FLAC vs. 320 Mp3 - Page 34  

No you can't do that. You cannot verify their experience. Nobody can.

How can your observing a person allow you to assess what they hear?

Again: you cannot witness the other person's sense perception!

Your sitting there is no different than reading the abx log.

It's impossible to know their mind. They might be hearing angels singing while they tell you they hear nothing at all. Or they might hear nothing at all and tell you they can distinctly hear a deep bass tone. How can you "witness" that? At what point and by what means are you able to verify another person's description of something that may or may not fleetingly exist in their mind? There is no proof!

What your "witnessing" proves is that you don't understand that sense perception is subjective. That is not a minor detail.

That's no more than a very weak evasion.

Disagreeing with someone in a debate does not constitute hostility. Nor is it uncivilized. If you put your arguments up for examination in a debate it's completely unreasonable to object to deficiences being described, even in robust terms. The very strongest things I've said to you are that you have failed to understand the differences between subjective and objective tests, and that several of your arguments are founded on misunderstandings and hence amount only to expressions of bias. In each case I supported those descriptions with examples. It's supposed to be a Science forum. That means opinions have no value and should be refuted, not accepted as facts. Fallacies offered as facts also invite and deserve dismissal.


In a debate people will debate you on what you actually wrote? If they disagree they might say so? And say why? If you keep presenting the same fallacy or opinion as fact then it might get remarked upon more than once? No! Really? Yes! OMG!
Edited by julian67 - 5/4/13 at 3:48pm

julian67 stop attacking straw men and making red herrings.

Condemning fallacies first but then committing them yourself is pure dishonesty. Repeating points people have conceded is childish. We now know you excel in both areas, congratulations.

I don't understand how you cannot see this, it really is getting pathetic.

Edited by xnor - 5/4/13 at 4:01pm

I don't think he's making red herrings. He is passionately responding to others, which some might find too harsh.. but I don't think he is making red herrings. At any rate, I haven't enjoyed this discussion as much as I did a few days ago.

I've neither made red herrings nor put up strawmen. I haven't repeated a point that has been conceded.

I've countered some red herrings and had to deal with a couple of strawman arguments that have been presented in place of arguments. Where I've repeated a point it has been because the same fallacy or misunderstanding has been presented over and again only in slightly different dress. It is boring, I agree.

You offer no example of any of those things you allege because you can't do so.

You've not even tried to construct an argument or refute a point or disagree with one, or put up some evidence that supports a differing or conflicting conclusion or position. You don't offer even a solitary argument or even anything in support of your angry assertions.

I've very strongly disagreed with some people and perfectly legitimately attacked their arguments where they seemed to me unfounded or misconstrued or incomplete. But whatever I think of their understanding and arguments I have to concede they were here to offer an opinion or argument and to try to support it, and people have also attempted to refute opposing or contradictory positions. That is called debate.

All you've done is express hostility.

I feel a little guilty if I've been all that harsh but I'm not so sure. There have been some harsh reactions to some of my posts but that isn't the same thing as me being harsh. Posting an angry outburst and some personal remarks can give a usefully misleading impression (no smoke without fire and all that), can serve as a useful means of avoiding inconvenience and can confer a very useful impression of righteousness (it might not survive a second look but a first impression is often enough). I haven't called anyone names or used pejorative terms to describe anyone. Some people have preferred to deal in terms of personal hostility or emotional outbursts and also avoided issues of fact or reason. Supposedly this is because they are reasonable while I am being a fanatic.

Two or three people have expressed anger and frustration but haven't been able to offer arguments that survive casual examination. Some truly fundamental misunderstandings have been aired, and it's impossible to both accept those and to have a debate. It's perfectly legitimate to point out when someone is trying to present opinion or invention or misunderstanding as fact. I also don't see anything wrong with telling people they are being evasive when they say are being evasive. "If you disagree with the stuff I actually wrote then I will be angry and ignore you!" is not a convincing argument. It is ridiculous but has been offered up a few times as though it's pretty good form. There's no crime in dismissing it as hot air. What to do.

