Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
General - (fb2k) / Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Last post by greynol -
Actually ReplayGain seems to be tricked by the heavy ultrasonic noise present in DSD files.
I doubt this would have happened had the algorithm not been changed.
2
(2) Measure the RMS or if no RMS calculation is available, the average value associated with the level of music between the two points in each piece of music.
He should probably lowpass to no greater than the nyquist of the PCM samplerate first.
3
[And I told you I HAD tried ABX testing, the software just made it too easy for a valid comparison.


The way to solve this problem was to do as  much processing as you could outside of the listening test comparison.

AFAIK the volume leveling feature you used involved steady state gain changes, so it really was just a standard question of level matching.

The way I level match is to do the following in preparation for the listening test:

(1) Mark out comparable timed points on the music. This is very much facilitaed if time-synching is done first. Time synching is done by identifying a unique feature and adding or subtracting silence at the beginning of the files until the feature has the same timing in both files, within a millisecond or less.

(2) Measure the RMS or if no RMS calculation is available, the average value associated with the level of music between the two points in each piece of music.

(3) Adjust the level in one file or the other until the RMS values are the same +/- 0.05 dB or better.

I tried manually adjusting the ReplayGain tags on the files to get them somewhere close, but it turns out that Foobar/ABX Comparator ignores the tags when doing a comparison. You can use auto ReplayGain, but that was what was not working for me.
5
Saying that you're taking no position or that you're somehow in the middle implies there are 2 positions that are equivalent in the first place. You may not be taking any of your 2 imagined positions, but you are taking a position. A better way to approach this if you are a newb to the subject is to just ask what does the science say up to now.

I obviously misread the tone of the forum when I first started posting.
I assumed there would be proponents of both PCM and DSD on here, happily comparing notes - so I made a comment aimed at not offending one way or the other.
Boy, was that a misguided thing to do. In trying NOT to offend, I seem to have achieved exactly the opposite.

As for joking, I'm trying to make light of a situation that is approaching the absurd.
6
[And I told you I HAD tried ABX testing, the software just made it too easy for a valid comparison.


The way to solve this problem was to do as  much processing as you could outside of the listening test comparison.

AFAIK the volume leveling feature you used involved steady state gain changes, so it really was just a standard question of level matching.

The way I level match is to do the following in preparation for the listening test:

(1) Mark out comparable timed points on the music. This is very much facilitaed if time-synching is done first. Time synching is done by identifying a unique feature and adding or subtracting silence at the beginning of the files until the feature has the same timing in both files, within a millisecond or less.

(2) Measure the RMS or if no RMS calculation is available, the average value associated with the level of music between the two points in each piece of music.

(3) Adjust the level in one file or the other until the RMS values are the same +/- 0.05 dB or better.
7
What software?
8
Test samples to allow others to reproduce your findings?

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,3974.html

You're taking me wrong again.
I said the software wouldn't adjust the volume of the two tracks correctly to make it a fair comparison. The difference in volumes made it too easy to tell which was which.
9
It also says: "by being polite and encouraging him to join in with how we do things here."
and "the manner in which you coax these people into doing things the right way is very important"
That's what David said.  Neither the terms nor their descriptions say either.  Not that we shouldn't operate in this manner.
10

It may not have been your intention, but proclaiming there are 2 sides and implying they're equivalent when the science is well established is a well known and tired cliche of science deniers. We see it regarding global warming, medicine, biology (evolution especially), and yes, even audio. It's the false equivalence fallacy.


Guys!
I've obviously got off on a bad start here.
It appears a glib remark has been allowed to run riot and get completely out of hand.

My apologies to Arnold K, who I now realise was trying to steer me in the direction required by the forum members, which I wrongly took as an attack at the time.
I am surprised at the vehemence on here though to anyone that doesn't hold the same 100% view as 'the gang' - how can that lead to interesting discussions? I haven't tried to force an opinion on anyone, in fact I deliberately tried not to.

I've had my appendix out. Oh wait! I can't prove it to you, therefore it didn't happen. Maybe the surgeon didn't really take it out, and I'm the victim of a conspiracy theory that I'm attempting to pass on.

No bad intended! Lighten up, guys!
You are not getting it. You think you're just being jokey, but what you're saying (again) is not different to what trolls and science deniers say for real.

Saying that you're taking no position or that you're somehow in the middle implies there are 2 positions that are equivalent in the first place. You may not be taking any of your 2 imagined positions, but you are taking a position. A better way to approach this if you are a newb to the subject is to just ask what does the science say up to now.

Getting out an appendix is not an extraordinary thing that goes against previous established science. If you said you were alien-abducted or were seeing ghosts, or that you hear DSD and PCM difference, then that's something that would require evidence from you.