Them are fighting words for some here! 

For any claim?  How about giving me a link to one that has passed all of those here so that I get calibrated.

Well, do we get to say Meyer and Moran's test reports are not reliable?  Or do we take it on faith that it is because it had negative outcome?  Again, I am trying to get calibrated.

Let's say you don't trust the person.  What then?  He has to get a live witness?  Why on earth would he want to go through all that trouble to convince you?  What is in there for him to have an anonymous poster be satisfied in this regard?

And why do you post under an alias?  Shouldn't I be able to examine your history and who you are in judging your opinions and any test results you put forward?  You have mine.  How come you are afraid of transparency on your part?

Your skepticism is due to lack of experience and knowledge.  You can't turn that around and put the work on me to prove you wrong.  We have peer reviewed tests in the form of Stuart's tests.  We also have peer reviewed tests in the form of Meyer and Moran.  In neither case will I remotely go to the place you are, questioning the integrity of people.

Run these tests yourself.  See if you can pass them. There are people on AVS Forum who shocked themselves after following me lead and carefully listening, found differences reliably.  Until you demonstrate that you have done that, your suspicions are not an issue I worry about.

Oh I would.  If they cheated I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them in anything.  I have little patience for people with lack of integrity.

Of course.  You missed the most important one: training.  Are you really not aware of the concept of trained/expert listeners?  You think anyone who does better has better hearing?  How come with the same hearing ability I went from not hearing compression artifacts to outperforming all but one person in my entire career at Microsoft?

The other major thing you missed is knowledge of the technology in question.  I know what to listen for.  When I took David's test I quickly zoomed in on the right note and the game was over. If you don't know that, you be lost in the woods when it comes to dynamic distortion.    The difference may be there and audible to that person but if you don't know where it is in a 3 minute song, good luck finding it by randomly clicking here and there.  There is a science to what is relevaing and what is not.

The excitable pro hi-rez parties ...

Let me give you a real life example.

By the same token, unless you can demonstrate to me that you are an expert in this area, your incredulity I am afraid has no weight or importance to me.

The above is one of the most important lessons here.  We have proven beyond any doubt that the above skills exist and you cannot take your listening results as a measure of whether someone else can or cannot hear small distortions.  This is why I don't care what Meyer and Moran found.  They did not have critical listeners so their results don't apply to me.

I will stop here and encourage you to go and take these tests.  Try hard to pass them.  You might, just might be able to do that.  If so, you will learn something valuable.

First of all, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

How about you look at one of those low bitrate multiformat listening tests coordinated in this forum? (They are not perfect, and I'm not claiming they are, but they are pretty solid for a community effort.)

foo_abx 2.0 beta 4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.4
2014-11-17 19:56:45

File A: limehouse_maximum_phase_100.wav
SHA1: 722dc26db8d4ce666dc03875b2c8d4570d22b521
File B: limehouse_reference.wav
SHA1: e8ad96830d23cad4bba5bf822ce875ae452b9e7c

Output:
DS : Primärer Soundtreiber

19:56:45 : Test started.
19:57:01 : 00/01
19:57:08 : 00/02
19:57:16 : 00/03
19:57:24 : 00/04
19:57:33 : 00/05
19:57:41 : 00/06
19:58:02 : 00/07
19:58:13 : 00/08
19:58:21 : 00/09
19:58:28 : 00/10
19:58:37 : 00/11
19:58:43 : 00/12
19:58:49 : 00/13
19:58:56 : 00/14
19:59:06 : 00/15
19:59:14 : 00/16
19:59:21 : 00/17
19:59:29 : 01/18
19:59:36 : 02/19
19:59:43 : 03/20
19:59:55 : 04/21
20:00:01 : 05/22
20:00:09 : 06/23
20:00:16 : 07/24
20:00:26 : 08/25
20:00:31 : 09/26
20:00:36 : 10/27
20:00:42 : 11/28
20:00:52 : 12/29
20:00:58 : 13/30
20:01:03 : 14/31
20:01:10 : 15/32
20:01:20 : 16/33
20:01:26 : 17/34
20:01:26 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 17/34
Probability that you were guessing: 56.8%

 -- signature -- 
a146fd5e354e1a7f5df78bae353e11a3356bf601

Quote from: xnor on 2014-11-20 18:56:30

The paper describes people with better hearing and I guess better hardware (we will never know what system you use to ABX since you don't answer the question posted pages back) and I see this as a separate thing vs. your claims.

Not it doesn't.  The listeners were not expert/trained listeners.  They received training for the test.  That is a different animal than someone who has spent years becoming an expert listener.  And further, has the technology experience to know what to listen for as I just explained.

Here is another example, this time from the work of current president of AES, Dr. Sean Olive.

The only thing rubbish is this uninformed opinion. Null hypothesis?  Are you kidding me?  Meyer and Moran violated just about every rule for properly conducting a listening test.  I am asking you are not pointing those things out if you have genuine intentions.

