I have no idea. I think the odds of getting four out of four correct are 2^4 or 1 in 16
No, it is 1/(4!) i.e. 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 1 in 24.
(edit) oops I see that someone else has pointed this out.
Last edited:
I have no idea. I think the odds of getting four out of four correct are 2^4 or 1 in 16
Roy's moved within the last year. Now they're next to the golf course in Kaanapali. We're going on Saturday.
If there is any legitimate interest in this test, a new thread should be started. Amir, given your concern over Ethan's involvement, and given your capabilities, perhaps you could start the thread? Maybe even perform the generation test with a few different tracks that would more readily as well as less readily (if at all) be detectable.
I imagine the same people who made bold claims won't chime in there either,
A few days ago you were pulled up by the moderators for having a go at your forum enemies. Now you are at it again.
I don't have much interest in this type of test Ethan. Generational loss is not a concern for consumers enjoying music. They don't make copies of their music to play (putting aside exception of digitizing LPs).Since that hasn't been forthcoming, nor has Amir even committed to doing it eventually...
Generational loss is not a concern for consumers enjoying music.
If you want to volunteer to do blind tests, how about running some comparing say, diffusion to blank wall to absorption for first reflection?
A few days ago you were pulled up by the moderators for having a go at your forum enemies. Now you are at it again.
Consumers do care about audio quality, and using multiple generations is the best way to show the degradation of a converter by listening alone. Measuring will show the changes after only one pass, but most people don't have access to test gear, or the knowledge to use even freeware testing software. So in fact this test is very useful to anyone who cares about converter quality. If you can't hear the degradation after one pass, or five passes, then the converter is transparent enough that you can move on to more important things.
That's not a bad idea, but it's not as easy as you suggest. It would require literally a week of preparation, finding volunteers, setting up the room, upsetting my home studio and bringing the speakers and a CD player, and so forth. But the real reason I have little interest in such a test is because the difference between a bare wall, absorbers, and diffusers is so obvious there's no need for a blind test. Everyone can easily hear it and decide immediately which they prefer. Versus my converter tests where the differences are very subtle.
--Ethan
Why? You are simulating effects of no interest. Let's say the converter has 0.2 db of roll of above 18 Khz. By the tenth generation you are down 2 db. Someone with good hearing may be able detect that loss. Why would that related to anything we care about here?Consumers do care about audio quality, and using multiple generations is the best way to show the degradation of a converter by listening alone.
I ask again why? The argument is over analog vs. digital. Let's say I take a color picture and make a black and white version. Then make 10 more copies in black and white. Are you saying that if the 10th version of that black and white copy is the same as the first, it somehow indicates the color was never lost?Measuring will show the changes after only one pass, but most people don't have access to test gear, or the knowledge to use even freeware testing software. So in fact this test is very useful to anyone who cares about converter quality. If you can't hear the degradation after one pass, or five passes, then the converter is transparent enough that you can move on to more important things.
Ah! You ask us a bunch of people here to burn CDs, run tests, etc. But if we ask you to do some work that is too much? Why? Is the search for audio knowledge not worth your time but should be worth ours?That's not a bad idea, but it's not as easy as you suggest. It would require literally a week of preparation, finding volunteers, setting up the room, upsetting my home studio and bringing the speakers and a CD player, and so forth.
Just because there are differences doesn't obviate the need for the test whatsoever. People are constantly asking which is better. Vast majority of blind testing done in the industry is along those lines. Only on forums where people want to trap each other is there such strong fixation on "is it or is it not there." Take audio compression where the most blind tests are applied to it. In that domain we know the sound is different yet we still try to quantify which is better. Bias plays a role there just the same. People have run blind tests with respect to speakers and found different results than sighted. http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.htmlBut the real reason I have little interest in such a test is because the difference between a bare wall, absorbers, and diffusers is so obvious there's no need for a blind test. Everyone can easily hear it and decide immediately which they prefer. Versus my converter tests where the differences are very subtle.
I would submit that it would indeed be worthwhile, as you would then have scientific data to act as the foundation for the case supporting room treatments.
Why? You are simulating effects of no interest. Let's say the converter has 0.2 db of roll of above 18 Khz. By the tenth generation you are down 2 db. Someone with good hearing may be able detect that loss. Why would that related to anything we care about here?
You ask us a bunch of people here to burn CDs, run tests, etc. But if we ask you to do some work that is too much? Why? Is the search for audio knowledge not worth your time but should be worth ours?
