Quote:
Originally posted by fewtch
Actually, I know many of these guys personally and can vouch for the fact that in general they own HD580, HD600, Etymotic ER4P/4S, HD280 Pro, stuff like that.
Also, a lot of "ABX challenges" have been posted in a very open way, for people with superior equipment free to come in anytime and prove that there are big differences between high bitrate MP3s (+ other lossy codecs) and the original wav files. Strangely, nobody from this board or anywhere else has ever taken up the challenge and proven the HA people wrong, to my knowledge. Just stuff like you posted above -- totally specious arguments apparently designed to do nothing but support your own "audible illusions."
If you have the high-end equipment and have something to prove, HA is still waiting for your proof like it has been the past few years. My guess is that it'll wait forever... won't it? If not, hop on over there and prove these guys wrong using controlled, scientific listening methods combined with your high end gear. It should be easy considering how terrible high-bitrate MP3s sound compared to the original wavs, and how dramatic the differences are, right? So go for it! |
I do agree with you, on my system 320K MP3s to sound very close to the original wav files, about 9/10 of the original. Sorry to come off as a snotty, closed-minded audiophile.
I reason I won't do the ABX testing myself if that I believe the the procedure itself is flawed. Double blind testing is great, I agree with that part of the procedure, but I don't think it is necessary to play the random sample (the X). Being that the original and the compressed versions sound so similar it is possible that a person would not be able to tell which version they were listening to during the X part of the procedure yet they may be able to tell that one file sounds better than another during strait AB testing--back and forth, even without being told which file is which. Listening fatigue would also set in after a few trials which would make it even harder to tell the difference. Have such double-blind tests been done, or has it all been done with ABX style testing (sorry for my ignorance, I've only recently started visting Hydrogen Audio)?
I really respect the philosophy of Hydrogen Audio--it's focus on hard science. But from my few visits their I get the impression that they blindly accept that the ABX system is the correct way to test anything and everything. Many times they seem as closed minded as us here on Head-Fi. Head-Fiers seem to want to justify spending more money on equipment while the guys at Hydrogen Audio want to justify that the inexpensive equipment is just as good as the expensive. Both sides have vested interrests being that each forum has been around for a few years. And, of course, tests done by people on each forum tend to support their assumptions. The tests on Hydrogen Audio are more scientific (no duh
) but they also seem to prove exactly want them want them to prove (that inexpensive is just as good, lossy codecs just as good as wavs) and if your study proves what you want it to then why change the procedure, right?
But I like Hydrogen Audio. I've started to lurk there whenever Head-Fi is down.