You are showing extreme angst and frustration over these findings, both mine and that of stuart.  You are being accusatory and emotional.  And resentful.  These are characteristics I see in my stereotype of the people you talk about.  In contrast, I don't see that in David. Yes he is disagreeing with me but he is demonstrating calm, knowledge and measured interactions.  So please don't put this at my feet.  Think before you let your emotions write the words if you want to see a different impression of you.  And remember, you are posting under an alias.  So you can't have any expectation of me knowing who you are.

BTW, I would be perfectly fine with you stopping this interaction.  I still owe you that technical answer but otherwise, I am getting tired of dealing with another person's emotional outbursts.

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-11-20 20:30:59

The excitable pro hi-rez parties ...

Don't know those people are here.  If you mean me I am in the "don't dumb it down" party.  I want the bits prior to conversion to 16/44.1.  Have no need for that conversion.  My equipment plays the upstream bits just fine.  I suspect yours does too.  This doesn't sit well with you why?

Quote from: xnor on 2014-11-21 00:47:07

First of all, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

And you are claiming I cheated yet you want me to do the work.  What happened to that burden?

Wow, so now audio engineers who work with audio daily - according to you - are not trained listeners?

Quote from: xnor on 2014-11-21 00:47:07

How about you look at one of those low bitrate multiformat listening tests coordinated in this forum? (They are not perfect, and I'm not claiming they are, but they are pretty solid for a community effort.)

Not interested in doing more work that will get dismissed. Should have thought of that before insinuating that any data that I put forward could be a cheat.  Remember what I said about people reading these things?

For now, I answered the same for your proxy Steven (Krab) on AVS Forum who claimed I couldn't pass 320 kbps MP3 against the original.  So I just took the clips in play and ran that test too:

Of course not.  In a hardware company like Meridian, audio engineers design audio equipment.  They have nothing to do with critical listening.

From the summary section of Stuart paper:

Differences were demonstrated here in a double-blind test using non-expert listeners who received minimal training.

An electrical engineer designing circuits, a PCB layout person, an FPGA programmer/designer, etc. are all "audio engineers" but nothing in their training or work gives them expertise in listening test.

It is a lay assumption that an "audio engineer" is an expert listener.  They are not as I explained to Arny earlier. 

Please don't keep posting this stuff.  Good grief...

And yes, they additionally could prepare for each specific test! Audio engineers also have no "technology experience", right. What the actual f?
It seems that all you're interested in at this point is contradicting me, posting even more rubbish than usually.

The key phrase that one finds in Amir's first post to that thread is:
"I did not level match anything. However, once I found one source was worse than the other, I would then turn up the volume to counter any effect there. Indeed, doing so would close the gap some but it never changed the outcome. Note that the elevated level clearly made that source sound louder than the other. So the advantage was put on the losing side."

... Now, is the alternative of using sighted tests better?  Not at all.  The magnitude of differences is so small that placebo effect easily dwarfs it.  So we are stuck between two non-ideal methods to get to the "truth."  This is why I like mathematical analysis such as what Stuart does so beautifully.  Or measurements.  We take out the untrustworthy listener out of the picture and get truly objective data.

Your skepticism is due to lack of experience and knowledge.  You can't turn that around and put the work on me to prove you wrong.  We have peer reviewed tests in the form of Stuart's tests.  We also have peer reviewed tests in the form of Meyer and Moran.

I know what to listen for.

I want the bits prior to conversion to 16/44.1.

You know,  AJ has posted that Meridian blurb strongly endorsing TPDF dither (as AES gods Lipshitz and Vanderkooy first did long before Meridian) at least a half dozen times now....admittedly only about half as often as you post your fabulous ABX results, but still, you can't have missed it --  and he's requested your thoughts on it every time,  re: the disjunction between it and what was reported in Meridian's convention paper.  Do you plan to ever engage?

Why am I telling you this?  No particular reason.

I know how to respond to AJ.

It is who he is.

Quote

An electrical engineer designing circuits, a PCB layout person, an FPGA programmer/designer, etc. are all "audio engineers" but nothing in their training or work gives them expertise in listening test.

It is a lay assumption that an "audio engineer" is an expert listener.  They are not as I explained to Arny earlier.
...
Please don't keep posting this stuff.  Good grief...

Good grief indeed.

...but had no substantial experience whatsoever in discriminating subtle audio differences prior to this experiment'

Let me tell you a story first .

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-21 02:46:34

Let me tell you a story first .

No....I think not. 

Rather, let me put you back on ignore here, too.  I'll go back to enjoying the show.  The choice bits of your clown show that others quote , will suffice to tell me whether you are trying to divert the thread.

Show me one of "those tests" that has properly processed files, but you still hear a difference between them.
Then tell me what difference you hear, and where if applicable, and with what equipment and settings (player, DirectSound playback format if that is your API of choice, ...).
If this checks out then I will take a closer look (I did take a look at some of the files mentioned in the train wreck thread before - they were faulty) and ABX them.

This is what people usually do in this forum, by themselves, because they're interested in the truth. Are you?

Anyway, if you finally answer the questions further above I would be highly interested in preparing a 21+ kHz filter test for you where you cannot, let's say, produce false positives as easily.  Are you up to putting your money where your mouth is?

Wow, so now audio engineers who work with audio daily - according to you - are not trained listeners?