Randomizing file names, to compare lossy files etc. Options

[Brand]

As you may know, comparing various lossy files (by ABXing each of them against the lossless file or something else) can be subject to some bias, if you know which of the lossy files you're testing.
You might have a preference for one lossy format or encoder and so you might (subconsciously) do the tests differently.

There's a way to eliminate this potential bias, by randomly renaming the lossy files.
Of course, at the end, you also need to know which file is which.
For this purpose, I found a simple script (Windows) that does just that: http://www.howtogeek.com/57661/stupid-geek...in-a-directory/
Put some files into the folder with the script, run the script and you will get: renamed files + a txt file that tells you which file is which, so you can check when you're finished.

To then use those files, it helps if they're of the same size/duration/metadata (easier with simple CBR files like WAV), so that Explorer (or whatever file manager you're using) doesn't give you any hints.
Even with different file sizes, you can select the icon view in Explorer, so that unless you hover over a file for a second or two, you won't see the details. You can then Ctrl+A on the files, unselect the ones you don't need and add the selected ones to Foobar without getting any extra information. You'll see what I mean when you try it in practice.


I found this an effective way to randomize files for blind testing on your own.
But if there's an easier way, let me know.

There's at least one thing that would improve this, though: copy the randomized files to clipboard. This would eliminate the need to select the files carefully, since they could simply be pasted into Foobar. Is there a way to add this to the script?

[greynol]

Lol, do I have to risk repeating myself too?

You may rank any way you want just as you can load any samples you like. The reason high bitrates are avoided has to do with getting useful information from public tests which would just as well exist with ABX-style tests.

I'd also like to know if anyone here has ever personally been encumbered by knowing which codecs were being tested while performing an ABX test.

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 28 2012, 18:57

[Brand]

Frankly, I don't know what your point is.

Is "sample A was easy to ABX, while sample B was difficult/impossible to ABX" not useful information?

I'd also like to know if anyone here has ever personally been encumbered by knowing which codes were being tested while performing an ABX test.

Oh, come on. We're on HA, sub-forum Listening Tests.
I would expect us all to be familiar with the placebo effect and with taking proper precautions to avoid any possible bias.