An interesting experiment

[Alec]

To presume makes an ass out of, no, wait a minute....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

 

[bigblue235]

Maybe just stop presuming (due to total lack of evidence...oh damn, yeah, sorry, that doesnt bother you) [EDITED by MODS - please do not attack other members]

[EDITED By MODS - removed response to initial attack - okay, everybody calm down now and let's just try and bring this thread back on topic please]

 

[bigblue235]

Agreed, mods. Fair enough! I shall take my advice from another thread and go do something else.

 

[Alec]

Maybe just stop presuming (due to total lack of evidence...oh damn, yeah, sorry, that doesnt bother you) [EDITED by MODS - please do not attack other members]

[EDITED By MODS - removed response to initial attack - okay, everybody calm down now and let's just try and bring this thread back on topic please]

Maybe just stop presuming (due to total lack of evidence...oh damn, yeah, sorry, that doesnt bother you) [EDITED by MODS - please do not attack other members]

[EDITED By MODS - removed response to initial attack - okay, everybody calm down now and let's just try and bring this thread back on topic please]

"Don't go back to locksviiiiiiiile". Actually though...

 

[steve_1979]

I fully appreciate you taking the time to write an honest response and apologising. I also apologise myself for such a brief reply earlier - I would have written more but I was pushed for time.

Below is an example of one of the derogatory comments that I was referring to earlier.

"Anyway, tune in next week, when a random AVI forum member will try to prove a point that didn't come from the gospel according to Ashley."

This comment that you posted is typical of the sort of comments that keep cropping up in threads even when AVI have nothing to do with the subjects that's are being discussed. This particular thread is about MP3 vs FLAC comparisons and the effects of expectation bias. It's completely unrelated to AVI yet someone had to mention them.

There is a small group of people here that keep saying things like I'm preaching the "AVI way". But this is not true. I just understand that the philosophy that AVI have towards music reproduction isn't unique to them. They just have the same philosophy which is the excepted norm throughout the professional audio industry.

It is this philosophy that I agree with and it has nothing to do with AVI.

That wasn't meant as a derogatory comment, it was just a bit of a piss-take. I mean, you'd have to admit there are certain things which have been pushed a little bit too often lately, no? I dread to read the word 'Accurate' now!

I stated in another thread that it's currently difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm maybe guilty of making some assumptions which are incorrect, but I'd say that's only happened result of certain things being rammed down our throats for a little while now. It's hard to tell when the point that's being made in a thread is the seemingly obvious one, or, as has been common in recent locked threads, if there's a sub-text in which someone is grinding their axe.

There was a thread where speaker design was being discussed, and the pro-AVI responses seemingly all came from things said on the AVI site. That's not really what the 'professional audio industry' thinks, it's just what AVI think. Martin Grindrod is clearly an impressively knowledgeable chap, but there's others who don't agree with his thoughts. I'm nowhere near educated enough to disagree with him, or with people who disagree with him, so I'd rather all the hype and bluster was stripped away and I could make an informed choice.

I think what set me off originally was the whole 'Actives are better' thing. I just don't like those sorts of sweeping statements, as I feel they may mislead people who are lurking. I genuinely have nothing against AVIs products, I just don't like AVIs version of things being presented as 'the truth'. As long as they're presented as an opinion, great!

The problem with forums is that you can only use words to communicate. Without being able to use tone of voice and body language which are essential for proper communication the true intension of what people say can often get mixed up (usually for the worse).

I suspect that is what has happened here. You seem like a nice guy and no offence or disrespect was ment towards you.

:cheers:

From now on, you try and avoid those buzz phrases and I'll try to avoid presuming you're preaching about AVI. Deal?

That sounds fair enough, it's a deal.

I'll stay away from the usual AVI cliché phrases although sometimes using words such as 'accurate' are appropriate considering the context in which they're used.

trying to suss out if Neutrons are OK as a stand mount or if they're supposed to be used as near-fields on a desk or something!.

I think they're just normal stand mounts that also work well as near-fields.

