Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 6:51:14 GMT
Frans As the majority of things are already being investigated by Martin Colloms, and the original reports came from me, I do NOT need or want another investigation from someone of lesser qualifications. You have already shown in this thread and many other threads, that you don't accept anything that John Kenny or myself, or even the jPlay poster from Argentina has to say on this subject. I have been posting on these subjects for close to 4 years now, and you only show a desire to co-operate when the results are almost due for publication. Julf from C.A. has already joined HiFi Critic forum after he received complete background material from me in confidence , and then attempted to have the investigation re-started 4 months in to the investigation ,according to his rules.His demands in HFC appear to have been ignored . I am not prepared to have around 4 years of investigating this area jeopardised at this late stage. The present investigation in jPlay is independent. If you are genuinely interested in getting to the truth, perhaps you could join jPlay forum as a member and offer your assistance there ? Be aware though, that one of the jPlay co-developers has already verified my claims to his satisfaction on several different occasions ,spread over a period of quite a few months. In fact, he suggested trying Fidelizer some time back , and there was a positive report from him after I tried using it. Further testing using Fidelizer was not continued at that time, as the most recent version at the time caused problems with dual core processors. Fidelizer 2.1 is supposed to overcome those earlier problems. Alex
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 8:25:21 GMT
Frans, why would a test organised by you have any more signifance or validity than what is being done already? You still didn't answer how you can possibly say this & expect to be taken seriously:?
You see you can't fix a positive result (as it requires identification of the better track & this has been done many times on numerous occasions with different files between Alex, me & others) but you can fix a negative one i.e just reply "no difference" & get enough people to do the same = test invalidated. Based on the sort of listening that you have admitted to in the past, I wouldn't trust your listening results or your genuine desire to do another test of any value
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 8:33:51 GMT
In essence the people taking this test (only those that succeeded in correctly identifying the J-Play test files as well as yourself) are thus of lesser qualifications. You and John will be involved in the test and the results but only cannot know which files are which. My proposal is only intended as a second 'independent' verification of the same test (this is quite usual in any scientific testing) I am sure you are not intersted in that nor J Kenny as it has been proven already many times by far more qualified people. Let's add another condition that will make it more attractive and all your years of research will NOT be at risk. The results will NOT be published if the test results show the claimed is not possible. They will ONLY be published if the claimed is verified by this 'inedpendent' test. I will publically apologise and never question subjectivity again. Surely you and J Kenny cannot pass on such an easy to pass test. Afterall you have pulled it off so many times and I will grovel publically. That alone should be worth it ! Afterall the scientists that claimed something could indeed go faster than the speed of light collectively were also fooled by their own testing method and independent tests were going to be done. Surely the significance of YOUR findings warrant such a test as you are already testing for 4 years, what's another test that will ONLY be published IF the results come back positive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 9:04:38 GMT
Frans I have no interest in co-operating with you in this area at this stage. If you are genuinely interested in finding out what is happening AFTER the results of the HFC investigation are published, I will reconsider my position then. I have complete confidence in Martin Colloms ability to resolve this issue, even though it may need much further investigation to find the reasons why. To that end, I haven't even become a HFC member, and simply provided M.C. with suitable comparison .wav files and let him get on with the investigation without joining in discussions. Alex P.S. This post that you made yesterday has further convinced me that co-operating with you would be a waste of my time. Any reasonable person who had been following this thread could be excused for doubting it's sincerity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 9:24:04 GMT
So in essence all the talk about 2 sides needing to co-operate and taking my (and those of like-minded people) doubts away, which seems very easy to do as the differences are substantial, and only involves identifying the correct files you are already familiar with is really too much to ask.
When you have passed this test you will never be bothered and even believed my 'skeptics'.
Only because I am not 'qualified' or noted and not trusted to be completely honest about the findings you yourself can check as well as debate over the results and you get to decide whether it is posted or not.
a GREAT opportunity to prove to skeptics what you claim can easily do with the same files..
Too bad the willingness to prove the ears are better than reason strands on this. If my ears weren't broken and my bias wouldn't pervent me I would have taken the test myself. Alas I cannot hear the claimed so can only rely on tests controlled by myself with the ears of the better hearing people.
Nobody at home willing to participate.. Really no one ? Not even those that can hear and have nothing to fear/loose ?
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 9:36:02 GMT
Frans, why don't you say what problem you have with the test that is in progress on JPlay? You are hiding behind feigned collaboration which is very transparent.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 10:54:33 GMT
I see - your silence speaks volumes & puts your pretence of collaboration into perspective.
