Here is the audiometry procedures manual from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_09_10/audiometry_09.pdf
In my opinion this debate will continue as long as everyone refuses to develop and submit themselves to a hearing test that both the skeptics and believers can agree upon.
It not being common, not existing or being incomplete for “audio grade purposes” is not a valid excuse, period.
You are all very capable people. If you can build DACs measuring at -150db, you can also design a test to prove claims of audibility.
No amount of “ifs, ands or buts” will convince me otherwise.
Again, I think the reputation (what’s left of it) of this field and even the fate of the high end audio in general is contingent upon such a test and disclosure.
Hi-Fi has been rotting away since the 70s because of the refusal to hold itself to the same scientific scrutiny as other more credible professions.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_09_10/audiometry_09.pdf
In my opinion this debate will continue as long as everyone refuses to develop and submit themselves to a hearing test that both the skeptics and believers can agree upon.
It not being common, not existing or being incomplete for “audio grade purposes” is not a valid excuse, period.
You are all very capable people. If you can build DACs measuring at -150db, you can also design a test to prove claims of audibility.
No amount of “ifs, ands or buts” will convince me otherwise.
Again, I think the reputation (what’s left of it) of this field and even the fate of the high end audio in general is contingent upon such a test and disclosure.
Hi-Fi has been rotting away since the 70s because of the refusal to hold itself to the same scientific scrutiny as other more credible professions.
First, we were not talking about jitter here, but about nonlinear distortion. So let us not mix pears and apples. The loopback method with same clock for A/D and D/A eliminates additional jitter.
Second, "he states that...." does not make much evidence. In these long-distance tests, more credibility is achieved by posting the ABX protocol that may be verified at
foobar2000 ABX Log Signature Tool
This check verifies the test log signature and identifies if the files were not modified. This gives at least some proof that the test was not cheated. We experienced ABX cheating here in the past.
ABX is at least some method of the controlled test. It is definitely more credible than someones statement that he heard the difference. Some people heard the difference between the identical files here, at least they were self-assured they did. Without control, there is no limit in anecdotal statements and some people would swear they hear -150dB distortion, but the same people are unable to bring a valid ABX protocol when distortion in percents is tested. I know this would not convince you, however it is not my goal.
Jakob you do so know know how to suck the fun out of thread completely
You would be such a party pooper at a meta-analysis conference! As I have tried (and possibly failed) to state, I'm intested in the people watching side of this. Unfortunately we are now at the phase where someone has turned up who only wants to argue from their pulpit and not actually try and reach a consensus, so that's this attempt to break from hell and the boulder for now. But I live in hope...
And you must forgive me. When Mark says that he can hear a difference with his rapid switching method I might raise an eyebrow but he will admit how hard it is so I give benefit of the doubt whilst realising its more than I need to swear. When someone boasts they can hear something that is considered 'at the limit' with ease using laptop built in speakers I am a bad man and doubt their motives. I have done enough to burn in hell anyway in my life so far....
Please don't exaggerate. Nobody here today claims to design a dac measuring at -150dB.
You are right some here could probably design a test to demonstrate claims of audibility, but an typical engineer does not have such expertise. A serious test meant to be taken seriously would be a considerable undertaking, and not free. Some grant or donations would have to be found to finance it. In reality it isn't going to happen anytime soon. That means you won't be convinced anytime soon. So be it.
Still, we understand your position quite clearly. That being the case, no need to keep repeating it too frequently.
Yes but history has indicated to us that this field in particular is quite prone to snake oil.
If you can reliably hear these artifacts, do us all a favor and set up a test protocol in which you show a plausible success rate.
If you have hearing loss you likely have other hearing eccentricities which may play a role as well- there may be accentuating of certain material that’s in turn misinterpreted as increased perception when it’s simply hearing damage.
I follow your logic and respect your willingness to give benefit of the doubt. I frequently do so as well, however in different applications. I do believe that training can foster increased perception.
The critical difference is that the issues we’re describing here are issues of commerce in a field that has too many red flags.
We are also dealing with human beings as consumers and hobbyists who don’t like to be wrong or find out they’ve wasted years of their lives pursuing issues that have no actual value. So, they have stock as well in perpetuating mythology.
I believe that respect and trust must be earned. The cables, the wood blocks, the special cd pens... the list goes on forever. Systemic, long term preying on consumers using highly questionable claims, marketing materials and sales tactics.
I am adamantly advocating that this field is completely undeserving of further leniency.
It’d be like saying “well, maybe the cartel IS actually shipping a tanker full of bananas this time.”
Last edited:
It is not that difficult. You may properly generate a 24-bit signal down to -140dB or lower if you want, put it under a high level signal of any kind and test where you end with your hearing abilities. I may make you sure that the ability to hear a low level tone will end very soon. I think you personally know very well what were the ABX results when asked in the past, on heavily distorted files even when tested against original files. Also the test where a completely different music of lower level was mixed with the main music signal and nobody could hear it. However, "typical engineering methods" are able to extract it quite easily, in both cases.
