[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

Including the variable that is called hearing, which is required to be able to actually listen to those tracks. Nice...
 

Exactly hearing variables like earwax in the ears, with headphones, the position of the headphone in relation to the head as frequency response changes with different headphone positions, with speakers, things such as speaker postion, both height and width, the room acoustics etc.. Of course, other things such as ambient noise., track selected (and it's dynamic range), HTRF's such as the ear pinna, one of the bigger influences in headphones, time of day as well....
 
All this must be accounted for. ABX is good, but it's far from foolproof and understand it's limitations. Yes spectrograms have their limitations too but they have far less variables to account for.
But questioning the personal methodology of people conducting ABXs and somehow the flawed logic that this is questioning the theory and validity of the ABX theory is taboo ain't it..... 
 
As I've said, the theory of ABX is very sound, it's just the way a lot of people conduct ABX's can render their results scientifically invalid.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

It also removes the entire point of ABXing.  People aren't asking if a difference exists, they're asking if it is audible to them.  You can show them graphs and comparisons all you like, but it isn't going to tell them what they hear.

 

[chinesekiwi]

And I posted all the limitations and variables which may affect what you hear......
Point still stands.

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

And I posted all the limitations and variables which may affect what you hear......
Point still stands.

You're not getting it.  Eliminating these real world scenarios/conditions are a NEGATIVE thing.  In a perfect world, we wouldn't need different DACs/amps/codecs/computer/players.  If you work in a perfect world instead of our flawed world, you're using flawed methodology.
 
If you can't hear the difference because of real world limitations, no difference on a graph will ever matter.

 

[snoopy007]

I think the real reason why aac is the industry standard is due to all those money saved on patents. And yes, at lower bitrate, it is certainly better than mp3 for music.
 
"
Are there use fees for AAC?
 

No. License fees are due on the sale of encoders and/or decoders only. There are no patent license fees due on the distribution of bit-stream encoded in AAC, whether such bit-streams are broadcast, streamed over a network, or provided on physical media.

"

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

I think the real reason why aac is the industry standard is due to all those $$$$$$ signs. And yes, at lower bitrate, it is certainly better than mp3 for music.
 
"
Are there use fees for AAC?
 

No. License fees are due on the sale of encoders and/or decoders only. There are no patent license fees due on the distribution of bit-stream encoded in AAC, whether such bit-streams are broadcast, streamed over a network, or provided on physical media.

"

Pretty funny considering that mp3 requires licensing as well. Fraunhofer IIS make a crapload of $$$$$$$ tbh. It's industry standard because it's the most accurate lossy codec around.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

You're not getting it.  Eliminating these real world scenarios/conditions are a NEGATIVE thing.  In a perfect world, we wouldn't need different DACs/amps/codecs/computer/players.  If you work in a perfect world instead of our flawed world, you're using flawed methodology.
 
If you can't hear the difference because of real world limitations, no difference on a graph will ever matter.

 
But other things will, particularly on portables, such as battery life and file size / data capacity or data integrity and codecs do impact on these aspects significantly.. For a test to be valid and each result to be valid as well in the ABX test, it must be the same conditions throughout the ABX test.
 

 

[snoopy007]

$$$$ signs as in money saved using AAC as the standard. ( thinking like the businessman who choose to use aac over mp3).  I've edited my original post to make this clearer.
 
"There are no patent license fees due on the distribution of bit-stream encoded in AAC, whether such bit-streams are broadcast, streamed over a network, or provided on physical media."

 

[chinesekiwi]

Well, Ogg Vorbis is free as well..... but it's not as accurate as AAC.

 

[snoopy007]

well vorbis is open source. while aac was a little get together of the big players to establish an "industry standard"

 

[xnor]

@chinesewiki: You don't seem to get it. If my portable player is the limiting factor (or anything else in my chain) and ABX results show me that I cannot hear a difference.. well then I cannot hear a difference with my setup. And that is the question.
 
We all know that lossy compression is lossy, no need to show us the obvious.

 

[maarek99]

Quote:

There is a reason why AAC is industry standard and not mp3.
It's easily replicated..... not hard.
 

What? MP3 is way more standard than AAC. The reason AAC is used nowadays is Apple, it has nothing to do with quality.

 

[chinesekiwi]

Quote:

What? MP3 is way more standard than AAC. The reason AAC is used nowadays is Apple, it has nothing to do with quality.

Wrong. AAC has nothing to do with Apple except it for being the default lossy codec of iTunes. All Apple is doing is adopting the industry standard lossy codec.. Read up and don't make blatantly false statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

 

[Hybrys]

Quote:

 
Wrong. AAC has nothing to do with Apple except it for being the default lossy codec of iTunes. All Apple is doing is adopting the industry standard lossy codec.. Read up and don't make blatantly false statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

You're still kinda both wrong.  Yes, AAC is standardized.  But so is MP3, right along with it.  They're both 'industry standards', in reality, but you're trying to make it sound like it's THE industry standard.

 

[maarek99]

 
Quote:

Wrong. AAC has nothing to do with Apple except it for being the default lossy codec of iTunes. All Apple is doing is adopting the industry standard lossy codec.. Read up and don't make blatantly false statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

Learn to read. Pointless trying to have a conversation when you can't even understand me.