Skip to main content
Topic: two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress (Read 38352 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #175
I'm concerned that people are gaming the tests, assisted by the fact that a lot of the monitoring systems they use are chock full of nonlinear distortion and/or are marginal for dynamic range as used.

Hi Arny.  As you recall, I ran your IM test and found my system to not have such an issue.  This was a week before your post here so I am surprised to see your comment yet again about that.  Perhaps it was forgotten.  Here is that post again: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post25974394

============

Quote
OK, here's my first shot at an IM test.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xk18jgqmu...st%20tones.zip

There are two files in the zip file - both 2496, both containing the usual keys jangling sound, but at the end are 4 seconds of test tones.

(2) Now move on to listening to just the last 4 seconds of the files. The contents of the last 4 seconds of the file should sound like a -30 dB 4 KHz tone (not at all ear splitting), followed by a click, 1 second of silence, a click, 1 second of silence, a click, 1 second of silence, a click and end, whether you listen to the 2496 or the 1644 version. Please report what you hear for both files. Do not change your volume control between the keys jangling ABX listening and an the test tone listening. You do not need to ABX the test tone segments, just do sighted listening and report your subjective impressions.


OK, I am finally home and here are my results. Remember though, if anything I say is wrong, I will be blaming it on the dogs!

96 Khz: it is as you say.

44 KHz: All there except the last click is exceptionally quiet. I had to significantly turn up the volume to hear it.

Let's investigate the difference. Here is the last part of the 96 Khz file:

.

As the soup nazi would say, "no IM distortion for you" in regards to my HP laptop.

Thanks as always for your hard work Arny.[/color]

===============
Back to this HA thread:

Quote
To demonstrate this exposure, I gamed my own system and obtained positive results in an ABX test involving hi rez  audio.  Trust me the results I posted make $3 bills look like legal tender and of course I say as much as part of the so-called results.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post26095274

So if this is such a prevalent problem, how come in many years you put this test out there no one had passed it?  Do we have more "IM distortions" in our systems now than people did 10 to 20 years ago?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #176
I would be cautious about simple abx results from someone making money with audio gear and hanging around in a dedicated forum.

I don't know what a dedicated forum is.  Do you mean WBF?  If so, what is dedicated about it?  The forum is open to all and indeed both Steven (krabapple here and sasully on WBF) and Arny were quite active there as with AVS Forum.  As an administrator, I make no admin decisions when I am engaged in a discussion with anyone so everyone was on equal footing.

And what sales of audio gear?  What do you think was offered for sale and by whom? 

Quote
For example Arny is asking uncomfortable question about some claims at a well known forum of that kind.

What are those uncomfortable questions?  I am happy to address them here and now.

Quote
Alone for that i can imagine someone does some fake foobar abx to make Arny shut up (no pun intended  )

Someone might.  Maybe a lot of people.  But not me.  Winning some argument against Arny is not worth soiling my personal reputation.  I post under my real name and credentials.  Would you mortgage that if you were me just to win an argument online?  I hope you would not.  So not sure why you are applying a different standard to me.

Quote
Just take the files to  test, fill one with silence, do abx, impress the world.

And if you were the only one with a positive result, what then?  You would be found out, not?  Fortunately in this situation, that is not what I did.  And a number of people passed the same test.  A number of them only did so when they saw my positive results.

That is a key point.  People tend to not take these tests seriously.  They are so convinced that they are unpassable that they take a quick listen, quickly give up and say there is no difference.  In other words, no critical listening ability is applied.  And who finds running ABX tests fun to go through it regardless? 

Now, give a bunch of type A online forum males the motivation to match my results and all kinds of folks come out of woodwork .  Mzil spends a "grueling hour" to come up with a "tell."  Would he have spent a second of that without me passing it?  Nope.  I congratulated him for taking the first step in becoming a critical listener and he got infuriated at me.  You seem to be a good judge of these personal situations.  Can you explain his reaction to me 'cause I don't get it.  He rather be known as the person who found a cheat in the test than having better than average ability to detect small differences.

