or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)? - Page 12

post #166 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

I don't agree here and you've clearly misunderstood me. You can take a 30s long recording, play it for 15 minutes, and then switch during your DBT.

 

As I already explained, switching time (the delay between listening to the same part of two samples from A, B, X, and Y, for the purpose of making the decision for a trial), and the time spent on discovering possible differences in whatever way you like are different issues. Making the latter long and the former short is fine, and is probably a common approach to ABX testing.

post #167 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

As I already explained, switching time (the delay between listening to the same part of two samples from A, B, X, and Y, for the purpose of making the decision for a trial), and the time spent on discovering possible differences in whatever way you like are different issues. Making the latter long and the former short is fine, and is probably a common approach to ABX testing.

 

And a flawed one, in my opinion. You still haven't offered anything other than your personal opinion as far as that goes, so it remains an unsubstantiated claim.

post #168 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
You say testers know they get better scores switching quickly but you say they get more false positive switching slowly - which is it?

 

I am not sure if you misunderstood what I said, or are intentionally trying to create confusion. I meant false positives become even more likely in sighted testing. Shorter switching delay (which does not equal short time spent on testing overall) improves scores in blind testing. In either case, lacking the ability of fast switching makes an incorrect (be it false positive or negative) result more likely.

post #169 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

I am not sure if you misunderstood what I said, or are intentionally trying to create confusion. I meant false positives become even more likely in sighted testing. Shorter switching delay (which does not equal short time spent on testing overall) improves scores in blind testing. In either case, lacking the ability of fast switching makes an incorrect (be it false positive or negative) result more likely.

 

Let's not have a discussion based on the premise that either one of us is trying to intentionally confuse the other please. We'll waste less time and show more respect this way.

 

Sighted testing isn't testing at all, as the tester can lie to get a perfect score, so let that not even enter the discussion. Where is the evidence that shorter switching delay improves scores in blind testing? I think if anything, the contrary is more logical and seems to go along with my personal experience. It's a lot easier (when there actually IS a difference, mind you) to get accurate results (ie: to hear the difference) when I take the time to listen to the recording repetitively before switching than it is when I listen for a short amount of time before switching. My ears (brain?) need some time to adapt, if I don't take that time then the results are ultimately flawed, especially if the differences are subtle.


Edited by elmoe - 3/26/14 at 4:18am
post #170 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

And a flawed one, in my opinion. You still haven't offered anything other than your personal opinion as far as that goes, so it remains an unsubstantiated claim.

 

As opposed to yours ? There has definitely been research done on fast vs. slow switching times in blind tests, as well as on the recommended maximum delay, maybe someone who has more time to spend (waste ?) on arguing on internet forums will bother to look them up, and post the links. Also, your assumption that ABX testers never spend significant time on finding differences is not based on any real data (and is false in my case, for example).

post #171 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
Where is the evidence that shorter switching delay improves scores in blind testing?

 

As mentioned above, it exists, but I do not find it worth spending the time to look it up (knowing that so far I have never encountered a case when it was not a waste of time in similar arguments, they just kept going around in circles). Even if I posted a link to a paper, you would predictably just question its validity. I do not post frequently on Head-Fi these days, and prefer not to spend my time on pointless arguments, so I just add you to my block list.

post #172 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

As opposed to yours ? There has definitely been research done on fast vs. slow switching times in blind tests, as well as on the recommended maximum delay, maybe someone who has more time to spend (waste ?) on arguing on internet forums will bother to look them up, and post the links. Also, your assumption that ABX testers never spend significant time on finding differences is not based on any real data (and is false in my case, for example).

 

My assumption is that it doesn't matter how much time you spent if you're only listening to a short time before switching.

 

Mine is an opinion that varies greatly from the "usual procedure", so obviously, aside from my personal experience, there isn't going to be much in the way of evidence. You're free to test it out for yourself if you're interested though. I'll be waiting for those links, as for wasting your time, you don't have to reply or even read my posts, if you feel this discussion is a waste of time then why do you bother replying?

 

You're starting to sound much like those stubborn audiophiles who aren't interested in any discussion and believe whatever they hear is right. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

As mentioned above, it exists, but I do not find it worth spending the time to look it up (knowing that so far I have never encountered a case when it was not a waste of time in similar arguments, they just kept going around in circles). Even if I posted a link to a paper, you would predictably just question its validity. I do not post frequently on Head-Fi these days, and prefer not to spend my time on pointless arguments, so I just add you to my block list.

