I know it's hard to believe, but we are free to discuss other things, it's only because Merrill's and Jakob's threads on the subject were closed that we are being beaten over the head with this stuff, mainly because Merrill's insults got out of hand
Ah, then you know all there is to know about psychoaoustics or you believe all has been uncovered about phsychoacoustics that you can reference? I would dispute that both of these positions are incorrect (knowing enough about the field to know that all has not yet been uncovered - there are many unanswered questions that have a bearing on this hobby - I also know enough to know that I don't know enough 😛)
You also cite conventional physics in your post not conventional measurements which a number of people here have already contended does not encompass audible differences heard
You accuse me of using a logical trick of the non-provability of a negative but again you are using an excuse to avoid looking at the Foobar ABX test itself & examine it for the rigour that would allow the results to be trusted. It's the same approach many of the ABX defendants adopt - refuse to acknowledge its weaknesses & try to deal with them in a sensible way (insist training is essential prior to testing; include controls which could show the level of false negatives in that test run - positive controls).
Here's a thread of an ABX tests done by a recording engineer who has already established he has an audible preference for files that have been upsampled to 24/192 from the CD - yes a sighted/knowing listening test.
It is an good read for anybody interested in real-world attempts at achieving non-null ABX results.
Look first at how he had to find what difference to listen for (remember he already hears a difference which results in his preference for upsampled version but he hasn't analyzed the music playback in detail to put his finger on exactly what aspect is audibly different enough to be discernible in ABX testing) Note also that this doesn't mean that is the only audible aspect that is different
Then look at the 'training' he has to do & how ephemeral the training can be
Also note that what warming up means
And how ephemeral the test is
Based on the above difficulty of establishing what audible difference to look for which will allow discernment & the difficulty in holding focus on these aspects when doing a Foobar ABX test, I contend that a blind preference test would prove to be a better approach to listening tests .
Hopefully, that was what was meant - I was not challenging his statement as it is what you & I have been saying about blind testing on here but see my post on real world Foobar ABX test & evaluate how much effort & determination is required to overcome the difficulties involve din ABX testing. IMO ABX testing is not suitable for casual testing such as done on audio forums - it's just too difficult to give it a fair chance of having positive results
Mainly because you appointed yourself as the Spanish Inquisition, while pretending to want to learn about psychoacoustics - yes I probably got snarky with you as a result & that was my fault but I suspect you or others goaded me & then reported my posts to mods in order to close the thread - see we can all be paranoiac 😀
I have a theory that these people who have learned to listen for small differences have screwed up their simple music listening pleasure to such a degree that they have become bitter towards those who say, "Hey it's good enough for me, stick another record on". As a consequence they want to spoil it for everyone else too, happens all the time. Prove me wrong.
I am one of these people you mention, and it’s the exact opposite in my case; there is so much more pleasure involved not just in listening to/for microdetails in recordings but also the path to unleashing them......just don’t tell me there’s no difference between good enough and fine tuned.
Much like the racer that tunes his own race car/motorcycle......it’s a satisfaction like no other. (That is as long as you don’t suck at it!)😀
Edit: and I’m not bitter at those who say good enough........I mean nattie light is ‘good enough’ for many (there’s no accounting for taste) but you won’t see it in my fridge.
Much like the racer that tunes his own race car/motorcycle......it’s a satisfaction like no other. (That is as long as you don’t suck at it!)😀
Edit: and I’m not bitter at those who say good enough........I mean nattie light is ‘good enough’ for many (there’s no accounting for taste) but you won’t see it in my fridge.
Last edited:
That's because you still have a way to go to find audio Nirvana. I'm there, it took me about 3 solid years of research, application and construction, thankfully most of it before I joined this forum 😉
I think you are right.
I’m the kind of guy who will get up and dance to a car alarm. Works for me! 🙂
I’ve also figured out why DF96 doesn’t use emoticons. His haikus of logic are perfect without them. Works for him! 😎
It’s another perfect day here. ToS
I share the experience and need to control EMI in all forms, I hope that mod works well for you!
I looked around the site a bit and I have to say his comments regarding carpet are way off base. I really do not wish to get into a pi$$ing match with anyone regarding it, but the verified fact of the matter is carpet fibers are extremely low-Q and waste the acoustic energy impinging them in the form of heat.