We are talking about small differences.  Training and skill matter and matter a lot.  Most people have hardly ever participated in such tests or if they have, has not been under these circumstances.  I think we are entering a new era in these discussion.  What has developed is real.  We can pass these supposed impossible ABX tests such as Arny's (I think he said in 14 years no one had passed his test including the one where he down sampled to 32 Khz!).

You want to think it is tricks, games and cheating, by all means do.  I go by objective data and I say from here on, you better be afraid, really afraid to challenge people to pass an ABX test.  They can and will put you on a defensive as to go to another forum and ask for help.  It can happen.

Quote
These simple foobar abx like we use here together with mostly known members should not be taken to serious elsewhere.

Please forgive me for putting it this way but that would be putting one's head in the sand.  The data is concrete.  We passed ABX double blind tests.  We even passed them by the guy who said has invented ABX testing (?).  We passed them when he said no one could over many years.

No, we didn't prove high resolution sounds better.  What we did prove beyond any doubt is that we don't all listen equally.  I challenge people to go and take the test.  See if you can match our scores.  Go ahead and even use Mzil's cheat if you like.  I am confident even then most people won't be able to pass the test. 

The above is proven and we can prove it as many times as you like.


Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #177
Arny has to pilgrimage to armirm and do some live testing.

That won't happen in my lifetime. Con artists like Amir don't operate that way. I have absolutely no doubt he cheated on the file test (he invented Blue screen at Microsoft and this is a computerized test) and will endlessly tout his "win" to the  believers on his WTF??? shill haven forum.

You tell them AJ!  Oh wait.    You are just as funny as you were on AVS.

Quote
None of his ilk would ever dare take an independently administered blind test.

But we did AJ.  We let a computer decide which file was which.  I ran foobar as instructed.  I was even challenged by Arny to pass it quickly.  Imagine trying to pass such a test and do it quickly to boot! 

Quote from: amirm;25657258

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/11 06:18:47

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Mosaic_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\Mosaic_B2.wav

06:18:47 : Test started.
06:19:38 : 00/01  100.0%
06:20:15 : 00/02  100.0%
06:20:47 : 01/03  87.5%
06:21:01 : 01/04  93.8%
06:21:20 : 02/05  81.3%
06:21:32 : 03/06  65.6%
06:21:48 : 04/07  50.0%
06:22:01 : 04/08  63.7%
06:22:15 : 05/09  50.0%
06:22:24 : 05/10  62.3%
06:23:15 : 06/11  50.0% <---- difference found reliably.  Note the 100% correct votes from here on.
06:23:27 : 07/12  38.7%
06:23:36 : 08/13  29.1%
06:23:49 : 09/14  21.2%
06:24:02 : 10/15  15.1%
06:24:10 : 11/16  10.5%
06:24:20 : 12/17  7.2%
06:24:27 : 13/18  4.8%
06:24:35 : 14/19  3.2%
06:24:40 : 15/20  2.1%
06:24:46 : 16/21  1.3%
06:24:56 : 17/22  0.8%
06:25:04 : 18/23  0.5%
06:25:13 : 19/24  0.3%
06:25:25 : 20/25  0.2%
06:25:32 : 21/26  0.1%
06:25:38 : 22/27  0.1%
06:25:45 : 23/28  0.0%
06:25:51 : 24/29  0.0%
06:25:58 : 25/30  0.0%

06:26:24 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 25/30 (0.0%)


Notice how I left the failures in there to show the process.  It took 4 minutes to arrive at a solid difference.  End to end the process took 8 minutes. 

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #178
Something related to the Tread. Seems like the HiRes marketing machinery is working well. Everywhere i read some linking to the lately proven superiority of Hires and other things http://www.audiostream.com/content/avsaix-...tion-audio-test. Creating own facts still works well it seems.


Surprisingly to no one at all who 'knows' him, here's the title Amir gave to the thread about these tests, on *his* forum

Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

Meaning what Steven?  Did you read the summary I wrote there?  I assume not.  Here it is: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post276576

In summary, this is in my opinion a watershed event. For a long time I have been saying that the typical hobbyist double blind tests are faulty in the way they don't include trained listeners, nor do people know what distortions they are looking for. The results of my testing completely invalidates the claim that "there are no golden ears." And that we all hear the same. When it comes to non-linear distortions, we absolutely do not hear the same as these results conclusively show.

