Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X (Read 4167 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #25 –
The recordings have good quality, but using just my ears I've got a hard time to tell them apart (i.e. Foobar v1 vs Foobar v2).

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Globares on
The recordings have good quality, but using just my ears I've got a hard time to tell them apart (i.e. Foobar v1 vs Foobar v2).
A note:  you can load both tracks into fb2k (either v1 or v2), select both, right click, Utilities > ABX tracks and you can do a ABX blind test to see if you can actually tell the difference between the two tracks. Please consider doing this and posting your ABX results!

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #27 –
Quote from: jarsonic on
A note:  you can load both tracks into fb2k (either v1 or v2), select both, right click, Utilities > ABX tracks and you can do a ABX blind test to see if you can actually tell the difference between the two tracks. Please consider doing this and posting your ABX results!
These samples are too close. Actually I downloaded the ABX utility to check if the "limiter" feature of it would help (it allows to play just a short piece and quickly switch between the samples), but no. I wonder if the author of the recordings can tell the difference listening on his own system. It doesn't mean that my original statement regarding the v1/v2 differences is false! I'm confident since the difference is too big for placebo effect.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Globares on
It doesn't mean that my original statement regarding the v1/v2 differences is false! I'm confident since the difference is too big for placebo effect.
So you keep saying, but where's the ABX-able proof?
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #29 –
Quote
It doesn't mean that my original statement regarding the v1/v2 differences is false!

Unlike other forums, these forums rely on scientific proof for claims. Just taking your word for there is quality differences is not enough. It has to be reproducible by other people and in a way that rules out imagining things. Thats what double blind tests are about.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Globares on
The sound quality of Foobar2000 2.X is lower than version 1.X...

To underline the point: go to the toolbar at the top of every Hydrogen Audio forum page and click "Terms of Service" (ie the forum rules), then scroll down to TOS 8:

Quote
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.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #31 –
Quote from: Globares on
I downloaded the ABX utility to check if the "limiter" feature of it would help (it allows to play just a short piece and quickly switch between the samples), but no.
It doesn't mean that my original statement regarding the v1/v2 differences is false!
As said many times, post the results of your ABX test or shut it.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #32 –
Think of it this way, from a developer perspective:

1) Imagine someone saying there is a problem with sound quality with your app vs older versions.
2) You are the only person saying so.
3) You haven't done any tests to confirm your claims, but its entirely your say so.
4) Dev tries to find such differences in sound quality
5) It ends up being a wild goose chase since there is no scientific proof to the claims in the first place, so it cannot be proven or  reproduced on their end.

Doing such work without possible reproducible data results in a complete waste of time that could be spent elsewhere. I had this personally happen numerous times, no doubt the FB2K dev has too and many other devs. Like the time I experienced some problems with HLS streaming some radio stations only to find the HLS server software itself is completely b0rked and not a issue on the player end, which involved a ton of work to debug and mitigate.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #33 –
I do understand the need to reproduce problem to fix it. Please note that a positive ABX test result from my side will not solve this problem.  Originally I hoped that the difference would be noticeable for developers.
The issue talking about the differences between 2 f2k versions ABX test is possible only with recordings, and the recordings need to be good enough to capture the differences. The recordings I compared were provided by misio, who has a decent sound card, but there's no information if even misio was able to hear the differences in the recordings.  My statement is based on my system.  I'll be happy to provide recordings if I find a way to get good enough recording setup. And the science and logic says, that lack of tangible proof does not mean that hypothesis is false :)

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Globares on
[...] lack of tangible proof does not mean that hypothesis is false :)
Agreed, but it does not free you from having to bring tangible evidence for your claim as per ToS and a basic "burden of proof" gate. We are basically in a dragon in my garage situation. Without anything to go by, all we can do is ignore the claim. Or never stop looking for all those dragons out there.

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #35 –
It isn't hard to set up two different fb2k versions, mask the identity, and then have a person play from whatever fb2k the coin says. Guess which one. Write it down.
Arguably you should set up three, and always play from "number zero" in between, so that test subject cannot guess from the time it takes to start playback whether it was the same as the previous.
Rinse and repeat a pre-determined number of times. Count up the correct answers. Report here.

That could have been done a long time ago.

And then one could maybe have taken it serious. But not anymore. Someone who has already made up their mind to this degree, why shouldn't they bother to do the test they have so much aversion against, when they can just make up numbers that support their desired conclusion and post those instead?

Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Reply #36 –
ABX might convince himself, but it won't convince anyone else unless samples are published which others can use to verify the ABX results.  The scientific method requires that results are reproducible, and providing samples is a stipulation in TOS8.

But even then, we have no ability to verify the configuration of each test subject, which might not be like for like.  Once we've had an opportunity to review and verify the ABX, we also then have to be able to reproduce the samples.

(When I say "we", I don't mean "me"!)
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.