...why does spotify sound worst than 320mp3 to Kris? ...
That is impossible by science. Kris has only offered statements like "better" and "no difference". He has not describe his methodology, nor what the accuracy of this test is. As for "better", no description is given, nothing quantifieable at all. No nothing. Nothing we can repeat, and compare notes with.
My subjective qualitative data, contradict him. There is just nothing to analyse.
You see, you are not a scientists in here. You do not speak the language of science. Not even close. It is just utterly clear by now, that a you do not know what the language of science is. Stop making nonsense claims. This is not a board of scientific discussion, in at scientific manner. Not even close.
Quote:
...ps: of course I know what an artifact is, I watched all seasons of stargate SG1 when I was younger!
Well, making that mistake, getting caught for it, and replying like this in a scientific setting, is simply unheard of. The mistake is bloody obvious. The answer exposes you like nuts.
We cannot go on this way, as if I treat you like you ask me to, as a scientist, I will just end up ridiculing you like nuts, and you will simply not get it. But others will. So you will have to excuse me, as to ignoring you a bit from here on, as I simply cannot go on like this.
... But yeah, Tidal most certainly sounds better than Spotify, much as I would love to deny it
That makes two of us.
Nobody seems to be claiming that no difference can be heard, but we simply don't know, as I have not seen anyone show any evidence that an attempt to remove bias was done. Normally, I am unable to hear a difference with the Ogg Vorbis Q9 file type that Spotify claims to use with their high quality service and a FLAC file that Tidal claims to be using with their high quality service. I have no way to directly test Spotify vs Tidal in a manner where the two streaming files can be properly volume matched and tested with an ABX tool. The type of differences claimed to be heard are similar to how many people, including myself, seem to describe audible differences without a properly controlled test that removes bias.
Yeah. Now, this ABX argument is not even closely understood. Seems like hardly anyone gets it in this forum.
First of all, the test subject needs to be able to positively differentiate specific sonic traits. Bias or not. Only then, is there any point in running any ABX. If not, how do you know that your test subject is able to differentiate anything? That is like testing for inaccuracy with no accuracy. Wonder what the outcome will be? Pointless.
In particular funny it is, that people get the information that one sample is Mp3 and the other one is lossless. Now how can anyone in their right mind, claim that such a test would be rid of any bias? What if you do not believe in any difference? Then what?
Then there is the typical bashing before tests:"There is no difference, now, just take the test. Just remember, there is no difference, no one hears any difference, and those who claim to, are crazy. You are not crazy are you? Now, take the test." or "if there is no difference at all, it will be really small". Hopefully, people are smart enough to see the huge blunder in this.
Bias is not the problem, but the ability to accurately differentiate sonic traits. I am able in one case to hear environmental sounds, and in the other there are no such sounds. Bias makes no sense in my case. Unless you are paranoid beyond belief, which still changes nothing as to my ability to differentiate the sounds on distinct sonic traits.
With accuracy, the ABX outcome is a given. And, again, pointless.
Also, all this talk about volume in the forums, makes no sense to me. Most sonic traits remain the same, regardless of even major volume changes. If an ABX test is sensitive to volume, something is seriously wrong. In that case, there is a huge gaping hole in the methodology.
