two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress
Reply #207 – 2014-11-13 20:39:44
I laughed at "get with the times" and "degraded bits." You talk as if there is an obvious difference that is soon to embraced by everyone. Yes, this ^^^^^^^. Again, differences *can* be audible between hi rez and Redbook, e.g., due to difference in noise floors. stuart's AES test specifically says they avoided playback volume that would make the noise floor differences audible. And no one who has passed these ABX tests has talked about hearing noise floors.This has never been under dispute. Meyer and Moran themselves reported one such scenario in their trials.* But these are not *obviously* audible differences, as in *typically audible under normal listening conditions* (even to 'audiophiles'). They require careful listening to carefully selected segments, often using elevated playback levels. They do. Because we want to search for the truth rather than sticking our head in the sand by dumbing down the test enough that no one can hear. Which renders highly suspect the multitude of audiophile gushings and ravings over hi rez releases since at least 2001, when 'hi rez' consumer formats began to appear. You are arguing with ghosts. You created this thread due to me, and later others passing these tests. None of us have expressed such sentiments. We were challenged to tell the difference in double blind ABX tests using Foobar and we did following every instruction in that request. What did that get us? Nothing. More anger from our self-appointed objectivists. What is the purpose of this data then? Why do you keep demanding double blind ABX tests if the outcome is a) already known according to you (i.e. the noise argument above) or b) you blow a gasket over it and call the results immaterial? You need to dial back your rhetoric Steven. Clearly your impression of these tests are wrong. I love to have you chime in with positive ABX test results of all of these tests we are discussing and represent that is due to noise floor.So the elephant in the room is the question: How likely is it, really, that such reports -- which drive virtually the 'hi rez' hype, including Neil Young's high-profile crusade -- are at all credible? The Forum TOS #5 says to not change the topic of a thread. The thread is about our listening test and not some angst over high resolution audio market, Neil Young or whatever. Create a new thread by the rules and I will come and respond.None of the dancing and shucking and jiving and torrential rainbow-colored reposting from Amir (or Atkinson or the rest of the high rez cheerleading corps for that matter) shifts that elephant one centimeter out of the room. Neither does the new Meridian conference paper nor the half-baked Oohashi et al. corpus, all of which rely on highly specified conditions (some of which are controversial at best, like Meridian's choices of dither) to make their points.** Nothing I have done was supposed to reflect on the subjectivity camp. It is designed to get our own house in order. We run around challenging people left and right on double blind test this and double blind test that. Always confident that our bluf works because the other guy won't go through the trouble of running such tests. That is not objectivity. Objectivity calls for fairness and lack of bias at all times. I read anything but that in your posts, Arny, mzil, AJ, etc. This is data for you. You keep complaining that other side doesn't want to hear about listening tests results. Yet, you are acting worse than the other camp. At least they say they don't believe in DBTs. What is your excuse Steven? You can't be part-time Vegetarian. Either you live or die by double blind listening tests or you don't. You think the ten commandments were given to you in Meyer and Moran hobbyist test while ignoring people's results who do this work professionally. Why? Because you don't like the outcome. Because it would show your previous comments online across countless threads and posts be wrong. But that is to be expected. You are not in this industry. You substitute reading forums for real life experience. Sit through hundreds of double blind tests as I have and then you get a good feel for what is right and what is wrong. There is a reason even though I am an objectivists, I don't walk the line that you all do. (**NB that M&M trials included some where the listeners chose their own material...presumably what they use for 'normal listening'. M&M also used a list of hi rez releases, drawn from 'pure' hi rez and analog-sourced.....just as normal listeners tend to have. That has *hardly ever* stopped the hi rez cheering section from praising the hi rez releases...until it became a 'fatal flaw' in M&M's test!) None of this matters. Look in ITU Rec BS-1116. Do you see any of this as recommended practices? When Dr. Olive performs listening tests, does he include people who created their own music? Or does he use trained listeners who easily outperform normal listeners? You are applying lay opinions to a highly technical and specialized field. This is why you have a train wreck on your hands. Dial back the confidence Steven. Your position and that of Arny and others has been too extreme. What you thought was impossible wasn't. Logic would say it is time to be a bit more humble and not so aggressive with your posts. But the tone continues. So there is really no interest in data. Or blind tests.