[OFF-TOPIC] From: History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

2014-12-09 22:46:41

Quote from: Wombat on 2014-12-09 17:39:58

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-09 14:33:07
Quote from: Wombat on 2014-12-09 11:28:17
Can you repeat this with the new abx plugin?

Won't do. But you can try and see if you can pass them as MLXXX just did.

I should have known. Why did i ask...

I don't know. Why did you ask?

OK, here it is with the new ABX plug-in. I am literally running these tests while babysitting three dogs who are jumping all over me.

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 2.0 beta 4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.5
2014-12-09 14:21:52

File A: 30 Hz Severe Jitter 0.05.flac
SHA1: b085cbe40266958f007ef85cdaafa5d40b794d65
File B: no  jitter.flac
SHA1: 262cd6c4d4c73502a0142f867b00aae013fd13ce

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver

14:21:52 : Test started.
14:22:14 : 01/01
14:22:19 : 02/02
14:22:24 : 03/03
14:22:30 : 04/04
14:22:39 : 05/05
14:22:45 : 06/06
14:22:53 : 07/07
14:22:58 : 08/08
14:23:03 : 09/09
14:23:08 : 10/10
14:23:08 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

 -- signature -- 
e05535aa2394170b6ebb490b87384d4df2fb1852

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 2.0 beta 4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.5
2014-12-09 14:24:40

File A: 30 Hz jitter strong level .025.flac
SHA1: 54719c17fd29d0546b79f50bd7e3c61de1dd025d
File B: no  jitter.flac
SHA1: 262cd6c4d4c73502a0142f867b00aae013fd13ce

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver

14:24:40 : Test started.
14:25:00 : 01/01
14:25:06 : 02/02
14:25:16 : 03/03
14:25:21 : 04/04
14:25:27 : 05/05
14:25:34 : 06/06
14:25:39 : 07/07
14:25:45 : 08/08
14:25:51 : 09/09
14:25:56 : 10/10
14:25:56 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

 -- signature -- 
ba16bda939028d34d8b131283f9d46709dab36f9

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 2.0 beta 4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.5
2014-12-09 14:32:30

File A: 30 Hz noticable jitter 0.0125.flac
SHA1: 7349f9f6449777a2c33693251099a6ed58821382
File B: no  jitter.flac
SHA1: 262cd6c4d4c73502a0142f867b00aae013fd13ce

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver

14:32:30 : Test started.
14:33:15 : 01/01
14:33:34 : 02/02
14:33:42 : 02/03
14:33:50 : 03/04
14:34:00 : 04/05
14:34:10 : 05/06
14:34:23 : 06/07
14:34:33 : 07/08
14:34:59 : 07/09
14:35:05 : 08/10
14:35:05 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/10
Probability that you were guessing: 5.5%

 -- signature -- 
0eed367d768210d070e6b45078ca3ed748859c53

Since this test is fresh and I have the details, here is how you can try to pass it.

Select segment starting around 5.4 to 5.5 seconds. End segment is not critical but pick it at 6.5 or so.

Start in the order I have listed them above. You should have no problem whatsoever hearing the warble sound as soon as play the segment in A or B in the first test. From there on, don't bother listening to either A or B. Remember which one is warble sounding and as soon as you hear X to be that, select it and go to next trial.

The above is your training track. Do not go past it until you can get 100% correct. Once you can do so with ease, go to the next one down the line. This one should be relatively easy to hear the warble in. If you have trouble, start with the previous test again and then come back to this one. The level of distortion is a lot lower but with just a bit of effort, you should be able to pass it.

The third one is more challenging. Gone is the clear warble sound. Here, there are two things you can listen for. There is a high-hat (I think that is what is called -- I am not a musician ). Listen for clarity of that high pitch sound. The second clue is harder to describe but it is a harmonic lower tone that connects the guitar (?) picks. Listen for two things here 1) does it sound unstable? And 2) does it have less ambiance/low level detail.

Happy listening.

[OFF-TOPIC] From: History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #1 – 2014-12-10 13:26:18

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-09 15:45:26

So no, we are not discussing the people who do sighted tests.

Correct. But more specifically we are often talking about people who do not do listening tests at all.

Many of them are guided by science, which is something that it appears that radical subjectivists such as yourself Amir can't understand.

For example Amir we have this document that appears under your name that contains many anti-science claims:

http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Mark...3Amplifier.html

"n comparison testing I have done, switching amplifiers using the classic class D configuration always sport incredible low frequency control and power. They beat out linear class AB amplifiers almost regardless of price. What they give up though is high frequency fidelity which I find somewhat harsh. The distortion is highly non-linear and challenging to spot but it is there. The Mark Levinson No 53 is the first switching amplifier I have heard which does not have this compromise. Its bass is amazingly authoritative: tight and powerful. Yet the rest of the response is absolutely neutral and pleasant.

It appears to me that any reasoanble person who reads the extant independent detailed technical test on the Levinson 53:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-le...power-amplifier

Finds the description of a piece of equipment that is, like many 100s of other good power amplifiers sonically blameless:

Where in science does one find a reason to claim that "They beat out linear class AB amplifiers almost regardless of price. What they give up though is high frequency fidelity which I find somewhat harsh."

No place I know of!

So where pray tell Amir is the evidence of your DBTs involving the Levinson 53?

No place I know of!

Quote

They could care less about double blind tests of any kind.

The shoe seems to fit you, Amir.

Amir, all of your complaints about people who make no such claims not doing DBTs appear to be merely a smoke screen.

Notice