Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 22:33:07 GMT
My arguments are made. If you can't see the significance of it ... I can't help that. As said, I am awaiting the results of your test. What I am interested in is those people that score 100% in the blind test now running. Regardless of them being subjectivist or non-subjectivist. I have NO interest in those that fail the test. I fail the test myself and thus are automatically excluded from participating. The group that passes is what I would like to work WITH as these either hear it correctly OR had a statistical chance of getting it right. They are the only ones that have what it takes. I am sorry you and Alex do not get that and insist on me telling you where I think the test is flawed. I am interested in those that can hear and before I put time in this investigation I would like to see other evidence that will convince me (and other people that have great interest in the issue) and like to know if it is worth investigating. It seems we have to rely on M.C.'s findings as they will most certainly prove the differences are there so that validates it. Not very hard to predict what his findings will be. Simply look in his articles and you will know what the outcome will be. I for one (and think like minded people as well) will not do so on testimonies based on 'I suspect' or 'perhaps', assumptions on how one things it might work and how technical people do not seem to understand the underlying mechanisms that would cause this. Someone told me not so long ago. It's not going to happen ... is it ?I think not there is no willingness to investigate WITH those that do not believe. Too bad, You, Alex and those that are the ONLY ones that can prove it to the technical guys that are misguided, but won't help clear up this matter. Let it be said that at least I tried but alas.... a brick wall ...a very solid one built all around it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 22:55:39 GMT
Frans The matter will be cleared up by Martin Colloms investigation. If I am incorrect then his results will show that too. There will always be people like yourself who refuse to accept results unless THEY control the tests. A positive result from Martin Colloms is likely to spur further investigation by people far more qualified in this area than any RG member, and with access to the sophisticated test equipment needed.Positive results are also likely to demonstrate that previous modelling of human hearing is inadequate. Alex
It is also clear that you do not accept the statistical relevance of scores lower than 100 % , but perhaps in the range of 80% to >90%
|
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Mar 6, 2012 23:16:28 GMT
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 What are we talking about here? Do ripped music, beside "ordinary" ripped bits of music, store additional "ghost" pseudo data along? ...and do those parallel "ghost" data bits contain the ripping stress variations? ...and we can not detect those "ghost" bits in digital domain in any meaningful way, but they do become audible during playback of their "ordinary bits" music body file? ...and when we copy "ordinary" ripped music bits to another disc, to same disc, to portable media of any kind, or when we "send them out" over the net, those parallel "ghost" bits replicate and travel along with "original" ones? ...and what does happen to them when we compress or delete their "ordinary bits" music file body? ...are they "the soul" of our digital music information body? Things I read here make me think we are in Fuzzy logic audio territory... or perhaps we are testifying the discovery of pseudo "ghost" information as a final brick in the Information theory. But that's just my take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 23:33:46 GMT
For those who aren't bored shitless already, here are a few links in HiFi Critic Forum. Also, for those of you who do not know of Martin Colloms, attached is part of a much earlier resume. Alex www.hificritic.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=13049#13049 See : Martin Colloms Posted: Monday, 30 January 2012 3:13:48 PM www.hificritic.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=733&p=2 See : Martin Colloms Posted: Friday, 18 November 2011 10:36:42 AM www.hificritic.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=731 Initial thread. www.hificritic.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=897Appendix ; The original header and references for this paper presented at the Institute Of Acoustics, ‘Reproduced Sound 1991’ Conference : ‘SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE RESULTS OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE TECHNICAL REVIEWING PRACTICE IN HIGH FIDELITY’. M.COLLOMS Chartered Engineer, MIEE, MAES. Electroacoustic Consultant and Technical Reviewer, London. INTRODUCTION This paper covers some of the practical results obtained in the course of the evaluation of a wide spectrum of consumer high fidelity equipment for the publications Hi Fi For Pleasure, Hi Fi News, Hi Fi Choice and Stereophile. The change in reviewing practice in the UK over the last 20 years is outlined, with the emphasis moving from measurement based work, to assessments containing an increasingly subjective content. Where subjective judgments are involved, there is often a call for proof of assertions concerning sound quality. This is not easily obtained and in the case of consumer publications the budget is not available. Is there a solution? REFERENCES [l] MARTIN COLLOMS, some 2,500 technical reviews published by Practical Hi Fi, Hi Fi Answers, Audio [UK], Hi Fi For Pleasure, Hi Fi Choice, Hi Fi News, The Absolute Sound, Stereophile. [2] MARTIN COLLOMS, 'Working in the Front Line', Stereophile, pp.5-23, [January l99l] [3] R. HARLEY, 'The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality', AES Reprint, N.Y Convention, [l99l] [4] S.P.LIPSHITZ, 'The Great Debate - Some Reflections Ten Years Later', AES Conference, The Sound of Audio, [May l990.] [5] BOB STUART, 'Understanding Noise and Distortion - A New Approach', AES Lecture, London, [September 24th l99l]
|
|
elysion
Been here a while!
