel & Kjaer approach to measuring Intelligibility (20-pages), and it's FREE!


http://www.bksv.com/doc/bo0521.pdf


You are mistaken, I didn't drive off the bridge, I stop at where you supposed the edge of it to be, and have remained in wait for you to reveal it. I am still waiting!


Thanks again for your reply!

Mr. Krabapple


I evidenced the existence of intelligibility indexes (by the way there is more than one) for the sole delivery of the spoken word, within acoustics spaces. I evidenced equally that no such indexes exist for spoken or sung words, mixed within musical compositions, in acoustic spaces.


http://www.bksv.com/doc/bo0521.pdf


Therefore, using my words to support your position against Amir's claim that no such index exists for measurement of such, within movie or music tracks, etc., is a clear misstep on your part!


No such measurement metric currently exists; hence his question to you, to evidence one and suggestion that you have misunderstood Toole and Wikipedia.

Last edited by F.Cook; 01-29-2015 at 06:42 PM.
F.Cook is offline  
post #347 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 06:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Unfortunately yes. Once you learn what an artifact sounds like, it becomes like a hanging nail, bugging you forever. It is not a reversible process and can't be unlearned. .
This is annoyingly true. I speak from experience.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #348 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 06:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by F.Cook View Post
No such measurement metric currently exists; hence his question to you, to evidence one and suggestion that you have misunderstood Toole and Wikipedia.
Well, actually, understanding sung words or words in music are the same task, one needs to be able to hear the speech spectrum, in particular the formant structure (and its evolution in time) and the voiced/unvoiced activity, in order to understand speech.

Ergo, speech in the presence of interfering signal, which is quite all over the literature, is exactly the precise thing one needs to know to understand lyrics.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #349 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 07:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 1562
Amir;
did you get the green wire and do the test with it? Tracking says it was delivered to you.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-aud...l#post26761825
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-aud...l#post24515985
mtbdudex is online now  
post #350 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 07:16 PM
 
F.Cook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Well, actually, understanding sung words or words in music are the same task, one needs to be able to hear the speech spectrum, in particular the formant structure (and its evolution in time) and the voiced/unvoiced activity, in order to understand speech.

Ergo, speech in the presence of interfering signal, which is quite all over the literature, is exactly the precise thing one needs to know to understand lyrics.

Thank you JJ


Essentially I agree. However, that isn't on-point with our continuing discussion. To my point and Amir's (and perhaps a few others), there is currently, no accurate means (repeatable and in good agreement with subjective listening tests) for an objective, electro-acoustical measurement metric, for quantifying such. Currently, only humans can accurately quantify such. Which is the central theme in this continuing discussion.


IMO: We shouldn't be shying away from using our ears, or replacing them with modern electronic measurement devices and techniques. We should however, strive to produce such devices and standards whose results/outputs are in tight agreement with our actual experiences.


Measuring the intelligibility of either spoken or sung words, within music or movie tracks, is again, currently impossible, as no such metric currently exists. Even though yourself and others have a decent to excellent understanding of the mechanics of such and related challenges etc.

Last edited by F.Cook; 01-29-2015 at 07:41 PM.
F.Cook is offline  
post #351 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 07:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,265
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 806 Post(s)
Liked: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Ergo, speech in the presence of interfering signal, which is quite all over the literature, is exactly the precise thing one needs to know to understand lyrics.
Mostly true, but probably not applicable to "rap music."