I put "proof" in quotation mark because of the mistaken belief you all have that passing (or failing) an ABX test constitutes proof of subjective impressions in audio.  It does not.  As you know, Mzil found a way to cheat and pass that way.  And as I mention above, Meyer and Moran found a lot of people who couldn't in their tests.

This is not news to experts in the industry who perform such tests for a living.  But to forum members, this shatters every bit of reality they had as all the angsts expressed in your post and in this thread demonstrates.  You all looking for every which way to denounce the results instead of stepping back and re-examining your past conclusions and ideas formed from purely reading forum posts.

Why not run this test for yourself Steven?  I don't recall you doing so.  Why not?  Do you think you will ever have a first hand feel about this topic without trying seriously to pass the tests?

Quote
And these development, btw, are why I call this mismash of files, SRCs, tests, results and 'conclusions' a 'train wreck'.  HA will be dealing with the litter for who knows how long, every time someone comes here with a link to say 'you guys think you know so much but what about..."? 

I can hardly wait for the Stereophile news item.   

I suggest dealing with the news here and now.  Never before have  you had the opportunity to question people who have passed such tests.  You are squandering that opportunity with personal bickering and mud slinging. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #179
I would be cautious about simple abx results from someone making money with audio gear and hanging around in a dedicated forum.

I don't know what a dedicated forum is.  Do you mean WBF?  If so, what is dedicated about it?  The forum is open to all and indeed both Steven (krabapple here and sasully on WBF) and Arny were quite active there as with AVS Forum.  As an administrator, I make no admin decisions when I am engaged in a discussion with anyone so everyone was on equal footing.

And what sales of audio gear?  What do you think was offered for sale and by whom? 

Quote
For example Arny is asking uncomfortable question about some claims at a well known forum of that kind.

What are those uncomfortable questions?  I am happy to address them here and now.

Quote
Alone for that i can imagine someone does some fake foobar abx to make Arny shut up (no pun intended  )

Someone might.  Maybe a lot of people.  But not me.  Winning some argument against Arny is not worth soiling my personal reputation.  I post under my real name and credentials.  Would you mortgage that if you were me just to win an argument online?  I hope you would not.  So not sure why you are applying a different standard to me.

Quote
Just take the files to  test, fill one with silence, do abx, impress the world.

And if you were the only one with a positive result, what then?  You would be found out, not?  Fortunately in this situation, that is not what I did.  And a number of people passed the same test.  A number of them only did so when they saw my positive results...

I seldom write long posts because of not speaking native english. So this mass quoting and writing is nothing for me.
In short, on WBF i often landed and did read the very dubious claims about filtering, resampling and the related things like people hear many resampling settings differ when going from DSD to PCM and alike. Whenever i read Arny at other forums he asks unconfortable questions regarding these things. WBF for me is a dedicated forum where people from business meet. You can't deny that HiBit stuff is oil for the whole industry.

When following your writings i can't stand the feeling you as someone having great success with working as highly qualified MS man are now on a new mission of opinion making in a very professional way.

I don't have anything more to say.

Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #180
To correct all of Amir's lies and distortions relating to my passing and/or *ahem* "cheating" (HIS word, not mine, and I've corrected him on this very point before, yet he continues to mischaracterize what I actually wrote by using it) in both Arny's original jangling keys tests and the AIX Records song Mosaic A2 vs B2 test (in both cases due to minor audible errors in the way the files were constructed and delivered to us, and having absolutely NOTHING to do with the "audible superiority" of hi-res), would take hours of my time, which I don't have.

BE ADVISED EVERYONE, almost everything Amir has said in the last couple of posts about me, deliberately designed to provoke/taunt me and to get a response from me, since he is a bully, is a LIE, a manipulation of facts, and/or gross distortions of what actually happened in the AVS threads. So ignore them. Also don't let him fool you that my test results have anything to do with him, since he wrote that "we" both passed the test(s). I'll have nothing to do with him or his so-called "high end" agenda/ideology.

Quote
I congratulated him for taking the first step in becoming a critical listener and he got infuriated at me.
It's strange how he words this as if I have any respect for him and would in some way value his "praise" regarding my "first step". His arrogance is staggering.

