I'm gonna split up in multiple posts a bit because it's just to diverse to include it all into 1 post;
opaqueice;352132 Wrote: > Evidence for "mostly"? I've done quite a few blind tests, and some were > done with quick switches, some with long. Same goes with the ones I've > read about - in fact I think you're wrong and most blind tests these > days are done with long samples, just to address this complaint. Well, I just spent another 30 minutes searching the net for long samples and I didn't find a single one! So I stick with my statement. Here is what I find: http://www.soundexpert.info/ samples about 15s each --- http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64991 samples should be 8-15s --- http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4601 index of generally used test samples --- http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php LAME samples vary between 3 and 30s --- http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/sqam/ mit.edu recommended samples from SQAM disc: between 21 and 37s --- http://ff123.net/samples.html 5-30s samples My conclusion: in audio ABX testing, short 5-30s samples are used. The reason is that they follow the CCIR recommendations from 1978. I do believe that you use longer samples but I am referring to large scale testing incl. the Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 tests. Let me quote those citations again because you skipped that section: "The CCIR (1978), and the current International Telecommunication Union-Radio communication sector (ITU-R 1997), have recommended that sound samples used for the comparison of sound quality should not last longer than 15-20 s (CCIR 1978; ITU-R 1997), and that intervals between sound samples should be about 0.5-1 s (CCIR 1978) because of short-term human memory limitations" I hope this is enough evidence for "mostly" ? > Nope. According to the paper (at least as far as I can see from what > they wrote), several very similar experiments were done in the past, > and the results disagree with theirs. I gave the references above. > That's why they bother to try to justify the difference. I can't agree. When I read the paper, it says that Muraoka et al. 1978; Plenge et al. 1979 did NOT use EEG & PET but solely questionnaires. It says so literally. Also, they state that their findings are in agreement with Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al, --not-- disagreement. Quote: "We also examined the psychological evaluation using the same material and sound presentation system as was used for the present study, but followed the presentation method recommended by the CCIR, and confirmed that the results were in agreement with the studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al. (1979)." > This has nothing to do with language. Think about it - you're making > -precisely- the same assumption about the gear which this paper is > claiming was wrong for human hearing - that not being affected by the > HF signal alone means it will not have an effect when combined with LF. I am really sorry that I don't understand you and I also don't understand what you write in the quote above. As my IQ is well above 130 I assure you that it must be either my limited comprehension of the English language or your limited clarity in these statements. I know you're talking about the gear used and assume you mean the EEG and PET equipment so why don't you specify that? You also seam to state that the EEG & PET gear is not suitable for this test because it is interfered by the music that is played? These are assumptions I make because I don't understand you, but when you indeed state this, you should explain how that figures because I know of no such flaws with this equipment. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
