Huge deep purple fan here, that's an automatic Like.Kudos for testing this subject again. Testing will hugely be dependent on the kind of music/track u r using. Classical music does not stress MP3 encoder much. Try distorted/unlinear heavy guitar music. U might notice difference.
My go to test track is "Hush" by Deep Purple with its beginning "drummer" section played on guitar.
Experiment: ABX Test to determine whether I can detect an audible difference between 192KHZ/24bit FLAC & 320kb/s MP3
Sundara's were awesome. That was around the time where the Liquid Spark died, so I couldn't test them with it. I used Oratory 1990's Optimal Harman Parametric EQ settings. Same issue regarding open-back, but I felt pretty confident.
Yeah, that's exactly what the ABX test does, you either play Song X or Y and have to determine whether its the lossless or compressed one. Actually, it uses A,B and X,YHere's another suggestion for a test...
Step 1 - place the 320kb files in one folder, and the high res files in another.
Step 2 - don't listen to anything for a few hours.
Step 3 - have someone cue up one or the other folders for you so you don't know which it is you are hearing.
Step 4 - listen to the music in the folder and ID it as either mp3 or high res.
Step 5 - repeat the test the next day
Do that for a couple weeks and at the end see how often you got it right.
Yeah, that's exactly what the ABX test does, you either play Song X or Y and have to determine whether its the lossless or compressed one. Actually, it uses A,B and X,Y
Yeah, that's exactly what the ABX test does, you either play Song X or Y and have to determine whether its the lossless or compressed one. Actually, it uses A,B and X,Y
Nup... 5 sigma, 3x10-7 thanks or it didn't happen. /syou get 30/40 you is smoking it
Perceptually, quite likely;Is it possible that there is no difference?
That always struck me as a damn high bar, but if you are claiming to have glimpsed God (Higgs Boson), best have some extraordinary evidence. In the end I was less than bowled over to discover that after analyzing so many exabytes of data, that enough events within a certain energy band were identified to claim discovery. I wanted to see a selfie of the team and God, not a lot of pomp and ceremony celebrating electron trails in a computer. I was very moved by the fact that Higgs was there--in fact I cried, so even nerds have feelings. At least with LIGO their was a squiggle to admire....Nup... 5 sigma, 3x10-7 thanks or it didn't happen. /s
Perceptually, quite likely;
Objectivists vs. Subjectivists - Who's right?
I am actually a good example for this, haha. To be perfectly honest, after performing countless ABX tests over a span of ~13 hours, I do believe that my original, untested observation, regarding the difference between lossless and compressed formats, may have been slightly exaggerated, yet not...audiosciencereview.com
JSmith
But what will be the effect size?So for 40 trials, you only need 25 or more right to reach significance.
Effects come in all sizes and unfortunately shapes. Certainly it would be easy to consider each trial of 40 a separate test, and then to look at the distribution of those results while comparing to the null result. I think it would be far more interesting to weigh the different trials-the OP has said as much, sometimes he felt like he was guessing, while on others had tuned it to some nuance and felt more confident. Perhaps he assigns weights such as 1-4 representing no clue, a hint of one, a solid gut feeling, and at 4, yea I'm certain I'm hearing a difference. Then what would be interesting is to correlate the p value produced on a given trial with the confidence level. If the correlation coefficients were strong, then I believe we would be able to say something about a phenomenon that could include the genuine ability to detect the differences. I haven't looked over the details, but we'd need to be certain that there are no other differences besides sampling rate. If this test hadn't been done to death already with nothing but null results, I'd be all over this. Again more power could be injected by taking a sample of 25 able-eared enthusiasts to do the same test. If we found 2 or 3 who consistently outperformed their peers, then you got something to hang a hat on. And we know that they are out there--Maybe it was the Harman data, but there was one listener who clearly had golden ears. But that was a much rougher comparison--damn I wish I could remember where I saw that, In any case it wasn't at the level of sampling rates.But what will be the effect size?
It seems like nobody is ever talking about the effect size.
MP3's are exactly like porn, and you can also have way more of them that way, since it's just that. But don’t worry, you don't need to have a problem with that in music. FLAC still sounds noisier from being decompressed first. Only WAV files from solid state can make you the slackers you're supposed to be being while you listen, suckers. Only WAV files could possibly be exact playback of the original copy. But don't forget, although digital skips the recording medium, it records only timeless samples to be played back over time. Garbage, nobody will care about people anymore with digital. They'll always have not wanting people to find out problems, anyways.
Sorry if I misunderstand, however are you saying you collect porn?MP3's are exactly like porn, and you can also have way more of them that way, since it's just that.