The 16/44 original and A/D/D/A files (10 times through the loop!) are to be found here:
http://www.audiosmile.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30374
The thread on Pinkfish is here
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=140933
(spoiler alert though- the “correct” answers are on that thread I think). In any event the correct results are, for me not really the issue. Just play the files and ask yourself -are they really any different? Is one obviously better? How can this be? Now consider how different you think two different digital filters/firmware revisions/mains cables etc etc sound.
adam75 said: As a matter of interest one contributor on Pinkfish posted some comparison files one orginal and one passed through Multiple A/D/D/A conversions. Can't now remember whether the original was 16/44 or hirez/ In any event the files were distributed to anyone who wanted them and , guess what -when the votes were collated the preferences were randomly distributed. Everyone got to download and play on their own system in their own time.
This is exactly what I proposed ;) And in this case a blind test can be done alone without "the switcher". Not sure there is a reason in this particular test, but the method is the way to go.
adam75 said: I have seen similar results on forums for 16/44 vs 320 kbps mp3, 24/96 versus 16/44 and minimum phase versus maximum phase
Yep, this is more interesting.
Alekz said: I can question any parts of the tests (methodology, equipment, etc.).
You have tried, but failed in each attempt. The thread is replete with many examples. The equipment is superb; the listeners, experienced; the sources excellent. There is nothing wrong with the tests, other than the results upset you. "Is not!" is not a valid, reasoned argument.
Alekz said: So far the test results contradict my experience
Yes, and the experience of many others - including the subjects. They all believed they could hear a difference - but they could not.
Tellingly, they could hear the difference using the test equipment when they knew what they were listening to. They verified the sufficiency of the equipment; it reveals the difference. Yet, once they had no idea what they were listening to, they could no longer hear the difference. I think we all know why. :)
This is precisely why these tests have value. We learn our ears are not the accurate tools we thought. We also learn the differences we hear when sighted simply do not exist.
Why is this so threatening? Our senses are remarkably unreliable.
Automobile enthusiasts routinely make modifications they are convinced make more power because their senses tell them so. When tested, the car makes no more power, and sometimes even less.
Why should audiophile hearing be any different?
It is simply the fallibility of being human. Fortunately we have the intelligence to create methods that can reveal what is real and what is not.
adam75 said: Taken as a whole the evidence from controlled tests I have seen seems to go one way.
There are many such tests and they do all go one way - audiophiles simply do not hear the differences they claim to hear.
adam75 said: Taking part in any sort of blind test, be it A/B ABX or whatever is a humbling experience.
Extremely. We learn we cannot trust our senses to the extent we thought we could.
Another fascinating experience is spatial disorientation training. One can truly experience that you are flying and making a turn to the right while descending, when you are actually in a gentle climb going straight. You learn to trust your instruments and to ignore what your senses are telling you.
adam75 said: Sadly people are mistaken as to the extent to which their preferences come from something other than the sound. That's just the way it works.
Yes, we "hear" many things that have nothing to do with the actual sound being produced by the equipment. An amusing hobby, this.
Alekz said: This is exactly what I proposed ;) And in this case a blind test can be done alone without "the switcher".
Yes, but as I have already explained this is an entirely different test. It is perfectly valid to do however. In fact, it has been done many times. The results are the same - no discernible differences can be reliably identified by the subjects. >:)
Elk said: other than the results upset you
Alekz said: I can not like or dislike the results. This is what they got using a right or wrong methodology, etc.
Elk said: "Is not!" is not a valid, reasoned argument.Who said that and where?
Elk said: Fortunately we have the intelligence to create methods that can reveal what is real and what is not.
However not always the right instruments or not properly used instruments (Including our senses and our intelligence). Remember the tests that showed that particles can travel faster than light?
Elk said: Yes, but as I have already explained this is an entirely different test.
No, see the subject. This is what we are talking about and this is what can be tested by anybody at home using various equipment.
This is approaching the point of someone posting the classic
"Don’t feed the Troll".
I am just wondering when it is going to happen…
J.P.
think it just did ;))
Indeed.
Any value this thread may have had as long since been eclipsed.
I am going to close the thread so it does not deteriorate any further.