Hi everyone, the happy day has arrived :-)
Time to end the test - I'll do it at 23:59 PST today. About 15 hours
from now.
Over the last 2 months, I have had to ask forum moderators where the
test was advertised to remove 2 instances of someone posting their
answer for others to see. (Mind you,
Hi guys. Almost 2 months on-line now...
Will be closing the survey on June 20th so place your bets soon :cool:
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
Well, I zoned in on the last track, in fact the first two notes of the
first track.
Here were my results (I won't refer to A or B, because I don't want to
influence anyone else, I shall refer to Vanilla and Chocolate, but I
won't tell you if Chocolate or Vanilla is A or B!)
I created a playlist
darrenyeats wrote:
Well, I zoned in on the last track, in fact the first two notes of the
first track.
Here were my results (I won't refer to A or B, because I don't want to
influence anyone else, I shall refer to Vanilla and Chocolate, but I
won't tell you if Chocolate or Vanilla is A or
Mnyb wrote:
I do like to compare it with cargo cults.
Hey! Don't diss people's religious beliefs!
I was a practising Cargo Cultist until I was Touched by His Noodly
Appendage. That doesn't make me a bad person (as I was one already).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
Archimago wrote:
Darren, that was like a year and a half ago man! Surely the ears haven't
declined that much in the time...
Watch the decibels on that heavy metal, dude! :(
I'm the audio equivalent of a drinker getting longer hangovers! Not
good.
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using
Julf wrote:
Where's the your system is not resolving enough crowd? ;)
Exactly !
My equipment specs just aren't that good.
jhonsber...@msn.com's Profile:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4438
View this
Julf wrote:
Where's the your system is not resolving enough crowd? ;)
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
Exactly !
My equipment specs just aren't that good.
Ok , now have you seen the specs on some of the real high end audiophile
stuff that is supposed to be resolving enough :)
In the more
darrenyeats wrote:
I distinguished 320 MP3 and 16/44 in Archimago's test and was able to do
it blind 9 times out of a total of 10 tries. But only for one track out
of three (the metal track) and even then I couldn't decide which was
better.
Since then my system has undergone marked
jimmypowder wrote:
Quadruple blind
That only works for surround sound.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
I distinguished 320 MP3 and 16/44 in Archimago's test and was able to do
it blind 9 times out of a total of 10 tries. But only for one track out
of three (the metal track) and even then I couldn't decide which was
better.
Since then my system has undergone marked improvements inevitably my
ears
Julf wrote:
That only works for surround sound.
Ok double blind.
Gear:Rca speakers,Sansui amp
jhonsber...@msn.com's Profile:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4438
View this thread:
Julf wrote:
That only works for surround sound.
Double blind with my equipment.
Speakers:Radio Shack Mono
Amp: Pylepro Walmart
Headphones: Beats by Dr.Dre
Control:Ipeng
jhonsber...@msn.com's Profile:
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
Double blind with my equipment.
Speakers:Radio Shack Mono
Amp: Pylepro Walmart
Headphones: Beats by Dr.Dre
Control:Ipeng
Player:Squeezebox 1
Where's the your system is not resolving enough crowd? ;)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
Julf wrote:
And you use duble-blind ABX?
Quadruple blind
jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101386
w3wilkes wrote:
Found the answer in this thread...
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?80798-Setting-up-Squeezebox-server-to-transcode-MP3-on-server-rather-than-natively-on-Touch
Very nice. Thank's a lot!
I can tell the difference between 128kbps and 256 kbps . I can tell the
difference between 320kbps and cd/flac/apple lossy files.
I cannot tell the difference between 16 vs 24 bit files even with
genelec nearfield monitors. The 24 bit files may be a bit fuller
Of course my ears have been
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
I can tell the difference between 320kbps and cd/flac/apple lossy files.
That's actually very impressive as its quite unusual. And this is with
ABX (doubleblind tests) on regular music (not known problem samples)?
I know one can eventually train oneself to hear
garym wrote:
That's actually very impressive as its quite unusual. And this is with
ABX (doubleblind tests) on regular music (not known problem samples)?
I know one can eventually train oneself to hear certain artifacts in
lossy files (I've avoided doing that as I don't want to hear such
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
I haven't trained myself to hear artifacts,I just have sensitive ears
and when I do my critical listening Im about 2 feet from the Genelecs on
my computer desk.
And you use duble-blind ABX?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
w3wilkes wrote:
I presume this is done by having LAME installed in LMS and then for each
player in Settings - Player tab - Audio in dropdown - Bitrate Limiting
to No limit and LAME Quality Level to 0 (Highest Quality, very
slow)?
