• 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!

Listening Test Duration

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
Of course you could use the software tool that way but if one is only listening to "A" and "X" he isn´t doing an ABX test anymore.
 

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
957
Likes
1,497
Of course you could use the software tool that way but if one is only listening to "A" and "X" he isn´t doing an ABX test anymore.
Really? So if I do 10 trials and only use A and X then it isn't ABX test (according to you). I assume then, that when I use A, B and X in each trial then it is an ABX test. What if I use A and X in one trial and A, B and X in the rest. Is this ABX test? At which point in between is stops being ABX test?
 

SoundAndMotion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
144
Likes
111
Location
Germany
If the same outcome is generated, using the same system, then it is the same test. Regardless of the setup, any ABX test can be run that way. So it cannot be made any different.
Hi Amir, the problem starts at the very beginning. The same outcome is NOT generated by AX and ABX. This was shown by a handful of papers in the 70's or 80's and contributed to the rise of signal detection theory (SDT) over threshold theory in perception studies. SDT and experiments find different outcomes, but threshold theory and you predict the same. If you are interested, I'll dig up the papers tomorrow. Sorry, can't today.

Really? So if I do 10 trials and only use A and X then it isn't ABX test (according to you). I assume then, that when I use A, B and X in each trial then it is an ABX test. What if I use A and X in one trial and A, B and X in the rest. Is this ABX test? At which point in between is stops being ABX test?
If your first trial is AX, then it never stops being ABX... because it never was ABX. You can't mix protocols and have a vote of trials to determine who wins the naming election.
 
Last edited:

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,550
Location
Seattle Area
Hi Amir, the problem starts at the very beginning. The same outcome is NOT generated by AX and ABX. This was shown by a handful of papers in the 70's or 80's and contributed to the rise of signal detection theory (SDT) over threshold theory in perception studies. SDT and experiments find different outcomes, but threshold theory and you predict the same. If you are interested, I'll dig up the papers tomorrow. Sorry, can't today.
Hi. I am interested. So yes, let's see the papers.

I have conducted many ABX tests this way and found detectable difference. Would be interesting to know why that is different than if I had also clicked on "B." What I find that it can actually reduce my acuity if I try to play A and B constantly. It adds to distraction of the test/challenges short-term memory.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Why do you say some people do better in A/B comparisons than pure difference tests? My limited experiences is people feel better and believe they do better. When even a modicum of control is in place turns out not to be the case.

I think a big confounding issue is people wanting to go straight for preference when they can't or don't demonstrate they can hear a difference.
I understand what you are saying. But, if enough trials are run in double blind A/B and if the preference of A or B is statistically persistent for a given subject, can we not infer it is highly likely there is a difference perceived by that subject without the need to first prove the existence of that difference via ABX or other means?

Also, sometimes the difference is obvious. Would you need a formal DBT to first establish a difference between stereo and Mch playback prior to deciding on a preference? If the difference is, duh, obvious, why do an ABX test?

A/B is what I have been doing all my life, and I feel much more comfortable with it than ABX. To me, A/B is much more intuitive and natural. I find that the concept of identifying, matching and correlating X with either A or B to be difficult, non-intuitive, and, yes, time consuming, requiring more replays and switches, adding to test fatigue and adversely affecting results. I also think ABX may have an inherent bias against finding a difference that might be there, though subject training might mitigate that to a degree.

Also, on many occasions, I have frequently concluded in A/B that there is no significant difference, therefore no preference, even sighted with all the biases and baggage that entails. I might be wrong in some of those assessments, but I am frequently wrong in ABX, too, where there is a forced choice of A or B. Maybe, like Amir, I need to do a lot more learning about how to be a good ABX test taker. But, maybe it would be much more fun to just listen to a lot more music instead of conducting ABX training sessions on myself.