Several times I've said that I think the basis for this kind of debate in this context has to be the assumption of good faith. But from several people its absence became apparent on the introduction of evidence which didn't confirm their expectation.

Finally I'd like to address your assessment of your enjoyment. I notice that your claimed levels of enjoyment of a few days ago were not witnessed and verified. Your claimed level of enjoyment today has also not been witnessed and verified. I propose that it is an objective truth that you are enjoying this debate more by the day, more than you even realise, whether you agree or not. All I need is a witness.
Edited by julian67 - 5/4/13 at 5:37pm

Haha, ok. I will admit, you are entertaining Julian. I can not say in all honesty that the actual points you have been making are something I completely disagree with, because honestly you have been taking things that I agree with, and just delivering them in a way that is different from what I would. Without a doubt I believe your side of the story is the one that closely resembles mine, especially your statement of your music being the best quality that you can possibly use. That is how I feel as well and jumping through hoops for the chance of something of no possible benefit to me is a waste of time in my eyes. (Regarding in depth "ABX" analysis)

But then again, situations AND opinions are very different.

^ That's funny.

 

#455: chewy was talking about how people say they can distinguish mp3 from lossless no matter what the bitrate, even 320 CBR, without providing any evidence they can really do so.

You come along interpreting this as if he said people cannot distinguish mp3 from lossless at all, attacking with "nonsense that arises from dogma", "no connection with reality, experience or reason"...

 

This alone made me double facepalm.

 

Dunno if it's a language barrier or some form of selecting reading and special interpretation that is based on the assumption that everyone but you is stupid.

 

Before you say "but he edited this 'of any bitrate' part", you know very well that "any" includes the highest bitrates and that ABX tests only get more difficult at higher bitrates and that of course people can distinguish at low bitrates and there's not even a need for providing evidence in such cases.

 

#465: sonitus mirus says he would like to repeat the test with the exact same files.

You come along with the same attitude as before that there is no need to repeat the test, putting "good faith" (your words) in the author that he made everything correct. I wrote it before but I will repeat it again, that's not how science works. How do you know the files were encoded properly and the test was done properly?

 

#468: sonitus mirus confused subjectivity with bias, you point that out which is ok.

#485: you repeat the point that had already been conceded.

 

Your reply to #472 got deleted completely... because it was another emotional outburst for a simple typo!

#477: you "accept the maths" implying sonitus doesn't although he already pointed out it was just a typo

 

#494: Of course you cannot witness another person's perception, but you ramble on. The point was that you see that the person is encoding the files properly, has his player and ABX software configured properly, choses the right files for the test, takes the test, saves and publishes the pristine log ...

 

Also, hearing differences between 320 CBR MP3 and the lossless source is not the rule despite your attempts to turn this into "you're just biased". Have you looked at public high bitrate listening tests? Just a random example: soundexpert.

 

#496: He said it was good enough proof for him and you come along with, surprise surprise: No, it's not good enough for you. I'm facepalming again.

Also, you again start ranting and repeating about ones inability to witness another person's perception.

 

 

I'm tired so I'm stopping here. I guess I don't need to reference the harshness of most of your replies which others have noticed as well. Good night.

Edited by xnor - 5/4/13 at 6:42pm

"he" here. Hello.

If you actually read my posts in this thread (and don't die of boredom, good luck) you'll find several places where I assert or agree that an abx result is evidence of difference, and/or that the purpose of abx testing is to detect difference.

At no point have I criticised any claim that a positive abx result is proof of difference. It is. Nor have I criticised any person for saying so. If I had done so (I haven't) you will be able to use the board's quotation facility to publish that unadulterated example (you won't be able to). Beyond the assertion being actually untrue it's also another argument ad-hominem.

Nobody has asked anybody else to discuss logic but in a science forum actually ignoring or abandoning logic is likely to prove problematic.

Part of the essence of the empirical method is to try to find the logical holes in a proposition or assumption or theory. The purpose is to arrive at (or try to) conclusions/positions which survive scrutiny. If a proposition can't survive examination then there's no point holding on to it. Protesting because people "look for logical holes" makes no sense. It's contrary to any form of science and the same holds true for any non-partisan debate.