Frankly, about 5 years ago and more I did not like DBT listening tests. I have to say that my opinion has changed and I consider them valuable. I think that high rate of false responses is mostly because of missing "aids" and pressure to get oriented only by hearing and nothing else. For the same reasons I find these tests valuable.
The training of the listeners may have influence as well.
I was wondering, as you emphasized the fact "in sighted listening of course" and that seems to me as missing about the same/or nearly same problem under controlled (blind) listening conditions.
That controlled listening tests are a valuable thing is something i´ve written about since roughly 10 years (at least) while hammering on the fact that it isn´t easy to get _correct_ results without taking a lot of precautions.
Your former dislike of "DBTs" might be the reason why you have missed a lot of these discussion (at least it seems to me that you must have missed it).
That´s the reason why i sometimes state that it is as easy to get wrong results with "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening tests" - wrt the underlying question that should be addressed.
I already mentioned that it was a very simple test. Anyone who has not overcome it has a problem in their equipment, electrical grid or the lack of optimization of the OS and soft players (much more likely than deafness).
And off course, forget foobbar2000 (32 bits) to enjoy the music! Only as a tool and to play ISO (better sound that JRMC in my system).
foobar2000: Components Repository - ABX Comparator
Maybe the problem is my system but the sound of foo+ABX was the same that the Lacinato ABX when I made other PMA tests months ago (with ASIO4ALL or Kernel Streaming). With JRMC, without any type of ABX, it was more easy.
Off course, in foobar2000 and JRMC the buffer is only 50 ms (the sound is better). It is the first optimization to make in good soft players.
Maybe the problem is my system but the sound of foo+ABX was the same that the Lacinato ABX when I made other PMA tests months ago (with ASIO4ALL or Kernel Streaming). With JRMC, without any type of ABX, it was more easy.
Last edited:
foobar2000-preferences-output-kernel-streaming-buffer-50ms
foobar2000-output-kernel-streaming
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
foobar2000-output-kernel-streaming
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
foobar2000: Components Repository - Kernel Streaming support
http://www.asio4all.org/
In my system (W10 Pro 1709 64 bits, and older compilations too) the sound is better with ASIO4ALL v2.13 and not with the new 2.14
http://www.asio4all.org/
In my system (W10 Pro 1709 64 bits, and older compilations too) the sound is better with ASIO4ALL v2.13 and not with the new 2.14
Of course it was - because it's not a blind test. Sighted tests are always easier because we know the answer. I can hear differences with JRiver, too - but they disappear in a blind test. If you are truly honest with yourself, you'll acknowledge that you don't really hear the differences in JRiver, either.
This reminds me of my tests; MP3 320 kbps vs FLAC 16/44, FLAC 16/48, FLAC 16/96, FLAC 24/96 and FLAC 24/192.
Years ago all insisted that they could not be differentiated, when it was very easy to me. What if golden ears and other stupidities.
Going to other people's houses, with much more expensive equipment, and some expensive ones where I was unable to differentiate the music I was playing, MP3 320 kbps vs FLAC 16/44, and when I came back to mine the difference was evident in my two systems.
Evidently, to me, the problem was their equipment, which had to have one or several bottlenecks that prevented to appreciate the difference.
Years ago all insisted that they could not be differentiated, when it was very easy to me. What if golden ears and other stupidities.
Going to other people's houses, with much more expensive equipment, and some expensive ones where I was unable to differentiate the music I was playing, MP3 320 kbps vs FLAC 16/44, and when I came back to mine the difference was evident in my two systems.
Evidently, to me, the problem was their equipment, which had to have one or several bottlenecks that prevented to appreciate the difference.
With foobar, better use a sound card with a dedicated ASIO driver, together with installed ASIO component in foobar. With that, it is guaranteed to deliver 100% bit-perfect data (checked with the RME bit test files for the Adi-2 Pro) when volume is at 100% and all options (DSPs, replay gain etc) are set to *off*.
So the only thing left that might be able to cause a difference is amount of jitter on the USB transfer and it is the task of the interface to handle this gracefully -- if not, it's a substandard interface, simple as that. The interface must be clock master, of course. Foobar (or any other player for that matter) has no control over all that, anyway.
So the only thing left that might be able to cause a difference is amount of jitter on the USB transfer and it is the task of the interface to handle this gracefully -- if not, it's a substandard interface, simple as that. The interface must be clock master, of course. Foobar (or any other player for that matter) has no control over all that, anyway.
Last edited:
By the way,
maty foobar2000 - Google Search
and go to Images too.
I have write a manual to use foobar2000 and others unknown players, like BugHead (not available in open Internet, like my tests and my technical threads about audio). And how to make very good rips too. And a compilation with the old browser K-Meleon (Gecko) with to which I implemented the 1by1 player.
k-meleon nauscopico - Google Search
But of course, I do not know anything at all, all are my imaginations.
maty foobar2000 - Google Search
and go to Images too.
I have write a manual to use foobar2000 and others unknown players, like BugHead (not available in open Internet, like my tests and my technical threads about audio). And how to make very good rips too. And a compilation with the old browser K-Meleon (Gecko) with to which I implemented the 1by1 player.
k-meleon nauscopico - Google Search
But of course, I do not know anything at all, all are my imaginations.
The last optimizations that I have achieved have been to reduce the jitter generated by the CPU. There is a before and after after getting it.
I have been in it for months. If I optimize excessively the sound ends up being fatiguing.
Before I was excited with few recordings, more for the interpretation (like Nessun dorma by Franco Corelli, 1966) than for the sound quality but now I get it much more often and MORE, which is what really matters to me.
I said why bother, this software/hardware/OS tweaking changes by the week so I went external SSD or SD card player/recorder (on battery) for anything serious.
DSP, ony the VST plugin iZotope RX 7 De-Hum.
After the mass I have added at the furniture of my tweaked KEF Q00 5.25" coaxial speakers this summer:
Years ago, before my gadgets to solve my very great problems with the electrical grid. Noise, DC, RF, EMI... until a voltage rise of 400 Vac (Spain: 50 Hz/230 Vac). Luck of the varistors that I implemented in the gadgets.
After the mass I have added at the furniture of my tweaked KEF Q00 5.25" coaxial speakers this summer:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Years ago, before my gadgets to solve my very great problems with the electrical grid. Noise, DC, RF, EMI... until a voltage rise of 400 Vac (Spain: 50 Hz/230 Vac). Luck of the varistors that I implemented in the gadgets.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.