Page 156 of 156 FirstFirst ... 56106146147148149150151152153154155156
Results 1,551 to 1,555 of 1555

Thread: Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

  1. #1551
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,207
    Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
    John, is this a different test than the one I passed earlier? http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...l=1#post279735
    Yes, Amir - that's the one. Sorry I didn't see this post of yours before.
    It indeed does illustrate your point - there were 20 that correctly identified all 3 24bit samples but these were then diluted by the random guessers to the point that the overall result became a null result - no better than random guessing.
    As you say in your post ""scientific" statement about audibility of 16 vs 24, is wrong and we run foul of simpson's paradox"
    On the other hand if the objective is to see what a sample of the "audiophile community" can discern (without training) then it does answer this - no they can't. But is this surprising? No pre-selection of participants was used to check for hearing loss or other defects which may diminish their discernment of audio impairments of a known level.

    The stated objectives were:
    1. How "easy" was it for people to detect (or report) a difference?
    2. How accurate were the respondents in detecting the 24-bit sample?

    It's somewhat difficult to know what the question being addressed is & therefore what the null hypothesis is
    Manufacturer digital products Ciunas.biz
    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.
    "Your bias negates your pretensions to scientific credibility"

  2. #1552
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,207
    Deleted
    Last edited by jkeny; 07-13-2015 at 02:18 AM.
    Manufacturer digital products Ciunas.biz
    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.
    "Your bias negates your pretensions to scientific credibility"

  3. #1553
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lichfield UK
    Posts
    6

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Subscribed

  4. #1554
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
    This is the reason you want to have each tester participate enough to get valid statistical results. That way, you can throw out the stats from people who don't have critical listening skills. Otherwise, the worst sin occurs which is to combine the results of people who can't hear small impairments with those who do….
    The best approach would be to perform two tests. The first with all individuals, and the purpose is to find those who can hear. The criterion should be at least p < 0.05 null rejection for those people, or even more stringent. But the statistics in the first test can't be counted toward the conclusion. It is only for screening purposes. You must plan that in advance and stick to it. Then, in the second test everyone's result must be counted. Every second test must be reported.

    If you perform only one test and simply exclude people due to poor performance, that is cherry-picking, and you can't produce a meaningful result that way. Likewise if you do many second tests, and only report the good ones.

    There might be some way to only do one test with some kind of post-hoc rejection. Generally such things are only permitted for a small number of "outliers" who are 3 or more standard deviations away from the mean. I think that would not be possible for these kinds of tests (we are looking for the elite pre-trained listeners, not "The Average Listener"), but even if it could it would raise the possibility that you chose the post-selection method post-hoc also. I think many would not be happy with this kind of determination. I would not be happy with it. But if you were to do things this way anyway, it would help if your "unqualified listener" determination method was strictly determined in advance also as that would mitigate a major argument against it.

  5. #1555
    Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,022
    Good news everyone.
    Our new resident expert (I think that is how he seems himself) has made a grand statement showing that we can ignore everything that happened, its value and its meaning...

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield View Post
    I did, as they are all presented in my post. Amir simply did a home test of decidedly non-DSP/Perceptual expert Arny K online files. That's it.
    No more, no less. Not a Bob Stuart/JJ administered type AES submitted paper. You're still not clear on this? Or the significance?

    cheers,

    AJ
    I am sure everyone will feel a sigh of relief that they no longer have to try to find useful and important information in the middle of the 150 pages
    Oh wait, its AJ Soundfield.
    Cheers
    Orb

Page 156 of 156 FirstFirst ... 56106146147148149150151152153154155156

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 03:51 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 12:58 AM
  3. "Fast" and "slow" subwoofers: can we put them to bed?
    By twelti in forum Todd Welti Discusses Subwoofers In Rooms
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 12:34 AM
  4. This is what "real" bass looks and sounds like
    By amirm in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 12:20 PM
  5. The "Best" Crash Proof Motor Bike
    By audioguy in forum Best Online and You Tube Videos Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 07:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •