-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
That seems like an odd choice from the experimenter's side to me, but who knows.
The only thing I have seen in some tests (I think it was Archimago) was that they asked for a degree of confidence. Other than that it seems to me they take raw data...
I'd love for some high end audio brand to have the guts to put up a -let's say- $100k prize for the person that reliably can tell such differences the best ((ideally using their equipment, ha!). *That* may make people tell these tests more seriously (and also promote their brand as the one that's best to tell such differences). But for some reason that's never happened, and I suspect it never will. :-D
Last edited:
A positive control provides something that the subject should hear, and should report accurately.
A negative control provides something that is "same vs. same" that should never reach beyond probability.
This has nothing to do with a 'how confident are you' question.
Minds me of the time I was doing some amplifier tests and nobody could tell them apart even though I had measured and listened beforehand and knew they were different. For real. But blind AB testing showed nada. Turns out I had forgotten to connect power to the AB switch. The negative control worked like a champ. 
Not if any of the powers that be at Stereophile/TAS & all the other ad supported high end websites have anything to say.
There's just too much big money invested in the continuation of the lies that support the high end.
@amirm I hope you have a good security system on your home and property.
I wouldn't put anything past that crowd.
LMAO
- Joined
- May 20, 2023
- Messages
- 19
- Likes
- 7
Are folks on this thread familiar with Joshua Reiss's Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation?
What tests can you cite that satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?
Does anyone claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy these requirements?
What tests can you cite that satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?
Does anyone claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy these requirements?
Minds me of the time I was doing some amplifier tests and nobody could tell them apart even though I had measured and listened beforehand and knew they were different. For real. But blind AB testing showed nada. Turns out I had forgotten to connect power to the AB switch. The negative control worked like a champ.
That's happened a few times. Including some times when it's not not all that wise.
I certainly worked on tests that satisfied 1116, in fact, some of the tests that established BS1116. All of the MPEG-audio tests until after MPEG-2 was done, a variety of internal tests that surpassed 1116 requirements at AT&T Research, and a few more I can't talk about.
Many tests do not meet 1116, of course.
Read that paper carefully, please.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,874
- Likes
- 4,675
I wouldn’t say he “admitted” it. Rather, Dr. Waldrep accepted that hi-rez is pointless for consumers after conducting a study he must have expected to vindicate “hi-rez,” but pointed in the other direction instead.
Willingness to accept reality when it conflicts with one’s established beliefs is too rare. Extra so when reality conflicts with one’s pecuniary interests as well.
So my use of "admitted" doesn't meet your definition of "accepted" ???
Slicing it a bit thin there J just to throw your barb.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,874
- Likes
- 4,675
No barb intended, but the connotation is quite different.
“Admitted,” especially without context, implies being caught after less than good faith actions. She admitted to the affair. He admitted he used corn syrup rather than honey. That sort of thing.
“Accepted” is more, ok, she thought something was x but the data shows it’s actually y so she went with the evidence over her previous position. She accepted the 2020 election results when they were certified even though she voted the other way and had heard a lot of stupid talk discrediting the election after the votes were in. That sort of thing.
Last edited:
Baloney on both counts.
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,955
- Likes
- 3,570
He actually already concluded that for himself before the study. The study gave that opinion statistical relevance.
Marks a super good dude, honesty is his trademark.
He was one of the original whistle blowers on the phony baloney AudioQuest HDMI cable video.
He took the truth path in the discussion of cables and much of the rest of the High End bunk enough
that got him kicked off a couple of the big audio clubs out west.
The whole attack against him was really said.
Yeah, the whole audiophile thing these days is nothing but "shun the unbeliever", except here, and a few quietly run places.
Any number of people have simply been silenced for being less than completely credulous. Some of the harassment goes well beyond words on the internet, as well.
beagleman
Major Contributor
The Unbeliever, gets labeled a troll, a trouble maker, lacking in hearing, just does not want to get along etc.
I was kicked off a few forums for the crime of "Making too much sense" or "Using logic".
No one can dare question some random guy on the internet making some huge unsubstantiated claim.....EVER!
Yes, quite familiar. Also familiar with the complaints about , e.g., his choice of data to include or exclude in the meta-analysis.
(And also that even if we decide to take Reiss at face value -- we are still talking about a very, let's say 'subtle', effect. One hardly supporting the vast claims of audibility emitted frequently by the audiophile collective)
Not meeting the highest standards of rigor does not automatically invalidate results. Details of intention, how the test was done, and what claims were made from it -- special attention to phrasing of conclusions -- these matter. There are also prior probabilities to consider.
You are of course free to test *yourself* as rigorously as you like. Please keep us informed of your protocol and results if you do.
Last edited:
Similar threads