Quote
You seem to be a good judge of these personal situations.  Can you explain his reaction to me 'cause I don't get it.  He rather be known as the person who found a cheat in the test than having better than average ability to detect small differences.
This is a taunt of me, folks. Don't fall for his "you seem to be a good judge of..." B.S. line appeal to wombat. Like he'd "know"?! Amir is fully aware he is the only person on my ignore list at AVS in my 8 years there, so I wouldn't see it THERE, so he's now doing his provoking, taunting, and bullying here where he knows I'll see it. Do we have a forum rule against this? Mods? We certainly should if we don't!

This won't be a problem for me moving forward since I'm now invoking this forum's ignore list feature as well.

Soon, I suspect, many of you reading this will come to realize it is the only way to deal with this troll.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #181
Are these the same invalid tests as before or is there anything new?
FLAC -> JDS Labs ODAC/O2 -> Sennheiser HD 650 (equalized)

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #182
Mods?

This isn't the place for this side discusson. In fact it should really be had via PM rather than derail yet another discussion with off-topic questions, but you have your PM disabled.

I'm actually quite disappointed in this behavior of arguing by proxy. Now the guy has come over here to answer to arguments leveled against him and you ignore him here too?

PS: Don't assume I'm taking sides here. If our latest is the same type of overly-polite disingenuous slimeball as JA, I have no use for him either. I've so much as told JA this here and would repeat it to his face if I saw him in person.  I have no use for stuffed-shirts.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #183
With regards to the repeated accusations levied against me that my ability to differentiate the two files in both Arny's keys test and Mosaic A2/B2 in the related AVS threads, shown by my posted ABX scores [which in truth I explained was simply due to faint audible artifacts related to problems with how the files have been delivered to us] is due to "cheating" on my part, I resent that, consider it insulting, defamatory, and vehemently object.

I first objected to it here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post26141122

and a second time here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post26160866

and now the accusation of me cheating continues here in our HA thread. It's a cheap shot.

I'm curious, when people watch my video and hear for themselves the difference between the truncated guitar strum at the end of the segment sounding more like a "cha" sound in Mosaic B2 vs more of a "chip" sound in A2, is everyone in agreement my test scores showing my ability to audibly sense this constitutes me cheating?

As I see it, it is the responsibility of the people who delivered these test files to us to not have any such issues such as time misalaignment, level mismatching, or noise differences to begin with. I don't see it as me cheating, at all. If I can prove I can tell a difference consciously by looking for issues such as these, it suggests other people may sense them too, but perhaps only at a subconscious level so they don't realize it.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #184
I am confident even then most people won't be able to pass the test.

You are kidding, right?

Given the quality of the test files, the test can be dismissed without any further justification.
"I hear it when I see it."

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #185
I seldom write long posts because of not speaking native english. So this mass quoting and writing is nothing for me.
In short, on WBF i often landed and did read the very dubious claims about filtering, resampling and the related things like people hear many resampling settings differ when going from DSD to PCM and alike. Whenever i read Arny at other forums he asks unconfortable questions regarding these things. WBF for me is a dedicated forum where people from business meet. You can't deny that HiBit stuff is oil for the whole industry.

When following your writings i can't stand the feeling you as someone having great success with working as highly qualified MS man are now on a new mission of opinion making in a very professional way.

I don't have anything more to say.

Your English is just fine.  You have mastered the art of saying more by writing less.  There certainly is a lesson for people like me .

Briefly then (yeh, right  ), we have a strong commitment to science and objective side of technology in WBF forum.  We have a dedicated expert area where much of that is organized and often moderated by experts in the industry, called "Audio Expert Forum" although the topics span beyond audio.  My fellow DAC designer and electronics engineer Don and I write a number of brief articles on core concepts of audio in the subforum "What's Best in Tech Talk."  There you will find a ton of excellent work (mostly from Don, mine are ramblings) explaining the basics of audio including really nice simulations and such.  While not as active as it used to be, we also have other tech forums from luminaries such as as Dr. Sean Olive who is the current president of Audio Engineering Society, Vincent Kars on computer audio, Mark Seaton on speakers/rooms, Todd Welti of Harman subwoofer fame, etc.

