I'd love to have other people try because the results of one listener don't have much weight.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-05-28 02:06:28

I'd love to have other people try because the results of one listener don't have much weight.

Listening to impulse sounds is pure torture to me. But with volume turned to barely audible level I tested the 27, 15 and 9 sample delay files. Only thing I hear is that the sound source seems to move more towards left the more delay there is. I did a quick test with the single sample delay file too but couldn't notice any change there.

Is there a reason these tests, like the one bandpass posted he made with sox, are using impulses? It's the most horrible sound one can imagine.

This is a updated/corrected version. The 27 step delay file is designed to be very easy and give you an idea of what to listen to.

[attachment=8333:impulses...rm_4416_.zip]

Test for 5, 7, 9 and 15 step delays were added to put in some more tests between doable and impossible.

The noise floor has been dropped dramatically by simply changing up the order of the last 2 operations.

The 0 sample delay file is your reference file  - compare all other files to it.

I don't look at those other forums. If anyone beats my ABX score of 2 sample delay discrimination [with a p val. .055]  , let me know. 

  [edit to add.] Considering I did much better than Clark's findings you mentioned, I looked into it. My 10 microsecond level isn't so special.

"The smallest change in the ITD of pure tones detectable by humans

[just noticeable difference (jnd)] is 10–20
microsec (Mills, 1958;

Durlach and Colburn, 1978; Hafter et al., 1979)"

I am perfectly satisfied if we can reaffirm the classic thresholds of audibility with ABX testing.  How could we expect to do better?

I see it as an unintentional artifact of his chosen source material. If he instead used correlated pink noise (mono) then there are no pairs of impulses for the listener to mentally combine together to form a telltale  frequency.

Think of that terrible way Clark did it where he moved two speakers forwards and backwards to change the ITD. Terrible! Whenever you have two drivers in the same room their differing spacing will make changes in their comb filtering from differences in the constructive/destructive soundwave summing of the two sources. Who knows if people were keying off of that or what they were supposed to, ITD.

How do you test interaural time delay with one speaker? I think you/he are misremembering something.

foo_abx 2.0.1 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2015-08-03 10:54:15

File A: dac_test_1644_2496_dist.flac
SHA1: d27e428fc69429ed7a22ed3e650a60fed2d6e246
File B: dac_test_2496_distf.flac
SHA1: 79d74a1262091a2ecf707a6e267c2c4a451f0459

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

10:54:15 : Test started.
10:56:50 : 01/01
10:56:55 : 02/02
10:56:59 : 03/03
10:57:08 : 04/04
10:57:12 : 05/05
10:57:16 : 06/06
10:57:19 : 07/07
10:57:23 : 08/08
10:57:27 : 09/09
10:57:30 : 10/10
10:57:30 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

 -- signature -- 
470735494f3cca9d6a3c5b21df1fdbc419c0f02e

Other than the usual vulnerability of the test tone section (which people like the organic twins will surely exploit without admitting to it)

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 2.0.1 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2015-08-03 10:54:15

File A: dac_test_1644_2496_dist.flac
SHA1: d27e428fc69429ed7a22ed3e650a60fed2d6e246
File B: dac_test_2496_distf.flac
SHA1: 79d74a1262091a2ecf707a6e267c2c4a451f0459

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

10:54:15 : Test started.
10:56:50 : 01/01
10:56:55 : 02/02
10:56:59 : 03/03
10:57:08 : 04/04
10:57:12 : 05/05
10:57:16 : 06/06
10:57:19 : 07/07
10:57:23 : 08/08
10:57:27 : 09/09
10:57:30 : 10/10
10:57:30 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

 -- signature -- 
470735494f3cca9d6a3c5b21df1fdbc419c0f02e

there's no audible difference.

The audible difference was during the test tone sequence. The faint background noise changes.  I guess you could argue it is IM on either my end or your end but boy is it faint.

If you were to prepare two dead silent tracks using the exact same methodology, with no signal at all, this would tell us if the change in noise floor I can pick up on occurs also in the absence of test tones.

I had that problem and addressed it by turning down the playback level a little.    It looks like your monitoring environment may be faulty.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-08-04 12:39:00

I had that problem and addressed it by turning down the playback level a little.    It looks like your monitoring environment may be faulty.

Since your monitoring environment seems to be faulty as well, how is it we know for sure that the problem isn't embedded in the files themselves?

Dead silent tracks would allow me to determine if what I hear is noise or signal distortion. If there is no signal, yet I still hear a difference, then what I'm hearing can't be distortion, it is noise.

If the track is dead silent, then there is no signal to stimulate distortion.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-08-04 21:08:31

If the track is dead silent, then there is no signal to stimulate distortion.

Excellent. So you agree, if I hear the same audible difference with dead silence then that would eliminate any notion that what causes the audible distinction is general IM. Or for that matter clipping. All I would be comparing is the noise floors. This would interest me, but seeing as generating two such files is a complex, laborious process on your part I can see why you are scoffing at providing them.

The above file is a 24/96 flac file. The first 10 seconds were made by simply generating 24/96 digital black, there is a impulse, and there are 10 seconds of 24/96 digital black downsampled to 16/44 and upsampled back to 24/96.

But there's no way for me to test it without the potential problem of observer bias. I'm kindly requesting two files, not one, so I can attempt to ABX them against each other, of digital black. Adding impulse noises, keys jangling, or music before or after the 10 second digital black part is fine by me if you insist, however should I successfully distinguish one digital black from the other you'll never know for sure if it was actually by my listening to the music/impulse/keys jangling part that allowed me to distinguish A from B or if it was just a difference in the noise floors. Add the extra content, besides just the digital black part I'll be focusing on, if you wish.

Quote

The above file is a 24/96 flac file. The first 10 seconds were made by simply generating 24/96 digital black, there is a impulse, and there are 10 seconds of 24/96 digital black downsampled to 16/44 and upsampled back to 24/96.

This, for example, will work as one of the two files I'm requesting. I need a second version of this please, which never had any downsampling and then upsampling section: it was kept as 24/96 the entire time. Then I can attempt to ABX the two files. Thanks.