Or some of Van Morrison and Tom Waits earlier stuff.
jj_0001 and F.Cook like this.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #352 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 10:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Sorry if this is off-topic, but given the nature of sighted listening I thought I would ask this question. Can changing filter caps in an amp (or any kind of cap) affect the performance of the amp in audible ways, or is it just snake-oil?
Stephan Mire is offline  
post #353 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 10:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3563
I don't see why not, just as changing the fuses can alter the sound quality for the better (black fuses).
NorthSky is offline  
post #354 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 10:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by F.Cook View Post
Measuring the intelligibility of either spoken or sung words, within music or movie tracks, is again, currently impossible, as no such metric currently exists. Even though yourself and others have a decent to excellent understanding of the mechanics of such and related challenges etc.
If you wish to believe that, I don't think I will try to disabuse you.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #355 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 10:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
Or some of Van Morrison and Tom Waits earlier stuff.
Intelligible metrics presume that the original speech would be intelligible, indeed.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
post #356 of 525 Old 01-29-2015, 11:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,779
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 487 Post(s)
Liked: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by F.Cook View Post
Mr. Krabapple


I evidenced the existence of intelligibility indexes (by the way there is more than one) for the sole delivery of the spoken word, within acoustics spaces. I evidenced equally that no such indexes exist for spoken or sung words, mixed within musical compositions, in acoustic spaces.


http://www.bksv.com/doc/bo0521.pdf
That software application document asserts nothing about spoken or sung words, mixed with musical compositions, one way or the other.

And I note again that spoken words as part of video soundtracks are rather commonly encountered in home AV system use. so even if it were true that speech intelligibility measurements have no relevance to vocal music playback (which it isn't), they would still be relevant to home audio.


Quote:
Therefore, using my words to support your position against Amir's claim that no such index exists for measurement of such, within movie or music tracks, etc., is a clear misstep on your part!
Amir's claim was an attempt at villainous misdirection and of no real use except as entertainment. Yours are funny too, but he is still the master and you the pupil.

Quote:
No such measurement metric currently exists; hence his question to you, to evidence one and suggestion that you have misunderstood Toole and Wikipedia.

Dr. Toole devotes an entire chapter in a his book on sound reproduction in listening rooms, to the relationship between speech intelligibility and reflections. Sound reproduction in the home is rarely if ever used for giving lectures; typically it is for playing movie soundtracks and music, including both plain and sung speech along with music. Dr. Toole also explicitly references intelligibility of lyrics as a concern at the very outset of said chapter. The entire chapter is free for the gentle reader to read on google books

I leave it to the gentle reader to conclude who has misunderstood what.

Last edited by krabapple; 01-29-2015 at 11:43 PM.
krabapple is offline  
post #357 of 525 Old 01-30-2015, 12:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 521 Post(s)
Liked: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
What speech intelligibility measurement? If you are going to say there is such a thing, you need to quote that, not some unrelated sentence.
I'm an independent observer who is having trouble following the minutia of your back-and-forth, but this particular part of the exchange strikes me as pretty funny.

Amir, from your comment here it seems clear that you had no idea that intelligibility measurements exist (accurate or otherwise, based on listening tests or not).

Then, krabapple points you towards information about several intelligibility measurements.

Then you write a big long condescending post about how said measurements are complex or aren't very accurate or aren't useful for the subject at hand, etc., etc., as if you knew they existed this whole time.

Just admit that you didn't know about them and move on, because right now you look pretty silly.
motrek is offline  
post #358 of 525 Old 01-30-2015, 01:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan Mire View Post
Sorry if this is off-topic, but given the nature of sighted listening I thought I would ask this question. Can changing filter caps in an amp (or any kind of cap) affect the performance of the amp in audible ways, or is it just snake-oil?
Same thing about audiophile fuses. Can they affect sound, similar to changing filter caps, or are both snake-oil?

Please respond.
Stephan Mire is offline  
post #359 of 525 Old 01-30-2015, 02:50 AM
FMW
AVS Forum Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,480
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1654 Post(s)
Liked: 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan Mire View Post
Same thing about audiophile fuses. Can they affect sound, similar to changing filter caps, or are both snake-oil?

Please respond.

Both are snake oil.
FMW is offline  
post #360 of 525 Old 01-30-2015, 08:13 AM
 
F.Cook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
If you wish to believe that, I don't think I will try to disabuse you.

You are most kind, and I welcome your effort, should you have a change of heart.


Regards
F.Cook is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

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