yeah i'd be saying "maybe later" after two screws...oh wait he was answering the questions!
IIRC Mr. MM was very clear from the beginning with respect to "forum" ABX. I was hoping to get to a better option in physical reality.
If you read something like the ITU spec, it's simply not going to happen except by something like a well funded standards committee, then to what purpose?
BTW there is nothing in the spec about using SOTA electronics, speakers, etc.
If you read something like the ITU spec, it's simply not going to happen except by something like a well funded standards committee, then to what purpose?
BTW there is nothing in the spec about using SOTA electronics, speakers, etc.
At the risk of being accused of repeating myself (& trolling), the IT U spec states that controls are needed - that ensures that the equipment & listeners are capable of a certain level of differentiation of audible signals - nothing about SOTA, just basic capability to participate in an audibility 'test'
I've seen some here demanding that people should report their audiology results (done by a professional) before they post their listening impressions, if they want to be believed.
Good for goose, good for gander ?
I've seen some here demanding that people should report their audiology results (done by a professional) before they post their listening impressions, if they want to be believed.
Good for goose, good for gander ?
Though I understand your view, I would hope you were able of a bit detached view. This is a hobby forum and people come here for entertainment, at least this should be considered, IMO.
Usually it helps if you tell the number of any "ITU spec" that you are referring to.....
It is a bit surprising that some members are still asking for "something other protocol", as is much simpler than you might have thought. Remember the mein requirements for any test/experiment are that it has to be objective, valid and reliable.
So obviously the solution is quite simple, use whatever you want to use, but you have to be able to show that it is/was objective, valid and reliable.
To show (internal) validity use positive and negative controls, specific proposals for sensory differences that could serve as positive controls were made in this thread and in the other (unfortunately closed) threads as well. Btw, these proposals were already mentioned back in 2009/2010 and you might guess which longterm members were already participating in the according threads in those years.
Usage of negative controls was explained as well. And i´m quite confident that it was mentioned numerous times that any experimental attempt should start with a clearly expressed question/hypothesis that will be tested.
So, do you really know what you are asking for?
It is a bit surprising that some members are still asking for "something other protocol", as is much simpler than you might have thought. Remember the mein requirements for any test/experiment are that it has to be objective, valid and reliable.
So obviously the solution is quite simple, use whatever you want to use, but you have to be able to show that it is/was objective, valid and reliable.
To show (internal) validity use positive and negative controls, specific proposals for sensory differences that could serve as positive controls were made in this thread and in the other (unfortunately closed) threads as well. Btw, these proposals were already mentioned back in 2009/2010 and you might guess which longterm members were already participating in the according threads in those years.
Usage of negative controls was explained as well. And i´m quite confident that it was mentioned numerous times that any experimental attempt should start with a clearly expressed question/hypothesis that will be tested.
So, do you really know what you are asking for?
Merrill, Jakob, I would appreciate if you came here with a suggestion of the test procedure, step by step. Otherwise I do not appreciate your inputs in this thread. It reminds me the situation as if I was chatting and giving suggestions in general about amplifiers and was unable to design and build one.
Yes, I was going to add that there's nothing wrong with having a bit of fun & I have said that numerous times already but feared I was repeating myself if I said it again.
Nothing wrong with these listening reports or sighted listening reports - they are both a bit of anecdotal fun.
Some people seem to interpret these results as more than that, however which I feel is incorrect & worth pointing out. Sorry about this.
Pavel, I applaud you for your Sin wav test which followed the main test - that actually goes a long way to trying to make the 'test'more than a 'bit of fun'. Really, it's all about stepping beyond the haphazard, random nature of forum tests (& a bit of fun) into something that shows a bit more rigor.
If the source for Foobar ABX utility could be provided, I'm sure we could devise a somewhat better test?
But can I make the point that people don't seem to understand the significance of your Sine Wav test to the results reported in the main test so I'm not sure if the significance of any controls are or would be understood?
One last point: Jakob & my posts pointing out issues & errors concerning perceptual testing are no different from others pointing out issues & errors in electrical circuits & understanding - it's just that there's no easy engineering solution as there is in electrical schematics - perceptual testing relies on process rigor for useful (valid) results - that's just the hard facts of that branch of science.
Last edited:
really who? or better yet why? seems only the people who have an objection to it all are the pundits.
Active diy speaker listening:
1) Screw
2) Screw
3) Maybe later
Based on clues from apricot/avocado test guess with this genre i changed my mind about preference but lets see
Update to point three, best i could
:foo_abx 2.0.5 report
foobar2000 v1.4.1
2018-12-15 18:36:51
File A: nail.wav
SHA1: b67b06219b6dfa12c87c4a1cfd95ca1d489362f6
File B: screw.wav
SHA1: e012634713c70a44fc096404a65f4fdc3b397f5a
Output:
WASAPI (event) : JRiver Media Center 23 (JRiver Media Center 23), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO
18:36:51 : Test started.
18:39:08 : 00/01
18:40:51 : 00/02
18:42:58 : 01/03
18:44:53 : 02/04
18:47:22 : 02/05
18:49:09 : 02/06
18:58:37 : 02/07
19:02:00 : 03/08
19:02:00 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 3/8
Probability that you were guessing: 85.5%
-- signature --
cc93f0b610b285e19ca972fa9e77c943cd1bbd8b
Sorry https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-S!!PDF-E.pdf
I'm asking you to DO IT, and it's obvious you are not interested so we shall move on.
Don't miss this:
Hence my "don't care" position which gets criticized, if you need to select a panel of 5 top mastering professionals to get positive results on a $3000 DAC vs a $250 one I truly don't care.
Last edited:
Update to point three, best i could
foo_abx 2.0.5 report
foobar2000 v1.4.1
2018-12-15 18:36:51
File A: nail.wav
SHA1: b67b06219b6dfa12c87c4a1cfd95ca1d489362f6
File B: screw.wav
SHA1: e012634713c70a44fc096404a65f4fdc3b397f5a
Output:
WASAPI (event) : JRiver Media Center 23 (JRiver Media Center 23), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO
18:36:51 : Test started.
18:39:08 : 00/01
18:40:51 : 00/02
18:42:58 : 01/03
18:44:53 : 02/04
18:47:22 : 02/05
18:49:09 : 02/06
18:58:37 : 02/07
19:02:00 : 03/08
19:02:00 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 3/8
Probability that you were guessing: 85.5%
-- signature --
cc93f0b610b285e19ca972fa9e77c943cd1bbd8b
Thank you both for trying the new files and posting opinions and results.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.