One of the only people that managed to ABX a 16 bits dithered file vs a 16 bits truncated file (while some other heard a difference but couldn't ABX it) performed one try each day ! Making a difference 16 times in a row can be very difficult.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided IMO: CD does have a "sound" to it. It's very subtle, but it's a "glassy" effect. It's got nothing to do with high frequency harshess - that's poor quality convertors and lousy mastering - though both of these plague many commercial CD releases. The huge audible differences between CD and SACD are mainly due to mastering, and the large amounst of HF noise that SACD pumps through your audio system. All the people who assume that most modern DACs and ADCs are "close to perfection" haven't measured one. Finally, to my ears, I think the audible difference between a 0 CD player, and the K Linn CD12 is greater than the audible difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz on very high quality convertors.
Originally posted by 2Bdecided Another example: In a band limitted system, though all signals below the nyquist limit can be accurately represented, the time resolution of these signals decreases as you approach nyquist. For example, the CD limit is 22050Hz, which means that you can store a 22049Hz signal (in a perfect system). But this signal has a time resolution of 1 whole second! That means, the signal can fade up over a second, and fade down over the next second - but any faster switching would produce harmonics over 22050Hz, which could not be stored in the system. As you move down from Nyquist, this problem falls away rapidly, but even in the high-teens of kHz, you need 1 or 2 cycles of the waveform before it responds perfectly - by which time the signal onset is long gone, and your brain has done its processing.
Originally posted by Garf I don't understand this, can you elaborate? For example, you say 'but any faster switching would produce harmonics over 22050Hz'. What is the problem of that? If you are sampling at 44.1khz, you are not expecting to store (or hear) anything above 22050Hz anyway, so I don't understand what the problem is -- GCP
Originally posted by Ruse Bryant, I'm sure you are not arguing that the scientific method is flawed, are you? (Don't read this as me implying that the double blind test = the scientic method.) There is no middle ground when it comes to the results. You can use all the intuition you like to design the experiment, but the final proof must be based on cold, hard logic.
Originally posted by Garf As other people have already pointed out, if they have an effect, they can be ABX-ed. What ABX does, is measure if, in any way, a listener can notice a difference between two clips. This means that the listener doesn't have to perceive anything wrong with either individually, or perceive (in the common sense of the word), a problem. If in any way they can determine a difference, they will be successfull.If in no way they can determine a difference, the clips _are_ 'identical' to them for any means and purpose.GCP