The rest of the forum is open discussion and yes, people share subjective experiences.  As long as they don't try to convince me to follow the same, I let them be .

By the way, are you the same wombat that helped Archimago with his listening test?  If so, I loved your countermeasures against electronic detection of which file is which.  Creative and novel and very needed for any online tests where everyone can fire up Audacity and identify the files.

I took a shot at passing his test and managed to do so on one of the clips:

============

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac

13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01  50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02  75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03  50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04  31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05  18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06  10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07  6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08  3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09  2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10  1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11  0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12  0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13  0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14  0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15  0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)


============

You can read more of my comments about the test here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post279735

So there is more than one train wreck here to sort out .

Take care and thank you again for the measured response.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #186
But we did AJ.

Wrong. You administered the corrupt/cheatable ad hoc test on your computer, not JJ or anyone else. You or your ilk would not dare allow JJ or any non-shyster to administer a valid, non-corrupt file, non-cheatable blind test.
The fact that you/your ilk parade the results of a corrupt/cheatable test as anything other than worthless, simply confirms your ilk's character.
Your taking of a garbage test results in garbage results.
Similar to the BS paper, it only demonstrates the desperation of those from the scam industry, resorting to cheating/gaming/doctoring/pathological tests.
As JJ said previously, there is not a whit of evidence to support 16/44 being incapable of 100% transparent playback vs more bits/higher sampling rates.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #187
By the way, are you the same wombat that helped Archimago with his listening test? If so, I loved your countermeasures against electronic detection of which file is which. Creative and novel and very needed for any online tests

Great to see you admitting online tests can be gamed by unscrupulous shysters who have computer knowledge and sales agendas amir. Bravo. Yes, these tests certainly don't meet ITU BS-1116 do  they?
Thus cannot be used as reliable supporting evidence of anything. No AES submittal or review required with such non-robust tests.

I took a shot at passing his test and managed to do so on one of the clips


Now let's see you pass a say, JJ run/administered ITU-BS1116 test ,where the ex-MS VP has no access to a computer, only your ears.
IOW, something submittable to AES, not online ad hoc online tests.
You are friends with him yes?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #188
I am confident even then most people won't be able to pass the test.

You are kidding, right?

I often am.  Other times I am so confused I don't know what I am talking about.  This occasion is not one of those though.  I am dead serious.  Every test has flaws and these are no exceptions.  The key is what you can extract out of them that is reliable.  In these tests, what is reliable is how few people can pass them.  Mzil has even made a youtube video and still the number of people who have had positive outcomes can be counted by both hands.  That handily, pun intended , shows that we do separate into two groups: those who are critical listeners and those who are not.  This is incredibly useful outcome (though something readily known in research/industry) in these discussions as unless a test uses trained listeners, we can dismiss the results from applying to all of us.

But let's go with your argument.  One of the tests I and a number of other people passed, was Arny's.  Here are my results with his preface:

Quote
Yes. Take the best audio system you can find. Take the best recordings you can find - recordings that sound great and also have significant content > 20 KHz, even > 35 KHz.  Switch a 16 KHz brick wall filter in and out of the signal path. Nobody notices nuttin'

People say: "But I can hear pure tones at 21 KHz".  Probably true. But that is without content at other frequencies masking it. Music is composed of many tones at many different frequencies. Masking in the upward direction frequency-wise is very strong.


Quote
32 Khz versus 96 Khz
=================================
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/09 06:10:07

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling band resolution limited 3216 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

06:10:07 : Test started.
06:10:38 : 01/01  50.0%
06:10:50 : 02/02  25.0%
06:11:07 : 03/03  12.5%
06:11:23 : 04/04  6.3%
06:11:36 : 05/05  3.1%
06:12:00 : 06/06  1.6%
06:12:14 : 07/07  0.8%
06:12:26 : 08/08  0.4%
06:12:38 : 09/09  0.2%
06:12:49 : 10/10  0.1%
06:13:00 : 11/11  0.0%
06:13:23 : 12/12  0.0%
06:13:42 : 13/13  0.0%
06:13:48 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 13/13 (0.0%)


