Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Reply #29 –
Since some people on this forum hold a certain reverence for ABX testing, I decided to play around with it.
People here value methods and tests that are reproducible, try to eliminate biases, produce actual evidence instead of opinions and anecdotes. Of course! Who wouldn't?!
I know that doing this isn't going to change anyone's mind, and I will be just be accused for cheating if I did "pass" ABX testing anyway so it's literally a lose-lose situation.
No, it really isn't. If you actually heard a difference you should be able to pass an ABX test or a set of tests.
It wasn't until half-way through the test that I thought I had finally nailed down what to listen for -- but at that point, audio memory was smearing things, so towards the end I was reduced to just going with my gut reaction on what I felt was that tad more open on the sound signature of the cymbals.
Nobody is forcing you to do trials within 1-2 minutes. Give it more time if you need that and come back if you genuinely and honestly can say (to us and especially yourself) that you've heard a difference, with evidence to back it up. Then it would be nice if you could tell us what you heard and where in the track.
Total: 5/10
Even if you say that you heard a difference in the second half of the test (which again could be just bias on your side, same as your claims about big audible differences that you now start to recognize are "SMALL" at the most), you have to realize and accept that this is not better than flipping a coin.
Even 9/10 is expected to happen by just randomly mashing buttons (or flipping a coin). That's statistics, and ABX results are useful exactly because we can quantify these probabilities.