IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Upload forum rules

- No over 30 sec clips of copyrighted music. Cite properly and never more than necessary for the discussion.


- No copyrighted software without permission.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Impact of listening fatigue , during ABX test.
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 9 2009, 01:46
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



Hi ,
I thought I could test how high bit rates could be useful for me,
by doing an ABX test based on a sample rich on high pitched sound.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but high bit rates help to preserve high frequencies.

So I used a sample from the OST of game "sentinel return"
from John Carpenter. I precise, because it's not an artificial sample
generated by me, but a music that exists.
In attachment , there's a lossless flac version,
and one encoded at 128kps cbr (lame 3.98).

I tried to make an ABX test with two samples (using ABX comparator from foobar),
but I realized that listening to the sample again and again was a bit fatiguing for my ears.
Anyway here are the questions that arise from this test.

First are you experiencing listening fatigue like me with this sample,
and can you ABX them easily ? I'm not sure if that's important, but I use headphones, and with
relatively loud volume, compared to my normal level for regular listening.

For the ones experiencing listening fatigue, how would you overcome this ?
Personally, I try to make a big pause of 30 second at least before making
a decision at each step of ABX test , just listening at silence or quiet
music. But that's not obvious.

And finally , do you think that the impact of listening fatigue can
be ignored during regular ABX tests ?
I've done many times some ABX tests, getting successful results in the 4/5 first steps ,
and then getting errors.
So either the ABX comparator from foobar, is not truly random,
and I'm good at guessing the first steps, or I'm loosing my ability
to focus on the differences because of listening fatigue or anything else (like
distracting background noise).
Attached File(s)
Attached File  carpenter.zip ( 3.02MB ) Number of downloads: 202
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light-Fire
post Oct 9 2009, 02:19
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 5-August 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 33645



You can have long pauses if you want. So listening fatigue is not a factor.

You can use speakers (instead of headphones) if you want. That's not a factor as well.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 9 2009, 02:41
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



@Light Fire
The question is that if you are always aware or not of listening fatigue.
You might have wrong conclusion (i.e I'm unable to ABX)
if you don't pay attention to this problem.
Do you usually take a long pause, if after some steps, you become undecided if A or B is X ?
How far, are you ready to go , to be sure you are unable to hear a difference ?
Do you raise the volume when suddenly you become undecided,
or try to rest your ears ?
I think that after some times, average people just prefer to give up ,
and conclude "I'm unable to ABX".

Also, If some people want to play with the sample files and try to ABX , I'm not against some reactions.
But maybe, this sample is only significant for me, I don't know.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexxander
post Oct 9 2009, 08:36
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



Yes, sometimes I'm aware of listening fatigue, it gets harder to detect again and again the same distortion. When this happens I just stop and try again next day or at least wait several hours. I ABX with headphones and the volume is VERY important. The higher the volume the worse, but a volume too low leaves artifacts undetected. After abx-ing for some time with the same equipment I have found a kind of sweet spot of volume settings. (I usually do mid-high bitrate abx-ing)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
muaddib
post Oct 9 2009, 09:19
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 398
Joined: 14-October 01
Member No.: 289



It takes me sometimes a lot of time, without a pause, until I spot the difference and only then can I successfully ABX.
But of course, after longer period spent ABX-ing (about 30 minutes) fatigue hits me. Then I need at least 10 minutes until I recover.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 9 2009, 12:40
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



Well, thanks for the answers. I got the clear feeling that ABX-ing can induce fatigue, and obviously this can be true for other people.
I retain that Alexxander wait at least several hours to cancel effects of fatigue, and 10 minutes for muaddib.
I guess that ABX-ing successfully can take sometimes much more than an hour, and not everyone have this level of patience. Unless you are lucky and have great ears ...

This post has been edited by extrabigmehdi: Oct 9 2009, 12:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 9 2009, 12:50
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 3305
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I would like to know the point of ABXing at higher than normal listening levels. Isn't it more important to know if you can tell the difference at normal listening levels?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 9 2009, 14:18
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



@pdq,
QUOTE
Isn't it more important to know if you can tell the difference at normal listening levels?

