[jilgiljongiljing]

Quote:

If I then ask you, "which version did I play?" that asking for a fact. If I then ask you, "which version did you like better?" that is asking for an opinion. So, suppose I repeat this test 10 times, and each time I ask you, "which version is this." For each time I ask the question, there is a right answer and a wrong answer. There is no opinion involved.

I find it hard not to reply for this. When you play a version and ask another person which one it is, its asking HIS OPINION ON WHICH VERSION IT IS. Only you know the fact on which it is, only you know which is right and which is wrong. The other person is only going to give his opinion on what he thinks it is, its not a FACT.

Person X can say Version A which means that X THINKS it is A that doesnt mean HE KNOWS its A. Which makes it X's opinion and not a fact.

"For each time I ask the question, there is a right answer and a wrong answer. There is no opinion involved"

THe person you are asking doesnt know which is right or wrong, so he gives hi s opinion on what he thinks is righth

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

btw, I agree with you on the aspect that he/she can either get it wrong or right on every attempt. THAT is a fact, if they got it wrong or right. So it is correct to say that if someone gets it right 10/10 times, they can safely say YES i can tell the difference and that is indeed a fact. I just didnt agree with the there is no opinion part

 

[islewind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Saying credible ABX cannot be done in a purely digital environment is ludicrous, however, this is getting into areas where discussion is no longer permitted on the forums.

Amen, Chu!

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whether the OP can hear a difference is not a question of opinion.

True, whether he can actually hear a differnce or not is a question of fact.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is a question of fact that can be readily proven with an ABX test.

However, whether that fact can be established conclusively one way or the other by means of an ABX test is a matter of opinion (and both points of view on this have been discussed many times in other threads).
Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif When the title of the thread is "Can you hear the difference," then that calls for a statement of fact, not opinion.

Yes, that's sort of what the title says (although you left out the part that says "my take"), but in any event if you read his post -- which is what counts -- it is clear the OP is offering his impressions of what he heard for what it is worth. To conclude from his post that he is offering something that should not be offered at all unless it is established convincingly by a DBT is silly.

Let me provide another example. This past week, I spent some time comparing a FLAC recording on one MP3 player with a different type of lossless recording on another player. I found the differences quite obvious. Should I not be able to post that on a thread to inform others of what I heard -- which is relevant both to a comparison of the two players and a comparison for the formats -- without being met by someone demanding "proof" or a DBT? Why can't someone offer his impressions of what they heard, for everybody to evauluate as they will, without being confronted with accusations that one is "delusional"? (I'm not suggesting that you would do this, but others on this thread are taking this approach.)

 

[Chu]

If the OP is still reading this thread:

Can you please post the encoding flags you are using? Your description of the settings you are testing under are incredibly vauge.

 

[fuzydice]

I always liked these sorts of threads on headfi (such as the huge CD vs. Vinyl threads of yesteryear). Given that headfi is very, very "opinion" based, due to the difficult nature of comparing headphones, amps, sources, cables and what have you, when that style of comparison rolls into areas where it it's much easier to compare differences (say, between mp3 and flacs via ABX tests) it's quite entertaining to see the sparks fly.

Of course our method of comparing headphones and such here on headfi is flawed, one only needs to read a few dozen threads and read a bunch of profiles/signatures and take note of the equipment turnover many experience due to reading a few reviews, only to find out your completely disagree after you spend your cash. There's no significantly better alternative, of course, and this phenomenon isn't reserved solely for headfi or audio equipment alone. But that's an argument for another thread

The point is, you can't just throw out opinions on stuff like comparing high quality, high bit-rate mp3s to other formats because, unlike comparing headphones by personal opinion alone (excluding other factors such as comfort, filesize, etc), there is a significantly better way to compare in this arena: ABX. There are other factors, of course (filesize, player compatibility, tagging, and all of that), but this thread is based on sound quality comparison, so the other factors are ignored.

When it comes to headphones, amps, DAC's, sure: throw me your 20 page opinion piece on why your new toy is better; I'll take it with a grain of salt and compare/contrast it against other reviews and try to make heads or tails, and thank you for your time and effort. When it comes to lossy compression comparison, give me your conclusion and ABX test results to back it up, and then I'll give a damn. There's a very good reason why places like HydrogenAudio have rules against posts like the OP in their TOS.

We shouldn't forget that ABX tests can be forged; but if someone does that, then they've got more personal issues than the guy posting that lame 3.92beta -b 112 mp3s give his mp3s more soundstage & slam than flac, but refuses to post ABX tests (and why won't he ABX? Because he knows the tests might prove otherwise...).

 

[Chu]

I hate these sorts of threads on head-fi.

The Digital Domain is completly different then the analogue one. Whatever you put to paper is to some degree testable. If you aren't willing to ante up, you might as well not post.

This isn't about subjectivist vs. objectivist or any of that other rage that builds into these threads. This is about improving the encoder.

LAME development has been driven by people going "hey, this doesn't sound right" and anteing up. Velvet.wav, Cassanets.wav, and a lot of other infamous samples didn't come down from on high, they all came from someone out there discovering that LAME didn't encode them correctly, and sharing enough data to reproduce it.

And LAME is the encoder it is because of it. Velvet.wav was incredibly important in perfecting the js algorithm. Cassanets for a long time was the benchmark for debugging pre-echo problems.