And, what do we make of Toole's ABCD speaker tests at Harman, which are not ABX? Yes, with speakers, it might be reasonable to accept that no two speakers are likely to sound exactly the same. Usually, this is obvious to even a casual listener. So, a difference can be assumed as sufficiently likely. But, note that test subjects are not required to try to painstakingly figure out whether ABC or D is playing now, as with ABX. They just indicate their preference of it, whichever it is, relative to the other choices.

Personally, I am much more interested in the question of preference, as long as there is some way to reasonably and objectively infer that there is a difference. Agreed, some people might not do a good enough job of establishing a perceivable difference beyond reasonable doubt before jumping to preference. ABX testing, which is only for difference, may be useful in some specific cases, but I think it begs the more important, more useful question of preference. Although, as we also know, sometimes there is a difference, but no clear preference.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Hi. I am interested. So yes, let's see the papers.

I have conducted many ABX tests this way and found detectable difference. Would be interesting to know why that is different than if I had also clicked on "B." What I find that it can actually reduce my acuity if I try to play A and B constantly. It adds to distraction of the test/challenges short-term memory.
That's the same I've seen for myself. I do the abx the way you described it.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Hi. I am interested. So yes, let's see the papers.

I have conducted many ABX tests this way and found detectable difference. Would be interesting to know why that is different than if I had also clicked on "B." What I find that it can actually reduce my acuity if I try to play A and B constantly. It adds to distraction of the test/challenges short-term memory.

If you consistently find a difference, this doesn't throw into doubt the difference is real. What is at stake is that one method may fail to detect a difference that another method does detect. Some of what Jakob has quoted talks about food taste testing. A triangle test failed to find a difference. A test using 3AFC where you are asked to find the sweetest of the samples (I forget what it was the sweetness is an example), was successful in showing which was sweetest. So if a test of purely same or different failed, something is different when a test for strength of difference is able to find a statistically valid result. You would have naively expected both tests to work.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
I understand what you are saying. But, if enough trials are run in double blind A/B and if the preference of A or B is statistically persistent for a given subject, can we not infer it is highly likely there is a difference perceived by that subject without the need to first prove the existence of that difference via ABX or other means?
Yes if a test shows a persistent difference even for preference you don't need to run one for difference.

What happens quite often with audio is you measure the beejezus out of things and find no reason something should be different. Or even could be different. Yet audiophiles insist the difference is there. They tend to want to run an AB or ABX test for preference. When it hasn't been established a difference is even perceptible. When a null result is obtained they want to say blind testing is no good.
Also, sometimes the difference is obvious. Would you need a formal DBT to first establish a difference between stereo and Mch playback prior to deciding on a preference? If the difference is, duh, obvious, why do an ABX test?
Well you have to be careful with this. Stereo vs Mch should get a quick and easy 100% result. Speakers different enough it shouldn't be a problem. Yet time and time again I see audiophiles proclaim the difference is so blindingly obvious no blind test is needed about things for which it is highly unlikely there is an audible difference.
A/B is what I have been doing all my life, and I feel much more comfortable with it than ABX. To me, A/B is much more intuitive and natural. I find that the concept of identifying, matching and correlating X with either A or B to be difficult, non-intuitive, and, yes, time consuming, requiring more replays and switches, adding to test fatigue and adversely affecting results. I also think ABX may have an inherent bias against finding a difference that might be there, though subject training might mitigate that to a degree.

Also, on many occasions, I have frequently concluded in A/B that there is no significant difference, therefore no preference, even sighted with all the biases and baggage that entails. I might be wrong in some of those assessments, but I am frequently wrong in ABX, too, where there is a forced choice of A or B. Maybe, like Amir, I need to do a lot more learning about how to be a good ABX test taker. But, maybe it would be much more fun to just listen to a lot more music instead of conducting ABX training sessions on myself.

And, what do we make of Toole's ABCD speaker tests at Harman, which are not ABX? Yes, with speakers, it might be reasonable to accept that no two speakers are likely to sound exactly the same. Usually, this is obvious to even a casual listener. So, a difference can be assumed as sufficiently likely. But, note that test subjects are not required to try to painstakingly figure out whether ABC or D is playing now, as with ABX. They just indicate their preference of it, whichever it is, relative to the other choices.

