Test your ears!

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by Ronny

You and Alistair are spot on. There is a huge audiophool problem that generates misinformation and it just keeps getting passed around the internet, taken in by audio engs that rely too much on their ears and don't confirm what their ears are telling them, with the blind, double blind, ABX tests and augmented by the null testing.

Consequently we have unscrupulous cable and gear manufacturers that rely on power of suggestion rather than correct specifications data to sell their products and a sea of folks that will swear the claims are true, without presenting any evidence other than what they say they hear.

I've said this 100 times on these audio forums, but I'll repeat one more time for the newbies. The ear is a great device, but it's only a part of the audio evaluation equation. However it is the winkest link in an audio evaluation. Blind tests often pose more questions about pychoacoustics than they answer about the gear or audio that is being compared. Blind and nulling, it's the best we've got and an absolute must to conduct a valid audio evaluation.

Although the ear is a great instrument, it relies on the auditory cortex to assemble that information into thought. The auditory cortext is not a precise and often seldom consistent instrument. We also have to deal with cross-sensory perception and sensory inhibition. An example of cross-sensory perption is the taste buds and the olfactory senses, without the smell of food, the food tastes bland. That's why when you have a cold and stuffed up sinuses, food loses its flavor, the taste buds aren't affected, its the olfactory glands. Eyesight and ear perception are similarly crossed in less than stellar sighted gear evaluations. Sensory inhibition, an example would be a crowded restaurant. At your table you hear the sounds of the restaurant, tinkling glasses, forks hitting plates, the table next to you talking and you can overhear what they are saying, but when the person across from you talks and you carry on a conversation with them sensory inhibition attenuates the rest of the restaurant sounds. The decibel level of the ambient restaurant does not change volume, yet the human attenuates what he doesn't audibly focus on. These elements may be instinctual and relative to survival of the fittest, for example, hearing an animal that poses a threat of eating you over the :louder" non-dangerous sounds of the jungle, resulted in those mammals surviving and procreating until we are born. The mammals that didn't hear the predator, didn't survive, they got eaten and therefore that bloodline ended. The ones that did survive passed that trait on to the following generations.

Couple these instinctive human elements with the idiosyncrasies of the human ability to absorb information and recall that information exact from memory and you are looking for a disaster if you rely totally on the ear and don't confirm your ear findings with the science and the laws of physics.

I learned a long time ago that it's much easier to think you hear differences when there are none, than it is to detect "minute" differences when there are some.

Beautifully put

Speaking of unscrupulous cable manufacturers, got a copy of 'Russ Andrews' catalogue through the post the other day.

One of the funniest reads I've had for ages. Are some audiophiles out there really that stupid to think that replacing their £3-£100 power cable lead (basically nothing more than a kettle lead) with a £1500 silver lead is going to deliver an increase in audio quality to their hi-end equipment (which no doubt has a good quality PSU built in)

Aiie yaiie.

As for this test, I'm still uncertain what Henks point is.

He's saying the files are bit for bit identicle, but that they sound clearly different.

Does he mean different as in, the way our ears/minds alter the way it sounds, or is he really trying to say they ARE different, and that differences between them is constant and never changes (ie B is X amount better than A and that doesn't change), despite being absolutely identicle.

If its the latter, then I suspect he's a fool.

Sure the mind, ears, even the equipment itself, changes in clocking, jitter, software realtime buffering issues etc etc have an impact, but all those things would NOT keep the difference between the two files a constant difference, it would be a permanently changing variation.

So anyone that says its a recognisably constant difference between them despite being bit for bit perfect has to be on cloud coocoo land imho

[johnlink]

Are the test files still available somewhere?

John Link

[just.sounds]

Wow a lot of angry people here!
I hope the truth will come out are they the same? is one secretly encoded to make us all mindless slaves when we do a null test.
I'm really curious what the difference would be I could not hear it but i only listened on a bit inferior gear. Relieve us or at least give a hint!! heck if i use binoculars i could see your smoke signs if it wasn't such dutch weather!

Greetings!

[greggybud]

The differences are incredibly obvious. sheesh.

This is final proof once and for all that audio cables need "burn in" time, and also proof that audio flowing from one end of the cable might not work as well as audio flowing in the opposite direction.

your welcome.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Schaap

NO and for the THIRD time, hope everybody can read here , I'm not intended to do so.
I just asked people on the net to give their unbiased opinions about those audiofiles.

