Sorry if it was unclear - what I don't like with Foobar is that you have to fiddle with it while doing the test, clicking on buttons to select what to do next, make decisions about how to run it - for me, it just gets in the way of my mind flowing while listening to the sound, there's an awkwardness about the software which I find irritating. Plus, the replay quality is relatively poor - it fails at the first hurdle ...
Edit: I could throw in, it's like trying to use Microsoft Word - but's that unfair ... to Foobar ...
Edit: I could throw in, it's like trying to use Microsoft Word - but's that unfair ... to Foobar ...
Last edited:
Yes. I normally use a simple, old version of Nero media software - no fancy bits, it just plays the song with minimum fuss. On my PC, it's heads and shoulders above Foobar; and Audacity is better than Foobar, but not quite as good as Nero. There may be a better media player than Nero, for my machine, but I'm happy enough with it - and on other machines that order may be reversed, or they may be of equal quality ... it's a "depends", as usual ...
With Nero, I can hear a distinct difference between A and B; on Foobar ABX A and B are both relatively poor, such that those differences are "masked" - oh, dear, there's that word! ...
With Nero, I can hear a distinct difference between A and B; on Foobar ABX A and B are both relatively poor, such that those differences are "masked" - oh, dear, there's that word! ...
Naturally, a lack of evidence does not render anything untrue.
Subliminal advertising lacked evidence for some 50 years or so I think. A long string of pure chance / null results.
Despite that, it was still effectively used.
Despite the fairly recent evidence, skeptics like Winer still deny it, sorry I just fail to see what such "truncation devices" tend to offer to the scientific advancement community.
Let alone any advancement community.
Much like the believers in subliminal advertising all that time used predictive analysis / likelihood / intuition / conceptualization, the same is applied to discussions like these to some extent.
You predict and conceptualize the limits of audio performance with applications like Nyquist-Shannon, reconstruction filters and the aural frequency limit.
That's why "your team" can say that the whatsbestforum, hydrogenaudio and Oohashi evidence of 96 kHz or higher is "invalid".
Even if it's presented to you as evidence.
So actually it seems like you are believing in concepts, not the evidence lawnmower which is slowly testing reality, always slightly limited by it's design.
Now if anyone answers that I'll give you the last word and not answer the reply.
Later
Kastor, the level of inflexibility with regard to the "magic" of the DBT method is quite something to behold - I've mentioned a couple of times another technique, which compares somewhat to how I go about things: repeat a sample, A, 5 times, so the ears get into a rhythm of picking up the sense of the clip; then without a break do another 5 samples, but somewhere in there it switches to B, and continues with B - could be the 6th one, or the 10th one; perhaps do a couple more at the end to reinforce the sense of the B sample. Obviously, the test is to always pick the transition point, to satisfy people who love numbers,.
Of course, not a single person commented on this idea ...
Because it is flawed.
When the claim of a change is "the difference was like between night and day" etc then it should be obvious in a DBT, but no because most of the time the changes you believe are inside your head, DBTs are flawed because they show no difference.
Yes. I normally use a simple, old version of Nero media software - no fancy bits, it just plays the song with minimum fuss. On my PC, it's heads and shoulders above Foobar; and Audacity is better than Foobar, but not quite as good as Nero. There may be a better media player than Nero, for my machine, but I'm happy enough with it - and on other machines that order may be reversed, or they may be of equal quality ... it's a "depends", as usual ...
With Nero, I can hear a distinct difference between A and B; on Foobar ABX A and B are both relatively poor, such that those differences are "masked" - oh, dear, there's that word! ...
LOL I'd consider deafness and improvement in my lifestyle if I had your problems Frank.
We've been here many times before, marce,LOL I'd consider deafness and improvement in my lifestyle if I had your problems Frank.
- if one doesn't believe everything matters then there is not much that can be done about it ... No I work with teams on the design or a variety of electronic based equipment, I know what matters and what is fantasy that is not going to change anything. I also rely on measurements especially with audio based products as we are easily fooled. But hey its not as high tech as common or garden audio which seems sometimes on here to be the pinnacle of complex design?
To answer the first question it is not done blind.
To answer the first question it is not done blind.
If one hasn't got the measuring tools readily available, to confirm something via a reading, then it could be tempting to discard the abberation as a nonsense. However, if there is a consistent trend in what one experiences, without those tools, then I would see it as rather foolish to try and pretend those observations were "false", purely because they didn't fit in nicely with current dogma ... there is a complexity in the picture, and that's how human hearing works; the aim should be to mold audio design to make the best of that mechanism.
Not done blind? The playing of the samples, and switching of playback from A to B, in the range 6th through 10th item, would be done completely by the program, which can easily set up to be as random as any purists would desire - ie. that side is "blind".
Not done blind? The playing of the samples, and switching of playback from A to B, in the range 6th through 10th item, would be done completely by the program, which can easily set up to be as random as any purists would desire - ie. that side is "blind".
You are mixing up two different issues here. Nyquist etc. is about reconstructing a signal to arbitrary degrees of accuracy - it is mathematical fact, yet some people seem to dispute it, usually because they don't understand it. The required frequency band for good audio reproduction is a matter of human experiments, and there is still some (but not much) scope for clarification.Kastor L said:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.