or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Newbie question: i don't know how to see if my music has files " files over 24-bit/96kHz"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newbie question: i don't know how to see if my music has files " files over 24-bit/96kHz" - Page 2

post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post

 

I didn't say I used double blind testing to tell the difference. ;)

 

I'm talking about living with the files - same as it is with equipment - listening day-in and day-out.  I never said I could hear the difference in a double-blind test.  If you took me literally, without background, then how could I ever tell the difference with anything?

 

You are writing as if the only difference measurement possible is with a blind test. :confused:

 

lol. I just noted that if you claim that blind testing is unreliable since "aural memory is only a few seconds," you cannot possibly make any claims about hearing sonic differences using any listening method (both double-blind testing and "living with the files") as it is impossible to listen to two different set-ups at the same time. When you "live with files" to hear the sonic differences, you are also depending on your aural memory. Basically, your argument of aural memory for the invalidity of blind testing can also be applied to invalidate the claim that you can hear sonic differences from "living with files." Both listening methods require aural memory.

 

Hence, the giant contradiction.

 

In fact, your argument actually makes blind testing the more appealing option as if humans can only store a few seconds of aural memory, the only possible way to gauge sonic differences would be to quickly switch between two set-ups playing the extremely short segments of tracks that your aural memory can hold. If your aural memory only last a few seconds, long-term listening & living with files would be the most inaccurate way to gauge sonic differences.

 

I am honestly not making a claim either way. I am just pointing out how the progression of your argument will lead to an inherent contradiction with your conclusion.

post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post

 

I didn't say I used double blind testing to tell the difference. ;)

 

I'm talking about living with the files - same as it is with equipment - listening day-in and day-out.  I never said I could hear the difference in a double-blind test.  If you took me literally, without background, then how could I ever tell the difference with anything?

 

You are writing as if the only difference measurement possible is with a blind test. :confused:

 

lol. I just noted that if you claim that blind testing is unreliable since "aural memory is only a few seconds," you cannot possibly make any claims about hearing sonic differences using any listening method (both double-blind testing and "living with the files") as it is impossible to listen to two different set-ups at the same time. When you "live with files" to hear the sonic differences, you are also depending on your aural memory. Basically, your argument of aural memory for the invalidity of blind testing can also be applied to invalidate the claim that you can hear sonic differences from "living with files." Both listening methods require aural memory.

 

Hence, the giant contradiction.

 

In fact, your argument actually makes blind testing the more appealing option as if humans can only store a few seconds of aural memory, the only possible way to gauge sonic differences would be to quickly switch between two set-ups playing the extremely short segments of tracks that your aural memory can hold. If your aural memory only last a few seconds, long-term listening & living with files would be the most inaccurate way to gauge sonic differences.

 

I am honestly not making a claim either way. I am just pointing out how the progression of your argument will lead to an inherent contradiction with your conclusion.


This is ridiculous.  You are stating that repeated exposure can never have a learning effect.  How did you ever learn your multiplication tables?

 

The point about the lack of aural memory means that repeated exposures are necessary to draw legitimate conclusions.  Depending on the "learning," all the senses work this way.  The point is that instantaneous hearing differences are flawed except for the extremes.  You can tell the difference immediately between a police siren or a dog barking.  Recognizing a voice over the telephone may take a little more learning (more repeated exposure).

 

Now ... I'm done attempting to describe physics and biology with you guys.

post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post

 

Sorry, but this leads to a circular argument.  Provide a valid alternative to ABX?  It's really interesting that so many of you believe the only difference measurement possible is through blind testing.  Tell me ... are you unable to distinguish between foods unless they're given to you in an ABX?  Can you instantly tell the difference between a Blue Ray disc and a quality DVD under an ABX scenario?  Is there absolutely nothing of value to learn in subtle differences over time and repeated exposure?

 

How do you ever tell the difference in anything?

 

The point of a double-blinded direct comparison is to remove all unconscious biases & test whether the "differences" are actually reliably identifiable in a situation where there is doubt.