There is a perfectly good test in progress which you want to undermine in any way you can. You have made absurd & laughable statements about it & when challenged twice to justify these statements have remained silent. When again asked to state what you find wrong with the current test you remain silent.
I'm afraid your motivations are transparent & plain to see for all.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyBlue on Mar 6, 2012 14:17:38 GMT
Hi Johnnyblue yup me too but lets look on the bright side how much worse can it get take care I'll let you know after tonight's game at St Andrews. PS I notice my attempts to head it* off at the pass have failed miserably... EDIT: (* Meaning this thread with its oft-repeated arguments, which can be found in different forms in hi-fi fora the world over, and is now getting unnecessarily personal.)
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Mar 6, 2012 14:44:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 15:36:01 GMT
Hi Johnnyblue yup me too but lets look on the bright side how much worse can it get take care I'll let you know after tonight's game at St Andrews. PS I notice my attempts to head it* off at the pass have failed miserably... EDIT: (* Meaning this thread with its oft-repeated arguments, which can be found in different forms in hi-fi fora the world over, and is now getting unnecessarily personal.) yup it's not looking good but (showing my age) i remember going to the bridge to see the blues pay Orient in the old 2nd division. we've come a long way baby. good point with the MU supporters living anywhere but Manchester though.CARPET BAGGERS. me I'm Fulham born myself and just a short walk from the bridge at that. i used to go to matches (oh those cheap days) with my dad and grandad. OH those chopper Harris tackles still make me wince (er grin). blue through and through. I've a hunch we may spank them tonight. take care OK back on message i do hear some differences between the rips I've had from Alex but others may not. fair play to Xerxes for disagreeing in the right way (after finding out for himself) A sample of two ;D ;D ;D well i thought that was some kind of back handed joke when i read it. not very scientific is it. seems to me like the experiments that we have conducted here and have gone on elsewhere have a much larger range of listeners.(sample size) at the end if the day we should be encouraging people to do like Xerxes has and find out for themselves. but lets be clear. what people hear or don't hear can not be proved or disproved by measurement alone. people are much more complex than that. does it not make people wonder why such large numbers report that they can hear differences between rips? if i where a scientist it would make me think a little. oh but it's just a religion. pretty convenient argument as it avoids answering the above question.(not to mention a little insulting) had the same old argument re cables way back when. take care
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 15:39:33 GMT
I did not react because I had to solve work related problems in the field. So... you MIGHT have drawn the wrong conclusion about my motives.
The reason I never answerred your questions (that seem so valid to you) is because you already answerred those yourself in the J-Play thread.
Designing fail safe electronics for a living I can test whatever I want and prove it works safe, but in the end I will always have to have my tests redone/repeated/verified by an independant notified body to get approval.
Of course I am not 'qualified' enough to do a control test, only 'noted' subjectivists may do the 'verifying' which is beyond all doubt already.
Those that actually KNOW me (not think they know me based on assumptions about me) can testify I take audio and its myths EXTREMELY serious and research it till it bleeds. I have never ... ever undermined any serious test nor rigged any test. I think your false accusations based on your personal bias about me might be less warranted than you feel they are.
(See JohhnyBlue's his remark ?) What better way than to run 2 similar tests controled by different people and slightly different ways where the same test subjects (files) and testers (ears and gears) are involved can there be ? You claim to be a man which values statistics yet doing a slightly different test to increase statistic accuracy is too much to ask ? Strange I always find it very re-assuring if my findings are verified by 'independant' researchers.
This (oft repeated) arguement can easily be resolved if ONLY the hearing people would accept a slightly different designed test.
Since my ears are 'broken' and no test deviced yet that can show differences as to WHY it sounds different to some people exist only the people with the gears and ears showing these differences can advance this research. But to get co-operation of computer and technically minded people you have to deliver some 'proof' of existence other than tests done solely by 'believers'.