44.1 versus 96 Khz
---------------------------------

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/09 06:32:02

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling band resolution limited 4416 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

06:32:02 : Test started.
06:33:07 : 01/01  50.0%
06:33:17 : 02/02  25.0%
06:33:24 : 03/03  12.5%
06:33:36 : 04/04  6.3%
06:33:47 : 05/05  3.1%
06:33:58 : 06/06  1.6%
06:34:12 : 07/07  0.8%
06:34:15 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 7/7 (0.8%)


Let's have you guys take on Arny and prove to him that he had put a faulty test online for all those years to show high resolution audio has no value.  Or else, take the test and tell us if you hear nuttin'. 

Quote
Given the quality of the test files, the test can be dismissed without any further justification.

Please forgive me as I am new here.  Did you all dismiss Meyer and Moran's tests without further justification due to numerous flaws in theirs?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #189
I took a shot at passing his test and managed to do so on one of the clips:

============

[color="Blue"]foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46


Please note that the above log file is not validated as it will be in an upcoming release of the Foobar2000 ABX plugin.  Therefore the phrase "Caveat Emptor" would appear to apply.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #190
In these tests, what is reliable is how few people can pass them.

Wrong. It only shows how few people are willing to waste their time on nonsense like gameable/cheatable "Hi Rez" online ad hoc tests. Which gives zero credence to the need for anything other than 16/44 distribution of music.

Did you all dismiss Meyer and Moran's tests without further justification due to numerous flaws in theirs?

He didn't, because he knows what it means to Red Herring the argument over whether online gamable/cheatable files are utterly worthless or not. Unlike those devoid of logic or having strong pecuniary interests.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #191
By the way, are you the same wombat that helped Archimago with his listening test? If so, I loved your countermeasures against electronic detection of which file is which. Creative and novel and very needed for any online tests

Great to see you admitting online tests can be gamed by unscrupulous shysters who have computer knowledge and sales agendas amir. Bravo. Yes, these tests certainly don't meet ITU BS-1116 do  they?

In your case, no AJ.  If you are not a critical listener, ITU BS-1116 excludes your participation.  In addition, BS-1116 requires that the content be revealing of distortions being assessed.  The Scott/Mark tests clips are randomly picked in this regard.  Therefore there can be far more critical content than the samples we have in front of us.  This is to be expected as people creating these tests have no knowledge of why or how such artifacts can be audible.

Here is Meyer and Moran stating the exact same thing as above in response to JAES letters criticizing their tests:

Quote
Authors’ Reply2
Dr. Dranove has set requirements for our engineering
report that were not part of our plan, and then dismissed it
for failing to meet them. In hindsight it probably would
have been better for us not to cite the total number of trials
as there are issues with their statistical independence
, as
well as other problems with the data. We did not set out to
do a rigorous statistical study, nor did we claim to have
done so.
Accordingly it may not mean much to do a more
detailed data analysis, though we have done further work
on it that we will discuss later.


[...]

We did not know in advance what source material, what type
of system, or which subjects would be the most likely to
reveal an audible difference.


If you don't know what you are testing for, you are liable to come up empty in listening tests of small differences.

Quote
Thus cannot be used as reliable supporting evidence of anything. No AES submittal or review required with such non-robust tests.

First sentence is you being you AJ and needs no reply.  The second is a lay misconception as to what "AES submittal or review" means.  It didn't catch Meyer and Moran failing to measure their source content to see if they were indeed high resolution files.  It did not catch that they never measured their degraded loop to see if it indeed was degrading to 16/44.1 (i.e. was not analog pass-through).  It did not catch that they did not use training material and screen out non-critical testers.  It did not catch that they let people run the test every which way yet the results combined as one group.

Quote
Now let's see you pass a say, JJ run/administered ITU-BS1116 test ,where the ex-MS VP has no access to a computer, only your ears.

Here is news for you AJ: lack of is not data.  Lack of me running a test conducted by JJ means just that: there is no there there.  JJ has been present in all of these discussions in public and private industry email threads.  He knows of my results and these conversations.  This is data.  What you said is AJ speak.

