[Ricky]

I've updated my test at www.kikeg.arrakis.es .

I've made it more methodologically "sound", eliminating all additional signal processing, and also providing two identified reference samples.

That means that, now, the test should be easier for you people, and also that there are no secondary arguments of "flaws" that you could use against it. If you find any, please tell me and I'll try to overcome these.


So, cable believers, I think it would be good for you to take the test and make your "experience" work this time, allowing you to tell which is each file, or at least how good sounds each file. If your "experience" works well at this test, I will start to take it more seriously.

Till then, your experience doesn't mean much for me, as it has been always sighted, and prone to other things aside from the real sonic properties of cables, affecting your listening impressions.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky ....your experience doesn't mean much for me....

We know.

 

[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude We know.

You can change that easily, I've just provided the means to do so.

 

[jude]

[size=large] Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky ....your experience doesn't mean much for me....

[/size]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky You can change that easily, I've just provided the means to do so.

[/size]

The assumption is first that I care what you think. I don't.

 

[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude The assumption is first that I care what you think. I don't.

I didn't assume anything. I just said that you can change my opinions over your experiences very easily, if you want.

Till then it's very clear that we hold the same opinions from each other thoughts and experiences.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky Till then it's very clear that we hold the same opinions from each other thoughts and experiences.

Precisely.

 

[taoster]

Ricky, i sill do not understand the purpose of all these test you are challenging people to do!! how does test results prove? to you or anyone else?

if someone list the recording which they like best to worst and it matches your expectation of the wav quality. do you than transform into a cable advocate??

can you alteast put on your page your objective(cable? soundcard? format? compression? methodology? in DETAIL), test methods(what did you do), test eq and how the unidentified files are recorded. pls ellaborate "The second reference file is the once passed through the soundcard file." how?


ps: why bother with mokey audio, just leave it as wav and zip it up and i dont know if passing it 3 times vs once would make much difference.

 

[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by taoster Ricky, i sill do not understand the purpose of all these test you are challenging people to do!! how does test results prove? to you or anyone else? if someone list the recording which they like best to worst and it matches your expectation of the wav quality. do you than transform into a cable advocate??

It's easy. I just want to prove to people that the differences that they easily hear so frequently at their homes are not that real. If they can prove me at this test that their listening abilities are as good as they claim, I will start to take them more seriously.

At the test, the goal is to tell the original file from the several times recorded ones (it's at the first line of the test page). If you could identify the most degraded worst one, that could also say something abour your listening abilities. I though it was obvious that every time you play and record the file with the soundcard, the sound quality gets degraded.

Quote:

an you alteast put on your page your objective(cable? soundcard? format? compression? methodology? in DETAIL), test methods(what did you do), test eq and how the unidentified files are recorded.

Man, it seems as if you would have not read the page. All the info I believe is quite clearly exposed there: original file, ripped straight from cd. Passed several times trough a clearly indentified soundcard, using a clearly indentified cable. Just play and record simultaneously the original clip. 1, 2 and 3 times. No compression. No eq. Recording at 24 bits. Final files are 16 bit WAV files, loslessly compressed to ape format to save space. It's all there.

What else do you want to know? Just play and record simultaneously the file, repeat the process up to 3 consecutive times over the same clip. I thought it was not so difficult to understand.

If you want more specifc info, please let me know which one.


Quote:

pls ellaborate "The second reference file is the once passed through the soundcard file." how?

Cable connecting output from the soundcard to input to the soundcard. Press "record" at the wav editor. Press "play" at other wav editor. Let 30 seconds pass. Press "stop" at the 2 editors. Convert the recorded sound to 16 bits, and save to wav. That's what "loopback recording" means.

Quote:

ps: why bother with mokey audio, just leave it as wav and zip it up and i dont know if passing it 3 times vs once would make much difference.

What you are saying here doesn't have much sense for me, sorry. Monkey Audio is just the final step, to distribute the files in a more convenient manner. It really seems as if you did not have much idea of what you are talking about, or what is the test about.

I thought it was quite clear how the test has been set up, maybe I was wrong. It seems that I will have to put more "step by step" explanations in order to make things clearer for people like you.

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky It's easy. I just want to prove to people that the differences that they easily hear so frequently at their homes are not that real. If they can prove me at this test that their listening abilities are as good as they claim, I will start to take them more seriously. At the test, the goal is to tell the original file from the several times recorded ones (it's at the first line of the test page). If you could identify the most degraded worst one, that could also say something abour your listening abilities.

which is it? prove to people blah blah(still dont understand) or prove to you that their claim of their superior listening abilities?

if the latter, i dont think you'll get much response as i am not sure any has claimed or want the honor of saying something about their listening ability.

i dont know if you ever tried to write a scientific paper but details are very important.

 

[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by taoster which is it? prove to people blah blah(still dont understand) or prove to you that their claim of their superior listening abilities? ...

Man, this is over my patience. Please read again the text at the web page, read again my previous post, take a little time to understand it, think a little bit more about it, and if you still don't get the idea, please go to your mum and tell her to explain it to you.

 

[pigmode]

Thanks Ricky,

but until you conduct your tests with equipment in a similar sound quality range as mine in terms of dynamics and resolution, the results are just not relevant to the situation with my main system.

Unless we're talking computer sound systems, in which case I'm running stock cables to my Videologic Crossfires. Should I upgrade those at all? I never gave it a thought till now.

cheers

 

[Ricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by pigmode but until you conduct your tests with equipment in a similar sound quality range as mine in terms of dynamics and resolution, the results are just not relevant to the situation with my main system.

...well, I just can't believe it now. I'd say you just want to upset me deribelately.

Is it so difficult to understand??? Burn the files to cd. Then, using your equipment, you can listen to the burnt undegraded, unprocessed, original file, just as if you were listening to it from the original cd. And then you can listen to the burnt degraded by *my* equipment files, through *your* system. Just see if you can notice the degradation caused from my system. See if, listening to the unidentified files, you can pick up the original non-degraded file from the degraded ones.

For the rest of your comments, a new thread would be more appropiated.

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky Man, this is over my patience. Please read again the text at the web page, read again my previous post, take a little time to understand it, think a little bit more about it, and if you still don't get the idea, please go to your mum and tell her to explain it to you.

you running out of patience? how much more would it take before you give the whole thing up?

you dont even know what you are trying to achieve. methodological? yeah rite.

you must be the only person to use Monkey Audio for its excellent "distribute the files in a more convenient manner" and if you think I am going to download mac.exe off your site, you must be crazy. i should pack my result in an exe and send it off for you to open huh?

ps: my mum says you are a numb-skull

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ricky Is it so difficult to understand??? Burn the files to cd.

you gotta be kidding.

 

[disturbed]

Ok guys I'm starting to get worried. I have half a mind to visit a head doc

as I can't make head or tail of this.

Computer = Ok sound.
Too much intereference.