opaqueice;184279 Wrote: > If we assume that differences are more audible in isolation than with > other sounds are present, this technique is sufficient (but not > necessary) to demonstrate that some particular difference is inaudible. > That ssumption might be flawed in special circumstances - see section > 1.1 of the article you linked to - but it's certainly correct for most > signals. > > So this could be a quite useful technique, as it's easier than ABX and > if it gives a positive result one could follow it up with a proper ABX. Fair point. Doing this (simpler) test and getting a negative result saves the bother of a proper ABX. But my gut feeling is that a genuinely silent result is likely to be the exception rather than the norm (not that I have any evidence to back this up).
I am concerned that a "minimally positive" result might be seized upon by the ABX-unbelievers as evidence that ABX is flawed. You know how they will clutch at any straw. -- cliveb Performers -> dozens of mixers and effects -> clipped/hypercompressed mastering -> you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33127 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
