We’ll see how I do in later tonight’s test (20 iterations). If it’s no better than random 50/50 then I don’t need to go do 100 tests
Blind, not reliably. Sighted A/B yes, but that’s sighted which contaminates perception
Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
- Thread starter keanex
- Start date
We’ll see how I do in later tonight’s test (20 iterations). If it’s no better than random 50/50 then I don’t need to go do 100 tests
Blind, not reliably. Sighted A/B yes, but that’s sighted which contaminates perception
Code:
foo_abx 2.2.1 report
foobar2000 v2.24.3
2025-06-05 15:47:00
File A: Test A (High Performance Filter).wav
SHA1: d626785e576b21b988a3ff3c59f85d3de27ed86d
File B: Test B (Normal Filter).wav
SHA1: 6cefd9bc846b7ba69d2bb06a869596cb740a4c0e
Output:
Default : Speakers (4- Schiit Bifrost 2 Unison USB) [exclusive], 32-bit
Crossfading: NO
15:47:00 : Test started.
15:48:05 : Test restarted.
15:48:05 : 00/01
15:48:34 : Test restarted.
15:48:34 : 01/02
15:49:10 : Test restarted.
15:49:10 : 02/03
15:49:45 : Test restarted.
15:49:45 : 03/04
15:50:13 : Test restarted.
15:50:13 : 04/05
15:50:45 : Test restarted.
15:50:45 : 04/06
15:51:21 : Test restarted.
15:51:21 : 05/07
15:51:49 : Test restarted.
15:51:49 : 06/08
15:53:13 : Test restarted.
15:53:13 : 07/09
15:53:46 : Test restarted.
15:53:46 : 07/10
15:54:25 : Test restarted.
15:54:25 : 07/11
15:55:02 : Test restarted.
15:55:02 : 07/12
15:55:17 : Test restarted.
15:55:17 : 08/13
15:55:51 : Test restarted.
15:55:51 : 09/14
15:56:20 : Test restarted.
15:56:20 : 10/15
15:56:37 : Test restarted.
15:56:37 : 11/16
15:57:05 : Test restarted.
15:57:05 : 12/17
15:57:25 : Test restarted.
15:57:25 : 13/18
15:57:51 : Test restarted.
15:57:51 : 14/19
15:58:06 : Test restarted.
15:58:06 : 14/20
15:58:06 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 14/20
p-value: 0.0577 (5.77%)
-- signature --
05319bac15bacad593cc8eab8eb094dced172872Just did it at my work before I go home today
I do notice sometimes I hear it clearly and other iterations they sound the same
My fatigue is taking a toll in my concentration which always happens whenever I use the ABX comparator
Last edited:
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Do it a few dozen more times and you’ll be getting there.
Even assuming you can strain to just barely hear it, does it matter for everyday listening to music?
Even assuming you can strain to just barely hear it, does it matter for everyday listening to music?
I failed the p-test (<0.05 to pass) so it's not proven I can tell reliably. Like I mentioned, when I listen blind ABX (not AB but ABX), I struggle to discern it i.e. it lies in between maybe I did maybe I didn't but p-test clearly showed I didn't. Sightedly listening using a similar "high performance filter" on HQPlayer is more or readily apparent against internal DAC filter yet sighted listening is contaminated so it's moot at the end of the day no matter how you slice and dice it
Last edited:
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
If you can’t pass odds are the difference is in your perception, not the equipment.
JamoBroGuy
100+ Head-Fier
Oh my gosh. After all this time, we’re finally getting through to them.
I’m so proud of you @theveterans.
I’m so proud of you @theveterans.
The real question is, if one perceives a difference, but then fails a listening tests..
Does one simply go with the blind test moving forward, even though in casual listening one still perceives an improvement.