 

If you can easily tell the differences of something in a non-ABx scenario, then you should be able to tell the difference between them 100% of the time in an ABx scenario.

 

The fact is there have been studies that show if you give someone two bottles of the exact same wine, but one is in a more expensive bottle, people claim that the wine in the more expensive bottle tastes better. Our brain is very easily manipulated. In fact, you can give a patient a sugar pill that does absolutely nothing for their symptoms, but they will claim that they feel better. This is called the placebo effect and it is a well-documented phenomenon.

 

That is why double-blinded clinical studies are the gold standard in evidence medicine and the gold standard in all scientific fields.

post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post

 

Sorry, but this leads to a circular argument.  Provide a valid alternative to ABX?  It's really interesting that so many of you believe the only difference measurement possible is through blind testing.  Tell me ... are you unable to distinguish between foods unless they're given to you in an ABX?  Can you instantly tell the difference between a Blue Ray disc and a quality DVD under an ABX scenario?  Is there absolutely nothing of value to learn in subtle differences over time and repeated exposure?

 

How do you ever tell the difference in anything?

 

The point of a double-blinded direct comparison is to remove all unconscious biases & test whether the "differences" are actually reliably identifiable in a situation where there is doubt.

 

If you can easily tell the differences of something in a non-ABx scenario, then you should be able to tell the difference between them 100% of the time in an ABx scenario.

 

The fact is there have been studies that show if you give someone two bottles of the exact same wine, but one is in a more expensive bottle, people claim that the wine in the more expensive bottle tastes better. Our brain is very easily manipulated. In fact, you can give a patient a sugar pill that does absolutely nothing for their symptoms, but they will claim that they feel better. This is called the placebo effect and it is a well-documented phenomenon.

 

That is why double-blinded clinical studies are the gold standard in evidence medicine and the gold standard in all scientific fields.

 

 

This conversation is not going anywhere.  Here's a link that may help: http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html

post #20 of 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 


This is ridiculous.  You are stating that repeated exposure can never have a learning effect.  How did you ever learn your multiplication tables?

 

The point about the lack of aural memory means that repeated exposures are necessary to draw legitimate conclusions.  Depending on the "learning," all the senses work this way.  The point is that instantaneous hearing differences are flawed except for the extremes.  You can tell the difference immediately between a police siren or a dog barking.  Recognizing a voice over the telephone may take a little more learning (more repeated exposure).

 

Now ... I'm done attempting to describe physics and biology with you guys.

 

Nope: don't even try to say that's physics/biology. What you're doing is throwing crap onto a wall and hope some of it sticks. NONE of it sticks: for one, you need to be able to detect such changes to be able to learn. You can't, as it's a physiological limitation of the human body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 

 

This conversation is not going anywhere.  Here's a link that may help: http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html


And here's a counter: linking blindly gets nobody NOWHERE. http://parttimeaudiophile.com/2011/07/03/the-controversy-of-abx-testing/

Point is, we don't care what your opinions are. It's when you try and present it as facts, rather than your own opinion, and that's when it all goes to hell.

post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 

This conversation is not going anywhere.  Here's a link that may help: http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-news/why-double-blind-testing-cant-work-for-audio.html

lol. that argument completely misses the purpose of a double blind test and how a double blind test is supposed to work.

 

His article states that if lots of different factors are changing during an experiment, then an experiment doesn't work. well... obviously!

 

a properly set-up experiment only changes one variable... the variable you are testing for differences in. All the other variables must be controlled to prevent confounding variables for influencing the results of the experiment. hence, after a series of repeated trials to increase the sample size of the study to prevent type II statistical errors, you can correctly accept or reject the null hypothesis of "there no difference" within a certain confidence level.

 

if you change all the variables at once, you cannot reach any real conclusion due to the presence of confounding variables. You have not isolated the two factors that you wanted to test for a possible relationship.

 

double-blind only means that both the test conductor and the test subject do not know any information that can introduce bias to the experiment. so if testing for audible differences in sampling rates, neither the participant or the researcher would know the sampling rates of each song being played during the testing.

post #22 of 34

Well you guys pretty much schiit on this fellas thread.

