Links to blind listening tests: discussion, Split from the pinned topic. Options

[Roseval]

Wow, impressive list. Thanks

Maybe this is a usefull addtion: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

[Alex B]

By Roberto J. Amorim. Old tests : some codecs have been improved since then.
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/index.html

By Sebastian Mares, who managed the public tests after Roberto.
http://www.listening-tests.info/

These sites are now gone. I have created a mirror of them: http://listeningtests.t35.com

Sebastian's site is also archived at HA: http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/
Here is Sebastian's thread about closing his site: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=76672

[Pio2001]

Thanks for the new link, Alex B. I corrected it.

Roseval, Sean's Blog is not a blind test in itself. But another section could be created with links of this kind. It could include

Sean Olive's Audio musings :
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/

Bruce Coppola's audio page
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html

The Audio Critic :
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/

Boston Audio Society :
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles.htm

David Griesinger's website :
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/

etc.

What do you think ?

[Pio2001]

I would also like to say that any moderator or administrator is welcome to update the pinned post with new links.

The update should be notified either as an answer to the pinned post, or here, so that we don't add the same links twice.

A line stating "last updated by xxxx on dd/mm/yyyy" should also be added on top of the post, and be updated by anyone posting modifications in the list.

[southisup]

I would also like to say that any moderator or administrator is welcome to update the pinned post with new links.

The update should be notified either as an answer to the pinned post, or here, so that we don't add the same links twice.

A line stating "last updated by xxxx on dd/mm/yyyy" should also be added on top of the post, and be updated by anyone posting modifications in the list.

Sorry if I'm just not seeing it, but I can't see a link here to the actual pinned topic referred to. I assume it's this: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=82777

[Pio2001]

Yes, that's it.

[DirtyHarry]

I am very happy to have recently discovered HA. Especially after some long discussions with friends of mine who insisted that they can hear a difference between FLAC and a high quality MP3, but were not willing to perform a simple blind test. It's a pleasure to see that so much effort is put here into objective blind listening tests.

However, I am surprised to find so little academic research on in this subject. The problem with most ABX tests on this forum is that the number of participants is generally limited and that you are dependent on the equipment of the participants. I find it strange that I can't find any academic research into this subject. I would love to see a test involving a large number of participants, a fixed set of (high quality) audio equipment and proper statistical analysis. With a large number of participants also factors like age (with their differing audible frequency range) could be investigated.

Considering that many codecs originate from academic institutes (i.e. Fraunhofer etc.) I expected that there would be a large number of scientific experiments on the performance of different codecs. However, I cannot find any of them. Am I perhaps looking in the wrong direction?

[Alex B]

Thanks for a useful bump. The above mentioned listeningtests.t35.com link is dead. The correct address is http://listening-tests.freetzi.com :

FYI,

My mirror site is now available only at http://listening-tests.freetzi.com . The t35.com hosting service ended a few days ago.

Pio2001/other moderators, could you please fix the link in this post: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry717387 . Thanks.

[MichaelW]

@dirtyharry
I guess the chief point is that academic research, especially research involving large numbers of subjects, needs funding, and there just isn't anything to be found out that would tempt a funding body to open its money-chest. It's unlikely that anyone is going to make new and exciting findings.

Reputable manufacturers do undertake blind testing to improve their products, especially speakers--Sean Olive's blog is good on that, and some of the findings are published there, but naturally they're not going to make a gift of their research to their competitors (that is to say, such of the rival manufacturers who try to sell on SQ, as opposed to woo and waving of the dollar-willy).

tl;dr: there's not much money in the academic world, and the competition for funding is horrendous.

[knutinh]

I am very happy to have recently discovered HA. Especially after some long discussions with friends of mine who insisted that they can hear a difference between FLAC and a high quality MP3, but were not willing to perform a simple blind test. It's a pleasure to see that so much effort is put here into objective blind listening tests.

We have all been there.

However, I am surprised to find so little academic research on in this subject. The problem with most ABX tests on this forum is that the number of participants is generally limited and that you are dependent on the equipment of the participants. I find it strange that I can't find any academic research into this subject. I would love to see a test involving a large number of participants, a fixed set of (high quality) audio equipment and proper statistical analysis. With a large number of participants also factors like age (with their differing audible frequency range) could be investigated.

I think that the tests carried out by Floyd Toole in the 80s are good examples of how it can be done (loudspeakers in small rooms). The ideal test depends on what it is that you want to know. Do you want to figure out what the general public is able to distinguish? Do you want to estimate an upper bound to what 1/1000 or 1/100000 of the population are able to distinguish? Or do you want to know what you yourself is able to distinguish?

-k