Listening comparison
 

Inspired by the current visit from the Venerable Leader Of The New World
(listen to the backing vocals.... :-) I have posted a couple of clips for
preference testing by simply listening to them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min /1.9
Mb)

Listening comparison
 

more from the 'Keith G school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

After very quick listen I can ABX it out the difference (level matched).
Difference is very easy to hear in the first second, which is a bit of a
cheat given a minuite of music.

Rough impressions are...

1 has stronger treble, less midrange and is generally brighter.
2 possibly more flat response (don't know original so can't really say)
sounds less filtered.

On such a short sample it's hard to say which I prefer - maybe 1 is more
immediate, but I'd listen to a system sounding like 2 for longer. Both are
ok mp3s.

I did level matched ABXing in foobar2000, btw. Very nice little player for
this kind of thing.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Listening comparison
 

more from the 'Keith G school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

After very quick listen I can ABX it out the difference (level matched).
Difference is very easy to hear in the first second, which is a bit of a
cheat given a minuite of music.

Rough impressions are...

1 has stronger treble, less midrange and is generally brighter.
2 possibly more flat response (don't know original so can't really say)
sounds less filtered.

On such a short sample it's hard to say which I prefer - maybe 1 is more
immediate, but I'd listen to a system sounding like 2 for longer. Both are
ok mp3s.

I did level matched ABXing in foobar2000, btw. Very nice little player for
this kind of thing.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Listening comparison
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Keith G school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

After very quick listen I can ABX it out the difference (level matched).
Difference is very easy to hear in the first second, which is a bit of a
cheat given a minuite of music.

Rough impressions are...

1 has stronger treble, less midrange and is generally brighter.
2 possibly more flat response (don't know original so can't really say)
sounds less filtered.

On such a short sample it's hard to say which I prefer - maybe 1 is more
immediate, but I'd listen to a system sounding like 2 for longer. Both are
ok mp3s.

I did level matched ABXing in foobar2000, btw. Very nice little player for
this kind of thing.



Thanks Jim - very interesting response.

I won't comment further in case someone else gives it a go. (There's no big
deal and no 'catch', it's just a 'curiosity' thing.....!!)

Listening comparison
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Keith G school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

After very quick listen I can ABX it out the difference (level matched).
Difference is very easy to hear in the first second, which is a bit of a
cheat given a minuite of music.

Rough impressions are...

1 has stronger treble, less midrange and is generally brighter.
2 possibly more flat response (don't know original so can't really say)
sounds less filtered.

On such a short sample it's hard to say which I prefer - maybe 1 is more
immediate, but I'd listen to a system sounding like 2 for longer. Both are
ok mp3s.

I did level matched ABXing in foobar2000, btw. Very nice little player for
this kind of thing.



Thanks Jim - very interesting response.

I won't comment further in case someone else gives it a go. (There's no big
deal and no 'catch', it's just a 'curiosity' thing.....!!)

Listening comparison
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:02:08 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min /1.9
Mb)

the first one sounds 'brighter'. I like the latter better. seems rounder.

no idea which is most natural though.


--
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 Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:02:08 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min /1.9
Mb)

the first one sounds 'brighter'. I like the latter better. seems rounder.

no idea which is most natural though.


--
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 Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:02:08 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min
/1.9
Mb)

the first one sounds 'brighter'. I like the latter better. seems rounder.

no idea which is most natural though.


OK, this is getting interesting. Thanks Ian.

Mebbe tomorrow I will post 2 more samples of something completely different
on exactly the same basis, but perhaps a good bit longer. (I can't stand
short little clips myself - they're irritating and tell you nothing!)

Listening comparison
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:02:08 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min
/1.9
Mb)

the first one sounds 'brighter'. I like the latter better. seems rounder.

no idea which is most natural though.


OK, this is getting interesting. Thanks Ian.

Mebbe tomorrow I will post 2 more samples of something completely different
on exactly the same basis, but perhaps a good bit longer. (I can't stand
short little clips myself - they're irritating and tell you nothing!)

