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!

:-)

Listening comparison
 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:17:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

oh, if you're going to switch them in real time, yeah ok.

I dont think thats the kind of test keith was after.

--
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 13:17:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

oh, if you're going to switch them in real time, yeah ok.

I dont think thats the kind of test keith was after.

--
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 19:55:22 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Anyway, job done now!

And the results were? (now you're done what were you testing?)

--
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 19:55:22 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Anyway, job done now!

And the results were? (now you're done what were you testing?)

--
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 13:17:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

oh, if you're going to switch them in real time, yeah ok.


I don't think that's the kind of test keith was after.

IOW he doesn't want people to do the most sensitive, revealing kind of test?

Why bother listening at all if you can't listen at your best?

Listening comparison
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:17:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

oh, if you're going to switch them in real time, yeah ok.


I don't think that's the kind of test keith was after.

IOW he doesn't want people to do the most sensitive, revealing kind of test?

Why bother listening at all if you can't listen at your best?

Listening comparison
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:17:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

oh, if you're going to switch them in real time, yeah ok.

I dont think thats the kind of test keith was after.


Correct.

(The stupid tit just don't 'get it' does he?)

In the first set, one clip (01) was an 'end product' supplied by my brother
(one of many that already exist - a done deal) and the second clip (02) was
the 'end product' (exact) that I would have replaced it with if the
consensus was that it *was* better. I wasn't looking to *match* the bloody
track - I wanted to *improve* on it! IOW, the differences were important!

In the second set (where I recorded both the 01s and 02s) I wasn't looking
for the same comparison - I really only wanted a 'confirmation' that the 02s
weren't considered to be *worse* than the 01s by anyone. I already knew they
were *better* myself, but as I stated earlier, despite the continual efforts
made to hang ludicrous labels round my neck, I am not nearly arrogant enough
to believe my own personal opinion would necessarily be that of the
consensus. (Strange as it may seem, my MP3s are not really created for my
own use - in fact, I never play them! :-)

(Any old fool wants to come shuffling up and hang his own silly agenda on my
business, that *his* problem....!)

Listening comparison
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:17:03 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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.

oh, if you're going to switch them in real time, yeah ok.

I dont think thats the kind of test keith was after.


Correct.

(The stupid tit just don't 'get it' does he?)

In the first set, one clip (01) was an 'end product' supplied by my brother
(one of many that already exist - a done deal) and the second clip (02) was
the 'end product' (exact) that I would have replaced it with if the
consensus was that it *was* better. I wasn't looking to *match* the bloody
track - I wanted to *improve* on it! IOW, the differences were important!

In the second set (where I recorded both the 01s and 02s) I wasn't looking
for the same comparison - I really only wanted a 'confirmation' that the 02s
weren't considered to be *worse* than the 01s by anyone. I already knew they
were *better* myself, but as I stated earlier, despite the continual efforts
made to hang ludicrous labels round my neck, I am not nearly arrogant enough
to believe my own personal opinion would necessarily be that of the
consensus. (Strange as it may seem, my MP3s are not really created for my
own use - in fact, I never play them! :-)

(Any old fool wants to come shuffling up and hang his own silly agenda on my
business, that *his* problem....!)

Listening comparison
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:55:22 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

Anyway, job done now!

And the results were? (now you're done what were you testing?)



obtuse mode


I told you already - landslide victory for the 02s!

(Stewart P's late vote for the 01s was based on extreme personal bias and
was thus neutralised by own extreme personal bias for the 02s.....!!)

:-)