[bfreedma]

Can't even pass Golden Sound test files with DBT ABX test myself just now for the second time again (1st one I managed 8/20), but interestingly enough this time, I managed to get 7 entries right correctly even though throughout the test I thought I heard the difference and was able to correctly identify it apparently but I was fully unaware that I actually got it right lol

Spoiler: ABX Results

foo_abx 2.2.1 report
foobar2000 v2.1.5
2024-05-08 19:48:07

File A: Test A (High Performance Filter).wav
SHA1: d626785e576b21b988a3ff3c59f85d3de27ed86d
File B: Test B (Normal Filter).wav
SHA1: 6cefd9bc846b7ba69d2bb06a869596cb740a4c0e

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

19:48:07 : Test started.
19:49:24 : 01/01
19:50:31 : 02/02
19:51:33 : 03/03
19:52:34 : 04/04
19:53:36 : 05/05
19:55:01 : 06/06
19:56:24 : 07/07
19:57:31 : 07/08
19:58:33 : 08/09
19:59:34 : 08/10
20:00:07 : 09/11
20:01:38 : 09/12
20:02:40 : 09/13
20:03:22 : 09/14
20:04:23 : 09/15
20:05:45 : 09/16
20:06:18 : 09/17
20:07:39 : 09/18
20:08:52 : 10/19
20:09:56 : 10/20

 ----------
Total: 10/20
p-value: 0.5881 (58.81%)

 -- signature --
e6633dff77f911900eabdf5493b43ce5257922bc

I can’t pass that test either. My ego thinks I should be able to, but my brain just won’t cooperate. I’m clearly just guessing.

 

[theveterans]

Is the phrase highlighted in red attempting to guide the answer (aka manipulate the result)?

IMO, the question is already biased. A better one would be just 'This response is driven by marketing material. Please rewrite using only peer reviewed and evidence based sources"

Agree?

My own DBT ABX results does not support any of this at all, but goldensound's result does support the AES paper as a data point

 

[bfreedma]

Is the phrase highlighted in red attempting to guide the answer (aka manipulate the result)?

IMO, the question is already biased. A better one would be just 'This response is driven by marketing material. Please rewrite using only peer reviewed and evidence based sources"

Agree?

The bias in the question was intentional. The intent was to demonstrate the bias of the LLM by attempting to have the ML engine response limited to audio science and avoid marketing material. The LLM/ML engine was unable to remove the subjective viewpoint from its response.

 

[sunjam]

This appears not only likely but extremely likely IMHO. It would explain why some/many of the sentences and sections in his posts are grammatically and syntactically correct while others indicate someone with a significantly poorer grasp of the English language.

G

LOL. To be honest, you guys really crack me up no offense . I don't know since when I became an AI-driven BOT.

He is an AI BOT?

AI (to be exact Co-pilot) did help me to gather a lot of info. I know my knowledge is very limited; I need an assistant to help me to find information for me.

I did the following when I was trying to calculate the SPL question:

Here is the partial recap of my reply based on the above (full detailed reply here):

What did you see here? Co-pilot helped me to get the information about dB SPL and its calculation method.

I used co-pilot to help me to gather the information but I use my own analytical skill to analyze the information and performed the calculation myself to ensure that I can do it myself. (well... I should have just blindly copied the answer from Co-Pilot as my own calculation was in the wrong unit).

What did I demonstrate? I hope I demostrated that I didn't just copy-and-pasted without thinking (otherwise, I would provide my answer in the correct unit).

If you look at my full reply here, you can tell how much I leveraraged the reply from co-pilot for writing my answer.

By the way, that was the only one-off reply that I tried to reply in a way to mimic the output of the Co-pilot. Probably I was bored and wanted to see if anyone can notice that.

It is interesting to find out that it turns out to be my own 100% original writing would prompt you guys to associate me with an AI-driven BOT. LOL.

====================

Grammatically and syntatically correct or not... why?

I have no doubt that all of you know I am not a native English spearker. I still have a tendency to think and write in my native language's way.

