Skip to main content

Recent Posts

transferring digital files is likely to reduce the sonic quality of the file itself due to the transcoding process

in an experiment I had done the newly burned CD sounded better than the stamped original.
So if you lose SQ with a transfer, just burn to a new disc and the increase in SQ net sums to zero, bam, you have an identical SQ digital copy like everyone else.
There were several follow up studies, the most recent one published in 2017, done by various experimenters and in every case some confirmation for those hypersonic effects was found. (if somebody is interested i´ll provide some citation for those too)

I do remember that pioneer introduced their socalled music-link digital filter in CD players during the 90s because listeners would prefer the reproduction if some content above 20kHz is included.  (afair according to pioneer based on listening tests)

As said before, if there´s interest, i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Blatant lies. A new low, even for you.
False. While removing cognitive bias is called blinding, many other experimental controls including some others that you mentioned can be called blinding.  IOW, some cats are called Tabby, but other cats are called by other names and they are still cats.

As in the case of "replication" you simply have to remember that "blind test" and "double blind test" as well have a special meaning and that deals with the removal of a certain cognitive bias (i.e. to know about ....) any other detail of a test isn´t subsumed.

Why are you wasting my time telling me things that you should know that am highly aware of and an experienced practitioner of the art of effectively managing those things and many other?

First reason, you seemto forget about those things.
Second, given the amount of bickering and ridicule in your posts, you have a hard time to convince me on the "wasting my time" part; you imo like to waste time. :)

But anyway, now you´re saying that "seasoned practitioner ...." , which makes sense, but unfortunately a lot of people doing "controlled listening tests" aren´t anything but "seasoned practitioners", or as Bech/Zacharov wrote so aptly:

Almost everyone listens to soundmost of the time, so there is often
an opinion that the evaluation of audio quality must be a trivial matter.
This frequently leads to a serious underestimation of the magnitude of
the task associated with formal evaluations of audio quality, which can
lead to compromised evaluations and consequently the poor quality
of results.
Such a lack of good scientific practise is further emphasised
when results are reported in journals or at international conferences
and leads to a spread of scientific darkness instead of light.
(Bech/Zacharov: Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application. John Wiley & Sons, 2006, page XII.)

He also said: "Note that the much attacked ABX technique, where a forced choice is made, is free of this problem." which one can easily interpret to mean that most of the audio DBTs that are done these days are free of this problem that somehow you feel compelled to be wasting our time with.

"Is free of this problem" which one can easily interpret to mean "but not from others" and that is a correct interpretation. As researchers noticed already in the ~1960s, results can be different when comparing A/B and ABX results and they concluded that the reason were the different mental processes involved.

But anyway, does the argument that "seasoned practitioners" ,taking great care in planning and performing of a controlled listening test are able to get correct results, really invalidates my assertion? (i.e. its as easy to get incorrect results ....)

As you say, "some valid work". If you can put 2 and 2 together and get 4, you might realize that blinding is a recognized method for increasing the probability of obtaining valid work.  If you have any familiarity at all with the problem at hand you know that blinding is generally possible if not easy, and that there are no ethical problems at all.  Why are you wasting our time with this irrelevant drivel?

Wrt "increasing the probability of obtaining valid work", did i say something different? :)
As mentioned before, you obviously like to waste a lot of time with making things up.

Now you are splitting hairs. This isn't a theoretical math problem where bantering absolutes is relevant. This is practical, experimental work.

In the case of controlled testing, it´s worth to be precise......

The answer to that question is frequently related to the fact that blind tests don't give the desired complementary and confirming answers to evaluations of snake oil. 

To be precise is of utmost importance if people are using "blind tests" as knockout argument, while accepting even the sloppiest methodology if it confirms their believes.

Wrong again.

It is well known that sighted listening has very little merit, particularly if it involves smaller, harder to hear differences.

Now you are sidestepping.

Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....a blatant lie

Let´s see what you´ve done
I've pointed out your blatant lies about Oohashi BS as unsubstantiated and now contradicted BS.
Your blatant lie about Meyer and Moran.
I also called out your blatant lie about your "list".

So, got any evidence for Hi Re$, other than profits?
Support - (fb2k) / Tagging bug in 1.3.15 (and .14)
Last post by Porcus -
I've had a few of these:
Could not update tags (Unsupported format or corrupted file) on:

I uploaded a file where the issue seems easy to isolate:,113995.0.html

Try to replace the space in the date field by a hyphen.
Uploads - (fb2k) / fb2k v 1.3.15 FLAC tagging issue
Last post by Porcus -
Try to change date from 2009-08 10 to 2009-08-10 (with a dash).
Not that I am too bothered about the non-gapless tape hiss in between the music, but ... still curious.
According to this source, we have "Amir Majidimehr: President & Founder". If you know anything about organizations, those titles are often ceremonial. 

As you´ve said "quite often ceremonial" and quite often it is not. ;)
Btw, who is splitting hairs now? Did it matter at this point?

Michael Fremer weaseled out.....
Yep, just like you and the "burned" cable challenge. When it comes time to expose oneself as total deluded audiophools...

Oh yes...and that fabricated, imaginary "list"

Let´s see what you´ve done; you faked a citation box´s content and added a blatant lie (non existence of weasel out by me), that is a new low, even if considering your usual forum behavior.
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

Do you have a source for this ? - I would very much like to read it.

The link to the gizmodo article, that Arnold B. Krueger gave in post #73,113893.msg938547.html#msg938547

was imo quite correct overall, but was a bit unprecise in some details and time line info.
The start with Fremer accepting the challenge wasn´t the anouncement by Pearl Audio, but an email from Fremer to Randi, from which Randi quoted on a SWIFT webpage in Oktober 2007:
I will take the annoying Randi’s cable challenge once we agree to the protocol and I find it intended to be truly scientific and not designed to produce confusion.
But never, mind. If we can agree on a high resolution audio system set up in a good room and agree on the test protocol (including my choice of expensive cable and the annoying Randi’s choice of cheap cable) I hereby accept the annoying Randi’s challenge. Now please stop the bullshit on your site about how no audiophiles are willing to accept the annoying Randi’s challenges. I’m doing it right here and now (10/3/07)

And Randi quoted from his answer to Fremer:
In accordance with Fremer’s suggestion, I’m sure that we can agree on a “high resolution audio system set up in a good room,” and we can agree on the test protocol. Also, the choice of cables will be both his and mine, as he suggests.

Source: SWIFT October 12, 2007
Written by James Randi
Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:07