There are well-established and verified acoustic control techniques which dictate where and how much carpet to use if any, but his explanation of carpet re-radiating has been proven in acoustic testing to be highly imaginary. Based on his explanation a diffuser would be a far greater evil.
Howie
You are wrong in so many ways that it's impossible to answer you - anyway you have demonstrated in the past that you don't want to learn anything so why would anyone bother
Exactly so, MM. What many fail to understand is that listening specifically to how a system reproduces details is a different way of listening to normal & that those details (as long as they are not false detail) make for a more realistic portrayal of an actual musical event even when not focused on them specifically - they are just one sign that the playback system is doing something more correct in its replay - it is likely not the only notable difference - often better perceived timing, more solidity & more layering to the soundstage & others
It's hard to describe....so I won't. You'll know when you reach yours, it will be something like, veils lifted etc etc blah blah.
Nothing has changed in audio replay since the 1950s - it was perfect then, right?
Yes, I think you are right too. 😀I think you are right.
I’m the kind of guy who will get up and dance to a car alarm. Works for me! 🙂
I’ve also figured out why DF96 doesn’t use emoticons. His haikus of logic are perfect without them. Works for him! 😎
It’s another perfect day here. ToS
We don't get many car alarms here, and I've yet to see let alone hear a house alarm 🙂 We get the odd siren which a couple of dogs love singing along to.
It's a bit cooler here today, trying to rain...not very successfully
His iPhone, - did you not know this is the top-of-the-mountain, the revelation awaiting all.
Try. I've learned a lot, here and there, I just don't feel the need to tell you about it
I knew it!.....closet audiophile. 😀
What makes you think I haven’t reached mine?
I think most of my issues stem from seeing too many of the old old BASF commercials........YouTube
Nah, I've stopped bothering to answer your questions as the questions themselves show you have learned nothing - you are just an agitator (others would say troll).
Actually calling me an agitator is trollish. Asking questions, expressing opinions, not so much
So does anybody want to discuss the real-world report of a successful ABX test & what it takes to obtain a positive result just so his already established sighted/knowledge preference for 24/192 could be 'proven' to others.
Ha had no difficulty in sighted listening coming to his preference, no listening to minute details or training or incessant replay of the same piece of a track, just allowed for a more holistic impression of the music portrayed by the replay system.
The need to find the specific tell that will allow an audible difference to be identified between A & B is what ABX testing imposes on the listener. Finding this & holding focus on this during testing is the main difficulty with Foobar ABX, IMO.
Yea, I know there will be those who say that this type of listening is not imposed by ABX one can listen holistically too. Yea, you can listen in any way you want over any time period you want but show me a positive result for Foobar ABX that used such a style of listening.
Face it, the inability to acquire a positive Foobar ABX result is a failure in the listener to overcome the massive barriers & skewedness that the test has for returning a null result. The casualness with which it is bandied about as some sort of 'proof' on audio forums is testament to how useful a tool of propaganda it has become for the group that cry "prove it" at any posted report from people who report their genuine impressions.
The most equitable & balanced approach, IMO is to treat both sighted listening & blind listening on audio forums as a bit of fun but there are still some ......
Ha had no difficulty in sighted listening coming to his preference, no listening to minute details or training or incessant replay of the same piece of a track, just allowed for a more holistic impression of the music portrayed by the replay system.
The need to find the specific tell that will allow an audible difference to be identified between A & B is what ABX testing imposes on the listener. Finding this & holding focus on this during testing is the main difficulty with Foobar ABX, IMO.
Yea, I know there will be those who say that this type of listening is not imposed by ABX one can listen holistically too. Yea, you can listen in any way you want over any time period you want but show me a positive result for Foobar ABX that used such a style of listening.
Face it, the inability to acquire a positive Foobar ABX result is a failure in the listener to overcome the massive barriers & skewedness that the test has for returning a null result. The casualness with which it is bandied about as some sort of 'proof' on audio forums is testament to how useful a tool of propaganda it has become for the group that cry "prove it" at any posted report from people who report their genuine impressions.
The most equitable & balanced approach, IMO is to treat both sighted listening & blind listening on audio forums as a bit of fun but there are still some ......
- Status
- Not open for further replies.