I guess it depends of the purpose of the ABX test, and how much you are perfectionist in term of sound quality.
Once I got no clue of which file sound better during an ABX test , and the only way for me to spot an interesting difference (level of noise), was to raise the volume a lot.

This post has been edited by extrabigmehdi: Oct 9 2009, 14:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Oct 9 2009, 22:56
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1001
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Oct 9 2009, 09:18) *
I guess it depends of the purpose of the ABX test, and how much you are perfectionist in term of sound quality.
Once I got no clue of which file sound better during an ABX test , and the only way for me to spot an interesting difference (level of noise), was to raise the volume a lot.


If by "perfectionist" you mean you desire audio which is unchanged from the original - any bitrate of lossy is the wrong way to go for you.
If you must go to extraordinary measures you can likely find all sorts of flaws in perceptual encoders, they must make some assumptions about "normal" listening.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MLXXX
post Oct 10 2009, 02:26
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 25-February 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 51585



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Oct 9 2009, 10:46) *
First are you experiencing listening fatigue like me with this sample,
and can you ABX them easily ? I'm not sure if that's important, but I use headphones, and with
relatively loud volume, compared to my normal level for regular listening.

I found listening fatigue a problem with this sample, until the second half of my ABX session when I stumbled on a section of the files that was more obviously different. [The section of the files from 22.4 sec to 23.0 sec sounded obviously deeper for my hearing with the flac version compared with the mp3.] For the record, here is the ABX result:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.8
2009/10/10 09:55:51

File A: C:\Downloads\_extracted\carpenter.zip.extracted\Carpenter_128kps_cbr.mp3
File B: C:\Downloads\_extracted\carpenter.zip.extracted\Carpenter_FLAC.flac

09:55:51 : Test started.
09:57:53 : 01/01 50.0%
09:59:54 : 02/02 25.0%
10:05:27 : 03/03 12.5%
10:05:53 : 04/04 6.3%
10:06:28 : 05/05 3.1%
10:06:45 : 06/06 1.6%
10:07:03 : 07/07 0.8%
10:07:15 : 08/08 0.4%
10:07:27 : 09/09 0.2%
10:07:53 : 10/10 0.1%
10:08:00 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/10 (0.1%
)

QUOTE
For the ones experiencing listening fatigue, how would you overcome this ?
Personally, I try to make a big pause of 30 second at least before making
a decision at each step of ABX test , just listening at silence or quiet
music. But that's not obvious.

I suggest there are different aspects of listening fatigue at work including:
(1) desentitization of the hearing organ itself (organ of Corti). [I think my high frequency hearing is susceptible to this.]
(2) the hearing analysis part of the brain becoming desentitized when repeatedly presented with what is essentially the same stimulus.
(3) the brain relying in part on its memory of its last analysis of the sound event, part on its accumulated internal modelling of what such sound events typically sound like, and part on the raw nerve impulses from the organ of Corti. [As time goes on of repeatedly listening to the same section of music, the brain may automatically place greater weight on synthesis and imagination, rather than narrowly focussing on the raw data.]

An aspect of 3 is illustrated by the fact that one word in the dialogue in a sitcom may be unintelligible to a particular listener for the first 5 playings of a section of dialogue, but if the listener realises what that word is on the 6th playing, then on any subsequent playing the initially unintelligible word is likely to be readily understood by that listener. In fact the listener may find it hard to imagine how they could possibly not have understood the initially unintelligible word.

I find the best ways to deal with listening fatigue are to:
(a) change the section of the ABX files I am listening to
(b) take a 10 minute break [if everything starts sounding the same!].


QUOTE
And finally , do you think that the impact of listening fatigue can
be ignored during regular ABX tests ?
I've done many times some ABX tests, getting successful results in the 4/5 first steps ,
and then getting errors.
So either the ABX comparator from foobar, is not truly random,
and I'm good at guessing the first steps, or I'm loosing my ability
to focus on the differences because of listening fatigue or anything else (like
distracting background noise).