I've done that ... but Lame.exe is not acivated.
How to make
Found the answer in this thread...
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?80798-Setting-up-Squeezebox-server-to-transcode-MP3-on-server-rather-than-natively-on-Touch
2 Duets - 1 for upstairs and 1 for downstairs
Rock Solid with LMS 7.8.0 and WHS 2011
w3wilkes wrote:
I presume this is done by having LAME installed in LMS and then for each
player in Settings - Player tab - Audio in dropdown - Bitrate Limiting
to No limit and LAME Quality Level to 0 (Highest Quality, very
slow)?
Edit: What about software players like Squeezeslave and
Sorry for not sesrch out the links and bugs , im writing on my phone
while traveling , im out in the sticks on a work project
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200
For the MP3 versus CD test your ran, I did pick out the metal track as
different (9/10 times no cherry picking using randomised playlists I
correctly identified A versus B) although I couldn't actually say which
one was CD i.e. couldn't say which was better! But it shows a
difference is audible.
Archimago wrote:
As typical for that site.
For more details around that 44 vs. 88kHz paper, have a look at this
thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82264
Remember, only 3/16 listeners in that paper got significant results
overall and all admitted to feeling
SBGK wrote:
with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
CD
Julf wrote:
Without doing it under controlled double-blind ABX conditions, you won't
know if the lack of detail is due to your hearing or your belief system.
Some people seem to trust their belief system more than their ears.
I really don't understand.
How is it that relatively informed
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments give you
the same result,
get.amped wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments give
Julf wrote:
Without doing it under controlled double-blind ABX conditions, you won't
know if the lack of detail is due to your hearing or your belief system.
Some people seem to trust their belief system more than their ears.
There is a simpler way. Using AudioDiffMaker often gives the
darrenyeats wrote:
For the MP3 versus CD test your ran, I did pick out the metal track as
different (9/10 times no cherry picking using randomised playlists I
correctly identified A versus B) although I couldn't actually say which
one was CD i.e. couldn't say which was better! But it shows a
SBGK wrote:
with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
CD
Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
files is VERY evident.
This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128 kB MP3. Only
with the
foxx wrote:
Something I came across when I subscibed to WiMP:
The difference between their 256 kB MP3 files and their lossless FLAC
files is VERY evident.
This is quite contrary to my my previous experiences, when I converted a
96/24 Flac file down to 44.1/16 FLAC, 320 kB MP3 and 128 kB
Mnyb wrote:
Maybe similar with spotify premium , but not soo evident ,just a slight
diff ( unconfirmed ) , but they use ogg not mp3.
But I think they are cheaping out of CPU cycles and use less expensive
options in these lossy formats , using the best psychoacoustic models
use much more
Archimago wrote:
Interesting comment about the MP3 decoding on the SB units. I assume the
ARM-based Touch/Radio should have better decoding algorithm than the
earlier SB3/Boom/Transporter IP3k-based devices?
Indeed. Not all MP3 encoders were created equal so one can't say modern
LAME is
...well at least *they* hear the difference :-)
http://www.audiostream.com/content/hd-downloads-blind-test-almost
Case closed!
marflao's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=57334
View this thread:
Archimago wrote:
Hi Mr. Amped.
Don't know if there is a layman's article on line for all this stuff...
I'm sure searches will get you many articles of stuff like dynamic
range, THD, IMD, noise floor; or even the more esoteric stuff
like the upsampling filter types. On a number of the
marflao wrote:
...well at least *they* hear the difference :-)
http://www.audiostream.com/content/hd-downloads-blind-test-almost
Case closed!
As typical for that site.
For more details around that 44 vs. 88kHz paper, have a look at this
thread:
Hi Archimago,
I would really like to know if those users who couldn´t hear a
difference would still buy HD formats or if they would be fine with
Redbook (pr even less). ;-)
My personal feeling is it won´t have a great impact on their buying
behaviour and most of them will go for the HD format
I'll modified my behaviur a couple of years back to buy 24/96 if avaible
call it slush margin but i'll never go for 24/192 or DSD if it's not
the only option .
Theoretically my fully digital system should benefit from 24/96 material
it does some eq room compensation and volume in the digital
If they accept they are getting a better master as a result of buying
the HD format then that's potentially a valid reason to buy them.
