Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback
Reply #495 – 2014-11-22 22:06:04
So you say you cannot hear audible problems but can tell the files apart (with a spectrum analyzer?), Plot is lost again. I was very clear that I never analyzed the files, before or after the test....And you wonder why I said it's more likely that you cheated than hearing genuine differences? That is a reflection on you. That you think these online discussions are so important that one should resort to winning them by cheating. I don't go there. You can say or do whatever but I won't question your integrity. That you do so in post after post, means that you and I have very different thresholds here. You think winning an argument against a few Internet posters writing under an alias is justification for cheating. You need to re-examine that logic.And please state if you think the others who passed David's test are cheating. I will simply ignore the lesser logical fallacies in this one. (see wiki link above for starters) So you will say in each test I cheated in my logs yet when I ask you about others in this very forum, taking a test from one of our members, and you won't go there. What this means is that you have a personal beef with me. In other words, we are not having a discussion of science.but this is getting much too painful. You are truly one of a kind, amirm. Yes, it does get painful when you demand evidence and turn around and accuse the other person after delivering it of a cheat. Please allow me to post this forum's Terms of Service #8:8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support. ABX double blind listening test results are provided. Exact same content is provided per my last post to you. But you refuse to take the same tests to back your claims of inaudibility. This must be a one-way street, right? We demand the tests but heaven forbid if someone asks us to run the same. All of a sudden the request becomes "painful." The person asking gets called names. They committed a crime. They asked for double blind tests. How dare they? We are beyond such requests. When we declare something to be inaudible, it is. We don't need to prove that against direct evidence that says otherwise. A published study in a conference? Means nothing. They must have made simple mistakes that we can point out. Except that we can't. So we resort to personal remarks. That must be what "objective support" mean in the TOS #8. If the few of us talk loud enough, and rude enough, maybe that becomes objective. You want to be so clearly on record as refusing to run double blind ABX test that I and a number of others on this and other forums have run, be my guest. The choice is yours. Edit: fixed formatting.