Code:foo_abx 2.2.1 report foobar2000 v2.24.3 2025-06-05 15:47:00 File A: Test A (High Performance Filter).wav SHA1: d626785e576b21b988a3ff3c59f85d3de27ed86d File B: Test B (Normal Filter).wav SHA1: 6cefd9bc846b7ba69d2bb06a869596cb740a4c0e Output: Default : Speakers (4- Schiit Bifrost 2 Unison USB) [exclusive], 32-bit Crossfading: NO 15:47:00 : Test started. 15:48:05 : Test restarted. 15:48:05 : 00/01 15:48:34 : Test restarted. 15:48:34 : 01/02 15:49:10 : Test restarted. 15:49:10 : 02/03 15:49:45 : Test restarted. 15:49:45 : 03/04 15:50:13 : Test restarted. 15:50:13 : 04/05 15:50:45 : Test restarted. 15:50:45 : 04/06 15:51:21 : Test restarted. 15:51:21 : 05/07 15:51:49 : Test restarted. 15:51:49 : 06/08 15:53:13 : Test restarted. 15:53:13 : 07/09 15:53:46 : Test restarted. 15:53:46 : 07/10 15:54:25 : Test restarted. 15:54:25 : 07/11 15:55:02 : Test restarted. 15:55:02 : 07/12 15:55:17 : Test restarted. 15:55:17 : 08/13 15:55:51 : Test restarted. 15:55:51 : 09/14 15:56:20 : Test restarted. 15:56:20 : 10/15 15:56:37 : Test restarted. 15:56:37 : 11/16 15:57:05 : Test restarted. 15:57:05 : 12/17 15:57:25 : Test restarted. 15:57:25 : 13/18 15:57:51 : Test restarted. 15:57:51 : 14/19 15:58:06 : Test restarted. 15:58:06 : 14/20 15:58:06 : Test finished. ---------- Total: 14/20 p-value: 0.0577 (5.77%) -- signature -- 05319bac15bacad593cc8eab8eb094dced172872
Just did it at my work before I go home today
I do notice sometimes I hear it clearly and other iterations they sound the same
My fatigue is taking a toll in my concentration which always happens whenever I use the ABX comparator
If the p value was 0.05 you passed by getting 14 of 20 correct, if I recall this from Statistics correctly.
When I passed the 16,44.1 vs 24 ,192 tests I put together I generally only took one test at a time, listened for several minutes, and didn’t take another test for an hour or two. I would test over a week or so.
The instances where I attempted back to back I would start going random.
Last edited:
No it’s not. That “real question” might have been real many decades or centuries ago but it ceased to be “real” when it was answered. Today it’s not a “real question”, it’s not a question anywhere at all, except in the audiophile world where it is still a question but it’s a fake, marketing driven question, rather than a real one! The only “real question” today is exactly how the brain manufactures those perceptions and how can that information be used to potentially manipulate perception.
So, what is the “real question” here then? As it’s not a “real question” of whether you actually passed a valid 16/44.1 vs 24/192 test, then the “real question” is how you achieved that result. For which there are various potential answers: A test methodology fault (such as not accurately level matching, etc.). A fault with one of the files. A fluke from not performing enough trials. A faulty piece of test equipment. Not meeting required conditions (such as a reasonable listening level). Etc.
G
so lets think about this for a moment…
Why does no one ask you to prove you FAILED a blind listening test?
Huh, but I passed a blind listening test between 16/44 and 24/192 and I was asked. And, when I have failed DBTs I have also been asked, although not always of course. There’s rarely any point or need to prove a result that has been achieved numerous times previously and for which there is an established, proven explanation. If for example you claimed to hear a difference between a 3kHz signal at 60dB and the same signal at 63dB then I would not ask you for proof, as that is well within the established, proven thresholds of hearing. Is this not obvious to you?
G
If a person takes a test;
- isn’t properly trained on the test.
- doesn’t know much about what they are testing on.
-has an axe to grind, so deliberately randomly guesses versus trying.
-doesn’t care and just randomly guesses.
Do you think generally they will pass or fail the test?
If they deliberately just random guessed then they would obviously “generally” achieve a random result. How is that not obvious? But what have any of the conditions you posted got to do with audio double blind testing?
G
G
Is random not “failing” the test?
To “pass”one needs to beat random at a given confidence level, no?
Generally speaking( I know there is a null and alternative hypothesis),
Last edited:
Typically yes.
Given the caveats of statistics (sample size, etc.), then yes. But you’ve still not answered either of my questions!
G
Users who are viewing this thread