Quote
IOW, something submittable to AES, not online ad hoc online tests.

And that has been done by Bob Stuart.  So we have both. 

Quote
You are friends with him yes?

Who, JJ?  Sure.  We are friends.  As you know, it was my privilege to hire him as our Audio architect to revamp the horrid XP audio stack and replace it with something that we could stand by with a straight face that it didn't butcher the audio on the way to the sound card.

What I want to know is why you all keep dropping JJ's name?  It is not like you can stand a one minute discussion with him without getting totally lost in the conversation.  The man worked for me yet I don't keep dropping his name.  Seems like using his name has become a debating tactic as to imply that he is on your side.  He is not.  I can show you his posts which immediately invalidate Meyer and Moran.  Go ahead and post another information-free one like what I am responding to and I will do that.  Your call buster. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #192
In these tests, what is reliable is how few people can pass them.

Wrong. It only shows how few people are willing to waste their time on nonsense like gameable/cheatable "Hi Rez" online ad hoc tests. Which gives zero credence to the need for anything other than 16/44 distribution of music.


The only waste of time is reading your information-free posts AJ.  You are also totally confused about my opinion in this regard.  So I will state it.

I want to get the original stereo master files.  I don't want anyone to try to dumb them down for me to 16/44.1.  There is no way whatsoever that they can improve the experience for me in doing so.  If there is some benefit, I am capable of performing that downconversion thank you very much.

All of our equipment is already capable of playing back 24 bit up to 192 Khz.  So no extra hardware is needed and the argument that somehow this benefits people selling gear gutted to no end.

I don't want to rely on the experience of the music producers to know what dither is, what noise shaping is, etc. Give me the bloody bits please.

We used to be bound by limits of CD.  And had to justify production of SACD/DVD-A to get more.  Not anymore.  I can download files as can anyone else.  We are free of cartels that established these physical formats.

You want to have degraded bits AJ?  You can have it.  No one is taking away MP3s although CD over time may become less of a choice as the former takes over even more.  So there is no reason to shed tear and worry that adoption of high resolution downloads does anything unthwarted to you. Even if high res was the only choice, you can butcher the bits to your liking with free software like Audacity.

None of this requires anyone to pass any of these tests.  But you all insist anyway so we ran them.  And pass we did.  Now comes the crying because of that.  Well, the answer is simple: get with the times.  Appreciate that no one in the world is asking your permission, that if Krab, mzil, etc. to offer high resolution content.  Labels are providing them and there is a growing distribution network of the same.  You can waste forum bandwidth getting upset about it but other than being fun to show that you are wrong AJ, it has no other purpose.  Live with that. 

Quote
Did you all dismiss Meyer and Moran's tests without further justification due to numerous flaws in theirs?

He didn't, because he knows what it means to Red Herring the argument over whether online gamable/cheatable files are utterly worthless or not. Unlike those devoid of logic or having strong pecuniary interests.

cheers,

AJ

Let me know when you have something logical or new to say AJ.  Until then, take care good buddy.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #193
And that has been done by Bob Stuart.  So we have both.


The serious flaws in the recent Meridian tests are many and obvious, and I haven't even been able to read the report. I'm sure I will find more.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #194
I laughed at "get with the times" and "degraded bits."

You talk as if there is an obvious difference that is soon to embraced by everyone.

Most people still use lossy and don't care. I use lossless and I don't care.

FLAC -> JDS Labs ODAC/O2 -> Sennheiser HD 650 (equalized)

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #195
In addition, BS-1116 requires that the content be revealing of distortions being assessed.  The Scott/Mark tests clips are randomly picked in this regard.  Therefore there can be far more critical content than the samples we have in front of us.  This is to be expected as people creating these tests have no knowledge of why or how such artifacts can be audible.

Once again, thanks for admitting how worthless these tests you are parading/hanging your hat on are.
GIGO.

Here is Meyer and Moran...

Yet another Red Herring. M&M have zero to do with the validity of the S/M test above you admitted were worthless, zero to do with the validity of the doctored BS tests. M&M have nothing to do with the title, "train wrecks". You still can't escape the fact there is not a whit of evidence to support the non-transparency of 16/44 as a distribution format.