Personally, I am much more interested in the question of preference, as long as there is some way to reasonably and objectively infer that there is a difference. Agreed, some people might not do a good enough job of establishing a perceivable difference beyond reasonable doubt before jumping to preference. ABX testing, which is only for difference, may be useful in some specific cases, but I think it begs the more important, more useful question of preference. Although, as we also know, sometimes there is a difference, but no clear preference.

Myself if you are testing for preference prefer the 2AFC or 3AFC method. I prefer this for two reasons. Firstly there is no cognitive load to detect a difference. You know the two samples differ in some way. You are not given the same thing twice. The second is it being statistically easier. If someone scores 75% correct choices that is enough the result is 5% or less likely a random result.

Now when I have done it every time someone has the same complaint. The choice is forced. You have to pick a preference for one or the other even if you don't think there is one. Someone always says it is wrong because if they heard no difference or no preference that should be a choice. Yet sometimes on the margins people consistently pick correctly even while consciously saying they don't hear a difference. This seems a hard point to get across. Plus the statistics are not simple any longer if you offer that choice. Part of what is expected is when people can't hear a preference when forced to pick the choices over a large enough number of samples will be random.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Another thing to wonder about is that duo-trio, triangle and AFC testing is used mostly for tastes and smells. With audio you have the issue of echoic memory. The difference in discrimination using ABX testing is vast when you use 4 second or less samples with instant switching vs using longer samples. Even 15 second samples will dramatically reduce your ability to detect actual differences. Yet if I were doing preference testing I don't think I can arrive at a preference in less than 15 seconds and don't really feel it for samples of less than 30 seconds. Are my feelings correct however?

In vision I think they use more up down testing. That could be used for at least some things in audio. I don't know how that would fare compared to ABX. You could do this for loudness, distortion, frequency response tilt, and some others. I don't recall seeing anyone do this type of test for hearing or audio.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,550
Location
Seattle Area
Another thing to wonder about is that duo-trio, triangle and AFC testing is used mostly for tastes and smells. With audio you have the issue of echoic memory. The difference in discrimination using ABX testing is vast when you use 4 second or less samples with instant switching vs using longer samples. Even 15 second samples will dramatically reduce your ability to detect actual differences. Yet if I were doing preference testing I don't think I can arrive at a preference in less than 15 seconds and don't really feel it for samples of less than 30 seconds. Are my feelings correct however?
Dead on.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
@amirm,
If the same outcome is generated, using the same system, then it is the same test. Regardless of the setup, any ABX test can be run that way. So it cannot be made any different.


@danadam,
Really? So if I do 10 trials and only use A and X then it isn't ABX test (according to you). I assume then, that when I use A, B and X in each trial then it is an ABX test. What if I use A and X in one trial and A, B and X in the rest. Is this ABX test? At which point in between is stops being ABX test?

The ABX method was invented in ~1950 and consisted of listening to A then listening to B and then listening to a sample X which could be either A or B, task for the listener was to correctly identify X .
It wasn´t used for multidimensionally different samples and the participant got only one presentation of each sample following the original protocol.

The modern ABX (introduced by Clark, Carlstrom and Krueger) is a variation as it allows the participants to listen to the various samples as often as they want, but still an ABX test trial is only happening if the listener listens first to A then to B then to X to identify X .

If one decides to listen only to sample A and sample X then he is actually listening to either the pairs "AA" or "AB" so it is something different (it´s actually an incomplete "same/different" test ).
 
Last edited:

SoundAndMotion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
144
Likes
111
Location
Germany
Memory and time limitations prevent me from building a complete list, and I'm actually going to cheat and copy from one of the seminal works on signal detection theory (SDT). Note that equations 9.5 and 9.13 calculate the proportion of correct responses using a threshold model for AX (same-different) and ABX (2AFC match to sample), respectively. PM me if you like math and want an in-depth analysis of AX vs. ABX vs. triangle (oddity) methods.