I think that ABXing in the initial steps is artificially easy in that an A B test of a short segment of a recording can reveal extremely subtle differnces that a listener might not identify if listening to the entirety of the recording A, waiting half an hour, and then playing the enirety of recording B. Also the listener can repeat the samples as often as they wish, before choosing to provide an answer and proceed to the next "step".

On the other hand, I find that my own hearing is often best at detecting a difference in the very first A B test of a short segment, and that "listening fatigue" sets in very quickly. After 4 or 5 "steps" detection becomes difficult, even though initially the discrepancy between A and B can seem plain. As I say, my way of getting around this problem is to switch to another section of the files.

This post has been edited by MLXXX: Oct 10 2009, 02:30
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 10 2009, 05:42
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



@Soap

QUOTE
If you must go to extraordinary measures you can likely find all sorts of
flaws in perceptual encoders


I don't consider that raising the volume, or trying to avoid listening fatigue
, to be extraordinary measures. Probably it depends of what you are expecting.
In my case , I tried here, to see if a high bit rate could be justified to
satisfy my ears . I used an example I thought "obvious" at first , but that
was not the case at the end. I was also curious to see if codec developpers,
take in consideration the problem of listening fatigue that can occur during
AB-X tests, when tweaking a lossy codec (I guess that's the case according to
muaddib answer...).

QUOTE
If by "perfectionist" you mean you desire audio which is unchanged from
the original - any bitrate of lossy is the wrong way to go for you.


During an AB-X test, you don't necessarily compare a lossy version , with a
lossless version. Example: two versions encoded with different lossy codec.
But yes, if you just want to listen to the most "faithful" version, you might
just listen at the source, and not bother with any lossy codec.


@MLXXX
QUOTE
The section of the files from 22.4 sec to 23.0 sec sounded obviously deeper
for my hearing with the flac version compared with the mp3.


Thanks for the indication, will try to AB-X the section later.

QUOTE
I think that ABXing in the initial steps is artificially easy


Or artificially hard... Being forced to focus on audible differences,
is not "natural". I usually like to do other stuff while listening to music.

QUOTE
As I say, my way of getting around this problem is to switch to another section of the files.


Great, that it works for you. Thanks for the suggestion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 10 2009, 08:31
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



10.3-11.5 secs its easy to abx. Smearing. 1sec pauses help.

Even more disturbing around 11.8-13 secs and @ 16sec !! (BAD) Also 13.9 secs..

This sample is too critical for mp3 encoding anyway.



Whoever gets fatigued is very very lucky as you are preecho immune.

This post has been edited by shadowking: Oct 10 2009, 08:39


--------------------
Wavpack -b450x1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MLXXX
post Oct 10 2009, 09:06
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 25-February 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 51585



QUOTE (shadowking @ Oct 10 2009, 17:31) *
Whoever gets fatigued is very very lucky as you are preecho immune.

The fatigue that arises from relistening to a very short segment (to obtain say 8 or more consecutive correct ABX results for that segment) doesn't stop pre-echo or other artifacts from being heard at the first hearing of the segment.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C.R.Helmrich
post Oct 10 2009, 12:50
Post #14





Group: Developer
Posts: 681
Joined: 6-December 08
From: Erlangen Germany
Member No.: 64012



QUOTE (MLXXX @ Oct 10 2009, 10:06) *
The fatigue that arises from relistening to a very short segment (to obtain say 8 or more consecutive correct ABX results for that segment) doesn't stop pre-echo or other artifacts from being heard at the first hearing of the segment.

Correct. When listening to very tiring items (such as castanets in a loop), you have to come to a conclusion quickly. And don't think you can postpone such fatigue by turning up the volume. From some investigations at work I can tell you it's counterproductive. The louder you listen, the shorter your test sessions should be. I think a good rule of thumb is:

1. At normal "conversational" listening level, don't do more than 30 minutes without pause.
2. For each 6 dB above normal listening level, reduce the test duration by a factor of 2.