Team Anti M$ AND Facebook.
contra torrentem
Posts: 2,375
|
Post by elysion on Mar 6, 2012 23:35:16 GMT
|
|
xerxes
Been here a while!
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by xerxes on Mar 6, 2012 23:42:30 GMT
Fuzzy logic only works in a system, be it hardware, software or firmware designed to deal with it, a PC and DAC can't spontaneously start interpreting data in a "fuzzy" way.
And as for "ghost bits" if they can't be detected within the digital domain, how the hell is the DAC going to convert them into an analogue signal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 23:42:38 GMT
Thanks Miguel ... errr Christian. Yes , I am aware of that, but that kind of stuff is a steep learning curve for a 73 year old. Do you have a cheque in your hot little hand yet, or are they still stuffing you around ? Regards Alex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 23:48:35 GMT
Perhaps I drifted off here and missed something (possible at my age ) but where did talk of these ghost bits come from ? There was reference to a "ghost"file in jPlay forum, but it was simply an additional .wav file that was identical to one of the 2 existing .wav files. The idea was then to see if the listener heard not only differences between the other 2 files, but also which of the previous 2 files did the "ghost" file sound the same as. Alex
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 6, 2012 23:56:21 GMT
How digital is recorded can effect the way it sounds - CDR copies come to mind. Maybe bits are only sacrosanct in data processing? Maybe when we cross the digiital divide in D/A conversion we are in a very different world where the rules of digital no longer apply? The DAC is an analogue device - it is the coalface at which the digital to analogue conversion happens. Ever consider how the signal gets converted to analogue? Many inputs have a bearing on the sound digital input, clock, PS, ground, etc. Noise on any of these signals (yes, digital included) can effect the analogue output. Digital electronics represent signals by discrete bands of analog levels, rather than by a continuous range. All levels within a band represent the same signal state. Relatively small changes to the analog signal levels due to manufacturing tolerance, signal attenuation or parasitic noise do not leave the discrete envelope, and as a result are ignored by signal state sensing circuitry. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_electronics So fuzzy logic has nothing to do with it - if the signal is within an agreed range it is interpreted as a a particulr bit 1 or 0 - but when we cross to the D/A world does this still hold? Can variations in the signal level of a bit effect the analogue interpretation of that bit?
|
|
FauDrei
Been here a while!
Posts: 489
|
Post by FauDrei on Mar 7, 2012 0:31:46 GMT
xerxesYa, I know - there is no Fuzzy logic in audio and DAC chips do not have documented "ghost bits conversion" specifications (or capabilities that I know of). Those two comments of mine were meant to be more like if you know what I mean. jkenyYa, everything is possible. It all comes down to probabilities. For me - the probability of bit per bit identical digital data sounding repeatably deterministically different in same playback environment limits to zero. Again, for me - the differences HAS to be introduced by the differences in playback system state (objective) and/or by the changes in listener's perception state (subjective).
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 7, 2012 0:39:31 GMT
Faudrei, Yes that's your belief but it doen't mean it's reality. Neither is my scenario reality - I was careful to state it was just a thought experiment. However, the actual experiemnts have already been carried out before the Jplay one & I'm satisfied that you are wrong. we will await further results.