Note that in this description, a threshold model assumes the brain take on one of limited number of states, e.g. two (for single dimensional stimuli) wrt to thresholds: below some "set-point" you have no idea and must guess, while above it you know and get %100 correct. SDT predicts a smooth, but limited transition between guessing (50%) and knowing (100%). This is a sigmoid function known as a psychometric function (see graphic below).

Interesting things happen in the transition band, as mentioned by Blumlein above. Subjects state they are guessing, but "guess" better than chance (50%). I often see this in my own data.

From: Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Page 235

A comparison of Equations 9.5 and 9.13 reveals that, according to threshold theory, the value predicted for proportion correct in same-different is exactly the same as in ABX. Experiments that have compared the two paradigms (Creelman & Macmillan, 1979; Pastore, Friedman, & Baffuto, 1976; Rosner, 1984) generally have not supported this prediction, but have instead found p(c) to be higher in ABX, consistent with SDT analysis.

Creelman, C. D., & Macmillan, N. A. (1979). Auditory phase and frequency discrimination: A comparison of nine paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5,146-156.
Pastore, R. E., Friedman, C. J., & Baffuto, K. J. (1976). A comparative evaluation of the AX and two ABX procedures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, S120 (Abstract).
Rosner, B. S. (1984). Perception of voice-onset-time continua: A signal detection analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1231-1242.


Some thoughts on listening tests: Why does anyone ever do a listening test: blind, sighted, DBT, ABX, MUSHRA? I can think of two reasons, perhaps there are more: to convince someone of the (in)audibility of a difference/preference (themselves alone or some group); affirmation, i.e. preaching to the choir to hear the "amen".
When one chooses a method or protocol, one must simply weigh effort vs. convincingness (for the group of interest). There are no ABX police, although some think there should be. If you mix AX and ABX, there is no risk of DBT prison. @danadam is free to mix them. He can even name it "ABX" if he wishes, with no risk other than someone like me responding "no". But no one has to care about my opinion...
 

Attachments

  • pf.jpg
    pf.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 136

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
What improvements can we hope to hear in our systems as a result of these listening tests of various durations?
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
If you consistently find a difference, this doesn't throw into doubt the difference is real. What is at stake is that one method may fail to detect a difference that another method does detect. Some of what Jakob has quoted talks about food taste testing. A triangle test failed to find a difference. A test using 3AFC where you are asked to find the sweetest of the samples (I forget what it was the sweetness is an example), was successful in showing which was sweetest. So if a test of purely same or different failed, something is different when a test for strength of difference is able to find a statistically valid result. You would have naively expected both tests to work.

To quote the description from the linked Frijters paper:
"
Each set was composed of two types of stimuli, A and B, which were quinine sulfate solutions of 0.005% and 0.006%
respectively. The investigators used all six permutations AAB, ABA, BAA, BBA, BAB and ABB, and the subjects were instructed to select the odd stimulus from each
set ("triangle") presented. "

That´s what a triangle test is about, the participant gets a set of three stimuli in which two are the same and has to sort the odd one out for a correct answer.

"The results showed that in 24 out of the 45 trials one stimulus of the pair of physically identical stimuli was incorrectly selected as the odd
one; a stimulus A was selected from a combination AAB, or a stimulus B from a combination ABB."

That means, following the normal triangle method test routine the participants answered incorrectly in 24 out of 45 trials.

"In addition to the odd stimulus selection, however, the subjects were also requested to identify the weakest or the strongest stimulus from each triangle
presented. In 32 of the 45 trials this resulted in a correct identification of stimulus A as the weakest (from the combination ABB), or of stimulus B as the strongest (from
the combination AAB).
The most important finding, however, was that in 17 out of the 24 cases in which the odd stimulus was selected first, the weakest or strongest
stimulus was correctly identified."

