Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-30-2012, 10:05 PM
DSperber DSperber is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Marina Del Rey, CA
Posts: 699

Originally Posted by El C View Post
Have any ABX tests actually been done?
Not yet, but I will. Promise.

More important to me right now is the "internal guts swap" I must do to relocate a machine/motherboard that will not support a new dual-DVI ATI PCIe 2.1 video card (HD5770) with a second machine/motherboard which will support this new video card. This swap will take two days (retaining existing CPU/motherboard and primary hard drive in each machine, and reversing all other peripheral cards and components between the two machines).

I need dual-DVI at one location where the incompatible motherboard machine currently lives, and my solution is to use the other motherboard machine instead.

So quite frankly I have a higher priority demand for my time right now, and I want to spend adquate time on the ABX experiment. Of course I know it will not cause me to delete one FLAC file that I have and replace it with one MP3 file, but I will perform the experiment nevertheless.

Again... you can't be better than the original WAV/CD. And FLAC is a duplicate of that. Anything else is not the same, even if it's a very very very good imitation. Even if that's an emotional argument rather than a "facts-based conclusion from trying an ABX test", you will never convince me that opting for a lossy anything can possibly be a better choice than going with the original WAV/FLAC version... if file space is not a consideration.

That is truly the only argument for choosing MP3, is that it is smaller. There is nothing else which can be claimed for it as an advantage over the original WAV/FLAC. It cannot possibly be "better" than the original WAV/FLAC, although it may be "indistinguishable".

And if it's indistinguishable, then what does it matter to anybody whether I just choose FLAC over MP3 if file size is not of concern to me? It's not like I've made the "wrong" choice and FLAC sounds "worse" than MP3.

Anyway, I definitely will give Foobar and the ABX test another shot. I just was unhappy with not knowing how many comparisons I was expected to perform, how to proceed through the whole process, etc. I mean I'm not incapable of figuring it out by trial and error since the button annotations were understandable, but I just didn't know what all of those posted "results" were that I saw from others. How long did they have to do a test before getting those "results"? And what did they mean... all zeros???

How come everybody got all zeros? What does that mean??? What are they trying to say by posting all zeros?? Did they "win or lose"? Does that mean they had achieved the minimum acceptable encoding parameters so that they could have the smallest MP3 file that was indistinguishable from the original WAV? If so, then it's a total waste of time for me anyway because I'm still going with FLAC. I'm not looking for a smallest-possible MP3 that "fools me and most people, as if it were the WAV" as my goal.

I appreciate attempts here to satisfy my request for instructions, but I still think it would be appropriate for the program to provide formal documentation on how this whole functionality is to be set up and used.
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 AM.