That's all, basta, finito.

Have a life!

Henk

He said he wont tell us.......................

[stevep]

Originally Posted by greggybud

The differences are incredibly obvious. sheesh.

This is final proof once and for all that audio cables need "burn in" time, and also proof that audio flowing from one end of the cable might not work as well as audio flowing in the opposite direction.

your welcome.

Nice,............. Classic

[Chris Kress]

I swear on my life that I read another similar post from this person on a different forum. I am trying to find it now but I can't seem to. At the end of the post, there was a link to CREATIVE LABS!

I am not sure if this was the link that was posted at the end of his thread but this x-fi technology is what was described

http://us.creative.com/products/prod...&product=14066

UNBELIEVABLE! It is some kind of upsampling to fix MP3 damage. Schaap please tell me I am wrong...

[MadR]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

I swear on my life that I read another similar post from this person on a different forum. I am trying to find it now but I can't seem to. At the end of the post, there was a link to CREATIVE LABS!

I am not sure if this was the link that was posted at the end of his thread but this x-fi technology is what was described

http://us.creative.com/products/prod...&product=14066

UNBELIEVABLE! It is some kind of upsampling to fix MP3 damage. Schaap please tell me I am wrong...

could be .. and that would explain why the bits are the same but it sounds different. If it was converted into a mp3 and then back. With the option that all bits will be same ( like with the parity bit in raid 5 for instance ) but with some audioloss .. This would explain why file a has more agressive highs ..

And well it just another dutchman .. i'm one too .. and there is another one in this tread .. just look how they react. They are sneaky ppl ! And i know so ..

Now i'm gonna check the first post of this tread to see if we could legaly force Schaap to give us answer if he said he would tell us his *mystery* in the end

[IJsman]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Data is data however that only means it has the potential to sound identical.

This is where people get tripped up. Clocking, and whatever structure the data passes through has an effect on timing and ultimately on the analog reproduction of the data. The challenge is that this is a moving target you can't pin down.

I agree, but once you digitize that file again, the data will not be the same, because of the clocking differences, the analog circuitry, etc, right? If you keep it digital, let's say, an mp3 file, and play it back through the same system, D/A channel, etc...if the data is 100% the same, it couldn't possibly sound different, right?

[Ziggy!!]

Originally Posted by MadR

could be .. and that would explain why the bits are the same but it sounds different. If it was converted into a mp3 and then back. With the option that all bits will be same ( like with the parity bit in raid 5 for instance ) but with some audioloss .. This would explain why file a has more agressive highs ..

And well it just another dutchman .. i'm one too .. and there is another one in this tread .. just look how they react. They are sneaky ppl ! And i know so ..

Now i'm gonna check the first post of this tread to see if we could legaly force Schaap to give us answer if he said he would tell us his *mystery* in the end

There is a flaw with this thinking though, if the files are bit for bit identical there is zero difference between the sound that is played back. The computer can't physically determine which is different, it reads between the lines... and in this case the lines are exactly the same.

[Tubefreak]

That link to creative is great!

X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer™ enhances MP3s and movies to sound better than they do on their original CD or DVD.

First the processor converts the audio into 24-bit/96kHz quality using its virtually transparent SRC (Sample Rate Converter) engine. Then it remasters and selectively enhances the audio by analyzing and identifying which parts of the audio stream have been restricted/damaged during the compression stages to 16-bit and then to MP3.

I found a new way to master music which goes beyond anything else:
- convert to mp3 (to lose lots of data)
- uses X-Fi 24 bit Crystalizer (not only to undo the loss, but to gain more then there ever was too)

A voila: it sounds better then the original audio. Heck this totally deleted the use of the Digital Domain K-Stereo!!! This is amazing... and it has to be true: it's on the internet!

Regaring the Schaap files. I wonder... if they are 100% bit identicle. How is he ever going to know/measure the difference between the two files? By listening only? I hope he never mixes them up.

Maarten

[iceberg]

I know that I am late on this, but does someone have these files. Please post them or link them.
Thanks a bunch

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Tubefreak

That link to creative is great!