I already have mountains of scientific data that acts as a foundation for supporting room treatments! It's all over the RealTraps web site. There are Before / After graphs of modal ringing, frequency response, improved RT60, reduction of comb filtering with absorption at reflection points, and so forth. What would a blind listening test accomplish? We have many dozens of testimonials from people who hear the obvious improvement. Blind tests are needed only when differences are subtle, to weed out "I think I might hear something but I'm not sure." Room treatment is not like that. Converters are.
--Ethan
We have many dozens of testimonials from people who hear the obvious improvement.
--Ethan
Oh you are clear. Just not convincing .I don't know how much clearer I can be.
That one transform takes you from analog to digital domain. Did you read the analogy I mentioned? I constantly run into this problem with folks at the extreme point of view of objectivity. They use their own conclusions in creating tests to convince the other camp. I don't understand why you don't see the circular nature of this.In other threads here people have claimed to be able to hear the degradation from even one pass through the finest converters money can buy.
Great. Finally you are following my advice to go and run the test elsewhere . As to fear of looking foolish, I am going to book that you are afraid of running blind tests against acoustic products and none. Hope you are happy with that just the same .So this lets them prove it. Of course we both know they won't do that, and we both know why. So I've moved along and put this out for the public. It's already generated huge interest on my Facebook page, and a few minutes ago I posted a link in a professional recording forum where I'm sure people will chime in without fear of looking foolish.
Vast majority of people use portable devices to access the Internet. Most of these have no CD drive. I know I sure was lazy enough to do anything on my laptop than to run a simple analysis. See below . I am also really, really surprised that you still have not figured out which ways totally invalid results can be tested.Oh geez Amir, really! Most audio professionals and audiophiles already have a way to play Wave files through their good system. And if they don't, burning a CD takes five minutes. Further, I do this for the benefit of others, not myself. If they'd rather not know the truth about converter quality, or need to pretend their ears are superior to win clients, that's their problem.
Well, we could have accomplished a lot but you didn't want to go there. You are just interested in winning a game with no knowledge of audio discussed in the middle. That is disappointing because people see you coming from a mile away and game is not played. What could have therefore been accomplished is a) learning the limitations of such online tests and b) science of audio/DAC/ADC. None of this seems to interest you. Sad because if we had such a discussion, we could have all learned something.Anyway, as I said I've moved along. Nothing more will be accomplished here unless people post their choices. Which we know they won't so I'm done. I revived this thread only to post the link to the new test files. BTW, I just added a third set of files to further reduce the chance of random correct guesses.
--Ethan
Really? I could swear both Lee and I posted we were. I also would suggest that anyone who bothered to take the time to take the test were interested. I also would suggest that many others are interested but could not get past their personal grudges and, as such, I suggested you run the test.It tests something else no one cares about which is generational loss.
I, for one, would welcome any such discussion. I'm sure I could have learned something but, alas, it is apparent that personal grudges prohibit the same. I am saddened that we can't elevate ourselves to that level of discourse.Well, we could have accomplished a lot but you didn't want to go there. You are just interested in winning a game with no knowledge of audio discussed in the middle. That is disappointing because people see you coming from a mile away and game is not played. What could have therefore been accomplished is a) learning the limitations of such online tests and b) science of audio/DAC/ADC. None of this seems to interest you. Sad because if we had such a discussion, we could have all learned something.
I took the test but was not interested . Why are you interested Ron?Really? I could swear both Lee and I posted we were. I also would suggest that anyone who bothered to take the time to take the test were interested.
Curiosity, sure. But interest? In what way an audiophile runs into generational loss in digital audio? What audio purchase decision changes because of it?I also would suggest that many others are interested but could not get past their personal grudges and, as such, I suggested you run the test.
Strawman? It was simply tit for tat. He says if someone doesn't take the test they are afraid of the outcome. I say since he has all the means *and motivation* for blind test yet he does not conduct any in the field of acoustics, he is worse off than others here. Let me ask you this. You say you are interested in generational audio tests. What is your interest level relative to that when it comes to acoustic products? Less or more? Do you think Ethan can help us more or less with that question than this one?Strawman. Your use of the smiley does not make it any less so.
On whose behalf Ron? Mine? Remember, I took the test. You did not by the way . I have no fear of any discussion. But I am really, really tired of the two camps fighting for the sake of fighting. I can tell that is all it is when no technical information is shared. And that is what we have here.I, for one, would welcome any such discussion. I'm sure I could have learned something but, alas, it is apparent that personal grudges prohibit the same. I am saddened that we can't elevate ourselves to that level of discourse.