 

Which I will add to by saying just get an iPod and some nice headphones, put all your files to 256 AAC and be done with it.

post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eee Pee View Post

Well you guys pretty much schiit on this fellas thread.

Which I will add to by saying just get an iPod and some nice headphones, put all your files to 256 AAC and be done with it.

lol luckily, his question has alrdy been answered. basically, use ur media player to see or dig thro properties. he only wanted to know how to see. probs doesnt even care of the rest of this discussion hahah

but ya, when someone posts things that are honestly rly hard to take seriously, i cant help but comment. if u dont actually have a background in statistics, biology, chemistry, and physics... ppl w/ a college-level or grad-level background can tell wink.gif though the stuff we are talking abt shld be taught in high school honestly.
Edited by money4me247 - 3/22/15 at 2:34pm
post #24 of 34

You know what's really hard to take seriously?  Text type.  Or whatever it's called.  

post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eee Pee View Post
 

You know what's really hard to take seriously?  Text type.  Or whatever it's called.  

hahah, sry, but the only way for me to respond on my phone is to use abbreviations. i hate auto-correct.

 

not taking someone's post seriously d/t abbrvs is silly imo considering we are in a forum setting, not a formal academic research setting.

post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eee Pee View Post

You know what's really hard to take seriously?  Text type.  Or whatever it's called.  

You're not even trying now. How he types is irrelevant to this argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post

hahah, sry, but the only way for me to respond on my phone is to use abbreviations. i hate auto-correct.

not taking someone's post seriously d/t abbrvs is silly imo considering we are in a forum setting, not a formal academic research setting.

If it's taught in high school, we'll have people like tomb who extrapolates everything incorrectly. Better leave the crazy stuff to those who know it.
post #27 of 34

hey just a side note. i am not trying to offend anyone or disrespect anyone. my posts are just for educational value for those who are interested.

 

if you don't personally see the value of a direct comparison or double blinded testing, that is totally fine. if you prefer to do a 'long live-in listening' to form subjective impressions about headphones, that is also very valid approach. My responses were simply to correct inaccuracies in the other poster's comments. I meant no offense.

 

Below is the in-depth scientific explanation of how memory works:

There is a mistake made when the previous poster related "short term of auditory memory" only specifically to a side-by-side comparison. Your auditory memory applies to ALL listening situations. Just because you are more familiar with a sound from "living in," doesn't mean that your "working memory" will last any longer or you skipped using your "working memory."

 

You simple have converted some of that "working memory" into "long-term memory" through repetition. "Short-term/working" memory actually encodes information acoustically in your frontal lobe (more specifically: the prefrontal cortex which is linked with complex cognitive behavior: judgement, concentration, and problem-solving) and parietal lobe (which includes the "primary auditory cortex" responsible for auditory sensory information & language). The conversation of "working memory" into "long-term memory" is done by hippocampus which converts the acoustic information into semantic information (signs/symbols/concepts) that is stored throughout neural connections within the brain. Your long-term memory will store your auditory experiences as subjective conceptual interpretation rather than the exact audio information.

 

To truly learning something like the skill of multiplication, you will use "procedural memory" based on "implicit memory" (aka doing many multiplication problems or reciting the table, you learn the associations). That is separate type of memory from the recognition or recall of different auditory information. For auditory information, they are usually stored as episodic memories aka "personal memories where you remember the sensations and emotions of that event." Just like when you hear a familiar song, you remember that time at the college bar where you last hear it and how you felt happy because the cutie waitress was winking at you.

 

So taking the "stored memory" of your background experience and comparing to another "stored memory" or "working memory" is tricky and can very subject to many bias and inaccuracies. Human long-term memory can be quite prone to error for specific sensory information as that information is stored conceptually or with emotional-associations. Short term memory is actually more reliable for judging audio information as your brain stores that acoustically as given.

 

Also, there is nothing about a direct comparison that prevents you from first gaining 'experience' with the headphones and building up your "long-term memory" prior to doing a direct blinded comparison. The only issue is that the conversation to your long-term memory can alter the actual auditory information as the information is not stored acoustically, so your "experience/long-term memory" can be actually be inaccurate & subject to conceptual bias.