When you talk about encoders you are delving into a world that is incredibly grounded in science, because it has to be. There is no "magic" here you have with analogue systems, every single thing that the encoder does is explicitly there because at some point theory had to be translated to method. You can argue all you want about ABX in an analogue context, but in a digital context it is the tool because it is a result that can be shared with the community and proof that your sample has merit. The reason is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen to leave firm scientific grounding, you're not just tweaking your system, you're tweaking the systems of literally millions.

People who talk about the op's system are sort of missing the point. If there are actuial differences here that are ABXable, then the op is in deficit by not providing enough information to reproduce this back to the comminity.

Over at Hydrogenaudio, where the petal hits the metal so to speak, threads like this would almost be complelty ignored. When people talk about the sounds of their headphones and amplifiers and such you have to take them at their word because you just can't reproduce it. When people talk about encoder settings and audiable changes you can reproduce it and without that information you are essentialy a source of noise.

 

[kipman725]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is true. However, I think that badmonkey's point (which certainly could have been more eloquently expressed), is that what is relevant is whether this person has done so. After all, there are many people here at Head-Fi who claim that they can tell a difference between a lossless file and a high bitrate MP3. There are very few people who can actually support those claims with a successful ABX test. webbie64, consider participating in HiFire's public ABX test.

I can

it's easy with music I know well and is of high enough quality to start with and I frequantly do it much to the amazement of the people who think that 320kb/s mp3 is indistinguishable from .wav rips. The trick is not to listen to any specific detail in the recording but to close your eyes and imagaine you are at the gig/concert. The mp3 will sound quite real but when you look around the room the bands just doing a normal gig... there tired and bored. Listen to the mp3 (and if its a good recording) it will sound like an awsome gig where everyone is going crazy and you feel like giving a standing ovation at the end of it. with lower bit-rates its easier though as artifacts are present and the music has very little dynamic range and sounds kind of dead. 128kb/s mp3s arn't reearly very nice at all to me just unpleasurable to listen to.

 

[Chri5peed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif where the petal hits the metal

Its 'pedal hits the metal '.


An analogy to driving I guess? Where you ram the Accelerator pedal back as far as it'll go, usually up against metal. So you're going as fast as possible, well accelerating.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipman725 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can it's easy with music I know well and is of high enough quality to start with

Then I would encourage you to take HiFiRE's test. So far, no one has been able to distinguish -V2 from lossless. You could be the first.

 

[Chu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its 'pedal hits the metal '. An analogy to driving I guess? Where you ram the Accelerator pedal back as far as it'll go, usually up against metal. So you're going as fast as possible, well accelerating.

I usually use it (and interpret it) to mean the point at which action needs to be taken, i.e. in this case actually looking at the source and finding out what the root of the problem is. The saying has probably been corrupted to that point.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzydice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course our method of comparing headphones and such here on headfi is flawed, one only needs to read a few dozen threads and read a bunch of profiles/signatures and take note of the equipment turnover many experience due to reading a few reviews, only to find out your completely disagree after you spend your cash.

I'm of the OPINION that the reviews here are actually less useful than the ones on other boards and the mainstream press. I think the reason is that people here seem to be better informed about selling points in the sales literature and esoteric scientific lore, and less informed about audio "horse sense" acquired from fiddling with equipment and seeing how it works.

When I was a kid, hifi nuts were coots with soldering irons who patched stuff together from Heathkits and designed their own speaker enclosures. They would take zip cord, tubes and sticky black electrical tape and make their rig sound incredible. In the late 70s, things changed for good into it being a consumer product sold in stores and advertised like a luxury item as if it was perfume or whiskey.

I see a few people here who have a good perspective on things, but too many people ask the wrong questions. They post, "Recommend me the best headphones" instead of "Tell me how to go about choosing headphones". The first request elicits recommendations of whatever the person answering happens to own, or the most expensive equipment available. The second gives the person the tools to make their mind up on their own.

Careful listening and comparing in a controlled way is ALWAYS the best advice... whether it's off limits to be discussed in this forum or not.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you talk about encoders you are delving into a world that is incredibly grounded in science, because it has to be. There is no "magic" here you have with analogue systems...

Back in the days of analogue, there was no "magic" to it... it was the exact same sort of painstaking comparison and experimentation to achieve the best sound possible. I know a few guys who wore out the 15kHz tone on their test record and would do frequency sweeps with an oscilator to find dropouts in their speakers. "Magical thinking" is rampant all over society today.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I usually use it (and interpret it) to mean the point at which action needs to be taken, i.e. in this case actually looking at the source and finding out what the root of the problem is. The saying has probably been corrupted to that point.

"Where the rubber meets the road"?

See ya
Steve

 

[badmonkey]

It's the Walmart culture of wanting to quickly identify the best "value" and purchase it, now already... careful research and trialling is not really part of the process. Of course a lot of people do not have easy access to equipment to test - I myself have bought hardware on a "punt" because it is impossible for me to test it beforehand.

The propensity to abhor rational comparison might be related to the complete lack of apparent reasoning seen in posts like jilgiljongiljing's above, who seems to believe that any fact A or B, or, more importantly, any difference between facts A and B, is in fact open to interpretation by the individual. In their world, the fact that 2+2=4 (or, again more importantly, that 4-2=2) is only the mathematician's opinion... a philisophical attitude perhaps, but one which encourages the "magic".

Is that a reflection of the culture, inviting references like Steve's "back in the days", or just the normal human condition - perhaps better revealed nowadays by the interweb (how does these computer things work anyway?!).