opaqueice;331742 Wrote: > That would make sense *except that it's not true*! How many times do I > have to tell you that I ABXed 320 MP3s (and so have others, there's > nothing special about me)? And I hope you realize that a positive ABX > result means that the odds the results were chance are very small - > which is more or less the definition of "reliable"?
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough so I'll try to rephrase things. I think that ABX tests are flawed because the tests are doing exactly what you say they are doing: a) they do not reveal the differences in some comparisons, e.g. between high bit rate lossy files and lossless files and b) they do reveal the the differences in other comparisons, e.g. between low bit rate lossy files and lossless files. So what we are really talking about is just how a large the difference between the two things being compared has to be before ABX testing can reliably reveal those differences. Is this correct because I want everyone to be on the same page. So here's my point, real differences exist between high bit rate lossy files and lossless files, differences that times can be audible and yet ABX testing cannot reveal that is a difference between the two files. To which I say, you guys should get yourselves a new test cause the one you're using just doesn't cut it in the real world. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