 

[steve_1979]

let's just try and bring this thread back on topic please

+1

 

[bigblue235]

The problem with forums is that you can only use words to communicate. Without being able to use tone of voice and body language which are essential for proper communication the true intension of what people say can often get mixed up (usually for the worse).

I suspect that is what has happened here. You seem like a nice guy and no offence or disrespect was ment towards you.

:cheers:

Just thinking the same thing! :cheers:

I think they're just normal stand mounts that also work well as near-fields.

Right. How do you have yours positioned, if you don't mind me derailing the topic further?

 

[steve_1979]

Right. How do you have yours positioned, if you don't mind me derailing the topic further?

I have them angled in towards my listening position so that they're facing towards me. I've also tried them facing straight out towards the wall behind where I sit and they sound the same in both positions. I think this is what's called having 'a good off axis response'.

They're also pretty flexible regarding placement. IMO they sound best with about 8" distance from the wall to boost the bass a little but they sound fine in open space too.

 

[bigblue235]

Righto. I think I've found a picture of your set-up on Google images, if you had Q stuff beforehand? Answers all my questions, thanks!

Back to those MP3s...

FWIW, I was going to convert to 320kbps for the iPods. But following this thread I'll try it myself, and see if I can go any smaller to get more on the things.

 

[John Duncan]

FYI and continuing OT, I found them good in open space but concur with Steve's recommendation of some back wall bolstering. They sounded good in an alcove/shelf as well, which the DB1is most assuredly do not.

 

[steve_1979]

Righto. I think I've found a picture of your set-up on Google images, if you had Q stuff beforehand? Answers all my questions, thanks!

Yep, that's the one.

FWIW, I was going to convert to 320kbps for the iPods.

I'm going to stick with 320kbps in my Walkman instead of 192kbps even though it's not really nessesary. With 192kbps I wouldn't be able to shake that nagging feeling "am I missing somthing". At least when using 320kbps I'm sure that the quality is far better than it needs to be.

following this thread I'll try it myself, and see if I can go any smaller to get more on the things.

It'll be interesting to know how that turns out. I found that the ABX addon for Foobar is a useful tool for testing.

 

[bigblue235]

FYI and continuing OT, I found them good in open space but concur with Steve's recommendation of some back wall bolstering. They sounded good in an alcove/shelf as well, which the DB1is most assuredly do not.

They'd be on stands in open space, pretty much. If I put them nearer the back wall they wouldn't be level with the (heathen!) TV. Back wall bolstering might not be possible.

I'm going to stick with 320kbps in my Walkman instead of 192kbps even though it's not really nessesary. With 192kbps I wouldn't be able to shake that nagging feeling "am I missing somthing". At least when using 320kbps I'm sure that the quality is far better than it needs to be.

I'm using ALAC just now, and I'm worried I'd get that feeling going to 320, even though I can't really hear a difference. Might let the missus have hers at 192 though

It'll be interesting to know how that turns out. I found that the ABX addon for Foobar is a useful tool for testing.

Nah, it probably won't be that interesting. I'm not that proficient at this type of thing! I'll probably try it, go "sounds the same" but stick with ALAC. I use the iPod for Airplay too, if it was just thru headphones I'd be more likely to give it a go.

 

[tino]

I would always rip lossless. I don't think that's the point though. I think the point is to dispell the continued myth that somehow high bitrate lossy MP3 (as oppossed to low bitrate 128 and below) is somehow inferior.

Don't wish to get emobroiled in this thread however I just wanted to pick up on a previous point (quoted above) about MP3 being inferior to a lossless format. It is actually technically inferior since information has been removed from the original format, and as has also been quoted earlier, the amount of information selectively thrown away depends on the quality of the MP3 encoder - some being worse than others. Only by the science of psycho acoustics do we hardly notice these missing artefacts from the original music.

Given that there there can be very little price difference between a high bit rate MP3 and a CD or a CD quality FLAC, I think I would always choose the lossless format whether or not I could hear the difference ... why would I pay the same or very similar price for an inferior copy? There is no noticeable additional cost to me to rip a CD losslessly, so I might as well, and the point of differences in audible quality is therefore moot. I can always post process a lossless music file in whichever way I want at any time. If I started out with an MP3 I would already be hobbled from a point of reduced technical quality.

