DeVerm;352167 Wrote: > > 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: > <snip> > My conclusion: in audio ABX testing, short 5-30s samples are used.
You regard an internet search for copyright-constrained ABX samples as evidence that "most" ABX testing uses short samples, and from there conclude that the ABX protocol is invalid? Don't be silly. It is true that there is evidence that some differences are easier to hear when switches take place relatively quickly. In fact I can confirm that this is true based on my own experience - it's much easier to hear the differences between high and medium rate MP3s, for example, if you first find a passage where you hear it, and then focus in on that passage a switch back and forth relatively rapidly. However I have no reason to think -all- differences are easier to hear that way, and often when audiophiles to ABX testing it's in fact impossible to switch rapidly (if you're comparing two sets of cables, for example), so I would say it's probably that most such tests are -not- done that way. > I hope this is enough evidence for "mostly" ? Of -course- it's not! Those are two tests out of thousands - and you're trying to conclude something about MOST abx tests? > 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)." PART of their results agree (the part that show that the HFS alone are inaudible), and PART disagree. > 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. I'll try one more time. Everyone seems to agree that HFS alone are inaudible based on PET brain scans etc. But these guys find that HFS+LFS is different from just LFS. So there is something very bizarre and non-linear going on if they are right. My point was that we have no way of knowing whether that bizarre non-linear thing is in their equipment or in people's heads. To summarize: we know that neither brains nor gear respond to HFS alone, but that brains+gear respond to HFS+LFS differently than to LFS alone. But we don't - and can't - know whether that difference is due to brains or due to gear. The fact that gear doesn't respond to HFS alone is irrelevant, because neither do brains! -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 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