Chris


--------------------
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 15 2009, 00:31
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Oct 9 2009, 21:42) *
QUOTE
The section of the files from 22.4 sec to 23.0 sec sounded obviously deeper
for my hearing with the flac version compared with the mp3.

Thanks for the indication, will try to AB-X the section later.

Any luck with this?


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 15 2009, 02:10
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



@greynol
Currently I only have with me my laptop, and Senn IE7 IEMs ; and I don't know if that's good enough for this ABX Test.
I tried all the sections suggested on this thread before , and didn't find any "easy" to ABX.

I've just done now a new ABX test with the 22.4 sec - 23.0 sec section.
Normal volume level, and relatively big pauses (at least at the end) . I've removed and put again my IEMs,
in some steps, because I wanted to move ( so the seal of my IEMs might not be the same).

Here's the result:
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.8
2009/10/14 23:48:03

File A: E:\carpenter\Carpenter_128kps_cbr.mp3
File B: E:\carpenter\Carpenter_FLAC.flac

23:48:03 : Test started.
23:53:47 : 01/01  50.0%
23:54:06 : 02/02  25.0%
23:56:44 : 03/03  12.5%
23:59:30 : 04/04  6.3%
00:04:43 : 05/05  3.1%
00:06:34 : 06/06  1.6%
00:13:17 : 06/07  6.3%
00:19:35 : 06/08  14.5%
00:26:24 : 07/09  9.0%
00:36:43 : 07/10  17.2%
00:36:47 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 7/10 (17.2%)


I have also a desktop pc, with a better sound card, and full sized headphone. Unfortunately they are in an other town,
and I can't use them for this test before a while.

This post has been edited by extrabigmehdi: Oct 15 2009, 02:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tahnru
post Oct 15 2009, 03:26
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 325
Joined: 17-October 05
From: United States
Member No.: 25178



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Oct 9 2009, 23:42) *
During an AB-X test, you don't necessarily compare a lossy version , with a
lossless version. Example: two versions encoded with different lossy codec.
But yes, if you just want to listen to the most "faithful" version, you might
just listen at the source, and not bother with any lossy codec.


I'm curious, what useful information do you expect to derive by from the knowledge that two non-identical lossy versions sound different from one another? I've been thinking for a few minutes and haven't thought of one yet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 15 2009, 03:34
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Once I found a good spot I didn't find this sample all that terribly difficult to ABX. I typically run 16 trials when differences are subtle as they are with this sample. With casual listening I would probably not notice.

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.1 report
foobar2000 v0.9.4.2
2009/10/14 19:11:43

File A: C:\New Folder (2)\Carpenter_FLAC.flac
File B: C:\New Folder (2)\Carpenter_128kps_cbr.mp3

19:11:43 : Test started.
19:16:07 : 00/01 100.0%
19:16:19 : 01/02 75.0%
19:16:25 : 02/03 50.0%
19:16:29 : 03/04 31.3%
19:16:41 : 03/05 50.0%
19:18:15 : 04/06 34.4%
19:18:24 : 05/07 22.7%
19:18:45 : 06/08 14.5%
19:19:11 : 07/09 9.0%
19:19:21 : 08/10 5.5%
19:19:27 : 09/11 3.3%
19:19:33 : 10/12 1.9%
19:19:46 : 11/13 1.1%
19:19:53 : 12/14 0.6%
19:20:01 : 13/15 0.4%
19:20:09 : 14/16 0.2%
19:20:16 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/16 (0.2%)

Fatigue was not an issue.

I find it curious that you'd choose 128kbit CBR with a sample like this. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have golden ears and with my music (hard rock) I use -V3 and have been very satisfied. I can often ABX -V5 and sometimes -V4 as well. Because these settings typically produce bitrates that are higher than 128kbits with my music and I have the room on my DAP, I wouldn't even consider 128kbit CBR. This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of samples out there that would fool me at 128kbits (VBR or even CBR). This just isn't one of them, not when my interest is to achieve transparent results with attentive listening.

