Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 26

post #376 of 516
Better use foobar's ABX component or any other proper ABX software, if you want to conduct a proper test.

Like chewy4 said, in order to ABX 16 bit vs. 24 bit, just take a 24 bit file, downconvert it to 16 bit and upconvert it back to 24 bit.

You want to set a number of trials beforehand (12 is good, 16 if you like) and stick to it. Hide the results until you're done. Save the log, look at the score: a statistically significant result (i.e. successful) is inferior to a 5% probality that you're just guessing.
post #377 of 516

I think it should be clear enough by now that jvandyk will never do any kind of proper blind listening test, and will just keep repeating the claim that 24-bit sounds clearly better as a fact.

post #378 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

I think it should be clear enough by now that jvandyk will never do any kind of proper blind listening test

Audiophiles almost never do, and they're always too far gone to ever acknowledge their delusions even in the face of scientific facts, proper testing and common sense. They'd rather keep their blind faith, discredit ABX methodology with fallacies and claim without a shred of evidence that science still cannot, to this day, explain or measure what they're hearing (which btw is produced by electronics that couldn't have seen the light of day without proper science), systematically ignoring and rejecting the sad reality of how easily their perception can be fooled and manipulated.

I don't know why I keep arguing with them. We're worlds apart and neither party's requirements are ever met. I guess I wouldn't mind as much if they didn't grossly misinform newbies and poison their minds with voodoo nonsense. They don't even try to educate themselves and understand what they're talking about, they just keep on making up "facts" out of thin air while disregarding all and any objective clues with the greatest zeal.

There is no worse kind of ignorance than that which is willfully and permanently resistant to any sort of teachings or experiments that offend one's beliefs. And before some audiophile accuses me of just that: what you think you know isn't knowledge, but strictly your perception of what you think you hear, nothing more. You have no proper science to back up your claims and one can never meet you on any sort of objective ground (which is the only common ground that makes any sense if you want the truth and not just fairy tales, since anything and everything can come out of subjective experiments, without any conclusions that everyone can systematically rely on and consider acquired knowledge).

rolleyes.gif
Edited by skamp - 1/15/13 at 4:44am
post #379 of 516

putting a few files in a playlist that only shows the song title (not file name) and randomly shoving and moving the playlist entries up and down should also provide a good level experiment. i've done it before when i was testing 128 vs 320 vs flac. and yes i failed the 320 and flac partredface.gif
(not sure if better gear would help me hear the differences next time though)


Edited by streetdragon - 1/15/13 at 10:13am
post #380 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

putting a few files in a playlist that only shows the song title (not file name) and randomly shoving and moving the playlist entries up and down should also provide a good level experiment. i've done it before when i was testing 128 vs 320 vs flac. and yes i failed the 320 and flac partredface.gif
(not sure if better gear would help me hear the differences next time though)

 

Right, that's more or less a slightly less structured version of what I was suggesting.

 

Some words have become stigmatized like "ABX", "blind".  Maybe "foobar"?  It's like we need to reinvent a new vocabulary or rename equivalent methods.  Sometimes I just say "controlled testing" because that implies blinding, level-matching, and everything else required, at least to anybody realistic about these things (unfortunately not really the target audience with the claims).  Then again, the real problem is a lot deeper than the issue of branding.

post #381 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post

There is no worse kind of ignorance than that which is willfully and permanently resistant to any sort of teachings or experiments that offend one's beliefs.

There's a word for willful ignorance. It's stupidity. As long as someone listens and thinks, I have no problem with them. But when they cross over that line, I have no patience with them. I've got more important things to do than waste my breath on people who aren't interested in hearing what I have to say.
post #382 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

Some words have become stigmatized like "ABX", "blind".  Maybe "foobar"?

I think it's "test".

post #383 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

 

Right, that's more or less a slightly less structured version of what I was suggesting.

 

Some words have become stigmatized like "ABX", "blind".  Maybe "foobar"?  It's like we need to reinvent a new vocabulary or rename equivalent methods.  Sometimes I just say "controlled testing" because that implies blinding, level-matching, and everything else required, at least to anybody realistic about these things (unfortunately not really the target audience with the claims).  Then again, the real problem is a lot deeper than the issue of branding.


I think the general impression of a 'test' or 'experiment' seems to be rather fearsome. People in lab coats, probing with who knows what instruments and where.

post #384 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post


I think the general impression of a 'test' or 'experiment' seems to be rather fearsome. People in lab coats, probing with who knows what instruments and where.

Whenever I hear about random differences attributed to lossless types, 16+ bit depths, cables, etc., I get the sudden impression that I'd like to put on a lab coat and start probing around with a baseball bat.

post #385 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post

Whenever I hear about random differences attributed to lossless types, 16+ bit depths, cables, etc., I get the sudden impression that I'd like to put on a lab coat and start probing around with a baseball bat.


A silver/gold baseball bat would work better. L3000.gif

post #386 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post

I cannot tell a difference with my placebo-rich assortment of overpriced audiophile equipment.
+1
post #387 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post


A silver/gold baseball bat would work better. L3000.gif


It depends. If you want the air to vibrate properly between each hit and have that typical sizzle on striking, you can only go with the silver. Ofcourse if you want a more lush hit go with the gold bat. Just depends on preference really, and ofcourse YMMV.

post #388 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvana Woman View Post


It depends. If you want the air to vibrate properly between each hit and have that typical sizzle on striking, you can only go with the silver. Ofcourse if you want a more lush hit go with the gold bat. Just depends on preference really, and ofcourse YMMV.

either one is probably too heavy to carry anyway assuming its 100% pure solidbiggrin.gif

post #389 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetdragon View Post

either one is probably too heavy to carry anyway assuming its 100% pure solidbiggrin.gif


No no...you see, the core can be made of a different material, to absorb all the impact, and remove any vibrations.

post #390 of 516
Batophiles, if you just tweak the coating on the grip. Like night and day, I'm tellin ya.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality