What kind of evidence do you consider as sufficient?

[Markw4]

I already showed the EBU files were undithered 16 bit, which I know will thrill you.

Sorry, I deleted that last post. Very little sleep last night. Probably time to get off the computer try to get un-jet lagged.

 

[Evenharmonics]

I don't know that Jakob2 is in business, or if he is not. Mr. Harmonics tends to assume that for people who question ABX at all.

^ x2, and Mr Anti-Squarewave is willfully ignorant the actual research into human preference/limits of detection. Actually belligerently ignorant.

I don't think the present line of thinking about employers is helpful, and I find people are taking personally parts that are more of an intellectual/academic line of thinking. I've had to take a step back from what Jakob's said on a few occasions to get at what he's trying to say. (Communication breakdowns? Impossible!)

If you aren't sure, you can ask Jakob2 about his ties with audio electronics selling business.

 

[DPH]

I don't *care* about his ties to the business. I care about what he writes. It may be amazing to realize that people are more nuanced than "in business, must be blind shill"

 

[Evenharmonics]

And in a miraculous way you somehow manage to neglect the concrete informations in my posts?! It could be a hint to a bias....
In fact members of this forum were able to maintain the fiction i never had proposed a "concrete" positive control idea although i directly told them in answers. Obviously that´s the way it works in "religious" like discussions.

In English speaking places, the word "concrete" would be used when describing an undoubted proof by saying "concrete evidence". Speaking of concrete evidence, that would be a good item to cite if you are trying to silence the critics.

 

[Evenharmonics]

I don't *care* about his ties to the business. I care about what he writes. It may be amazing to realize that people are more nuanced than "in business, must be blind shill"

Sounds like willful ignorance. But then it's none of my business what you want to ignore. It's your guard.

 

[mmerrill99]

Maybe because that's the industry accepted way (you're focusing on blind again) if that's part of your agenda just state it, it's OK. Information for instance...

http://www.denismartin.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Martin-et-al.pdf

The people involved here seem to be making an honest effort to address some of the same AB - ABX issues.

And yet, in the paper linked, they state (emphasis mine):

The main goal of this approach is to get away from the traditional AB and ABX test methodologies in situations where the differences between audio systems are very small. In these conditions, these tests place too much pressure on the participant, are too short for the participant to recognize differences, sometimes force the participant into having a “preference”, fatigue the participant quickly, and require that the participant remain consistent with their decisions throughout the test. Overall, these tests are difficult to perform and lack focused assessment of specific attributes.

These authors obviously have an agenda & are just trying to undermine the industry standard & accepted method, right?

At the beginning of this paper several negative claims were made regarding AB and ABX listening tests in regard to audio systems with very small impairments. The testing methodology presented in this paper attempts to solve the issue that trials are too short to recognize differences (only 10 trials over the course of 30-45 minutes). It does not force the listener into having a preference. It also doesn’t require the listener to remain consistent with their decisions trial to trial (they are given a reference). Finally, it tackles the issues of pressure and fatigue by giving them a goal oriented task to do. This final statement is supported by many of the listener comments in the questionnaire. For example, “More examples, even if it makes the test longer. It’s an interesting and fun task.”

 

[Evenharmonics]

You produced only fluff, semantic arguments, deflections, the whole shebang.

That's the noticeable "pattern" I brought up earlier.

 

[TNT]

Jakob2, what about your ties with audio electronics selling business?

My guess is... none.

or...

//

 

[Evenharmonics]

Since he's not using his real name or company title, he can answer "none" and it would be impossible to verify. However, his "pattern" of posting is more revealing.

 

[scott wurcer]

And yet, in the paper linked, they state (emphasis mine):


These authors obviously have an agenda & are just trying to undermine the industry standard & accepted method, right?

Do you even read what I say?

The people involved here seem to be making an honest effort to address some of the same AB - ABX issues.

So you like this protocol let's go with it, don't forget the DB part?

 

[scottjoplin]

Jakob2, what about your ties with audio electronics selling business?

My guess is... none.

or...

//

There's enough in his profile

 

[mmerrill99]

Do you even read what I say?

Yes, I do So why accuse Jakob of having an agenda against ABX when these guys have raised even more issues with AB & ABX testing?

So you like this protocol let's go with it, don't forget the DB part?

Sure, off you go! How do you propose testing 2 DACs with this protocol?

 

[TNT]

There's enough in his profile

Cant find anything there...

//

 

[scottjoplin]

Audio Development, what more do you need to know?

 

[scott wurcer]

Sure, off you go! How do you propose testing 2 DACs with this protocol?

Ah let's see now they were comparing two digital files, with one DAC (supposedly) does that not translate without rocket science to one digital file and two DAC's.

 

[mmerrill99]

Ah let's see now they were comparing two digital files, with one DAC (supposedly) does that not translate without rocket science to one digital file and two DAC's.

Not as far as I understand it but maybe you can enlighten me with some detail on how such a test would be done following the methodology detailed in the paper?

 

[Pano]

And in a miraculous way you somehow manage to neglect the concrete informations in my posts?! It could be a hint to a bias....

Could be, but is not. I've attempted to follow what you are tying to say for years but it is mostly just mud. Yes, I've seem some so-called concrete information, but it just gets lost in the mix. Let me cite a music example. If you want the guitar solo to stand out you had better carve a space for it in the mix. Not only does it need to be a little louder than everything else, it needs to sit in its own tonal and spacial range. If not, the message of the guitar solo gets lost.

Your message is getting lost in your overly thick posts. You can accuse me and others of not paying attention, but that is be wrong. We are trying to understand - but you are failing to get your point across. This isn't our failing, it's yours. We are open to understanding you, but you don't make it easy.

 

[mmerrill99]

BTW, Scott, as I asked you - can you explain why you reckon these guys don't have an agenda against ABX when they detail the issues with AB & ABX tests but yet Jakob does when he states exactly the same issues? I'm still trying to understand what distinguishes between agenda Vs no agenda?

 

[mmerrill99]

Could be, but is not. I've attempted to follow what you are tying to say for years but it is mostly just mud. Yes, I've seem some so-called concrete information, but it just gets lost in the mix. Let me cite a music example. If you want the guitar solo to stand out you had better carve a space for it in the mix. Not only does it need to be a little louder than everything else, it needs to sit in its own tonal and spacial range. If not, the message of the guitar solo gets lost.

Your message is getting lost in your overly thick posts. You can accuse me and others of not paying attention, but that is be wrong. We are trying to understand - but you are failing to get your point across. This isn't our failing, it's yours. We are open to understanding you, but you don't make it easy.

YouTube

 

[Evenharmonics]

mmerrill99, do you sell audio electronics and or related accessories?