[Dillan]

I don't want to make anything up or pretend.  We are clearly not even in the same book, much less on the same page in our thinking. I respectfully bow out.  I suppose an honor system on the validity of an ABX test is as good as I can expect.  I really believe there are differences between the best lossy and lossless files that some people can distinguish between with consistency.  I also believe that life must exist somewhere else in the vast universe.  I am simply looking for tangible proof that is more satisfying that what I have now.

Then you can obtain that proof on your own, because no one is going to jump through hoops to validate your opinion. Especially people who chose lossless in the first place, which completely does not need any sort of test or opinion to begin with. It literally has the same content as the original CD. Whether you can hear the difference that gets removed with lossy is what you need to decide.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

Discarding the valid method while misunderstanding the test that uses it, all in order to propose a new test with invented bogus standards, which can be faked in exactly the same way as the original test by anyone acting in bad faith, does not meet the description of being "pretty normal in science"!

To crown this by characterising objections as "taking this..personally" almost has a kind of unknowing glory.

I think my words were "The request for evidence is pretty normal in science". Yes, you can still fake it either way. But I'd still like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not intentionally faking anything.
 
You've been making accusations that the request of additional details, or the files used is the equivalent of calling someone a liar or an idiot, in reality it's just wanting to know all of the facts. To say that there hasn't been a faulty ABX test out there is just wrong, so if you want to prove something with yours than make sure you provide reasonable evidence that it isn't faulty. I know I wouldn't mind if somebody asked for evidence on any successful ABX test that I did - if it helped provide evidence of an audible difference in something I would gladly provide any information necessary. If more people did this I would appreciate it a lot.
 
As sonitus said his methods weren't gospel. Just something he made up, it seemed more just a suggestion towards standardization. I don't agree with the particular things he suggested as a whole but I do agree that if you're trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm it's best to give as much detail as possible. And being able to hear differences between 320kbps and lossless files is definitely against the norm. 

 

[sonitus mirus]

Quote:

@sonitus mirus

It isn't me that wants to discard a test with a valid statistical method because it allows for valid results which don't confirm my bias.

 

 
I don't want to discard it at all. I want to research this finding more thoroughly.  Your assumptions are incorrect about my motives.  You pull minute details out of the whole context of what people have posted and painstakingly critique these as if you are participating in some debate competition.   

 

[Currawong]

Guys, don't get personal, OK?

 

[julian67]

OK. The sudden need for a more rigourous standard arising immediately on discovery of credible but inconvenient results was just a coincidence then. That's good to know.

I haven't been pulling minute details.

There is nothing minute about not knowing the difference between bias and subjectivity.

There's nothing minute about confusing subjective tests with objective ones.

Deciding to propose a new set of standards is also not minute, nor is it a detail.

Chewy4's phrase "The request for evidence is pretty normal in science" was in no way a fair description of the proposal it referenced, so putting it up as something reasonable that I unfairly criticised is a strawman. That proposal was not a simple request for evidence. It was a convoluted scheme that added complexity and inconvenience but offered no more assurance that it couldn't be misused. It requires extra people to do what a single person can do and introduced a third party who must process the files (who checks this???) and requires the tester to perform the same test on more than one computer despite this being superfluous and meaningless. Any data collected would be of no value to the tester because he is no longer testing with the files he actually listens to! In essence it's a method to avoid collecting any meaningful data. That is not a minute detail.

btw one reason why the abx test such as the foobar plug-in is widely accepted is not because it reveals universal truths (it doesn't) or guarantees that nulls have meaning (it doesn't), it's because designing and implementing valid blind tests is full of pitfalls, requires lots of time and resources and is incredibly difficult to do well. The abx plug-in isn't beyond criticism but it is better at removing bias than any other method that a normal person might be able to design or perform.

Chewy4 uses the phrase "..if you're trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm.."
But that is not what people are doing. The entire point of the blinding is that it negates the bias that leads people to think in terms like "trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm"! In performing an abx people are trying to see if they can reliably identify x as being file a or b. That's it. If you see results which don't confirm your bias as an "attempt to go against a norm" it means you haven't understood what the blind test is and what it can and cannot be used for. That is not a minute detail.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

Chewy4's phrase "The request for evidence is pretty normal in science" was in no way a fair description of the proposal it referenced, so putting it up as something reasonable that I unfairly criticised is a strawman. That proposal was not a simple request for evidence. It was a convoluted scheme that added complexity and inconvenience but offered no more assurance that it couldn't be misused. It requires extra people to do what a single person can do and introduced a third party who must process the files (who checks this???) and requires the tester to perform the same test on more than one computer despite this being superfluous and meaningless. Any data collected would be of no value to the tester because he is no longer testing with the files he actually listens to! In essence it's a method to avoid collecting any meaningful data. That is not a minute detail.
 

Once again I didn't even agree with his proposed standards - nor were the details of his standards the point at all. Only that some details need to gathered rather than just stating that you ABXed something. This makes it much more useful and informative to the reader. It's a little insulting that you're dictating people's intentions like that... as he said he only wants to research further into it. 
 

