Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DreamDropDistancia t1_j9w4vd8 wrote

Reply to comment by ultra_prescriptivist in Having a hard time differentiating between Spotify and tidal hi-fi by Not-Icarus

> Scientific studies

Did you even read the study?

[I don't know how it include images or quotes correctly, I guess. See section 4 of the first "study"]

They didn't test headphones. This took place nearly twenty years ago. They admit that they were likely using less carefully mastered/recorded sources.

Yeah. Duh. Garbage in, garbage out.

​

Excuse me.

[See the "audio equipment quality graph from the Wordpress blog.]

You call this a control? Self-described, non-standardized, three-optioned meassure of the quality of audio equipment used in this blog-tier "test", which didn't control for jack?

​

Oh, well, if Gabriella says so.

[See the About page of that blog. Who even...]

I'm not that invested in this conversation that I'm going to even bother checking the other links. This is too much work, and I'm not getting paid. Let's just say "you win", because that's clearly what needs to happen here, and then I'm going to call it a day. GLHF

−2

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j9w73rx wrote

Sure, the large scale test data has some pretty obvious limitations but it's better than nothing. Official scientific literature on the subject is seriously scarce but what little data there is is heavily weighed in favour of people not being able to tell the difference, which also lines up with what my own personal testing has shown.

If people who claimed otherwise could actually provide some evidence to back it up rather than just anecdotal, subjective testimony, that would actually be a great help!

2

DreamDropDistancia t1_j9x3pwc wrote

Again, it's a niche within a niche. It's not going to happen / even large studies get it wrong, so what chance do individuals have at providing evidence any kind of evidence you would accept? What would that even look like?

In the end, "better than nothing" is how we end up having to live our lives, and, simultaneously, the foundation for many of the most widespread cases of misinformation in all of scientific history.

We can't know until we know. Until we do, I'm not so willing to say I'm convinced, and saying I'm not convinced doesn't change anything/affect my life, so it's fine, in my book.

2

ultra_prescriptivist t1_j9x51nh wrote

> so what chance do individuals have at providing evidence any kind of evidence you would accept? What would that even look like?

As I have often pointed out, proving it is actually fairly easy and pain-free. People who are willing to give up maybe ten minutes of their time and a little effort can use free software tools such as Foobar2000's excellent ABX comparator plugin (installation and usage instructions here) to conduct their own test using their own lossless source files on own their own setup.

The log that results from the test can be saved as .txt and can be verified using Foobar's ABX signature checker to confirm that the results are legitimate. It's not perfect, but it goes a long way to showing that people can actually hear what they claim to hear.

Plus, even more importantly that the result itself, the process of blind testing actually shows to people how small the difference actually is when they don't know which is which and how little it generally matters in the grand scheme of things.

1