 

Well, then add me to your block list if that's what you want :rolleyes: It's hilarious that your arguments here are the very same ones audiophiles use to disprove your own arguments - "whatever I say you're going to question the validity", "I'll block you and ignore you", etc etc.

 

So you're allowed to question the validity of my opinion but when I question yours and ask for proof, you don't want to waste your time showing me that proof, you'd rather just block me?

 

 

Thanks, this goes a long way to make me realize that people like you in the sound "science" forum aren't all that scientific to begin with.


Edited by elmoe - 3/26/14 at 4:37am
post #173 of 386

When in doubt, Wikipedia.
 

I leave it to elmoe to check the references.

post #174 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

When in doubt, Wikipedia.
 

I leave it to elmoe to check the references.

 

Thanks, but this is not what we were talking about. The point that I made was that I need time to adapt to a particular sound signature before switching to another for the DBT to be worthwhile, it's different than echoic memory.

post #175 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

…I need time to adapt to a particular sound signature before switching to another for the DBT to be worthwhile…


No worry, with DBT you can do that.

post #176 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 


No worry, with DBT you can do that.

 

I know, my point was I cannot trust a DBT test without this, because without a time to adapt nobody knows what anything really sounds like.

post #177 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

I know, my point was I cannot trust a DBT test without this, because without a time to adapt nobody knows what anything really sounds like.

 

You'll just have to trust that the subjects are doing their best.

 

Have you ever been tested?

post #178 of 386

I think this thread may have gone slightly off topic...

post #179 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

When in doubt, Wikipedia.
 

I leave it to elmoe to check the references.

 

Thanks, but this is not what we were talking about. The point that I made was that I need time to adapt to a particular sound signature before switching to another for the DBT to be worthwhile, it's different than echoic memory.

 

pretty much the opposite of what I experience. I could tell you a list of sonic differences from listening to the same gear with the same music file if you just give enough time to my brain to start making stuff up. and I would believe I'm right.

I wrote something just yesterday about some 3seconds lag that was already enough for me to feel insecure about my analysis (the time needed for me to unplug one source and replug the other one). I didn't know about that echoic memory thing(super interesting), but I guess it just explains what I always felt in practice.

 

 

post #180 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

My assumption is that it doesn't matter how much time you spent if you're only listening to a short time before switching.

 

Mine is an opinion that varies greatly from the "usual procedure", so obviously, aside from my personal experience, there isn't going to be much in the way of evidence. You're free to test it out for yourself if you're interested though. I'll be waiting for those links, as for wasting your time, you don't have to reply or even read my posts, if you feel this discussion is a waste of time then why do you bother replying?

 

You're starting to sound much like those stubborn audiophiles who aren't interested in any discussion and believe whatever they hear is right. 

 

 

 

Well, then add me to your block list if that's what you want :rolleyes: It's hilarious that your arguments here are the very same ones audiophiles use to disprove your own arguments - "whatever I say you're going to question the validity", "I'll block you and ignore you", etc etc.

 

So you're allowed to question the validity of my opinion but when I question yours and ask for proof, you don't want to waste your time showing me that proof, you'd rather just block me?

 

 

Thanks, this goes a long way to make me realize that people like you in the sound "science" forum aren't all that scientific to begin with.


Elmoe,

 

Listen to what folks are telling you.  It has indeed been tested rigorously.  Subjects detect differences at lower levels with fast switching rather than with slower switching.  Yes, the common argument you are making when tested doesn't work out to be true.  You do less well if the switching is very long.  Past 10 seconds and things fall off quite a bit. In speech intelligibility testing somewhere around 200 msec switching was needed for the most discriminating results.  You probably feel much better and more confident with longer times between comparisons, but despite your feelings of confidence your accurate discrimination will be worse.

 

http://www.nousaine.com/nousaine_tech_articles.html

 

On this page, down in the middle of it read the PDF from a magazine article on Flying Blind Long Term Listening.   There are more scholarly works on the subject.  But this gets to the gist of it.  And we'll see if you believe it or just retrench as stv104 and I think you will.  We've been here, and done that about a million times.  It gets old.  You can supply all the credible info you want to most people, and they just refuse to believe it because they don't want to.  Maybe you are different, I hope so.  So far your postings follow right along with someone who we are wasting our time to converse with. Not trying to be lacking in respect for you, just being honest.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?