In a similar way I still use flac even though I couldn't tell flac and
good mp3 apart in the last test because there are other advantages
Sent from my Nexus 7
jimbobvfr400 wrote:
If they accept they are getting a better master as a result of buying
the HD format then that's potentially a valid reason to buy them.
In a similar way I still use flac even though I couldn't tell flac and
good mp3 apart in the last test because there are other
Archimago wrote:
Actually the SB3 can handle 24-bit although downsampled to 48kHz as you
noted.
Even the built-in analogue output is capable of 16-bits:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/02/measurements-slim-devices-logitech.html
Interesting. I have to confess that I don't really
Mnyb wrote:
But one point I yet have to see investigated is if the different
variettes of download from say HD-tracks *really* is the same thing ?
.:)
This is something the music industry could gain back their credibility
with. An unambiguous identification criterion for the
It's always worth checking DR Database, just in case, when considering a
high res download, to see if there is any evidence the master is
different. (Obviously DR isn't the whole story but it's an indicator at
least.) Sometimes, it is.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
marflao wrote:
Hi Archimago,
I would really like to know if those users who couldn´t hear a
difference would still buy HD formats or if they would be fine with
Redbook now (or even less). ;-)
My personal feeling is it won´t have a great impact on their buying
behaviour and most of them
LMS will convert the source to a format that your sb3, touch, radio etc
will be able to play. How do I verify that LMS is not converting the
Flac file for my Touch? I have never fully understood the settings on
that advanced options screen.
This issue could throw off the results if that
P Nelson wrote:
LMS will convert the source to a format that your sb3, touch, radio etc
will be able to play. How do I verify that LMS is not converting the
Flac file for my Touch? I have never fully understood the settings on
that advanced options screen.
This issue could throw off
I would consider participating, but my SB3 only does 16/44.1 (48?).
Which, as it turns out, is perfectly adequate since the vast majority of
my listening is FLACs from my ripped CDs. But it may mean that I can't
make any claims of audiophilianess (yes, I just made up that word!).
get.amped wrote:
I would consider participating, but my SB3 only does 16/44.1 (48?).
Which, as it turns out, is perfectly adequate since the vast majority of
my listening is FLACs from my ripped CDs. But it may mean that I can't
make any claims of audiophilianess (yes, I just made up that
Archimago wrote:
Thanks for taking the test! No worries outing yourself... I'll tell
you a little secret - you're not the only one admitting to this on the
survey :)
Puh I'm relieved to hear that :-)
Looking forward to the evaluation - especially the speaker /headphone
hit
Archimago wrote:
Yes. I'll see about subjecting the data to stats analysis of
significance. As of today, I've got 50 responses and hope to achieve at
least 150 like I did with the MP3 vs. FLAC test last year by the end of
it.
Great! Really looking forward to the results!
To try to judge
Well.I will out myselfI did the test anddidn´t hear a
difference.
I didn´d A/B'ing intantaneously but rather just played the whole
album, song after song, from my NAS= Touch = DAC = Integrated =
LS.
So does that make me an non-believer? Guess not.
I assume there will be people out
marflao wrote:
So does that make me a non-believer? Guess not.
Just out of curiosity, what would it take?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
So in the endI´m looking forward to the findings.
@Archimago: have you thought about analyzing the statistical
significance of the results? What conclusion can be drawn, if, let's
say, 62% of the responses show a preference for the real 24-bit
tracks?
To try to judge the real from the
Julf wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what would it take?
You can do repeated tests at home with varius material . In my case the
tenth time you see the pattern .
Besides the physics off it . You are the limit for Frequncy response .
And equipment background noise and again you limits the
Julf wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what would it take?
Hi Julf,
what I meant is that even I heard no difference based on the way I
tested it I do respect others findings that there is/might be a
difference between the files. Just from sonic point of view.
Julf wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what would it take?
What it took for me to be cured of my audiophilia was that I did a
level-matched but sighted comparison of two DACs and heard a (slight)
difference, but when I repeated the test blind, scored precisely 50%.
Transporter - ATC SCM100A
marflao wrote:
what I meant is that even I heard no difference based on the way I
tested it I do respect others findings that there is/might be a
difference between the files. Just from sonic point of view.
Fair enough! I am just curious about what it would take, in general, to
convince the
Julf wrote:
Fair enough! I am just curious about what it would take, in general, to
convince the hi-res believers - but I am afraid not even hundreds of
tests like the one archimago is running would do it.
I think it's time to make a distinction between normal audiophiles who
are hi-res
ralphpnj wrote:
I think it's time to make a distinction between normal audiophiles who
are hi-res believers and industry insiders who are hi-res promoters.