Listening comparison
 

Keith G wrote:
Inspired by the current visit from the Venerable Leader Of The New
World (listen to the backing vocals.... :-) I have posted a couple of
clips for preference testing by simply listening to them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min
/1.9 Mb)

Didn't like the first sample at all. Sounded compressed and way too bright.
Second sample, although still bright, was an easier listen and had a nicer
bass response.

--
MrBitsy

Listening comparison
 

Keith G wrote:
Inspired by the current visit from the Venerable Leader Of The New
World (listen to the backing vocals.... :-) I have posted a couple of
clips for preference testing by simply listening to them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min
/1.9 Mb)

Didn't like the first sample at all. Sounded compressed and way too bright.
Second sample, although still bright, was an easier listen and had a nicer
bass response.

--
MrBitsy

Listening comparison
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Inspired by the current visit from the Venerable Leader Of The New
World (listen to the backing vocals.... :-) I have posted a couple of
clips for preference testing by simply listening to them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min
/1.9 Mb)

Two vastly different transcriptions of the same basic piece of music.

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.

Looks like two different MP3 coders, or two different sets of MP3 coding
parameters were used. Again, any chance of a fair preference test is screwed
from the get-go by what looks like intentional biasing of the comparison
towards the second track.

Track 1 looks like it may have come from a CD, and was coded with a sharp
cutoff at 16 Khz.

Track 2 looks like it may have came from a LP, gentle roll-off above 16 KHz,
and with the typical up to 20 dB of extra noise below 25 Hz.

Both tracks are really tinny sounding, but Track 1 seems to be cleaner and a
little richer in the bass.

Listening comparison
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Inspired by the current visit from the Venerable Leader Of The New
World (listen to the backing vocals.... :-) I have posted a couple of
clips for preference testing by simply listening to them:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%201.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...harkey%202.mp3

Anyone got a clear preference here? (Both tracks near identical @1min
/1.9 Mb)

Two vastly different transcriptions of the same basic piece of music.

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.

Looks like two different MP3 coders, or two different sets of MP3 coding
parameters were used. Again, any chance of a fair preference test is screwed
from the get-go by what looks like intentional biasing of the comparison
towards the second track.

Track 1 looks like it may have come from a CD, and was coded with a sharp
cutoff at 16 Khz.

Track 2 looks like it may have came from a LP, gentle roll-off above 16 KHz,
and with the typical up to 20 dB of extra noise below 25 Hz.

Both tracks are really tinny sounding, but Track 1 seems to be cleaner and a
little richer in the bass.

Listening comparison
 

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 find
these samples to be not so badly matched anyway, replaygain attenuates at -
1.75dB against -1.86dB

I also think to say any preference test involving them is obviously invalid
is going a bit far, it depends what the aim of the test is.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Listening comparison
 

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 find
these samples to be not so badly matched anyway, replaygain attenuates at -
1.75dB against -1.86dB

I also think to say any preference test involving them is obviously invalid
is going a bit far, it depends what the aim of the test is.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Listening comparison
 

"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 find these samples to be not so badly matched anyway, replaygain
attenuates at - 1.75dB against -1.86dB

There are dramatic differences in peak levels per Adobe Audition's
statistics tool:

Track one L -1.35 dB R -0.12 dB
Track two L -3.58 dB R -3.50 dB

Another tip-off that track one came from a CD, and track two came from a
LP. Track two is obviously rather highly compressed.

I also think to say any preference test involving them is obviously
invalid is going a bit far, it depends what the aim of the test is.

Listening comparison
 

"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 find these samples to be not so badly matched anyway, replaygain
attenuates at - 1.75dB against -1.86dB

There are dramatic differences in peak levels per Adobe Audition's
statistics tool:

Track one L -1.35 dB R -0.12 dB
Track two L -3.58 dB R -3.50 dB

Another tip-off that track one came from a CD, and track two came from a
LP. Track two is obviously rather highly compressed.

I also think to say any preference test involving them is obviously
invalid is going a bit far, it depends what the aim of the test is.

Listening comparison
 

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.
--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Listening comparison
 

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.
--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

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
 

"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!

:-)

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.....!!)

:-)