Having said all that ... I am perfectly happy with 192K MP3 radio streaming, and no way would I buy a 24bit/96 or 192K studio master because I won't hear the difference (probably) and can't justify almost twice the price.

 

[bigmoose]

On a similar topic (rip quality and format vs quality):

I have the same recordings in both SACD / DVD-A / 24bit FLAC and CD and found the quality of the recording makes much more difference than the rip quality or encoding.

Toto Africa for example show NO discernible difference between SACD and CD. However, Groove Armada's Super Stylin' showed a noticeable improvement in clarity (like a screen has been removed). I'm a bit of a 80s fan, and could not notice any improvement by going SACD on such recordings. More recent recordings, such as Groove Armada do show a slight improvement however...

Depeche Mode 101 is another one that show no difference between SACD and CD, but i guess that is because it is a live performance (not sure why I bothered getting the SACD as well as the CD to be honest). :?

I believe going SACD might really make sense for classical (which unfortunately I don't own any). For anything else, it might be hit and miss... Not sure if anyone has similar experiences?

 

[steve_1979]

BBC expectation bias experiments



Last year the BBC ran a documentary series about E numbers and other food additives. One of the episodes was about food colouring and they did a two experiments to see what effect it can have.

For the first experiment they served some people two identical portions of baked beans. The only difference between them was that one looked appetizing because it had the orange food colouring added where the other looked a disgusting grey colour because it had had no food colouring added. In blind tests the people couldn't tell any difference between them but in sighted tests they thought that the orange beans tasted nicer and some of the people even struggled to eat the grey beans because they thought that it tasted so horrible.

For the second experiment they invited several experts from the wine tasting industry and wine magazines and gave them all glasses of white wine. Some of the glasses had a bit of red food colouring added to them but none of the experts realised this and they all thought that they were really drinking red wine. They all used words that are associated with red wine when they were asked to discribe the flavour.

 

[steve_1979]

1. For the first test I played a series of two identical MP3 files but lied and said that one of them was lossless. Most of the time they prefered the sound of the fake lossless file over the MP3 file even though it was really the same identical MP3 file.

2. For the second test I swapped the files around. I told them that the MP3 was lossless and that the lossless was an MP3. Most of the time they prefered the sound of the MP3 file over the lossless file.

3. For the third test I played the lossless and MP3 files again and told the truth about which one was which. Most of the time they prefered the sound of the lossless file over the MP3 file.

4. For the fourth test I let them do an ABX test using Foobar and nobody managed to tell the difference between the MP3 and lossless files.

Would it be possible for WHF to run a similar expectation bias experiment in 'The Big Question' section of the magazine?

I think that this would make an interesting article.

 

[chebby]

-

 

[John Duncan]

1. For the first test I played a series of two identical MP3 files but lied and said that one of them was lossless. Most of the time they prefered the sound of the fake lossless file over the MP3 file even though it was really the same identical MP3 file.

2. For the second test I swapped the files around. I told them that the MP3 was lossless and that the lossless was an MP3. Most of the time they prefered the sound of the MP3 file over the lossless file.

3. For the third test I played the lossless and MP3 files again and told the truth about which one was which. Most of the time they prefered the sound of the lossless file over the MP3 file.

4. For the fourth test I let them do an ABX test using Foobar and nobody managed to tell the difference between the MP3 and lossless files.

Would it be possible for WHF to run a similar expectation bias experiment in 'The Big Question' section of the magazine?

I think that this would make an interesting article.

Why? You already ran it. And helpfully pepper your posts with search-friendly headings and bold font to help people find it.

 

[steve_1979]

Why?

An experiment showing how expection bias can effect how we hear things would make an interesting and informative article for your readers?

You already ran it.

I suspect that many of the people who read the magazine don't read the forums.

 

[steve_1979]

320 v 128... can you tell? (10 times in a row)

Ok, I've just had a try at this one and it's much harder than expected. I can tell the difference some of the time but not at others. It seems a bit easier to spot the difference with complex music than it is with simple music but even when I can tell the difference 128kbps still sounds surprisingly close to 320kbps.

