Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[jkeny]

Do Amirs tests meet these criteria.....NO, but seems like he is doing fine anyway,,,,

Indeed, they don't meet all of the criteria & that's why some further examination of them is on-going. Is something in the files or playback equipment giving false positives?

With regard to other listeners returning negative results - is their equipment/ears/expectations giving false negatives.

Perhaps some hidden controls could be included in the files which would allow the testers to evaluate these aspects of the test.

 

[jkeny]

This is getting a bit silly.

John, let's say a group of listeners hear differences sighted and level matched that vanish when knowledge is removed - is it not extremely likely that the differences were in the listeners heads and not eminating from whatever system was being used?

Let's assume you'll say 'sometimes' - can you list what possible unaccounted for variables might have led to the missing differences, and how they may have caused the blind perceptions to differ from the sighted?

Max, I've answered this at least twice already!!

 

[jkeny]

Well, unfortunately, for you guys, Amir's (& others) tests returned positive results & you are doing exactly what you are projecting others would do if the returned results were negative. I guess you just have to deal with the implications of these results as best you can? Thing is you have to find out & prove why these positive results are not valid (or demean them in some way) - when null results are returned it actually means nothing so there's no proving necessary.

 

[thedudeabides]

Tim,
I'm not going to do a forensic analysis of your post - tbh, it's getting boring for readers, I'm sure.

JK,

Why would you say something like that? I'm enthralled.

It's been discussed ad nausea. Consider this V1,113.3.12.

Some folks just don't understand.

Forensic analysis indeed. I think we need an MRI.

 

[amirm]

Quick note that the last test that I ran which compared 24 bit to 16 bit, has no high frequencies. It seems to have a sharp drop off above or thereabouts 20 Khz. And at any rate, the frequency response is the same for both clips. In that regard, equipment could not played the role that we think it may have in the previous tests.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, unfortunately, for you guys, Amir's (& others) tests returned positive results & you are doing exactly what you are projecting others would do if the returned results were negative. I guess you just have to deal with the implications of these results as best you can? Thing is you have to find out & prove why these positive results are not valid (or demean them in some way) - when null results are returned it actually means nothing so there's no proving necessary.

Is someone here claiming Amir's results are invalid because of his methodology or lack of controls?

Tim

 

[amirm]

I am not here to refute the tests as I consider them good enough to show differences heard. That being said, just a slight difference in the harmonic spray of those two files once they go analog domain can excite your headphones or speakers due to the amp cable speaker/phone in a different manner, and that is well documented since early research on sonar systems (which are just big audio systems) and so, yes, the source has to be a bit different, and then the analog chain can take those small differences and boost them, or reduce them as well, but usually you get more from an analog chain , not less.

??? The spectrum of the two files is identical. How would the 24 bit file and 16 have different harmonic spray?

 

[amirm]

Here is the spectrum of the two files:

Only at the extreme right bottom do they deviate a tiny bit.

 

[amirm]

Not sure what you are asking me to measure. What would I do with two different music files playing???

 

[microstrip]

Well, unfortunately, for you guys, Amir's (& others) tests returned positive results & you are doing exactly what you are projecting others would do if the returned results were negative. I guess you just have to deal with the implications of these results as best you can? Thing is you have to find out & prove why these positive results are not valid (or demean them in some way) - when null results are returned it actually means nothing so there's no proving necessary.

Most people got so used to debating negative ABX results during tens of years that they do not know anymore how to deal with a positive result ...

 

[jkeny]

Is someone here claiming Amir's results are invalid because of his methodology or lack of controls?

Tim

I've said it before that Amir's results are doubly interesting because he has shown that:
- his HF hearing is normal for his age i.e shot
- the equipment he's using is not of a high-end standard
So these should/might mitigate against the suitability of him & his laptop for doing the test - we wouldn't know this for sure unless we ran positive & negative controls within the test.

On the other hand, he has years of training in artifact identification which seems to compensate for the above - again controls would validate if this was the case

However, he is returning positive ABX results & only some members on AVS seem to be in denial (although I suspect there are some here also)

 

[microstrip]

Is someone here claiming Amir's results are invalid because of his methodology or lack of controls?

Tim

The files are public and we trust him. What else is needed?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's leave your post stand as is with just one clarification, Tim - a yes means it's a necessary criteria for a valid test or it's optional? Maybe you could change your yes into "necessary" or "optional" in your original post?

