Study complete! Total respondents - 151.
Follow on my blog as I post the procedure and analysis in the days
ahead. Thanks for all the input.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View
Posted a short preamble / disclosure in preparation for final results!
142 responses as of this AM.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread:
A reminder to get all results / submissions in! About 1 week left.
As of this AM, total 124 submissions.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread:
Speaking of blind tests ...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406hl=
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread:
OK guys - 100 respondents now. Asia has finally come on-line :-)
2 more weeks... The results are looking interesting!
Keep 'em coming.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this
Just a reminder - 2 weeks left before I close the test. Up to 77
responses as of this AM! Would be great to hit 100+ :-)
Send the link to family, friends, and enemies :-)
Thanks...
http://archimago.blogspot.com/
guit30 wrote:
I tried to download test to wmp from Windows 7, there was a codec or
something that would not let it play, any answers?
Jim
wmp won't play FLAC files will it? These are FLAC files. Try foobar2000
or winamp.
guit30 wrote:
I tried to download test to wmp from Windows 7, there was a codec or
something that would not let it play, any answers?
Jim
Have you tried google search? lots of codec available for wmp
krzys's Profile:
I tried to download test to wmp from Windows 7, there was a codec or
something that would not let it play, any answers?
Jim
guit30's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58733
View this thread:
Quad wrote:
What slightly disqualifiy these results are statements like this:
-extremely high degree of statistical confidence
barely statistically significant difference-
Statistical significance is a zero/one decision. Either it is
significant or it is not. You can't tell anything
Yea more testers please , this is still a very small dataset :)
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97530
Mnyb wrote:
Yea more testers please , this is still a very small dataset :)
Yes, more data would be good. however, even at 50+ responses this AM,
I'm quite happy given the nature of the test - downloading 70MB file, 3
samples to listen to at 2 min each if listened all the way through...
I've
garym wrote:
Contributed to test. Like Mnyb, I had a very hard time distinguishing
FLAC from mp3. I did in the end commit to one set as being mp3, in my
response to survey it was based on very minor hints with certain
sounds and it would not surprise me at all if I was wrong.
Thanks Garym.
Mnyb wrote:
And now I contributed , I hesitated along time between could not hear
any difference and one of the choices (i would not tell here ) but i
committed to one of them this was not easy at all and on any other day i
might have chosen the other one
Contributed to test. Like Mnyb, I
Archimago wrote:
Noticed that the admin closed my thread on Steve Hoffman Forum down...
Apparently one or a few of the comments touched too closely their ABX
policy!
Shooting the messenger is a popular solution to a lot of problems...
Happy new year everyone!
Likewise!
Julf wrote:
Shooting the messenger is a popular solution to a lot of problems...
!
See climate problem :) half a population in denial ? (no it is a fact
,debate is over )
Mnyb's Profile:
Mnyb wrote:
And now I contributed , I hesitated along time between could not hear
any difference and one of the choices (i would not tell here ) but i
committed to one of them this was not easy at all and on any other day i
might have chosen the other one
Thanks Mnyb!
With all the holiday
And now I contributed , I hesitated along time between could not hear
any difference and one of the choices (i would not tell here ) but i
committed to one of them this was not easy at all and on any other day i
might have chosen the other one
Ime it can be hard to tell what file actually would confuse a codec , so
don't fall into the trap that this track sounds good and audiophilish
and therefore must be hard to code with lossy codec .
afiak classic orchestral works is easy to code just because it is
complex and much of the sounds
Get one of these and you don't need a DAC with a USB connection.
They also do a version with a BNC connector.
[image:
http://audiooasis.com/storage/HifaceTwo1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1340222584156]
Stratmangler's
Stratmangler wrote:
Get one of these and you don't need a DAC with a USB connection.
They also do a version with a BNC connector.
Good idea. Then I would only need a new amp/pre with a SPDIF or BNC
connector
I'm just trying to do a good ABX on my existing system here.
garym wrote:
ABX Component for Foobar2000 can automate ABX comparisons.
Sorry for straying off-topic, but I have a question about foobar2000's
ABX. It works great, but only for doing ABX using the computer running
foobar2k, which isn't a great help when I want to compare on a decent
hifi
aubuti wrote:
Sorry for straying off-topic, but I have a question about foobar2000's
ABX. It works great, but only for doing ABX using the computer running
foobar2k, which isn't a great help when I want to compare on a decent
hifi system. Using a pedestrian Y-adapter from the computer's
I would be cool to have a procedure to produce such pairs of files, or
even better a script (running on something I have access to, of course).
Maybe the script could even randomize which file is called A and which
B.
fredgoodman wrote:
I would be cool to have a procedure to produce such pairs of files, or
even better a script (running on something I have access to, of course).
Maybe the script could even randomize which file is called A and which
B.
ABX Component for Foobar2000 can automate ABX
fredgoodman wrote:
The first track has a certain sonic richness to it, but it is
synthesized sound and the vocals near the end are intentionally
distorted. The last track is also intentionally distorted. (Why would
one try to tell the difference between uncompressed distortion and
aubuti wrote:
Exactly. Statistical significance is only significant or not with
respect to a particular (and generally arbitrary) cutoff value such as
0.01, 0.05, etc. The relevant underlying statistic, the p-value, is
continuous, not binary. So there is nothing wrong with the extremely
The first track has a certain sonic richness to it, but it is
synthesized sound and the vocals near the end are intentionally
distorted. The last track is also intentionally distorted. (Why would
one try to tell the difference between uncompressed distortion and
compressed distortion?)
