The things that actually detract from your listening pleasure are pretty gross.

I suspect that there are still some differences that would be more identifiable in long term tests,

based on the fact that even short audio snippets put heavy demands on short term memory.

We are both speculating here, not necessarily a bad thing, since it lays the ground for further research.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2011-02-23 19:50:59

The things that actually detract from your listening pleasure are pretty gross.

Like sighted listening to non-high resolution lossless?  I truly believe that some are detracted from their listening pleasure knowing that all the "sonic goodness" hasn't been exploited.

What about the poor fool who realized his magic rocks were stolen?  Do you think his system will sound the same to him in his conscious mind when he knows they aren't there?

Quote from: Stereoeditor on 2011-02-23 19:46:45

Quote from: greynol link=msg=0 date=

Quote from: Stereoeditor link=msg=0 date=

That was the point I was making to greynol. Consider a formal test to examine the audibility of a small but possibly audible effect, which may not be audible on all kinds of music. You need a very large number of trials to bring the power of statistical anlaysis to bear, both on the audibility or lack thereof, and the interdependence between the effect and the music program.

How convenient. People claim to be fatigued by sighted listening to otherwise transparent lossy or CDDA but not by sighted listening to a high resolution counterpart, but they cannot be tested on this because unsighted listening is fatiguing???

As I said in the message of mine that you deleted, I have not said that. Nor does it follow from the message of mine from which you quoted. I was making a general argument concerning the possibility of listener fatigue acting as an interfering variable in formal listening tests and what can be done to prevent that from occurring.

You didn't suggest that ABX testing causes fatigue?  If you did then your complaints are a non sequitur.

My question was not posed to you personally.  If it were I would have addressed you personally.  This is a public forum, John; my comments are open for anyone to respond.

I think the way it works is that people hear of some gizmo that will *improve* their sound based on hearty testimonials from the usual suspects, and then their system's sound causes them unbearable  stress until they *fix* the situation by means of a new equipment acquisition.

Reality is that differences that you can ABX in a heartbeat often have zero effect on your listening pleasure.

For example, ABX the same musical selection, one unchanged, the other attenuated by a dB or two.  In open listening both are equally enjoyable. Yet you can easily ABX them and hear a difference.

Just enough nonlinear distortion to be easily ABX-able can have similar effects, even high orer distortion. As I pointed out in a previous post, one of the subjective effects of modest amounts of  common forms of nonlinear distortion might be a slight shift in timbre.

While we call common forms of nonlinear distortion "grunge", it doesn't sound like grunge in modest amounts - enough to be just barely reliably detectable.  You hear it as a barely discernable difference that you can't detect at all without a ready undistorted referemce. Listen to it all day, and you'll never know that it is there.  The things that actually detract from your listening pleasure are pretty gross.

Quote from: Josh358 on 2011-02-23 19:14:25

I suspect that there are still some differences that would be more identifiable in long term tests,

Looks like a statement of religious faith.

Quote

based on the fact that even short audio snippets put heavy demands on short term memory.

No, they reduce the demands  on short term memory and eliminate demands on long term memory.

Quote

We are both speculating here, not necessarily a bad thing, since it lays the ground for further research.

No, I'm not speculating at all, except about the tiny details of very specific cases. In general, I know what to suspect,, based on decades of practical experience.  I can't say that my experience covers 100.000% of every situation, but I've formed general rules and guidelines that predict the outcome of almost all listening tests.

If I make mistakes at all, I usually end up failing to predict null outcomes.  For example when we recently did blind comparisons of some <$400 a pair powered monitors to some highly regarded $12,000 a pair systems I didn't expect that the listeners would have no significant preferences for one over the other.  Hope springs eternal!

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2011-02-23 20:12:23

Quote from: Josh358 on 2011-02-23 19:14:25

I suspect that there are still some differences that would be more identifiable in long term tests,

Looks like a statement of religious faith.

Nope, it looks like a statement of agnosticism. Religious faith would be taking either position in the absence of evidence.

Quote

Quote

We are both speculating here, not necessarily a bad thing, since it lays the ground for further research.

No, I'm not speculating at all, except about the tiny details of very specific cases. In general, I know what to suspect,, based on decades of practical experience.  I can't say that my experience covers 100.000% of every situation, but I've formed general rules and guidelines that predict the outcome of almost all listening tests.

If I make mistakes at all, I usually end up failing to predict null outcomes.  For example when we recently did blind comparisons of some <$400 a pair powered monitors to some highly regarded $12,000 a pair systems I didn't expect that the listeners would have no significant preferences for one over the other.  Hope springs eternal!

If you aren't speculating, you haven't presented your complete case here,

because I haven't seen anything that nullifies the postulated objections some have to ABX testing.

I have seen what, on the face of it, would seem to be useful techniques to minimize some of those objections, e.g., preselecting program material and, perhaps, educating the ear through long-term listening before performing the tests. Taken together, those techniques would seem to dispense with some major objections.

An agnostic statement would be to say that there are some differences that are equally identifiable either way. Thus far we know that short term tests are generally superior.

Quote

because I haven't seen anything that nullifies the postulated objections some have to ABX testing.

That's anything but agnosticism. You've just thrown in with "..the postulated objections that some have to ABX testing."

Besides, your criteria is set way to high and is biased against ABX. There are few theories that are totally nullified in the eyes of diehards who hold onto them in the face of considerable counter evidence. We don't have to nullify tho theories of nay-sayers, all we have to do is advance theories and evidence that establish that the preponderance of valid evidence supports ABX. That was done decades ago.

