|
|
Listening comparison
"Jim H" wrote in message
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism: "Jim H" wrote in message more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism: The two recordings are about 50 mSec out of synch and very poorly level-matched so they are easy to identify in an ABX test. Without further work, any preference test involving them is obviously invalid. Any half-decent ABX software will do level matching automatically. I know of no ABX comparators that do automatic level matching. Please provide an example. I already mentioned higher up the thread (or lower if using outlook?), I tend to use the FooBar2000 ABX component, a standard extension to the player. For the player: http://www.foobar2000.org/ ABX components (included with 'special' version on downloads page) http://www.foobar2000.org/components.html#foo_abx The level matching is done via replay gain, which it can use for all playback. see: http://www.replaygain.org/ Hope this helps, the player runs nicely under WINE, if windoze ain't your thing. Well, learning about new stuff is one reason why I participate in newsgroups, and Foobar is a new one on me. The idea of a ABX comparator that automatically changes the levels of the files it compares is a bit aberrant, since the fact that the files have different levels might be the point of the whole listening test. In this case, I'd say that the exception does not break the rule, and the presence of an ABX comparator that automatically matches levels in accordance with some psychoacoustic theory does not eliminate or reduce the need for the producer of files to perform their own level matching. In this case even if Foobar's ABX and automatic level-matching features are used, the remaining gross errors (e.g. timing) in Keith's sloppy work remain and invalidate his proposed comparison. There's a real problem that Keith wants to sweep under the table. He lacks the foggiest notion of what a fair comparison involves, and lacks the intellectual and technical tools required to set a fair comparison up. He's been told many times, but is so arrogant and stupid that he thinks he knows better. |
Listening comparison
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:
Well, learning about new stuff is one reason why I participate in newsgroups, and Foobar is a new one on me. The idea of a ABX comparator that automatically changes the levels of the files it compares is a bit aberrant, since the fact that the files have different levels might be the point of the whole listening test. Then turn replaygain off. Sheesh! The software is primarily a media player, which supports the replaygain standard so playlists with tracks from a few CDs don't sound weird because the originals were mastered at different volumes. The ABX stuff is just one of many plugins. In this case, I'd say that the exception does not break the rule, and the presence of an ABX comparator that automatically matches levels in accordance with some psychoacoustic theory does not eliminate or reduce the need for the producer of files to perform their own level matching. In this case even if Foobar's ABX and automatic level-matching features are used, the remaining gross errors (e.g. timing) in Keith's sloppy work remain and invalidate his proposed comparison. There's a real problem that Keith wants to sweep under the table. He lacks the foggiest notion of what a fair comparison involves, and lacks the intellectual and technical tools required to set a fair comparison up. He's been told many times, but is so arrogant and stupid that he thinks he knows better. Remember that Keith never asked for his tracks to be ABX'd, if he wants is a casual listen why should he provide ABX ready files? -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
Listening comparison
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:
Well, learning about new stuff is one reason why I participate in newsgroups, and Foobar is a new one on me. The idea of a ABX comparator that automatically changes the levels of the files it compares is a bit aberrant, since the fact that the files have different levels might be the point of the whole listening test. Then turn replaygain off. Sheesh! The software is primarily a media player, which supports the replaygain standard so playlists with tracks from a few CDs don't sound weird because the originals were mastered at different volumes. The ABX stuff is just one of many plugins. In this case, I'd say that the exception does not break the rule, and the presence of an ABX comparator that automatically matches levels in accordance with some psychoacoustic theory does not eliminate or reduce the need for the producer of files to perform their own level matching. In this case even if Foobar's ABX and automatic level-matching features are used, the remaining gross errors (e.g. timing) in Keith's sloppy work remain and invalidate his proposed comparison. There's a real problem that Keith wants to sweep under the table. He lacks the foggiest notion of what a fair comparison involves, and lacks the intellectual and technical tools required to set a fair comparison up. He's been told many times, but is so arrogant and stupid that he thinks he knows better. Remember that Keith never asked for his tracks to be ABX'd, if he wants is a casual listen why should he provide ABX ready files? -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
Listening comparison
"Jim H" wrote in message
Remember that Keith never asked for his tracks to be ABX'd, if he wants is a casual listen why should he provide ABX ready files? Keith picked up the requirement to make the comparison as fair and easy as is reasonably possible, when he posted the files and asked people to compare them. I'm not asking for the world, just something that most people I know would do as a matter of course. Keith wants to figuratively crap on a plate and have people treat it like it's ice cream. Keith acts like level-matching and time-synching the files would be like moving heaven and earth. It would take me or any other even slightly-skilled editor less than 5 minutes. I've told him how to obtain reasonable software to do the job for free. Keith is either too lazy or too stupid to do simple canonical things, or both. |
Listening comparison
"Jim H" wrote in message