It's a pity you don't see that and can provide undeniable proof to the technical and rational computer based members of this great and friendly forum. Unite them... make these (always computer audio based) 'discussions' end once and for all, knowing you were right all along and make those pesky tech people eat their hats.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 15:40:59 GMT
OK, I withdraw any personal accusations I made about your motivations, Frans but would still like to know what problems you have with the test being run on Jplay?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 15:49:08 GMT
Our computers may be too good and not show differences or our hearing may not be as good as those that DO hear it. Their DAC's may not be good enough (unlikely in Kenny's case) or infinitely better than the ones we use. I have done similar tests and my broken ears also cannot hear it. To overcome this problem it might be best to exclude these factors (not believing individuals and broken hearing) and instead use their ears and gears. Afterall the ones that cear it actually DO hear it and because of this don't need to prove anything to non believers. If they did that the discussion might end in 2 ways. Either we are baffled they can really hear it and make us feel akward, or the claimed differences cannot be discerned when the test is conroled by a third party. In either case clarity about this divisive issue will be there. Unfortunately ONLY those that CAN end this discussion do NOT want to ... J'Play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 16:01:00 GMT
OK, I withdraw any personal accusations I made about your motivations, Frans but would still like to know what problems you have with the test being run on Jplay? Thanks John, A polite question I will answer. My personal fear is that the test is done by subjectivists (at least those in the thread using J-Play appear to be) are bound to be conducted in a semi scientific way. Of course you are very right in stating I have no idea HOW the test is done and what the qualifications/competences of the testers are, nor what the outcome will be. Judging from the 'evidence' that exists and how this is 'validated' doesn't inspire much confidence in tests done subjectivists in the eyes of technical or computer minded people. Therefore I already stated I wanted to repeat the test that is ungoing but ONLY with people that have the EARS and the GEARS after the test has been done. This way the 'NOT hearing' ears will be removed from the test ground and only those with 'the power' can do additional testing where scientific based people can do something with. Technical people would like to see a 'technically correct' performed test (which yours may well be but won't know for sure) so a second control test performed BY others on the same files is warranted and needed to get the technical and computer minded people to chip in. Alex's reasoning secondary tests are already performed by 'noted' M.C. (who is a known subjectivist) might seem a valid reason BUT to spread this (to You and Alex) IMPORTANT research over a wider test play ground and being able to use YOUR ears and gears again is NEEDED to involve those you find are not worthy convincing. My intentions are ALWAYS sincere and like to investigate. but NOT based on subjective findings alone. Of course there is always a chance the test subjects are not able to correctly identify the correct files. Certainly not when also objectivists or people enter that cannot hear it and polute the test. hence my remarks about number and type of people that take the test.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyBlue on Mar 6, 2012 16:32:33 GMT
I'll let you know after tonight's game at St Andrews. PS I notice my attempts to head it* off at the pass have failed miserably... EDIT: (* Meaning this thread with its oft-repeated arguments, which can be found in different forms in hi-fi fora the world over, and is now getting unnecessarily personal.) yup it's not looking good but (showing my age) i remember going to the bridge to see the blues pay Orient in the old 2nd division. we've come a long way baby. good point with the MU supporters living anywhere but Manchester though.CARPET BAGGERS. me I'm Fulham born myself and just a short walk from the bridge at that. i used to go to matches (oh those cheap days) with my dad and grandad. OH those chopper Harris tackles still make me wince (er grin). blue through and through. I've a hunch we may spank them tonight. take care Shaun: I'll meet your recollections and raise them by ten years: when Jimmy Greaves played for us, and Fulham were the enemy, and they had Johnny Haynes! (And I, too, was a local lad, grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, behind the East Stand, used to be able to see one end of the pitch from my Mum and Dad's bedroom window -- before they built the wrap-around!) I think we might also be up for it tonight, but the other side of the coin is that this would confirm the players undermined AVB by not playing properly... Everybody else: Sorry to pollute this thread with football chat, but I'm pleased to read that a note of reconciliation on the thread topic has been reached. Well done, gentlemen!
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 16:59:23 GMT
But Frans, here's where I fail to understand you - how can "subjectivists" skew a test which has an objective measure in it. As you seem not to have read the Jplay thread or informed yourself of the mechanics of the test (I thought you might before making criticisms), I will explain it here. The same song was ripped using two differnt methods. Both files & a "ghost" file were uploaded. The ghost is one of the other two files. This is all blind to us!
The responders are as asked to say if they heard a difference & which file they prefer. They are also being asked to identify which file the ghost is idnetical to? I would actually have preferred 3 unidentified files & the responders to pick their preference & which/if any sound the same.
Now if there is a staistically significant result, I don't see how the bias or "audio religion" of the participants can possibly influence the outcome. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Can you now see why I thought your statement indefensible & so off the scientific principles that it was hilarious. I also can't see why your call for another test is in any way of benefit?