Valid for what, John, scientific proof? That would require more than what's on this list. Forget scientific proof for a moment -- If you want to compare a new DAC you've just sunk hundreds of hours and thousands of development dollars into against the model it's meant to replace, and you don't have the resources to check off all the controls on your "necessary" list, you seem to be telling me that comparing them with full knowledge of what you're listening to - and no more points checked off on your "necessary" list -- is just effective as comparing them blind. Is that correct?

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Most people got so used to debating negative ABX results during tens of years that they do not know anymore how to deal with a positive result ...

Yes, I know & it's interesting seeing how they try to deal with these positive results (remember it's way more than one result now) - as I said evidence-based Vs faith-based - it's interesting how many of their arguments are faith-based

 

[jkeny]

Ding, ding, round four!
I see the pretty girl with the round announcement has just left the ring.

 

[jkeny]

Valid means valid to be called a blind test, Tim. If you want to call it something else, fine - I suggest you call it a "half-arsed, pretend test"
If you challenge others to present "proof" that they heard something then stop being disingenuous - suggest a valid test - not some makie-uppie test that changes depending on what's available.
If you can't meet sufficient standards to ensure that it's a valid test & that it has a chance of proving something then fine call it an anecdotal report. So in other words demand another anecdotal report instead of the pretense of demanding a valid test

Stop all the pretense, it's gone on long enough, for god's sake. For years now these half-arsed blind tests have been presented as "proof" that there is no difference .....blah,blah

I'm calling you on it - show me a forum organised valid blind test.

 

[Whatmore]

Jkeny, hypothetical question for you..

let's just pretend you are testing "... new DAC you've just sunk hundreds of hours and thousands of development dollars into against the model it's meant to replace". You do the following
1) Listen sighted... The difference is noticeable. The new DAC is better (of course)
2) shut your eyes and get the pretty girl doing the round announcements to switch DACs without telling you which is which.

Lets pretend that in scenario 2 (the very very flawed single-blind AB test), you can't tell the DACs apart, What would you conclude about your new design?

 

[jkeny]

Jkeny, hypothetical question for you..

let's just pretend you are testing "... new DAC you've just sunk hundreds of hours and thousands of development dollars into against the model it's meant to replace". You do the following
1) Listen sighted... The difference is noticeable. The new DAC is better (of course)
2) shut your eyes and get the pretty girl doing the round announcements to switch DACs without telling you which is which.

Lets pretend that in scenario 2 (the very very flawed single-blind AB test), you can't tell the DACs apart, What would you conclude about your new design?

This is immaterial to what a valid blind test is/isn't. When the challenge of "prove it" blind is laid down as it is so often done in audio forums, do you really know what "proof" means or are you just pretending?
As can be seen when "statistically valid evidence" is actually presented, you are in a tizzy.

DAC, amp, speaker designers do this all the time - check it sighted - otherwise they would be in constant rounds of organising blind tests with no design done. Is the new design always better - nope, sightedness is not the big blindfold (pardon the mixed metaphors here) that you are all trying to make out or maybe designers have trained themselves to listen more critically?
Are mistakes made, sure. Are there enough checks along the way to pick up these mistakes, hopefully. Does long term listening come into it - absolutely!!
The funny thing is they usually produce better sounding devices - go figure

 

[Whatmore]

This is immaterial to what a valid blind test is/isn't. When the challenge of "prove it" blind is laid down as it is so often done in audio forums, do you really know what "proof" means or are you just pretending?
As can be seen when "statistically valid evidence" is actually presented, you are in a tizzy.

DAC, amp, speaker designers do this all the time - check it sighted - otherwise they would be in constant rounds of organising blind tests with no design done.
Are mistakes made, sure. Are there enough checks along the way to pick up these mistakes, hopefully. Does long term listening come into it - absolutely!!
The funny thing is they usually produce better sounding devices - go figure

The question wasn't about what constitutes a valid blind test, it was about how you would respond to the situation that I hypothesised.

 

[jkeny]

The question wasn't about what constitutes a valid blind test, it was about how you would respond to the situation that I hypothesised.

Answered & I added this to my post after your reply - "Is the new design always better - nope, sightedness is not the big blindfold (pardon the mixed metaphors here) that you are all trying to make out or maybe designers have trained themselves to listen more critically?"

That isn't anything special to designers, anybody can do it & I believe most of my friends who listen to audio have developed critical listening abilities. Does it mean that in one listen they would have made up their minds about a device - nope - longer term listening required - which may correct some earlier conclusions - the important thing is to keep an open mind.