If the same samples were presented in exactly the same way but the participants were asked differently the proportion of correct answers was larger and in ABB and BAA sets the correct identification was even more pronounced.

Frijters used a psychometrical reformulation for his analyis and wrote (leaving the details out for simplification):

"Thus it is obvious that the instruction given has drastic effects on the decision rule the subject uses for overt response selection. Under the instruction to select the odd
stimulus distances between momentary sensory values are compared, whereas the instruction to select the weakest or strongest stimulus results in a comparison of the
absolute momentary sensations associated with the triangle stimuli."
 
Last edited:

SoundAndMotion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
144
Likes
111
Location
Germany
What improvements can we hope to hear in our systems as a result of these listening tests of various durations?
If someone does a listening test comparing the hypothetical Widget 100 Black to a similar item in your system showing an improvement using a method that convinces you, and the price of the Widget is acceptable to you, then you might compare it yourself and buy it if you think it's worth it. Voila, improvement.

But wait, aren't you a listening test sceptic? That's fine, but if you can describe what method of listening test would convince you, QED. If there is no such thing as convincing you, isn't your question disingenuous?
 
Last edited:

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
Another thing to wonder about is that duo-trio, triangle and AFC testing is used mostly for tastes and smells.

The duo-trio is also known as "match to sample" method and imo an ABX is an incomplete variant of this "match to sample" method. The most frequently method overall is the paired comparison method (A/B) in its various incarnations (same/different, preference, discrimination) .

With audio you have the issue of echoic memory.

The same issues arises in every sensory experiment as the raw sensory part of memory is quite short for every sense.

The difference in discrimination using ABX testing is vast when you use 4 second or less samples with instant switching vs using longer samples. Even 15 second samples will dramatically reduce your ability to detect actual differences. Yet if I were doing preference testing I don't think I can arrive at a preference in less than 15 seconds and don't really feel it for samples of less than 30 seconds. Are my feelings correct however?

It directly relates to the mechanism Frijters examined in his paper (just as an example, there is as usual a plethora of literature about models for the internal judgement processes), different tests methods trigger the participants internal/mental processes in a different way.
Overall it of fundamental importance to be clear about the question that one wants to address with a test.
As said before, if you are looking for something "better" when listening to music as you do normally, why should you be interested in test results that only work with samples shorter than 5s? If these results do correctly reflect the real world ocurrence you wouldn´t have to care about as you would not remember after a few seconds.

If you are addressing another question it might be nevertheless the correct test protocol to use.

Myself if you are testing for preference prefer the 2AFC or 3AFC method. I prefer this for two reasons. Firstly there is no cognitive load to detect a difference. You know the two samples differ in some way. You are not given the same thing twice. The second is it being statistically easier. If someone scores 75% correct choices that is enough the result is 5% or less likely a random result.

With the 3AFC method you are usually given the same thing twice. As said before the 2AFC methods were used due to the interest in an easier statistical analysis, but as modern theory has shown the method with a "tie" (means providing the answer "no difference/preference") offer additional insight while ommitting some of the drawbacks of the 2AFC choice.
It is a bit unfortunate to use percentage numbers as it always depends on the number of trials done.
Everything else equal one needs fewer trials for the same significance level if the probability to answer correctly by chance is only 1/3 instead of 1/2 .
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Well it would seem likely the number of trials before signal detection is confirmed with an ABX or similar test would conform with where on the signal detection curve the difference falls.

If you detect something as different 20 out of 20 consistently, the difference is pretty large. If you detect it 15 out of 20, it would be a smaller difference though still meet a 5% level it is chance. If the difference becomes so small it is detected 60 of 100 regularly then the difference maybe real, but very far down the curve.