If you simply ask that listening tests be valid tests, then sighted evaluations die on the spot.

Quote

I have seen what, on the face of it, would seem to be useful techniques to minimize some of those objections, e.g., preselecting program material and, perhaps, educating the ear through long-term listening before performing the tests. Taken together, those techniques would seem to dispense with some major objections.

"Educating the ear via long term tests" fails on the ground that in every case we've examined, long term tests are woefully and unnecessarily time-consuming and insensitive. I see  that you apparently never bothered to read "Flying Blind", or you didn't get it.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2011-02-24 00:15:33

An agnostic statement would be to say that there are some differences that are equally identifiable either way. Thus far we know that short term tests are generally superior.

I'm not aware of any hard evidence that they generally are or aren't, only evidence that they are superior in some cases.

I'd forgotten about "Flying Blind," I must have gotten sidetracked.

Quote from: Josh358 on 2011-02-24 01:07:15

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2011-02-24 00:15:33

An agnostic statement would be to say that there are some differences that are equally identifiable either way. Thus far we know that short term tests are generally superior.

I'm not aware of any hard evidence that they generally are or aren't, only evidence that they are superior in some cases.

I'd forgotten about "Flying Blind," I must have gotten sidetracked.

Please come back when you've done your homework. You can't possibly have a well-informed opinion that is worth the time to address as long as you ignore evidence that you have been pointed again and again at for days, and conveniently forget to look at.

Here's a link to the article PDF, and some other articles you probably need to read and understand as well:

Links to "Flying Blind" and other relevant Tom Nousaine articles

The question is whether some are best heard with long-term listening.

I have stipulated that some forms of distortion are most audible in short term comparisons,

you have already stipulated that some forms of distortion benefit from pre-selection of program material, which requires long term listening.

I have also expressed the opinion that the methodology you propose -- long-term listening followed by short-term comparisons -- is probably sufficient to overcome the problem of events with a low probability of occurrence, as well as to allow any necessary training to occur.

This does not dispense with all objections,

but insofar as these issues are concerned, with the exception perhaps of the utility of training by listening and the utility of ad hominem attacks and posturing, I do not see that we have any fundamental disagreement.

Quote from: Josh358 on 2011-02-24 16:09:10

The question is whether some are best heard with long-term listening.

Nobody has ever been able to name that distortion or provide an example of it.

Quote

I have stipulated that some forms of distortion are most audible in short term comparisons,

A meaningless *concession*. Some = what, 2? Who knows?

Quote

you have already stipulated that some forms of distortion benefit from pre-selection of program material, which requires long term listening.

No, I've stipulated that the nature of  defects in recordings which includes distortion is such that not every second of every recording ever made is the best place to hear it.

That is a common sense finding that has nothing to do with long term versus short term listening.

You made yourself an easy target for criticism when you continued to pretend that there is no evidence after several people pointed you at it.  Well with some significant effort we finally worked you past that...

If you aren't speculating, you haven't presented your complete case here, because I haven't seen anything that nullifies the postulated objections some have to ABX testing. I have seen what, on the face of it, would seem to be useful techniques to minimize some of those objections, e.g., preselecting program material and, perhaps, educating the ear through long-term listening before performing the tests. Taken together, those techniques would seem to dispense with some major objections.

-and here is a funny question... Why is Placebo bad?

-Is it proven that not being able to pass ABX tests on foobar comparing two files mean that they are sonically the same in quality?

- Does the lack of training for searching for specific codec artifacts when doing an abx test mean that one will not be able to hear those differences when just listening to the music for enjoyment from time to time?

-and here is a funny question... Why is Placebo bad? Since we are all more or less educated enough here to know that lossless files are bigger than lossy files in filesize, why is placebo a bad thing if it makes a person enjoy listening to music via lossless files more than lossy just because one thinks deep down inside that there is less of a possibility of losses when listening to lossless?

LOL I like those replies about money. Money is a very important thing not to waste but if one thinks about the cost of hard drive space these days though its probably less than a dime per gigabyte

-and here is a funny question... Why is Placebo bad? Since we are all more or less educated enough here to know that lossless files are bigger than lossy files in filesize, why is placebo a bad thing if it makes a person enjoy listening to music via lossless files more than lossy just because one thinks deep down inside that there is less of a possibility of losses when listening to lossless?

Is that really worth not squeezing out all the possible juice out of the $17 CD one just bought? Thats approximately three albums per dime that don't have to be ripped and re-ripped all over again when the newest builds of lossy codecs come along sounding better per byte than its predecessor.

-and here is a funny question... Why is Placebo bad? Since we are all more or less educated enough here to know that lossless files are bigger than lossy files in filesize, why is placebo a bad thing if it makes a person enjoy listening to music via lossless files more than lossy just because one thinks deep down inside that there is less of a possibility of losses when listening to lossless?

Quote from: Donunus on 2011-02-28 07:18:00

-Is it proven that not being able to pass ABX tests on foobar comparing two files mean that they are sonically the same in quality?

Quote

-and here is a funny question... Why is Placebo bad? Since we are all more or less educated enough here to know that lossless files are bigger than lossy files in filesize, why is placebo a bad thing if it makes a person enjoy listening to music via lossless files more than lossy just because one thinks deep down inside that there is less of a possibility of losses when listening to lossless?

Because placebo often involves spending more money.

It is possible that we'd now have far better actual audio technology if the floobydust contingent hadn't siphoned off so much of everybodies' time and energy.