I just resampled it with SoX to 48k and it looks the same on the spectrogram. I also ran a loopback (24-bit) through my analog compressor - lights went nuts but it looks exactly the same.
SoX is good, it does the right thing. I am assuming you are saying it is doing the right thing? 🙂
Cool thanks. I am bored so I am going to try an make one all hi res n stuff 😎
Well it looks like it (sox)is anyway. I just always thought those im tests were inadequate (only using 1k and 60H). So this is a decent variation I guess.
I am still sort of undecided on the whole resampling thing to be honest. That is one of those cases where I think people could be fooling themselves with a lower measurable distortion but trading it off for a harder to measure ringing. I think the same thing happens with phase linear filters.
Well it looks like it (sox)is anyway. I just always thought those im tests were inadequate (only using 1k and 60H). So this is a decent variation I guess.
I am still sort of undecided on the whole resampling thing to be honest. That is one of those cases where I think people could be fooling themselves with a lower measurable distortion but trading it off for a harder to measure ringing. I think the same thing happens with phase linear filters.
Well my guess is that the upsampling shifted the upper frequencies slightly off of the FFT bins, for one thing. That wouldn't look good on a test like this.
Scott is right, burining it only a CD might be the way to go if you don't have full duplex ASIO. My card will do it, but my recording software will not. Need to fix that.
Key, what are you using to record?
Scott is right, burining it only a CD might be the way to go if you don't have full duplex ASIO. My card will do it, but my recording software will not. Need to fix that.
Key, what are you using to record?
syn08 said:
How about some generally accepted as audible stuff like 320kbits/lossless, absolute phase, etc. IMO cables are considerably more audible than absolute phase so a test/panel sensitive enough to pick this up would be suitable for testing cables.
janneman said:
While i don´t agree with everything (at least not in every detail), i like his articles very much and often he has already expressed something in a very convincing . 🙂
BTW, did my answer make the difference a bit more clear?
SY said:
Please accept my apologies if i was to harsh in that point; the reason for my reaction simply was that i only had this meaning of strawman in my mind:
´A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.´
And that i really couldn´t see in his article.
I see, that you meant something different, and yes the points you´ve mentioned were nothing really new, but sometimes it´s better to bring some basics back to memory. 🙂
fdegrove said:
´Axiom´ (and therefore axiomatic) was just meant in the meaning it has in mathematics.
(and known since Gödel is, that even in an strictly axiomatic system at least one assertion exists that can´t be proofed)
syn08 said:
Given the measured differences i´d strongly recommend that positive controls should be for example one of the cited points out of P. Frindle´s catalog.
Of course it´s not possible to include something like a positive control in the same run if you´re using an ABX protocol.
That could raise the question if an ABX-test is appropriate for the task, but you could do different runs.
One for example testing the positive control, and another one for testing the real hypothesis.
Of course it complicates the routines, but the alternative (to avoid a positive control) is not acceptable.
But it could be better to avoid a discrimination test like ABX and better choose a preference test like MUSHRA or ABC/HR or another protocol.
The strawman aspect was not simply the poor measurement practice examples cited, but rather the author's implication that poor measurement practice is standard and accepted, and that electrical engineers aren't familiar with fitness-for-use characterization.
Jakob2 said:
Yes. Like he made miced meat of Principia Mathematica. Poor Whitehead and Russell.
jd
PS How's that for namedropping?? 😀
Re: Re: contortions of the mis-informed
read a book on the subject... should be self-evident
rdf said:
read a book on the subject... should be self-evident
Jakob2 said:
I don't understand why something like MUSHRA would be significantly better for a cable swapping test. Nothing is holding the use of t-statistics to test the null hypothesis in ABX as well, in fact it is always done in any serious test. And mind you, cable swapping is not really the same as subjectively testing lossy compressions.
But even so, I guess nobody is ready to put the money where the mouth sits, not even the high end cable manufacturers and big mouth merchands are willing to finance such. And no, I'm not surprised of this situation. It's obviously much more convenient (and good for business too) to sit on the side and point to flaws in current tests, rather than doing somenthing constructive about (and eventually face the results).
It's arguable from what we can determine that Fremer tried and Randi balked. When $8000 of Pear cable was unavailable Fremer offered to use a substitute but neither Randi or his team would allow it. Pot, kettle.
And I don't see the connection with flawed protocols. The simple point of the latter is that if cable tests to date have been flawed the science is bad, period, regardless of who profits or doesn't. Anthropomorphizing the issue is irrelevant.
And I don't see the connection with flawed protocols. The simple point of the latter is that if cable tests to date have been flawed the science is bad, period, regardless of who profits or doesn't. Anthropomorphizing the issue is irrelevant.
Hi,
Can't help but noticing a lot of people needing measurements to provide proof of something they don't hear anyhow.
This thread is starting to sound like a cross pollenation of TV-series like The Simpsons and the Muppett show with a local psy thrown in for good measure.
History keeps on repeating itself. At the end science eventually catches up. Isn't that always been the case?
That said, some of are quite happy with a burger whilst others crave for that filet mignon.
Different strokes for different folks. Who'll prove that?
Is there no difference beteen the two? If so, prove it to me.
Doesn't that summ up the general attitude of those that do not hear any differences?
How does one prove what one beleives to hear? How?
Cheers, 😉
P.S.
Fact is not a single soul ever believed way back in the early Sixties that a resistor could sound any different from the next. Same went for caps etc.
We all want to stay in the "comfort zone".
It's so much easier to ignore what we hear.
Up to the point that we train ourselves to ignore what we hear....
We are lazy.
Can't help but noticing a lot of people needing measurements to provide proof of something they don't hear anyhow.
This thread is starting to sound like a cross pollenation of TV-series like The Simpsons and the Muppett show with a local psy thrown in for good measure.
History keeps on repeating itself. At the end science eventually catches up. Isn't that always been the case?
That said, some of are quite happy with a burger whilst others crave for that filet mignon.
Different strokes for different folks. Who'll prove that?
Is there no difference beteen the two? If so, prove it to me.
Doesn't that summ up the general attitude of those that do not hear any differences?
How does one prove what one beleives to hear? How?
Cheers, 😉
P.S.
Fact is not a single soul ever believed way back in the early Sixties that a resistor could sound any different from the next. Same went for caps etc.
We all want to stay in the "comfort zone".
It's so much easier to ignore what we hear.
Up to the point that we train ourselves to ignore what we hear....
We are lazy.
Frank,
Why is it that just because you can not quantify or hear something that someone hears, they could not possibly have actually have heard what they say that they did? This baffles me more than anything else. Why not just allow them their beliefs rather than thrust your own beliefs and opinions on them? Could you explain that for me please.
Why is it that just because you can not quantify or hear something that someone hears, they could not possibly have actually have heard what they say that they did? This baffles me more than anything else. Why not just allow them their beliefs rather than thrust your own beliefs and opinions on them? Could you explain that for me please.
syn08 said:
For now i only have time to address this second point; it may be surprising, but at least some cable manufacturer are dealing with blind tests, see for example:
http://www.wireworldcable.com/Cable_Comparators.html
Wireworld is doing it since 1996, and it was promoted quite heavy for some time, but it doesn´t help them in neither of the camps. Isn´t it a pity?
Another example was HMS a german cable company which extensively supported Olaf Sturm´s dbt attempt on cables during the High End Fair in Frankfurt to get the experiment for his Master Thesis Paper done.
Cardas claimed to have delivered cables to Bernie Grundmann, who did blind tests to choose a new cable for his at that time new mastering facility.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.