Hope you don't mind, but I mirrored the large ZIP file with all the samples here:http://download.nullsoft.com/listening-tes...all_samples.zip
I added the code to randomize the sample list, hope that's OK with you.
Edit 2 ABC/HR auto selected spdif out on my m-audiophile 24/96 rather than line. I can play and hear now.
I've taken the liberty to mention this test over at head-fi (link), hope that's ok IgorC.
Quote from: kennedyb4 on 20 July, 2011, 07:11:05 AMEdit 2 ABC/HR auto selected spdif out on my m-audiophile 24/96 rather than line. I can play and hear now.So does it mean you have managed to fix the problems? ABC-HR application has presented the problem in past. See the link below to fix some problems.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=749194
Finding fault with them is proving much harder in some cases. I can't even hear the lowpass which is really suprising me. Much more difficult than I anticipated. Not like listening to Blade at 96kbps
Question. I have used a short selection in the abx mode for a given sample. Once I use test mode,not training mode, I cant erase my results and try again in test mode. I can only use training mode even though I am checking a different time frame of the sample.Is it supposed to be this way or can I reset back to test mode?
Quote from: kennedyb4 on 21 July, 2011, 07:28:02 PMQuestion. I have used a short selection in the abx mode for a given sample. Once I use test mode,not training mode, I cant erase my results and try again in test mode. I can only use training mode even though I am checking a different time frame of the sample.Is it supposed to be this way or can I reset back to test mode?It is supposed to be that way and does exactly what it should. Don't start test mode until you have heard a complete sample and choose your "worst" section before starting the test mode.
I'm going to try finishing this one; I never finished the first test I participated in here, and I didn't participate in the last one at all. (48kbps, which I might have actually had fun with).One slight issue I've noticed so far: I was not able to identify the low anchor at all on Sample 3. Does this predict a problem for my results? The quality this test focuses is right on the edge of my transparent zone, so I don't want to risk tainting the results.
My first listening tests since many years
headphone position It's so easy, but did you ever test for the optimal position of your headphone? With many headphones the soundstage and the balance of sound are strongly dependent on the position of the driver to our ears.Scientific research has shown that our perception of depth is increased when the driver is placed more forward and lower with respect to the entrance of the ear channel.Experimenting doesn't cost you anything and may improve sound considerably.
The more listener tries to listen some particular artifacts the less chance to spot any of them. But if the listener just tries to enjoy the music itself then the artifacts appear themselves.
Have only had time to do two samples so far. (16 & 20) (I found this listening test just a few days ago.)
Igor, which samples should I focus on if I have to chose?
If the listener ranked the reference worse than 4.5 on a sample, the listener's results for that sample were discarded.If the listener ranked the low anchor at 5.0 on a sample, the listener's results for that sample were discarded.If the listener ranked the reference below 5.0 on more than 3 samples, all of that listener's results were discarded.These rules aren't extremely strict in order to allow for simple humanerror while still excluding careless participants (*).A stricter procedure to exclude all ranked references risks a systemicbias against any codec which are very good on a few samples and thussubject to more reference confusion by causing those samples to be excludedand weighing the test towards other samples.