Another point worth mentioning is that despite common belief, good equipment is generally not necessary in being able to more easily identify lossy artifacts. In fact it's often the other way around since psychoacoustic models typically assume playback with a flat frequency response.

Based on the position you've taken on this forum to question the validity of ABX testing, I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that you've decided to set the bar this low.

Oh, and the testing was done at a normal listening levels which isn't particularly loud (I can hear up to 17kHz and would like to keep it this way).

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 15 2009, 07:20


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 15 2009, 07:11
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



@Tahnru,
QUOTE
I'm curious, what useful information do you expect to derive by from the knowledge that two non-identical lossy versions sound different from one another?

Hum ok, I won't tell you stories .
Once I compared a cd-xa version vs microsoft adpcm version via ABX test ,
and I found there was more background noise in the microsoft adpcm version.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=74096&hl=

@graynol
QUOTE
I find it curious that you'd choose 128kbit CBR with a sample like this.

This sample was enough harsh to my ears, to the point that I was wondering "how you could you manage
to abx that ?". I used an enough low bitrate, to see if listening fatigue is a true issue here.
If people are having difficulties on an obvious example, then this might come from listening fatigue.

QUOTE
Fatigue was not an issue.

Well, perhaps it's more an issue if you raise too much the volume .
Also if you already know to which section to look at, this makes things easier.

QUOTE
Another point worth mentioning is that despite common belief, good equipment is generally not necessary in being able to more easily identify lossy artifacts. In fact it's often the other way around since psychoacoustic models typically assume playback with a flat frequency response.

Ok, will try with very cheap headphones an other time.

QUOTE
I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that you've decided to set the bar this low.

Sorry I disappointed you. I thought this sample was valid for testing listening fatigue.
My reasoning is that when you ears are getting tired, the bitrate do not matter much (under a certain limit).
But I'd like to tell that I'm not experimented in ABX tests, and that I don't have a big knowledge of mp3 artifacts.
People that are familiar with mp3 artifacts are probably expecting a harder comparison.

QUOTE
I can hear up to 17kHz and would like to keep it this way.

I don't know what is my limit. Perhaps, the listening fatigue with high pitched sounds depends of this limit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 15 2009, 07:16
Post #20





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I sincerely hope you aren't boosting the level solely in an attempt to help you make out differences between the two samples.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 15 2009, 13:34
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 3305
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Oct 15 2009, 02:11) *
@Tahnru,
QUOTE
I'm curious, what useful information do you expect to derive by from the knowledge that two non-identical lossy versions sound different from one another?

Hum ok, I won't tell you stories .
Once I compared a cd-xa version vs microsoft adpcm version via ABX test ,
and I found there was more background noise in the microsoft adpcm version.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=74096&hl=

The point is that ABX is the wrong tool for this kind of test, not that this is not something worthy of testing. Where you are testing preferences among two or more imperfect encodes you want to use something like ABC/HR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Oct 15 2009, 21:01
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



Hum, ok,
I've redone the test with the speakers of my laptop.
It was more comfortable than my IEMs , and then I was more relaxed/concentrated while doing the ABX test.

Also I didn't find that the section 22.4 sec to 23.0 sec was the best to spot differences,
so I changed it to 15.5 sec to 16 sec , following shadowking suggestion that it's very bad at 16 sec.

Here is the log, you can ignore all the attempts before last trial reset, or not.
But it's only in the last trial that I'm using the 15.5 sec to 16 sec, section.