Your derisory comment is a bit more strident than what you have now just posted!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 0:56:21 GMT
Again, you are jumping to a conclusion. Why is it so urgent to do these supplementary tests BEFORE Martin Colloms publishes his report ? There is no valid reason why they can't be performed after the report. I have already indicated that I would be prepared to reconsider my position then. Your timing is highly suspect, as are your motives in trying to pre-empt the published findings with a report of your own.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 7, 2012 1:13:28 GMT
Alex, I've given up with Frans - he has consistently avoided answereing why he thinks the Jplay test is flawed & used the same tactic as he did the last time I challenged him on another thread " He seems practised at this avoidance tactic so I don't expect you will get any useful answers from him - I've given up on him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 6:24:29 GMT
Alex, I've given up with Frans - he has consistently avoided answereing why he thinks the Jplay test is flawed & used the same tactic as he did the last time I challenged him on another thread " He seems practised at this avoidance tactic so I don't expect you will get any useful answers from him - I've given up on him. I DID answer that question but you cannot see the relevance. What's strange to me is WHY you and Alex, that claim they can easily hear it, simply avoid any INDEPENDENT testing of YOUR abilities that is questioned by every scientific minded people. It would be SO easy to end all this by simply DOING what you claim you can easily do. Since you and Alex are right about your findings, and not only that, but it is BEYOND doubt already and only asks to be proven to the world. The world and its moron scientists, however, are not ready for that seems to be the convenient consensus. The only variable the scientific world wants to be shown to THEM is INDEPENDANT testing of the claimed. The claimed being your hearing abilities. NO subjectivist will EVER question that, hence you cannot see the relevance. This is why there is NO progression in audio as you claim. It's the scientists fault and those pesky guys who develop digital systems and, unlike you, seem to be oblivious about the REAL workings of it (but ONLY seems to apply to audio). IF you are so serious about finding out more about it you will have to see the need of an independent test. YOU are the only one that can END this and shed light on it.... but like Alex prefer to have 'real experts' (those that believe in similar things) will provide the answers and continuously doubt everyone (including respected and professional people on this forum). I would have liked to know if you can hear it without just taking your word for it. That, alas, is not the way the real world works... it is in yours though. Too bad... no progress or combined efforts because of the persistence NOT to join efforts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 7:12:30 GMT
Frans I am just not prepared, as I have stated several times previously, to participate in any further investigations BEFORE the release of Martin Colloms report. Any reasonable person would understand why, and accept my wishes in that regard.If you can't,then you can rule out any future co-operation between us in an effort to find out why. Alex
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyBlue on Mar 7, 2012 7:55:11 GMT
And here's a short interlude while posters get their breath back: I am more than happy to record for those interested (take a step forward Shaun) that normal service was resumed last night. One Happy Bunny. And now, back to the main event. Let battle (re-)commence...
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Mar 7, 2012 8:14:25 GMT
John.
Maybe thats where the confusion is. I do believe the 1s & 0s are fixed. That why they are digital (using the following definition - Expressed in discrete numerical form, especially for use by a computer or other electronic device: digital information.). In a file they must be discrete because we can brake them down into 1s & 0s. I acknowledge that writing the data may create an error but that is the purpose of checksums & bit comparision. As soon as you introduce the 'electrical level', by which I assume the quality of the file on the CD, HD, etc, the digital definition has gone as your into an 'analog' domain.
I would except entirely that there maybe differences in the may 1s & 0s are recorded. The data can still be retrieved however as the original file. A bad CD can still be read on a PC but with much more error checking. This must have an effect. Also oversampling on CD audio is now dismissed etc.