So it's just a mental exercise that's repeated over and over like the prohibited subjects, makes sense, our faith in what we chose to believe has to be bolstered every now and again by people who have a similar view, just so long as no-one gets hurt I'm fine with that
A loopback to an external program is a hard one to defeat, like, um, impossible. If people want to go that route, then it's on them.
(Another person who was rightfully put on Mark's ignore list for a while once or thrice) Obviously we have our differences, but I think most parties are playing more nicely with one another.
(Another person who was rightfully put on Mark's ignore list for a while once or thrice)
Obviously we have our differences, but I think most parties are playing more nicely with one another.
That does not mean that the technology is insufficient to provide reliable test results in these areas for the vast majority of humans to a very high degree of certainty.
The claim of hearing a difference is what’s tested, with supplemental data of hearing tests to generate a baseline.
We don’t need 100 years in the future technology to accomplish this.
Your commentary is conjecture without substance.
I would rely much more on the opinions of people like Earl Geddes and Jakob2 about ease of doing such research properly.
Regarding your past listening tests, there was not one I tried where the differences were not audible with DAC-3. But, fooling around with foobar ABX is waste of time, at least I will not waste my own time with it. If someone wants to work on the development of better software, I would be willing to help with that.
Last edited:
That kind of ends the argument right there
So, to start a different one that doesn't rely on measureable accuracy of hearing (he said). How about perception of spaciousness? I know I prefer the reflections from dipoles to the pinpoint imagery of monopoles, all else being equal. Others preference is different, what does that tell us about our hearing ability?
It's interesting though that you have a DSP in your head (that we don't understand) which was the inference of my ephemeral comment
And jitter is not non-linear distortion? News to me. Any idea how these files were prepared?
It eliminates clock drift & the jitter from two clocks instead of one but your statement "eliminated additional jitter" is patently incorrect for all other factors that give rise to jitter.
Irrespective of the inaccuracy of your statements, I posted the link to show your original statement to be false - something along the lines of distortion @ -60dB & below in music is inaudible to everybody.
Care to amend your innacuracies?
Yea, I know about the Foobar ABX log checksum which can still be cheated, btw. So given that these positive ABX results are being questioned as to validity I suspect that any other positive ABX results with checksumed logs would also be questioned by you now that you know it can be cheated.
Let's face it you just won't accept any results which disagree with your worldview will be rejected by you
Yes, & here you show your belief system in action - you reckon that a test hugely biased towards false negatives is your preferred "controlled test"
Again, I'll say it - why can't you guys just admit that Foobar ABX is flawed to the extent that it is no more likely to reveal the truth of the matter than anecdotal reports? There are many here that admit to the skewed nature of sighted listening to false positives & can live with this obvious fact - how come it remains so reluctant for others to admit the skewed-ness of Foobar ABX to false negatives & be able to similarly live with this?
Jitter? Jitter, jitter, jitter! Are we talking RMS or peak to peak? Jitter at very small RMS values can very well be perceived when there is a small amount of large peak to peak variation.
Even using A/D to D/A with the same clock does not rule out trigger level variations increasing jitter.
Who knew, harmonic distortion, noise, jitter and any signal error reduces reproduction accuracy????
Even using A/D to D/A with the same clock does not rule out trigger level variations increasing jitter.
Who knew, harmonic distortion, noise, jitter and any signal error reduces reproduction accuracy????
You need to know what kind of converter you are working with to determine the exact effects of jitter. This is pointless.
Well, if you read what I said - the files in that link were pre-formed & created to simulate various levels of distortion in music that they consider is jitter-like
In fact a couple of posts down from the linked post the originator describes the creation process
The link was to show how incorrect was PMA's statement about the inaudibility of distortion at the level he stated. All this talk about jitter is just smoke & mirrors - the ABX results (& there are a few , not just one) show the inaccuracy of his statements
In fact a couple of posts down from the linked post the originator describes the creation process
The link was to show how incorrect was PMA's statement about the inaudibility of distortion at the level he stated. All this talk about jitter is just smoke & mirrors - the ABX results (& there are a few , not just one) show the inaccuracy of his statements
Last edited:
Well I have a guilty pleasure for the weekend. I just scored the decca sound mono years 53 CD box set and will be able to compare and contrast the decca restoration of the Bloch string quartets with the Dutton re-releases. Dutton is of the school where you try and remove all noise whereas Decca preferred to leave some in. Will be interesting to see which is more enjoyable.
But in remastering hats off to the Sony team who remastered the Bernstein box set. I fear they spent longer cleaning up the recordings than was spent recording and mastering them originally
YouTube a heroic effort.
Music is good!
But in remastering hats off to the Sony team who remastered the Bernstein box set. I fear they spent longer cleaning up the recordings than was spent recording and mastering them originally
YouTube a heroic effort.
Music is good!
It's kind of fun watching Earl trying to figure out what Joe is talking about.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.