What I want to know is why you all keep dropping JJ's name?

He's your and JAs kryptonite. 

We all know you both know you would fail any test of 16/44 transparency administered by JJ, where no shenanigans were allowed. JA has an out, because he has openly stated he doesn't believe in blind testing due to cognitive dissonance masking what is revealed with long term sighted/fondling/etc of equipment.
You claim to (when convenient)...and you know him personally. So it's not abstract or far fetched to believe that he could administer some digital disorder treatment for you via a 16/44 vs Hi rez test. A valid, robust one. Unlike the online ad hoc business and the BS paper.
Of course, we all understand why you would wish to evade such a public test at all costs, while continuing to parade your ad hoc nonsense.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #196
By the way, are you the same wombat that helped Archimago with his listening test?  If so, I loved your countermeasures against electronic detection of which file is which.  Creative and novel and very needed for any online tests where everyone can fire up Audacity and identify the files.

Yes, i am the same animal.
We used insufficient dither technicaly speaking to exxagerate the result and even that gave no real statiscaly superiority of higher bits.
I wanted more cheat prevention like exchanging the fade in/outs. Archimago is much to nice for using more tricks
On the Bozza sample you can easily see the different noisefloors and most likely hear differences when crancked up the volume.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

 

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #197
I laughed at "get with the times" and "degraded bits."

I am at your service providing some levity.

Quote
You talk as if there is an obvious difference that is soon to embraced by everyone.

Everyone?  No, I didn't say everyone or remotely so.  I said me.  I like to have the original bits.  Neither you nor anyone else can show me what benefit I get from dumbed down bits.  And seeing others pass the same tests, the population that needs and can appreciate the difference is bigger than just me but is a fraction of overall market.

Quote
Most people still use lossy and don't care. I use lossless and I don't care.

Well said and very true.  Vast majority of people have no need for  better fidelity than 256 kbps MP3/AAC.  My wife buys DVDs and sees no value in Blu-ray.  I do however so I buy Blu-rays.

By the same token, I am a trained listener.  It used to be part of my job (self imposed) to help the codec team at Microsoft with listening tests.  So my ears are tuned to small differences.  Here is me passing Steven (Krab's) challenge on 320 kbps transparency:


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3

19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01  50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02  25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03  50.0%    << dog barked in my ear wanting to go out
19:47:03 : 03/04  31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05  18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06  10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07  6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08  3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09  2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10  1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11  0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12  0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13  0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14  0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15  0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16  0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)


Run the same test and see where you land.  If you can't pass the above test, then you have no need for higher fidelity content.  For those us who are blessed or cursed with better listening skills, we like to have better. Hopefully you give us permission to be that way .

So it doesn't come across as me bragging about my ears, my hearing has degraded a ton. I don't know that I can hear much past 12 Khz.  That's better than Arny saying he struggles to hear past 8 Khz but still a sad state of affair due to both of us aging .
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #198
By the way, are you the same wombat that helped Archimago with his listening test?  If so, I loved your countermeasures against electronic detection of which file is which.  Creative and novel and very needed for any online tests where everyone can fire up Audacity and identify the files.

Yes, i am the same animal.
We used insufficient dither technicaly speaking to exxagerate the result and even that gave no real statiscaly superiority of higher bits.
I wanted more cheat prevention like exchanging the fade in/outs. Archimago is much to nice for using more tricks
On the Bozza sample you can easily see the different noisefloors and most likely hear differences when crancked up the volume.

You are a smart animal .  Remind me to not take you on technically.

Back in 1980s I worked with a very sharp Unix kernel developer. Her nickname was also wombat.  Seems like people who pick this alias for whatever reason, know their stuff.




Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #199
Neither you nor anyone else can show me what benefit I get from dumbed down bits.

Sure we can. Inaudibility, even for the "dumbed down" audiophool self-assessed-golden-ear believer. Unless pathological, like the ad hoc tests or the BS paper. That's the primary one.
Then there is huge availability of existing 16/44 media, lower price vs the scams, smaller file size, etc, etc, etc.
Actually, the only reasons for 2ch "Hi Rez" is to satiate those with audiophile disorder and profit from the scam.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019