"why some/many of the sentences and sections in his posts are grammatically and syntactically correct while others indicate someone with a significantly poorer grasp of the English language." <== It takes some efforts for me to ensure my posts are grammatically and syntactically correct. I did my best to do it well too. However, I may still miss one or two here or there, especially if I replied around 4am my time.

That's why I always add "please correct me if I am wrong" or something like "I hope I can make it clear....."

AI-Generated Format?

I didn't realize my manual formatting work would be considered as AI generation. Thanks.

I just want to organize my messages clearly and structurely in order to avoid misunderstanding during communication. This also help me to think too.

Hope these may provide the answers for your puzzling about "AI-Bot or not".

Cheers

 

[sunjam]

The bias in the question was intentional. The intent was to demonstrate the bias of the LLM by attempting to have the ML engine response limited to audio science and avoid marketing material. The LLM/ML engine was unable to remove the subjective viewpoint from its response.

I see it differently.

IMO,

A biased question would give a biased response.
A unbiased question would give a unbiased response.

Let's look at the following two questions for ChatGPT 3.5

'This response is driven by marketing material. Please rewrite using only peer reviewed and evidence based sources"

'This response is driven by marketing material. Please rewrite using only peer reviewed and evidence based sources"

From my analysis, the first sentence is attempting to do something else...

Are the two questions above equivalent?

Answer A: Yes, it means "only peer reviewed and evidence based sources will be used" because it is by definition doing what we asked it to do

Answer B: No, they are different. It is because I want to have ChatGPT to avoid using any peer reviewed and evidence based information contain in any marketing materials

Answer C: No, they are different because I want to have ChatGTP to avoid using any marketing materials no matter it contains peer reviewed and evidence based information.

Is my analysis correct? Did I miss anything here?

BTW, my answer is A for the above question.

 

[sunjam]

Yup. That’s going to require “real” AI that can make independent decisions about the validity of the training data. We’re some time away from that being commercially available. Until then, ML responses are heavily driven by the biases of the coders who decide what content to utilize in their LLM and the quality of that content

Most frequently asked question of Chatbot/Virtual Agent customers: Why are my VA responses so bad/limited/inaccurate?

Response, though obviously softened: Why is your historical data and stored knowledge so full of garbage?

IMO, if someone would like to see a desired response from an objective AI engine, the easiler way to get the desired response is to train it with the information that only contains the desired response you want.

Without biased training, using manipulative questioning could change the result a bit but it would be very hard to get the exactly desired response someone may want to see, especially if that person attempts to change the result from something like positive to negative.

I believe that people can train an AI engine to report "1+1=3" if they feed only biased training materials for the AI engine to learn. Agree?

Human with critical thinking can tell easily if the AI's response is correct or not, IMO.

 

[sunjam]

Graph is not fake. Literally a DAC without digital filter or in this case the AKM supers slow roll-off outputs a stairstep sinusoidal wave in the time domain! That's the final audio reconstructed output in time domain that needs further clean up through extensive and expensive and inaccurate analog filtering of images, quantization noise from transition band, etc. with I/V output transformers, tubes, coupling capacitors, etc.!

I believe that different digital filter setting in the Topping E30 would only change the behaviour of the box circled in red below. Do you agree?

If you agree, then F-5 (aka "NOS mode") would have the same "extensive and expensive and inaccurate analog filtering of images, quantization noise from transition band, etc. with I/V output transformers, tubes, coupling capacitors, etc." that is applied for other filters (like F-1) before the signal is sent to final RCA ports. The stair-step chart was obtained from the signal out from the RCA ports.

Did I miss anything here?

(Note: Topping E30 is using AKM 4493 chip. The following is obtained from the datasheet of AKM4493)

 

[gregorio]

I found a thread over at ASR from Amir speaking of ABX Stats.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/
56% to PASS.