[i]X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer™I found a new way to master music which goes beyond anything else:
- convert to mp3 (to lose lots of data)
- uses X-Fi 24 bit Crystalizer (not only to undo the loss, but to gain more then there ever was too)

Maarten

Does this mean i dont need the 5000 $ power cables...?

[Scratchy Pots]

Originally Posted by stevep

He said he wont tell us.......................

Wont tell us!!!....."Wont ****in Tell us"!!!!!!!......

[Dissdnt_penguin]

Originally Posted by Ziggy!!

It has everything to do with what this is about. Despite what you reveil as the "differences" the files are all but identical. They don't only null, they are identically coded... So for there to be a difference you must have defied the global understanding of waveform physics and the basic construct and function of computer processing. This makes the only difference between the files purely perceptual.
Audiophoolery at its height.

I've got a degree in physics. I didn't continue with masters and PhDs and stuff (Turned to music and acoustics instead), so I wouldn't dare to call myself a physicist, but I learned a few very important things. One of them is:

Many people here has pointed out senses can be tricked, with which I totally agree, but so's logic. A mathematician (Gödel), even demonstrated any axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent, so it is possible our mind is not a cosnsistent system.

If you're interested in this subject take a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...teness_theorem

Its possible implications about human mind are discussed in the middle of the page.

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Data is data however that only means it has the potential to sound identical.
When something that ought to sound the same doesn't seem to, my experience over the years has been that where there's smoke, there generally turns out to be fire.

I totally agree. A fact that attracted my attention is most people whom heard a difference seem to agree the best sounding files were the second ones. It is possible that they read posts before trying for themselves and therefore biased their opinion, but if not that would be a hard thing to explain.

Originally Posted by IJsman

If you keep it digital, let's say, an mp3 file, and play it back through the same system, D/A channel, etc...if the data is 100% the same, it couldn't possibly sound different, right?

This line of reasoning might also have a flaw. The same data could sound different if there are variables that affect its conversion to sound that are not being considered. Another important thing I learned is theory never works the way we expect. From wrong conjectures to overlooked variables, experimental work is always subject to approximations and/or justifications for the discrepancies between theory and experiment. Once I saw outside a lab's door a sign that said something like:

"Theory: Something that everybody understands, but never works.
Practise: Something that always works, but nobody understands why.
In this lab we put them both together: Nothing works and nobody understands why"

It might be possible that the difference comes form some stage at the d/a conversion like clock instability, or that depends on something weird like the amount of fragments the file was chunked in while stored in the HD, or the physical location of the file in the HD... I'm not suggesting this particular things might have an impact on performance, only pointing out there might be something that's being overlooked besides human ear's lack of precision.

I only wish I had the chance to hear the files for myself.

DP

P.D. This is why I love this forum. It's the only place where you could learn that much from some apparently bogus test.

[Shabo]

same files!we know that! wow!i was on the start of this thread..i use headphones first..i thought there was a diff.maybe im crazy...BUT!! he aint gona tell us....makes it even more fun!!

[BouncyJones]

For those that thought they did hear a difference...why not have someone else do the ABing for you and see if you can identify which file is playing when? ie - have someone flip between them in random order, sometimes playing the same track again. If you now can't tell a difference, that should say something.

Jon

[lucey]

Can someone please move this? It has nothing to do with mastering.


Should be named "Test Your Patience" ..

[djui5]

Yeah, can we lock this stupid thread? I get furious every time I see it

[ToxicApple]

Originally Posted by Schaap

“Use your ears and don’t listen with your eyes “

Henk

Eyes = math (precise) unquestionable + unforgettable.
Ears = subliminal sense (perception) questionable, temporary, delusive.

Sound, Just like love & Drugs becomes boring very fast when you listen it non stop.
whether it is the same as it was in the start or not, it won't be exciting as it was before... even if she/it is the hottest gurl/drug around.

The human's ears get tired very fast by searching for something which is not exciting, this is why noobs who mix only by ears don't like to cut, their ears don't feel any good change by cutting, So they tend to BOOST and a lot! the more they hear, the more they BOOST...

The "pros" who mix only by ears tend to cut and a LOT! the more they listen, the more they cut and cut and cut and CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!! till there is nothing left to cut...so they bring up the volume to be able to cut more. after a nice sleep, they start it all over again from the beginning ...ahhh...that hurts.