|
|
XTRProf
Fully Modded
Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Posts: 5,689
|
Post by XTRProf on Mar 7, 2012 8:20:16 GMT
Hmm, have a game of to recommence ..................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 8:23:35 GMT
Alex, I can understand that VERY well. What puzzles me (and is completely irrelevant to M.C.'s findings) is... so far NOT a single person that has the ability (ears AND gears) has ever stepped up the plate, even while the differences appear to be VERY evident and clear to discern. The only unknown variable that needs independent testing to convince technical people is to test those that have the ability, ears and gears in their comfort of their own home, time and gear and even files they are familiar with, and not just trust anyone on their bue eyes they can. Strange that THIS, very simple to do thing, is ALWAYS rejected by all of those that can hear, and don't want it verified other than by people of the same religion (M.C. for example). The consensus is always... we (technical people) are not advanced enough and what is perceived IS real. Exactly that... the ability to hear is NOT to be questioned nor tested independently nor is is needed in any way to convince ignorant and incapable people because it is already beyond ALL doubt... So NO testing of this ability is needed as we have no clue how because we can't discern ourselves anyway. The only thing we ask is to SHOW the ability so all this 'fighting' can be ended very fast. Not merely claim... but SHOW I repeat: When this ability is shown to technical minded people there ARE no opposing views anymore as assuming what is heard by others can be considered as REAL. Failing such an easy to perform task will not help matters though. If one fails one can simply blame the test but at least things are CLEAR. THIS is probably why nobody DARES to take up this challenge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 8:27:58 GMT
And here's a short interlude while posters get their breath back: I am more than happy to record for those interested (take a step forward Shaun) that normal service was resumed last night. One Happy Bunny. And now, back to the main event. Let battle (re-)commence... Hi Johhny well not quite the spanking but better my take is it's time to have a clear out and get some younger faces in. shame about AVB i though he looked good for the longer term. ah local lads supporting their local team what's the world coming to. take care
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 7, 2012 9:15:09 GMT
John. Maybe thats where the confusion is. I do believe the 1s & 0s are fixed. That why they are digital (using the following definition - Expressed in discrete numerical form, especially for use by a computer or other electronic device: digital information.). In a file they must be discrete because we can brake them down into 1s & 0s. I acknowledge that writing the data may create an error but that is the purpose of checksums & bit comparision. As soon as you introduce the 'electrical level', by which I assume the quality of the file on the CD, HD, etc, the digital definition has gone as your into an 'analog' domain. I would except entirely that there maybe differences in the may 1s & 0s are recorded. The data can still be retrieved however as the original file. A bad CD can still be read on a PC but with much more error checking. This must have an effect. Also oversampling on CD audio is now dismissed etc. Yes, you are talking about a theoretical abstract definition of digital - I'm talking about the real world implementation of this definition & how this might have an impact in the analogue domain. I never said it doesn't work in the digital domain but when we have to then cross over into the analogue domain in a D/A all the rules of digital no longer apply, we are dealing with analogue signals & they are prone to a lot of distorting influences. Hell, jitter on the digital audio clock is audible in the pS level - this is 1,000 times more sensitive than the nS mistake scientists made recently in their speed of light calculation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 9:33:41 GMT
Frans What part don't you understand from my previous replies? All this badgering will only result in one outcome : There will be no further co-operation between us, even after M.C. publishes his report. That would be a shame, because we were once good online friends. Alex
|
|
|
Post by freddypipsqueek on Mar 7, 2012 9:43:05 GMT
John.
Agree entirely.
Does that not mean however that its the implimentation and not the 'digital' data that is different with each playback ? The pure data in the files can't be a factor ?.
Must get back to work !!.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 9:52:26 GMT
Yes.. sad indeed.
At least I tried to find an easy way to resolve the issues. I can FULLY understand your (and similar minded) reservations though.
From my point of view the willingness to TRULY co-operate and find out more about this divisive and interesting topic seems to end one sided.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on Mar 7, 2012 10:00:47 GMT
John. Agree entirely. Does that not mean however that its the implimentation and not the 'digital' data that is different with each playback ? The pure data in the files can't be a factor ?. Must get back to work !!. Well, in the real world all thing come down to implementation i.e jitter wouldn't exist if the implementation was perfect but there's no such thing as perfect & we will always have jitter. But what I'm trying to ascertain (it's just a thought experiment) is - if there might be something else in the digital stream that has no bearing on data processing but when it comes to D/A conversion, introduces a distorting influence! So firstly the source of the problem has to be identified before addressing it at an implementation level
|
|