On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 08:12:20 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
That's the point of the blind test. It isn't trivially obvious
to the casual observer. You might think it is, but you're not a
casual observer.
Well the point of a blind test is more to establish validity for
something having a different effect, but not for establishing
that it isn't different. i.e. false vs unknown, so in the latter
case it would be inconclusive.
These 2 statements are very different:
1. we have not been able to establish that there was any
perceived difference
2. we have established that there was no perceived difference
How would they research this? By asking if one is better than the
other? Well, that is highly subjective. Because better has to do
with expectations. Anyway, cognitive analysis of difference is
rather at a high level and for many something sounds the same if
they interpret the signal the same way. Whereas immersion is much
more subtle and depends on your state of mind also, not only what
you perceive. So not easy to measure! Our perceptual machine is
not a fixed machine, our expectations and mood feeds back into
the system.
Some things like phasing/smearing in high frequency content and
imaging does affect the experience, although the effect is very
subtle and you need good head sets and having heard the original
many times to pinpoint where the differences are at higher
bitrates. (at 300kbit/s it probably isn't all that easy).