For me the biggest difference between the two is that industry insiders
who are hi-res promoters will never try even one double blind
marflao wrote:
lol
Wow! I really thought that my quoting you would just get you mad so
thank you for taking it in stride.
Now I'm wondering if you are laughing at my seemingly inflexible
attitude in that it may appear that I believe that almost everyone in
the high end audio business is a con
marflao wrote:
Well...was it really intended to get me mad?
At least I didn't take it that way.
...
Other people, other experiences ...I´m fine with that.
No I did intend for my post to upset you and I'm glad that it did not.
I am also fine with Other people, other experiences provided
ralphpnj wrote:
I think it's time to make a distinction between normal audiophiles who
are hi-res believers and industry insiders who are hi-res promoters.
For me the biggest difference between the two is that industry insiders
who are hi-res promoters will never try even one double blind
ralphpnj wrote:
No I did intend for my post to upset you and I'm glad that it did not.
I am also fine with Other people, other experiences provided that:
1) the person is not part of the high end audio industry, e.g. a writer
for a high end audio magazine or someone selling a product.
marflao wrote:
Yep...will second this.
Although I must admit that I like some writers I cannot recall that any
of them had torn down a reviewed device in pieces. Hmmmand the
answer should be clear because he might review another one from the same
company in the future and will get
marflao wrote:
Well.I will out myselfI did the test anddidn´t hear a
difference.
I didn´d A/B'ing instantaneously but rather just played the whole
album, song after song, from my NAS= Touch = DAC = Integrated =
LS.
So does that make me a non-believer? Guess not.
I assume
Julf wrote:
@Archimago: have you thought about analyzing the statistical
significance of the results? What conclusion can be drawn, if, let's
say, 62% of the responses show a preference for the real 24-bit
tracks?
Yes. I'll see about subjecting the data to stats analysis of
significance. As
Gandhi wrote:
Somewhere in this thread there are suggestions to also compare 16/44.1
and 24/96. That would certainly be interesting, but an alternative would
be to brush up on the 2007 AES paper Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A
Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. It never
Peter Galbavy wrote:
In a similar vein, for those who claim analogue FM radio is superior
to nasty digital DAB and online streaming, point them at the story of
the BBC and PCM/NICAM from the 60s.
Ah, the brave pioneers. Gawwd, they were hard core and ingenious. Well,
now I know that nothing
Peter Galbavy wrote:
Never seen this before, it's wonderful.
In a similar vein, for those who claim analogue FM radio is superior
to nasty digital DAB and online streaming, point them at the story of
the BBC and PCM/NICAM from the 60s
Gandhi wrote:
I have a surprisingly big amount of (former) collegues, who believe in
crystal healing, astrology and such, and we all work in applied
mathematical statistics.
You people might find it strange that quite a few of my collegues are
into New Age stuff. But you really have no idea
Archimago wrote:
Yup CD vs. high-res would be fantastic if there were only a way to
ensure that it was done blindly. I can imaging maybe a Windows/Mac/Linux
program where you could choose ABX where it would play 24/96 or 16/44
that's upsampled to 24/96 maybe so the DAC doesn't show the
RonM wrote:
I don't think the issue is really a self-administered blind test.
Anyone can cheat when no one is watching. So a 24/96 vs 16/44 test
would be for those who can genuinely get something from it on their own.
Or, alternately, as a mechanism through which a blind test can be
Archimago wrote:
As if there's some kind of heretical thinking going on here
Well, I definitely felt a bit of a heretic when I got a 1-week ban on
Pink Fish for saying Any evidence?. Yes, those two words was all I
responded, and that got me banned. :)
Speaking of heresy... I also left a
Somewhere in this thread there are suggestions to also compare 16/44.1
and 24/96. That would certainly be interesting, but an alternative would
be to brush up on the 2007 AES paper Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A
Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. It never gets old.
Gandhi wrote:
Somewhere in this thread there are suggestions to also compare 16/44.1
and 24/96.
The issue with that is that it is even harder to make that test
non-cheatable. One approach I tried was to use material that doesn't
contain much HF energy (so that anything beyond 22 kHz drowns in
Julf wrote:
Ah, but that would require faith in peer-reviewed research :)
Silly me. Why would anyone want to trust the principle that makes it
possible to evaluate medical drugs and build functioning rockets and
nuclear powerplants. Granted these systems are not failproof - none are
- but if
Gandhi wrote:
Silly me. Why would anyone want to trust the principle that makes it
possible to evaluate medical drugs and build functioning rockets and
nuclear powerplants.