So
azinck3 wrote:
A similar experiment was conducted on a popular programming blog.
The introduction:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
The results:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
What
Quad wrote:
What slightly disqualifiy these results are statements like this:
-extremely high degree of statistical confidence
barely statistically significant difference-
Statistical significance is a zero/one decision. Either it is
significant or it is not. You can't tell anything
Archimago wrote:
Get foobar2000 and the ABX plugin:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
Works very well for this kind of thing!
As for the test itself, I just wanted to present folks with (hopefully)
an easy test with some reasonable material from my collection spanning a
Quad wrote:
Statistical significance is a zero/one decision. Either it is
significant or it is not. You can't tell anything more.
Well, I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. Without
digging two deeply into experimental design, in my own field we tend to
look at statistical
Archimagos test is actually better than the test in the link .
Usually it a typical audiophile cop out to blame the song but we built
this city c'mon :) why not britney spears ,
Archimago poses songs that does not sounds like artifacts to begin with
even if they are not inside everyones taste
Mnyb wrote:
Is there an ABX plugin for SS/SBC/LMS ?
As usual my soundcard in my PC is not the most fantastic (i can hear the
noise ) I have nice par of ADAM A3x which are quite good for a small
cheap speaker ,but not where i do any kind of critical listening .
I'm nowadays in possession
Quad wrote:
What slightly disqualifiy these results are statements like this:
-extremely high degree of statistical confidence
barely statistically significant difference-
Statistical significance is a zero/one decision. Either it is
significant or it is not. You can't tell anything
Just an observation so far...
Some of the harshest critics of MP3 are also the ones refusing to test
the assertion. Unfortunate.
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207
View this thread:
Thinking about it would not a,b,x and some more songs been better ,but
maybe that to much work for some .
But as you say if you use a plugin with abx capability you can have it
.
Lets say a=mp3 b=flac x=unknown .also randomised in a perfect world
randomised by a third party so that not the even
Mnyb wrote:
Thinking about it would not a,b,x and some more songs been better ,but
maybe that to much work for some .
But as you say if you use a plugin with abx capability you can have it
.
Lets say a=mp3 b=flac x=unknown .also randomised in a perfect world
randomised by a third party
azinck3 wrote:
Yes, I found some software a few years back that did this. I tested a
wide variety of source material on a very nice set of headphones at the
radio station I worked at and found I couldn't distinguish anything
above 160kbps VBR mp3s from the original WAVs.
Get foobar2000 and
Good setup , making the mp3 as flac too , it bypasses the Squeezebox
built in mp3 decoder which is not as good as lame .
So now testers can judge the file formats .
And everyone gets the same mp3 decoding ,so that's another variable
tamed ,very good .
Unfortunately there is still the possibility that people will look at
the spectrum analysis of the files (that very clearly shows which one is
the mp3), but claim they could hear the difference.
Julf's Profile:
Julf wrote:
Unfortunately there is still the possibility that people will look at
the spectrum analysis of the files (that very clearly shows which one is
the mp3), but claim they could hear the difference.
I thought of that too... Tried to mitigate this as much as possible.
Give it a try
Julf wrote:
Unfortunately there is still the possibility that people will look at
the spectrum analysis of the files (that very clearly shows which one is
the mp3), but claim they could hear the difference.
Yeah , but being positive most will not cheat ? And if they cheat :
1. This will
Mnyb wrote:
Yeah , but being positive most will not cheat ? And if they cheat :
1. This will feel uncomfortable for the cheater as he (it is sadly
mostly he in audio ) have to cheat to nail the test ,then maybe that
experience will force him to maybe not be so sure in his position .
2.
Mnyb wrote:
Yeah, but being positive most will not cheat?
Hopefully not. I was forced to pull a similar test over at Computer
Audiophile when it become clear that it was possible to cheat.
1. This will feel uncomfortable for the cheater as he (it is sadly
mostly he in audio ) have to cheat
Nice idea, I'm definitely going to try this.
How have you tagged the files? Just so I can find them once scanned by
LMS.
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2
jimbobvfr400's Profile:
jimbobvfr400 wrote:
Nice idea, I'm definitely going to try this.
How have you tagged the files? Just so I can find them once scanned by
LMS.
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2
Sorry jimbo, didn't tag them simply cuz I didn't want to make any
mistake and just keep them nice as
A similar experiment was conducted on a popular programming blog.
The introduction:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
The results:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
azinck3 wrote:
A similar experiment was conducted on a popular programming blog.
The introduction:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
The results:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
Hmmm,
azinck3 wrote:
A similar experiment was conducted on a popular programming blog.
The introduction:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
The results:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html
Nah,
Julf wrote:
Hopefully not. I was forced to pull a similar test over at Computer
Audiophile when it become clear that it was possible to cheat.
On this one I am a bit more sceptical, having seen too many fanatical
audiophiles. We All Know#153; that uncompressed sounds better than mp3,
Archimago wrote:
Hmmm, interesting and not surprising. Here's the thing, I believe MOST
people just do not care or will not be able to tell the difference
because the majority of folks will not have the kind of gear we
generally talk about here.
However, I want to target the high-end
And a poor master of a shite song based on the comments.
Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk 2
jimbobvfr400's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56857
View this thread:
53 matches
Mail list logo