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.8
2009/10/15 18:19:47

File A: C:\Users\mehdi\Desktop\carpenter\Carpenter_128kps_cbr.mp3
File B: C:\Users\mehdi\Desktop\carpenter\Carpenter_FLAC.flac

18:19:47 : Test started.
18:38:54 : 00/01  100.0%
18:39:06 : Trial reset.
18:39:48 : 01/01  50.0%
18:40:44 : 01/02  75.0%
18:43:37 : Trial reset.
18:55:29 : 01/01  50.0%
18:56:41 : 02/02  25.0%
18:58:29 : 03/03  12.5%
19:00:07 : 03/04  31.3%
19:06:17 : Trial reset.
19:11:58 : 01/01  50.0%
19:13:08 : 02/02  25.0%
19:14:10 : 03/03  12.5%
19:14:46 : 04/04  6.3%
19:16:17 : 05/05  3.1%
19:17:16 : 05/06  10.9%
19:21:55 : 06/07  6.3%
19:22:29 : 07/08  3.5%
19:23:15 : 08/09  2.0%
19:24:21 : 09/10  1.1%
19:26:07 : 10/11  0.6%
19:27:00 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/18 (1.5%)



Also, I'd like to add that it's a pity that the ABX logs do not show which sections are exactly used at each steps.
Not sure if it matters, but I used Replaygain for the test. This is not shown in the log too.

@greynol
QUOTE
I sincerely hope you aren't boosting the level solely in an attempt to help you make out differences between the two samples.

I realized that raising too much the volume , makes actually this ABX test harder. Especially because of the high pitched sounds.

In my other mentioned test (ADPCM vs CD-XA) I got to raise the volume a lot to find a difference .

@pdq
QUOTE
Where you are testing preferences among two or more imperfect encodes you want to use something like ABC/HR.

Will study that thing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tahnru
post Oct 15 2009, 22:14
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 325
Joined: 17-October 05
From: United States
Member No.: 25178



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Oct 15 2009, 15:01) *
CODE
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.8
2009/10/15 18:19:47

File A: C:\Users\mehdi\Desktop\carpenter\Carpenter_128kps_cbr.mp3
File B: C:\Users\mehdi\Desktop\carpenter\Carpenter_FLAC.flac

18:19:47 : Test started.
18:38:54 : 00/01  100.0%
18:39:06 : Trial reset.
18:39:48 : 01/01  50.0%
18:40:44 : 01/02  75.0%
18:43:37 : Trial reset.
18:55:29 : 01/01  50.0%
18:56:41 : 02/02  25.0%
18:58:29 : 03/03  12.5%
19:00:07 : 03/04  31.3%
19:06:17 : Trial reset.
19:11:58 : 01/01  50.0%
19:13:08 : 02/02  25.0%
19:14:10 : 03/03  12.5%
19:14:46 : 04/04  6.3%
19:16:17 : 05/05  3.1%
19:17:16 : 05/06  10.9%
19:21:55 : 06/07  6.3%
19:22:29 : 07/08  3.5%
19:23:15 : 08/09  2.0%
19:24:21 : 09/10  1.1%
19:26:07 : 10/11  0.6%
19:27:00 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/18 (1.5%)



And this EXACT THING is why I cannot stand that the Foobar ABX component shows the progress of the test while it is occurring. It seems that it only serves to trap newbies who think they have to "pass" an ABX test, retesting over and over again until they get their desired result.

Don't take me wrong, EBM, I appreciate your honesty here. Thank you.

I see that pdq has already mentioned ABC/HR.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 16 2009, 00:17
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 2159
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Tahnru @ Oct 15 2009, 17:14) *
And this EXACT THING is why I cannot stand that the Foobar ABX component shows the progress of the test while it is occurring. It seems that it only serves to trap newbies who think they have to "pass" an ABX test, retesting over and over again until they get their desired result.



But there is a 'hide results' option that can keep the subject's scores secret until the test is stopped. It's a checkbox in the ABX comparator popup window.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tahnru
post Oct 16 2009, 00:30
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 325
Joined: 17-October 05
From: United States
Member No.: 25178



I've seen the hide results checkbox. Judging by the various new user posts that have been cropping up, I expect that said checkbox is ignored by the vast majority of users.

I've pointed out my annoyance at a lousy checkbox as a personal shortcoming of mine in the past. That hasn't changed. In my mind, its a key facilitating factor for the random drop-in users producing bad tests and erroneously interpreted test results. That and a complete lack of understanding of blind testing.

Really, the utility of the "hide results" box is a topic for a separate discussion. I'll be done with it here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 04:00