Not only that, but also used to develop all the technologies (starting
with the transistor) that make audio systems
Julf wrote:
You do realize that if your test is successful you will probably be
banned? :)
Of course he will be banned since now that the owner of the Computer
Audiophile site has gone of a regular audiophile like us to an
industry insider he cannot afford to have anything or anyone
Julf wrote:
I forgot that audio systems are special
Well, the audio system is kinda special since it consists not only of
the physical properties of the audio hardware and the world in it's
close vicinity, but also of the preconceptions and the auditory
perception of the human mind, with all
Gandhi wrote:
Placebo is well known, but could somebody perhaps recommend some good
research regarding flaws in auditory perception?
There is of course quite a lot of psychoacoustic research published, but
Oliver Sacks has done a pretty good job of popularising some of the
stuff in
Gandhi wrote:
And has anyone seen classes outside the university world, where they
teach the principles of the scientific method? They could perhaps
advance the world a bit.
Can't point to any other than the IB program julf mentioned. But your
comment made me think that we should probably
garym wrote:
Can't point to any other than the IB program julf mentioned. But your
comment made me think that we should probably require taking (and
passing) a class in the scientific method as a minimum criteria for
allowing one to vote here in the US. :p
+1 and everywhere else , but U.S
Mnyb wrote:
+1 and everywhere else , but U.S has the powerfull combo of money and
ignorance ...
Never the less it always amazes me that so few actually understnds their
own education . People that have had classes in natarul history science
and biology still swims with dolphins or buy
Julf wrote:
There is of course quite a lot of psychoacoustic research published, but
Oliver Sacks has done a pretty good job of popularising some of the
stuff in Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.
Thanks, I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of that.
Julf wrote:
I am very glad
Mnyb wrote:
I expand Gary's idea to include use of resources . You can only use
stuff that fits your world-view people who thinks the earth is 6000
years old etc can't have electricity or computers or anything more
advanced than a rock . None of these things would exist if their beliefs
Gandhi wrote:
Silly me. Why would anyone want to trust the principle that makes it
possible to evaluate medical drugs and build functioning rockets and
nuclear powerplants. Granted these systems are not failproof - none are
- but if audiophools with their magical thinking were responsible
Julf wrote:
There is of course quite a lot of psychoacoustic research published, but
Oliver Sacks has done a pretty good job of popularising some of the
stuff in Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.
I am very glad the International Baccalaureate diploma programme
contains a
Archimago wrote:
Indeed Julf. The Theory of Knowledge class was one of my favourites when
I did IB in high school back in the late 80's! (Diploma program with
Extended Essay and all...)
Glad to hear! My wife is a teacher and IB coordinator, and used to do
the ToK...
To try to judge the
garym wrote:
Can't point to any other than the IB program julf mentioned. But your
comment made me think that we should probably require taking (and
passing) a class in the scientific method as a minimum criteria for
allowing one to vote here in the US. :p
Voting?!?! How about requiring
Just invited the boys at ComputerAudiophile General Forum last night...
One stat I'll reveal - 100% male response. Would be amazing to get even
one lady respond!
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago wrote:
Would be amazing to get even one lady respond!
Clearly they have much better things to be getting on with :)
I certainly have.
Music and beer await ...
Chris :)
Stratmangler's Profile:
Archimago wrote:
Just invited the boys at ComputerAudiophile General Forum last night...
One stat I'll reveal - 100% male response. Would be amazing to get even
one lady respond!
Perhaps ZZJolx's mom will take the test but first you have to add some
Skynyrd samples :)
Living Rm:
Archimago wrote:
Just invited the boys at ComputerAudiophile General Forum last night...
Interesting - that will test how good your masking is - if one of them
figures out a way to tell the samples apart, they will all use that
instead of actually listening (this based on a similar listening
ralphpnj wrote:
Perhaps ZZJolx's mom will take the test but first you have to add some
Skynyrd samples :)
LOL Ralph. I'll remember that next time... :eek:
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Julf wrote:
Interesting - that will test how good your masking is - if one of them
figures out a way to tell the samples apart, they will all use that
instead of actually listening (this based on a similar listening test I
did over at CA at one point, that had to be stopped prematurely
Julf wrote:
You do realize that if your test is successful you will probably be
banned? :)
Well... So be it if that is the case. How odd it is that in 2014, there
would even be controversy in using blind testing to empirically explore
thresholds of human perception. As if there's some kind of
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
