[revolink24]

There's also a major psychoacoustic effect in Hi-Fi. That's why you should always go in skeptical. If you're always looking for an improvement, you'll find it, regardless of whether it's there or not.

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

There's also a major psychoacoustic effect in Hi-Fi. That's why you should always go in skeptical. If you're always looking for an improvement, you'll find it, regardless of whether it's there or not.

I am sorry I can bear this no longer !
 
The word you are looking for is Psychological - Psychology and Physics intersect in Psychophysics of which Psychoacoustics is a sub-branch and concerned with how sound is perceived related to the actual stiumlae presented,  but you are really talking about expectations and cognitive biases altering our perceptions of sound when nothing has really changed , this is really more properly a matter of straight Psychology.
 
It is a small point I know but I wasted spent 4 years of my life getting a brace of degrees in Psychology and sometimes the right word is important

 
Aanl-retentive rant over !
 
Oh and I agree with you by and large, although one could also argue that going in skeptical might prime you to not hear changes that are there ? 
 
What we really need is some method of blinding us to whether or not a stimulus has changed , what could that be ?

 

[zeroibis]

Some details on B stuck out more than on A. However, they basically sounded the same to me. If this was tested on something with more details known to get lost in bitrates than it might be easier. For example some MJ songs have a lot of room sounds that get lost as soon as you drop the bitrate.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

 

I am sorry I can bear this no longer !
 
The word you are looking for is Psychological - Psychology and Physics intersect in Psychophysics of which Psychoacoustics is a sub-branch and concerned with how sound is perceived related to the actual stiumlae presented,  but you are really talking about expectations and cognitive biases altering our perceptions of sound when nothing has really changed , this is really more properly a matter of straight Psychology.
 
It is a small point I know but I wasted spent 4 years of my life getting a brace of degrees in Psychology and sometimes the right word is important

 
Aanl-retentive rant over !
 
Oh and I agree with you by and large, although one could also argue that going in skeptical might prime you to not hear changes that are there ? 
 
What we really need is some method of blinding us to whether or not a stimulus has changed , what could that be ?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[lazybum]

B sounds nicer
 
Although I have trouble getting 10/10 for abx. I'll always do pretty well for the first 5 trials then after that I start making wrong choices

Perhaps its the fatigue from concentrating and trying to find the differences.

 

[Crazy*Carl]

Quote:

Congratulations to some of you, you are right. The files are both lossless.  However, there were some who claimed they heard different things.  This goes to show that it is very easy to think you hear things in listening, but in reality they is not.  Alot of members claims on head-fi, if not most, are utter bs.  So believe what you hear guys, not what others think they do.
 
 
 
Quote:

B is the higher quality.  Just listen to the space around the vocals.
 

 
Quote:

I got 7/9 abx score, the cymbals are darker one one of them.I guess it's b, higher quality

 
Quote:

Not quite as obvious, but still pretty easy to tell.
 
 

Spoiler

B is the higher res. file.

 
Quote:

Can't tell much of a difference either, but B sounds a little better.

 

[lazybum]

wow ok I feel really stupid now. The answer was actually released already and I still got it wrong

 
No wonder my abx tests weren't working well, although I must have been pretty lucky to get 5/5 a couple of times.

 

[xnor]

Yeah I guess 5/5 was due to luck, it happens.
Doing at least 10 trials doesn't eliminate luck, but randomly picking 8/9/10 of 10 right is much more unlikely.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Yeah I guess 5/5 was due to luck, it happens.
Doing at least 10 trials doesn't eliminate luck, but randomly picking 8/9/10 of 10 right is much more unlikely.

Also FooBar's randomizer is not all that random, I have had 7/9 just always answering A = X without listening, 20 trials is better.

 

[n3rdling]

I'm 2 for 2, woohoo  

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Also FooBar's randomizer is not all that random, I have had 7/9 just always answering A = X without listening, 20 trials is better.

It is, and uses a strong PRNG, afaik.
 
7/9 still has a probability of guessing of 9%. 9% is alot. It should be at least below 5%.
 
The problem with 20 trails is fatigue, in my opinion anyway.

 

[akgfan]

Quote:

The files are both lossless.

LOL! I couldn't hear any difference at all and I thought that I completely failed this test.That was good!