ezkcdude;184554 Wrote: > Answering these questions is the whole point of doing this kind of test. > I never understand why people are so quick to criticize a new idea (new > to most of us, anyway), without actually having tried it themselves. > Why not just say, "Interesting idea. Maybe that could be useful," > instead of immediately reacting so negatively, "Nope. Not gonna work." I suspect this may be aimed at me, among others. I never tried to suggest that difference testing "doesn't work". Rather, my point is that perhaps it might work *too well* to be relevant to the issue at hand, viz. listening to music on an audio system. I'm sure it could be a good diagnostic tool for hardware designers.
ezkcdude;184554 Wrote: > A/B/X *does* have at least two known problems: 1) It's difficult to > perform and 2) It may not be useful for detecting "subtle" differences, > which are masked by listening to the actual signal. Difference testing > tries to address both these issues. It may not replace A/B/X, but it > certainly couldn't do anything less than complement it. Am I wrong? I must take issue with your "problem number 2". The whole point of ABX testing with real music signals is that it avoids ascribing importance to differences that are too subtle to be audible. It's the one measurement technique that tells us *directly* whether two systems will sound different in actual use. In that respect, this is not a problem, but a benefit. -- 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