Just doing Foobar ABX personally I have run into instances like I described happens with 2AFC testing when near the margin. Where I didn't believe I was hearing a difference, yet the results indicated my results were less than 5% chance of being random. If I can manage 15 or more of 20, I usually consciously perceive a difference. When it takes 30 trials or 20 twice to get over the threshold of a 5% chance of random results, then I might be hearing something, but it is so small a detection I consciously believe they are sounding the same.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
If someone does a listening test comparing the hypothetical Widget 100 Black to a similar item in your system showing an improvement using a method that convinces you, and the price of the Widget is acceptable to you, then you might compare it yourself and buy it if you think it's worth it. Voila, improvement.
What's the point of doing scientific listening tests if people then have to do their own non-scientific listening tests to decide? If I am convinced by the method, shouldn't I just accept the results? - it is science after all. Isn't that like Amir doing measurements of DACs but recommending that we all do our own measurements before purchase just to be on the safe side?
But wait, aren't you a listening test sceptic? That's fine, but if you can describe what method of listening test would convince you, QED. If there is no such thing as convincing you, isn't your question disingenuous?
I could be wrong! For me the motivation behind the experiments is more important than the low level details - but most people prefer talking about the low level details. My suspicion is that people are more in love with the methodology and the lovely statistics than having any expectation that it will ever generate anything useful. It may generate lots of lovely tables and histograms that can be published and read by other people interested in the methodology, but that's not the same as something that's useful!

Thirty years later, is CD transparent? "Ah well, that depends what you mean by transparent...". OK, is CD audibly the same as high res? "Ah well, you see, it depends on what you mean by audibly the same...". OK, is high res worth it? "Ah well, some meta-analysis suggests that under some circumstances then there may be evidence that it could sound different. More testing is needed...". Etc.!:)
 

SoundAndMotion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
144
Likes
111
Location
Germany
LOL. I see your frustration. I doubt I can help, but I want to try...
What's the point of doing scientific listening tests if people then have to do their own non-scientific listening tests to decide? If I am convinced by the method, shouldn't I just accept the results? - it is science after all. Isn't that like Amir doing measurements of DACs but recommending that we all do our own measurements before purchase just to be on the safe side?
Think in terms of convincing vs. not convincing, not scientific vs. non-scientific. You define the former for yourself, and no one can say you are wrong... although they may try to help with info. The latter has no universally accepted definition. The reason you would repeat it for yourself is inter-subject variability and individual value judgements. If someone convinces you that a difference is audible, can you hear it? If you can definitely hear it, is it worth the money? Listening yourself is of course optional... it's your money.
I could be wrong! For me the motivation behind the experiments is more important than the low level details - but most people prefer talking about the low level details. My suspicion is that people are more in love with the methodology and the lovely statistics than having any expectation that it will ever generate anything useful. It may generate lots of lovely tables and histograms that can be published and read by other people interested in the methodology, but that's not the same as something that's useful!
I completely agree that the motivation is also important. It really should be stated (and usually is in a peer-reviewed article). But the low level details relate to the convincingness. The reason so many discuss the details is, I suspect, not so much a love of details, but rather people trying to say either "You should be convinced about what I say" (because of these details) or "I am not convinced" (because of these details). If I say 7 heads out of 10 coin tosses does not convince me the coin is rigged, but 700 heads out of 1000 tosses, and I'll cry foul. Many may complain I'm not making sense. I can only clarify using low level details.
Usefulness can be a very personal determination. I often debate the issue of basic science vs. applied science. Most who only support applied science don't realize or don't care that most of the knowledge upon which the applied work rests came from basic science. Basic science = science just to figure out how and why, not with a particular use in mind. There are exceptions, but...
Thirty years later, is CD transparent? "Ah well, that depends what you mean by transparent...". OK, is CD audibly the same as high res? "Ah well, you see, it depends on what you mean by audibly the same...". OK, is high res worth it? "Ah well, some meta-analysis suggests that under some circumstances then there may be evidence that it could sound different. More testing is needed...". Etc.!:)
I follow everything and take your points well, except "is high res worth it?" This is again: inter-subject variability and individual value judgements. If you are not convinced, save your money!
 
Top Bottom