If all this is a misunderstanding because you failed to read what the test set-up was then I was wrong in my assumption that you would have read it before criticising it.
PS, If you can say what a "techically correct" test is then we could begin to see what is the problem that you see with the existing tests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 19:16:15 GMT
The more technically correct test is the one I proposed.
I DID read the thread and as to WHY it was started.
Since you obviously know a thing or two about statistics you should be able to understand WHY my proposed test is technically more significant. I don't think I have to explain it as you are not an idiot.
With the test-group left over from 'elimination round' in your test (only those that can hear are left) a following test should be done with another sample size. Also for very obvious reasons you are well aware of.
I am sure for you and like minded people the current test done is all the evidence you will ever need. For me (and others) it means testing can only NOW begin and after those tests lots of other things will have to be tested and tried to get to the bottom. Of course if you, like Alex, feel there are much more capable guys (M.C.) which certainly will come up with similar findings and theories that's your decision and your every right. M.C. (however 'noted' he is) his findings will not be able to convince anyone with a technical background to even consider it given his work.
Also me wanting to eliminate participants in the following test that may influence results more towards one side of the 50% (100% guess) mark should obvious.
IF you are interested in aid from computer experts (like Lark, Javier, Elysion, Pagan and others who you possibly consider NOT to be experts at all) and people who are into the analog domain combined with your digital experience, you (meaning more than one 'hearing' folks not only you) are going to have to show in a test, controlled by the very same people, they are NOT going to waste valuable time showing, without room for much doubt, there are indeed certain audible differences that need to be explained. To investigate where these MAY originate from people like those mentioned above (in this forum) may be essential.
In the event the proposed test shows considerable doubt about the audibility of the claimed (remember it consists of your files, your gear, your ears, in your time and I will even allow the test group to discuss their findings BEFORE posting to reach consensus) It is very understandable they are not going to waste time on things that have not been shown to exist without much doubt.
Enough said as both our views have been shared.
Let's wait till the J-Play threads are done and IF you feel it is warranted to do more research you are welcome to do this. To get co-operation from people that may possibly be able to get to the bottom of it you will have to play by other rules.
rules that can be set in co-operation.
I am perfectly willing to openly admit I was wrong and aid in finding out where I went wrong. Are you ?
|
|
|
Post by gommer on Mar 6, 2012 19:21:17 GMT
I'm a technical guy, as you know. I'm not a believer and i haven't heard the differences in Alex's files with my own ears. Yet, I'm not rejecting his claims, not even rejecting the thought of this claims being possible. More, i hope to finish a more revealing system and i'll start listening again when i do.
Why? Because there are so many things in life that exist, yet don't have a scientific explanation for them yet. One good example is the human brain. It's behavior has been described many times, yet no one truly understands how it works. Quantum physics, no need to say more.
Second important thing: trust. And this is a domain where both camps fail. You have lost trust in each other (there's still respect, luckily). Therefore, any proposal from either side is rejected and/or waived in mistrust, suspect of evil plots.
You're all good men, please stop quibbling, and throwing rotten tomatoes, soon you'll all feel hurt and that's not worth it.
Cheers, Marc
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 19:55:38 GMT
The more technically correct test is the one I proposed. Why? You have not said what is technically wrong with the Jplay test - in fact you suggest that your test will be a selected group of believers & "wanna be belieers" with a particular "audio religion" - is this not the very group you decried in your headline statement asresulting in the test being "already fixed"? How will it not now be fixed in your test?
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Mar 6, 2012 19:58:39 GMT
I probably wasn't very clear.
I can understand the PSU arguments entirely with playback. In fact I believe next doors TV may affect playback more than I think !!. Play music late at night etc.
I struggle though with the fact that digital is a series of 1 & 0s. That its definition.
Get a wave file and print out the 1 & 0s. Then write them on a piece of paper with a pen. To help you could use Hex. Then read the handwriten copy and put them back in a file and the files must be the same. Thats digital. . . and . . . .
When the BBC micro was around you could 'poke' the hex keys. It was very easy to play with the 1s & 0s to create identical files on a disk. They were identical with the only difference being their location on the disk. In fact you could put the same file in the same location on separate disks but then some disks were better than others . . . .
So if you then play the files back and they sound different then to me its down to other factors - maybe their location on the hard drive, the load on the PC, the quality of the CD they were burnt onto etc. All the things that make jitter or whatever.