Remember that Keith never asked for his tracks to be ABX'd, if he wants is a casual listen why should he provide ABX ready files? Keith picked up the requirement to make the comparison as fair and easy as is reasonably possible, when he posted the files and asked people to compare them. I'm not asking for the world, just something that most people I know would do as a matter of course. Keith wants to figuratively crap on a plate and have people treat it like it's ice cream. Keith acts like level-matching and time-synching the files would be like moving heaven and earth. It would take me or any other even slightly-skilled editor less than 5 minutes. I've told him how to obtain reasonable software to do the job for free. Keith is either too lazy or too stupid to do simple canonical things, or both. |
Listening comparison
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:30:11 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Keith acts like level-matching and time-synching the files would be like moving heaven and earth. level matching I'll give you but why time syncing? are you accurate to 50 ms clicking the play button? -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Listening comparison
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:30:11 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Keith acts like level-matching and time-synching the files would be like moving heaven and earth. level matching I'll give you but why time syncing? are you accurate to 50 ms clicking the play button? -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Listening comparison
"Ian Molton" wrote in message
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:30:11 -0500 "Arny Krueger" wrote: Keith acts like level-matching and time-synching the files would be like moving heaven and earth. level matching I'll give you but why time syncing? are you accurate to 50 ms clicking the play button? If you do a close comparison, most people can reliably distinguish otherwise identical recordings that are time- mismatched by as little as a few milliseconds. The audible effect is like an echo that you hear when changing what you listen to. Bottom line, if you are going to compare stuff for relevant audible differences, you don't want to be able to distinguish what you are comparing by any means other than the relevant audible differences. Things like time-synching and level matching are trivial. I don't know of anybody who would buy a power amp because under random circumstances, it played 0.5 dB louder, and other random circumstances, it played 0.5 dB softer. Controlling the easy-to-control variables makes the relevance of your results far more clear. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that even with time and levels matched, there is are pretty clear audible differences. This difference then becomes an interesting topic of conversation, if it's non-trivial. |
Listening comparison
"Ian Molton" wrote in message
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:30:11 -0500 "Arny Krueger" wrote: Keith acts like level-matching and time-synching the files would be like moving heaven and earth. level matching I'll give you but why time syncing? are you accurate to 50 ms clicking the play button? If you do a close comparison, most people can reliably distinguish otherwise identical recordings that are time- mismatched by as little as a few milliseconds. The audible effect is like an echo that you hear when changing what you listen to. Bottom line, if you are going to compare stuff for relevant audible differences, you don't want to be able to distinguish what you are comparing by any means other than the relevant audible differences. Things like time-synching and level matching are trivial. I don't know of anybody who would buy a power amp because under random circumstances, it played 0.5 dB louder, and other random circumstances, it played 0.5 dB softer. Controlling the easy-to-control variables makes the relevance of your results far more clear. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that even with time and levels matched, there is are pretty clear audible differences. This difference then becomes an interesting topic of conversation, if it's non-trivial. |
Listening comparison
"Jim H" wrote in message ... more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism: Well, learning about new stuff is one reason why I participate in newsgroups, and Foobar is a new one on me. The idea of a ABX comparator that automatically changes the levels of the files it compares is a bit aberrant, since the fact that the files have different levels might be the point of the whole listening test. Then turn replaygain off. Sheesh! The software is primarily a media player, which supports the replaygain standard so playlists with tracks from a few CDs don't sound weird because the originals were mastered at different volumes. The ABX stuff is just one of many plugins. In this case, I'd say that the exception does not break the rule, and the presence of an ABX comparator that automatically matches levels in accordance with some psychoacoustic theory does not eliminate or reduce the need for the producer of files to perform their own level matching. In this case even if Foobar's ABX and automatic level-matching features are used, the remaining gross errors (e.g. timing) in Keith's sloppy work remain and invalidate his proposed comparison. There's a real problem that Keith wants to sweep under the table. He lacks the foggiest notion of what a fair comparison involves, and lacks the intellectual and technical tools required to set a fair comparison up. He's been told many times, but is so arrogant and stupid that he thinks he knows better. Remember that Keith never asked for his tracks to be ABX'd, if he wants is a casual listen why should he provide ABX ready files? Tell me something - if anyone wanted to 'ABX' these files (instead of just giving 'em a quick squirt on their computer audio system like I asked) surely they could have grabbed them and made the necessary adjustments themselves? I must admit, I jabbed around in Sound Forge a couple of times and only made things worse, so I thought 'sod it' and posted them raw. (The whole fekkin' exercise wasn't worth more than a quick hit - I only wanted independent confirmation of what I already suspected/'knew'....!!!_ All I wanted was people to give 'em a good old-fashioned 'listen' in their own environment and throw me a 'preference'. How hard does that have to be? Anyway, job done now! :-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk