Paper freely available: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160629/18296.pdf
We tested audiophiles against our trained listeners at Microsoft and with super rare exceptions, they did poorly and no different than average public. So even if formal studies show ability distinguish between formats, I am afraid most audiophiles will have trouble doing so which I think is your point.As with every such report of a 'small but statistically significant' effect (like Meridien's) that increases only with 'extensive training', a question to keep forefront in mind is, how does this effect compare with the claims for audibility of hi-rez commonly, and loudly, made by and championed by audiophiles, listening sighted, with typically 'self-training' at best, to all manner of recordings labelled 'hi rez' even if they have no 'hi rez' content?
How did you determine these people were audiophiles, and how were the trained listeners trained?We tested audiophiles against our trained listeners at Microsoft and with super rare exceptions, they did poorly and no different than average public. So even if formal studies show ability distinguish between formats, I am afraid most audiophiles will have trouble doing so which I think is your point.
By what they ate for lunch. The trained ones had hot dogs and the audiophiles, shrimp.....How did you determine these people were audiophiles, and how were the trained listeners trained?
Exactly what I thought. Good try though... Might have been better results if they had healthier diets.By what they ate for lunch. The trained ones had hot dogs and the audiophiles, shrimp.....
They should have. It was amature hour.Meyer and Moron took it on the chin.
It is that but it is also listening for lost detail, high frequency accentuation, pre-echo (harshness of transients), ability to use tools to isolate potential problem areas, etc. It is the difference between a driver and a mechanic listening to engine noise.Trained listeners are, I believe, trained to listen for specific artifacts.
I didn't see this thread. I started another one. Sorry.
I think it's interesting that the author says more study could be done regarding how filter and equipment can influence the result. I think it would interesting to know whether offline upsampling has an effect and if so whether that effect is different from genuine hi-res recordings.
Meyer and Moron took it on the chin.
They should have. It was amature hour.
Bad science is bad science Steven. If we don't dismiss it even if the outcome is to our liking, we lose the whole mission. In law, bad evidence is thrown out even if everyone thinks the defendant is guilty. If we were running a drug trial and the people running it didn't bother to make sure that the control was the control and the drug was the drug, no respected journal would accept their paper. Yet the president of AES allowed this to get published in their Journal. We need to speak out about that so that it doesn't cheapen the entire universe of research published in J AES.Yet how much ink has been spilled desperately trying to bury their (almost certainly true) results since 2007?
Weird science don't always turn out bad...,Bad science is bad science Steven. If we don't dismiss it even if the outcome is to our liking, we lose the whole mission. In law, bad evidence is thrown out even if everyone thinks the defendant is guilty. If we were running a drug trial and the people running it didn't bother to make sure that the control was the control and the drug was the drug, no respected journal would accept their paper. Yet the president of AES allowed this to get published in their Journal. We need to speak out about that so that it doesn't cheapen the entire universe of research published in J AES.
Now if they had just published it in their user group report, that would have been fine. But it should have never risen to the J AES and folks who reviewed that work should have been more trained in the field, as young as it was then.
It is refreshing that you agree people should speak out when they see bad science.Bad science is bad science Steven. If we don't dismiss it even if the outcome is to our liking, we lose the whole mission. In law, bad evidence is thrown out even if everyone thinks the defendant is guilty. If we were running a drug trial and the people running it didn't bother to make sure that the control was the control and the drug was the drug, no respected journal would accept their paper. Yet the president of AES allowed this to get published in their Journal. We need to speak out about that so that it doesn't cheapen the entire universe of research published in J AES.
Now if they had just published it in their user group report, that would have been fine. But it should have never risen to the J AES and folks who reviewed that work should have been more trained in the field, as young as it was then.
It is refreshing that you agree people should speak out when they see bad science.
I was just trying to saying something nice Tom.
Bob, if you keep grinding that axe there will be no blade left to really hurt us with
I detected a hint of sarcasm Bob, but forgive me if I was wrong following the well established narrative you have cast both here and else where I think it was a fair assumption on my part.I was just trying to saying something nice Tom.