I'm only guessing here but could it be that a simple waveform containing only one frequency can be accurately recreated using a low resolution low bit rate MP3 but a modulated waveform containing several different frequencies needs a higher resolution MP3 to be accurately recreated?

Maybe somebody with a better understanding of the technology could expand on this?

 

[professorhat]

Why?

An experiment showing how expection bias can effect how we hear things would make an interesting and informative article for your readers?

(a) JD doesn't work for What HiFi;

(b) Most people buy the magazine because they want to buy a new telly / home cinema device / piece of hifi equipment.

(c) When the idea of tricking WHF readers with listening tests was last suggested (possibly by yourself given the number of times you have done this now), Mr Everard made a very good point. Getting regular readers in, then tricking them into saying they heard differences when they didn't would hardly be a good way of ensuring their continued readership - you might think it's all good sport, but many would not. Plus they then risk issues with other tests in the future - a lot of people would be reluctant to participate in any further tests, knowing that the aim might be to try and trick them into saying they heard something they couldn't possibly of done, then publishing those results and making them look foolish.

But as I said last time you ran one of these threads, have you approached any other hifi magazines with this idea? And if not why not? (you don't have to actually answer these questions by the way given the answer is obvious).

 

[shooter]

Why?

An experiment showing how expection bias can effect how we hear things would make an interesting and informative article for your readers?

(a) JD doesn't work for What HiFi;

(b) Most people buy the magazine because they want to buy a new telly / home cinema device / piece of hifi equipment.

(c) When the idea of tricking WHF readers with listening tests was last suggested (possibly by yourself given the number of times you have done this now), Mr Everard made a very good point. Getting regular readers in, then tricking them into saying they heard differences when they didn't would hardly be a good way of ensuring their continued readership - you might think it's all good sport, but many would not. Plus they then risk issues with other tests in the future - a lot of people would be reluctant to participate in any further tests, knowing that the aim might be to try and trick them into saying they heard something they couldn't possibly of done, then publishing those results and making them look foolish.

But as I said last time you ran one of these threads, have you approached any other hifi magazines with this idea? And if not why not? (you don't have to actually answer these questions by the way given the answer is obvious).

Prof, (c) is a very good point and it not what any magazine would want to get involved in, why would they? Maybe if they wanted to shoot themselfs in the foot.

Personally i think it should be done within the forum, as i put earlier in the thread. I do think abx testing has flaws, which to be credible shouldn't have. If it was 100% acurate all the time it may be taken more seriously. This is why (a) i dont really believe in it and (b) i dont really believe in it.

 

[John Duncan]

An experiment showing how expection bias can effect how we hear things would make an interesting and informative article for your readers?

As PH has pointed out, they're not my readers. I also think you misjudge what people want from the magazine. Badly.

I suspect that many of the people who read the magazine don't read the forums.

I suspect you're right. See above.

Conversely, I suspect that many more people who read the forums don't read the magazine.

 

[Lee H]

I've also done a study lately and prepared a graph with my findings.

 

[steve_1979]

(c) When the idea of tricking WHF readers with listening tests was last suggested (possibly by yourself given the number of times you have done this now)

This is the first time that I have ever suggested that WHF could run a test to see what difference expectation bias can have on how we hear things.

have you approached any other hifi magazines with this idea? And if not why not? (you don't have to actually answer these questions by the way given the answer is obvious).

The reason that I've mentioned this on the WHF forums is because I already frequent this forum and sometimes buy the WHF magazine. I will suggest it to the other hifi magazines aswell though.

Getting regular readers in, then tricking them into saying they heard differences when they didn't would hardly be a good way of ensuring their continued readership - you might think it's all good sport, but many would not. Plus they then risk issues with other tests in the future - a lot of people would be reluctant to participate in any further tests, knowing that the aim might be to try and trick them into saying they heard something they couldn't possibly of done, then publishing those results and making them look foolish.

This is a fair point although personally don't think that hearing something that isn't really there due to expectation bias wouldn't make anyone look stupid because it is a perfectly normal human reaction that's very common. I've heard differences due to expectation bias myself and I'm embarrased to admit it.