 

So that's that on the auditory memory aspect of everything.

 

Now for Double Blind Testing:

 

The article linked presented a straw man argument. The double blinded test the author set-up was incorrectly set-up and already flawed. The application of a double-blind test would not be for which sound you like better. The application of this test would be for determining if a listener can reliably pick out the correct sampling rate out of 2 test tracks identical in all ways except their sampling rates. The trial is run multiple times. The sampling rate is unknown to the listener, hence the first "blinding." Every other factor should be controlled (same headphones, same dac, same amp, same player, same volume... etc). The tester recording the results should not know if the listener was correct or incorrect. Hence, the double blind. That is all there is to a double blind test. Isolate the factor you want to see make an impact on the sound, and blindly test if you can reliably detect the difference in sound per changes to the factor. Remove researcher bias by blinding him as well.

 

Now for my actual personal opinions:

 

I do personally agree that there are sonic elements that you can gain more appreciation for after long periods of time. For headphone comparisons, not only does that give you time to get used to an unfamiliar sound signature and prevent brain bias from picking what is familiar to you, but also you can notice subtle things with different specific tracks after listening to them many times. However, does that mean you have proven whether there is a difference or not? No, you have simply formed subjective opinions. Was the subtle difference there the whole time and your brain just noticed it now? Was it something that your brain just never converted into a long-term memory previously? Or was it due to some change in your physical/digital audio system? You cannot know the answer to that question without empirical testing.

 

To prove a difference exists, the golden standard used in the scientific community is a double-blinded test with proper statistical analysis. Whether you wish to engage in more controlled testing is a personal choice, but to refute the validity of a properly constructed double blind testing as a means to gather information to a certain confidence interval is to argue against the empirical scientific process itself, which we have used as a species for all notable scientific breakthroughs since the 17th century.

 

Hope this post clears up any misunderstandings & hope everyone has a great day :) Any further questions can be PMed to me as to no longer derail the thread. Cheers! 


Edited by money4me247 - 3/22/15 at 6:57pm
post #28 of 34
Thread Starter 

Thank you all for your help, especially billy bob,for the most directive answer of finding the songs properties to see if it was compatible. Thank you all for the insight into music quality.

 

I'm hoping to find a small stereo unit for travelling with, to listen to quality music. I only use flac files on my portable HDD( WD Elements 2 TB ) no cds or radio,,and i'll probably get it shipped in from anywhere in the world, though Amazon is usually the most reliable.

 

Any recommendations are appreciated

 

Thank you all!

post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoninJKD View Post

 

I'm hoping to find a small stereo unit for travelling with, to listen to quality music. I only use flac files on my portable HDD( WD Elements 2 TB ) no cds or radio,,and i'll probably get it shipped in from anywhere in the world, though Amazon is usually the most reliable.

 

Please note again (my) post #9 on page 1. Basically, do these really need to be speakers? Any reason why it can't just be headphones? By "travelling" I take it to mean hotels and inns (or motels), and people in the other room might love their sleep to get over stress and will not be so forgiving of what you're listening to (in some cases they might just be used to hearing the BBC or CNN from the other room, so those using their TVs get off easy). Not to mention you might not be able to set up the speakers properly to get the imaging advantage they have over headphones.

 

post #30 of 34
Thread Starter 
Hey Protege! Thank you for the input. Actually, i'm usually stuffed into company accommodation, which is usually full apartments, so i can turn my music up,,but most importantly,,i don't like to walk around my apartment with headphones on. Something along the lines of the " Cambridge - Stream Magic 6", because it seems like a good little workhorse, and i can use my phone to choose which songs to play using the app for my cell phone. I just figured that if i kept my flac songs on a portable 2.5: HDD like the WD Elements, which holds 2 TB, i can plug it into a portable stereo,
I really don't care which make or model, just looking for some good advice.

Thank you! Tim
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Newbie question: i don't know how to see if my music has files " files over 24-bit/96kHz"