In summary if the files aren't exactly the same then they're not digital. Thats my reasoning.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 20:06:40 GMT
Frans, again you talk about statistics & yet ignore it's significance - if there is a statistically significant result from the JPLAY test that signifies there is more than guess work at play, what is your objection? Is this not sufficient for you? All experiments of this nature require statistical analysis for it to be valid. For you to reject it as "fixed" is so off the scale that it's ludicrous & I can't believe you are sincere about your intentions. If you can answer why the results are being pre-rejected by you as "fixed" then maybe we can find some common ground?
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 20:18:38 GMT
Freddy, what you say is correct in the world of digital data processing - of course 1s & 0s have to remain as 1s & 0s or computers would be useless. But there is nothing magical about 1s & 0s, it's just an agreed thershold where a signal level is interpreted as a 1 or a 0 - this is analogue electronics i.e the 0 is represented as a waveform that travels down a cable (or across networks or airwaves) - can this waveform be distorted, yes. It has to be very distorted for it to cause a misinterpreted bit or biterror (BER). The distortion can come from all sorts of places & like any analogue signal it is sensitive to these disturbances. Now if the distortion is not enough to cause a BER, can this effect the D/A stage - absolutely!
So what is being tested when we check a file is bit perfect? We are testing that the bits in both files are the same - this is all that is necessary for data processing. Are the signal levels that represent each bit in the two files exactly the same - we don't know because nobody has measured this, AFAIK. Could this be part of the answer, I don't know but it seems a feasible scenario - just as feasible as PS fluctuations/cable reflections/ground bounce/etc. can cause jitter & effect the sound.
How could a different signal level in one file that represents a bit cause a different sound? Well if the digital receiver had to work harder to interpret this bit = extra current draw = PS fluctuation = effects on the clock = jitter at the D/A. Now some people will retort that the problem is not using an "adequately designed" digital receiver but we are not dealing with theoretical ideas of "adequately designed" we are dealing with "real world" devices/components which don't behave as they do on a SPDICE simulation, for instance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 20:29:24 GMT
Frans I have no intention of co-operating with you in any further tests before the HFC report is published.I don't need your blessing , and I feel insulted by you saying if your results are negative you will not tell anyone.The results from a single test organised by you, if negative or inconclusive will prove nothing, other than the methodology had flaws. You keep ignoring the fact that there have also been numerous confirmation reports from many RG members as well, over a lengthy period of time.Every time that I UL comparison .wav files and people select the same track as being the better one, and cite quite similar differences, they are also checking my hearing. Every time somebody in RG completes one of my posted projects they are testing my hearing, just as Mike tested my hearing when he evaluated the modified SC HA with a then fairly unknown JLH "Ripple Eater" that was sent to him in Scotland. Are you frightened that positive findings by Martin will open the floodgates, and also show that the people who reported hearing differences here, were also more than likely correct with the many other subjective reports that they have made in other areas including headphone cables,various types of resistors and capacitors etc. ? Alex
P.S. I have noted Marc's comments, but I also feel that at least in the last few days, I have been quite moderate in my replies. Incidentally, I did a further series of tests with Marcin from jPlay as recently as 29th of February. I can't post the results here, but I will provide them privately if requested.That is yet another instance of my hearing being tested. In this case by the co-designer of a sophisticated Windows software music player.
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Mar 6, 2012 21:09:51 GMT
John.
I thinks thats the point - The 1s & 0s must be the same in the files but its the playback that matters. I agree also that there is so much at play with the playback that little bits (no joke intended but maybe the right choice of word) make a difference.
Colin Yallop of Chevron has just upgrade the PSU on the clock on the USB input of my DAC. What a difference. The thing is if PSU make a such a difference then the mains, other kit etc - as you say - must have a bearing.
I don't think you could do a 'good 'A/B test simply because somthing would change.
I'll tell you something else. Play the same track off the same CD on the same player etc and it sounds much better after a glass of wine !!.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 21:21:19 GMT
John. I thinks thats the point - The 1s & 0s must be the same in the files but its the playback that matters. yes, but what I'm saying is that variations in the way the 1s & 0s are recorded, which won't effect them being verified as bit-identical, could effect the playback & hence sound different? I understood your post to mean that the 1s & 0s were sacrosanct & immutable & therefore could not be the cause of the sound being different between two files. I gave a possible scenario how this does not hold up PS, Actually, freddy, I just re-read your post & your definition of digital is different from the accepted norm i.e the computer science definition - so they are only bit-identical, not exactly identical at the electrical level, AFAIK
|
|