Chewy4 uses the phrase "..if you're trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm.."
But that is not what people are doing. The entire point of the blinding is that it negates the bias that leads people to think in terms like "trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm"! In performing an abx people are trying to see if they can reliably identify x as being file a or b. That's it. If you see results which don't confirm your bias as an "attempt to go against a norm" it means you haven't understood what the blind test is and what it can and cannot be used for. That is not a minute detail.

 
 
Some people do use ABX logs as proof that they can hear a difference. They are as good of proof as you can get to show yourself that you can hear a difference. They don't provide absolute proof to others unless you're an eye witness, but with some good faith they're the closest thing you can get if done correctly. 
 
As for the bolded statement... what? Hearing an audible difference in well encoded 320kbps files is much more rare than not being able to. Saying that you are able to is saying you're capable of an impressive feat that most people aren't capable of doing. That's all I was saying by that phrase. I'm not saying by doing so people are making a rebellious act of non-conformity.

 

[Dillan]

As for the bolded statement... what? Hearing an audible difference in well encoded 320kbps files is much more rare than not being able to. Saying that you are able to is saying you're capable of an impressive feat that most people aren't capable of doing. That's all I was saying by that phrase. I'm not saying by doing so people are making a rebellious act of non-conformity.

..As long as you aren't saying that it's an impossible scenario. Some people say they can hear a difference, you can't just disregard it if you can't. Besides, I'll say it again.. People like me choose to not put themselves through all of these rigorous tests, because they don't have to. It's been said and I will say it again, the most you can hope for with lossy is being the same.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

..As long as you aren't saying that it's an impossible scenario. Some people say they can hear a difference, you can't just disregard it if you can't. Besides, I'll say it again.. People like me choose to not put themselves through all of these rigorous tests, because they don't have to. It's been said and I will say it again, the most you can hope for with lossy is being the same.

Nope, I was never implying that. Otherwise I would probably not rip my CD's using lossless.

 

[guun]

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
 
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did [size=small](  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/size]

 

[TMRaven]

lol

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
 
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did [size=small](  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/size]

I'm going to assume this is a joke, but since you brought it up optical media can be far more reliable than any hard drive.
 
While the lifespan of CD-R's is debatable(I've heard as little as 5 years and as long as over a century), factory pressed CD's are going to beat any HDD in longevity. They'll last easily over a century.

 

[waynes world]

LOL - good one guun!

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
 
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did [size=small](  ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/size]

 

 

[julian67]

Some people do use ABX logs as proof that they can hear a difference.

Yes they do, and that's fine because that is exactly what an abx test can demonstrate. But you said something completely different. Your actual words describing a person's test were:

"trying to actually prove something which goes against the norm". That isn't the same thing at all. It doesn't even refer to either hearing or difference, but refers instead to an undefined notion of a norm and "going against" it. That is an unambiguous demonstration of expectation bias and of misunderstanding what the test is and what it can show.

....They don't provide absolute proof to others unless you're an eye witness

Even if you're sitting with the person doing the abx you cannot witness the other person's sense perception! The test is subjective! You've completely failed to appreciate the difference between a subjective test and an objective test.

As for the bolded statement... what? Hearing an audible difference in well encoded 320kbps files is much more rare than not being able to.

We're back to your idea of norms and your feeling that a result that you don't expect or like is cause for suspicion. But that is simply you expressing some bias. The rarity value is not what is being tested. Nor is your expectation being tested, nor the expectation or bias of the tester (it has been negated by the method). What is being tested is if the person can reliably distinguish one file from another. He does or he doesn't. The abx test doesn't weight the result in terms of social norms, potential reaction of 3rd parties, rarity, intention or purpose. You've mixed those biases in yourself.

Saying that you are able to is saying you're capable of an impressive feat that most people aren't capable of doing. That's all I was saying by that phrase. I'm not saying by doing so people are making a rebellious act of non-conformity.

The test results in question don't say that. That is your interpretation of them based on your personal bias and misunderstandings.

What they do say:

Using a method that negates bias the tester could, in some tests, reliably distinguish file a from file b.
And sometimes he couldn't.

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

Even if you're sitting with the person doing the abx you cannot witness the other person's sense perception! The test is subjective! You've completely failed to appreciate the difference between a subjective test and an objective test.

I can witness them correctly choose between two files. This is good enough proof for me that they can hear a difference. 
 
I don't know what you're going on about, or more accurately why you are going on about it. There is no need to rant at anyone page after page telling people that they have a bias in something and that they should feel bad about it. Everyone has bias. Mine in this case is based on my observations of the ABX testing of others, the science behind the compression algorithms, and my own personal experience with my own perfectly fine ears and above average echoic memory. 
 
At any rate this is ridiculous. I know you're going to take some phrase that I said here and repeat it 20 or 30 times trying to put it in the worst possible light, but I'm not going to be listening any more. I prefer civilized discussions over hostile debate, so I'm done talking with you here.