Careful of Amir here, while I applaud his efforts to provide objective measurements and priority on ASR is typically given to science/fact rather than marketing, he has an agenda of his own regarding hi-res! We had a run-in with him here several years ago and he’s not beyond misunderstanding/misrepresenting the science/facts or at least bending them, if his ego is questioned/threatened.

To me, I think I am still at kindergarden level regarding Audio Science (well... may be at primary school level now). Therefore, I want to learn from you guys regarding Audio Science.

OK, so we have your admission that even you believe you’re at kindergarten level, we’ll come back to that! Next, you claim you “want to learn”, we’ll come back to that too.

Bingo! I found it, it was indeed related to the "1+1=2" belief in the sampling theory. I was wrong as I overlooked the limitation of the theory, i.e. it only works perfectly in the ideal situation. It would compromise under real world situation.

Now we run into a serious problem, a conflict between your claim of a “background in physics” and your quoted assertion. Someone with a background in physics knows that pretty much all physics is limited by conditions, even 1+1=2 is conditional. For example, 1 star plus 1 star can equal 1 star (but of combined mass of course). Virtually all physics breaks down in black holes or before the Big Bang and the vast majority of physics is conditional under less extreme conditions, IE. There are conditions under which it does not work well or at all. In other words, someone with a background in physics could not be ignorant of limitations or conditions because it’s a fundamental part of physics and is definitely always a fundamental part of all practical applications of physics.

This shows to me again that our deep beliefs regarding concepts lik the "1+1=2" or "universal truth" could be "correct but absolutely"

What “our”? It is only YOUR incorrect deep beliefs in a “universal truth”, it is not ours, neither is it someone’s with a background in physics and again, even 1+1=2 has conditions!

Everything is solved. My critical thinking helps me again. It never fails.

That is a contradiction! You have not solved everything, in fact you haven’t even begun to solve anything at all, beyond the obvious that everyone else already knows or should know. Practical engineering does have “compromises under real world situations” but that obviously does NOT solve everything, the next obvious and logical step is: What are those compromises and what practical impact or relevance do they have? However, you have NOT taken that next step, you simply stopped and bleated for pages about what perfect means.

In other words, you are delusional! Your thinking is NOT “critical thinking” and it has not helped you, it has failed you. By you own quoted definition of critical thinking (from Wikipedia), “Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations and arguments …”, it is NOT arriving at one fact (that digital audio is not absolutely perfect in practice), stopping there and ignoring all the other available facts, especially as it is so logical and obvious that there are other relevant facts. Instead of investigating and “analysing the available facts”, you just stopped at one fact and then spent all your efforts in concocting fallacies and falsehoods to support your erroneous conclusion. That’s a perfect example of confirmation bias and the exact opposite of critical thinking. Hence why you MUST be delusional to believe you are employing critical thinking or, you are just lying about it all!

And that is only one example. For instance, your thinking has lead you to arguing in a sound science discussion forum against the proven/demonstrated science when you have a self-admitted kindergarten level of understanding. In contrast, actual “critical thinking” would lead to the realisation that arguing from a position of ignorance is fallacious!

To be honest, you guys really crack me up no offense . I don't know since when I became an AI-driven BOT.

He is an AI BOT?

AI (to be exact Co-pilot) did help me to gather a lot of info. I know my knowledge is very limited; I need an assistant to help me to find information for me.

No offence but you crack us up! No one stated you are an AI Bot, so that is yet another strawman argument and if that’s not enough; ironically, you have just admitted/confirmed what we did actually state we suspected!

I used co-pilot to help me to gather the information but I use my own analytical skill to analyze the information and performed the calculation myself to ensure that I can do it myself. (well... I should have just blindly copied the answer from Co-Pilot as my own calculation was in the wrong unit).
What did I demonstrate? I hope I demostrated that I didn't just copy-and-pasted without thinking (otherwise, I would provide my answer in the correct unit).

Perfect! What you demonstrated is that your “own analytical skill to analyse the information” is insufficient due to you having a kindergarten level of understanding, that you did effectively copy-and-paste without thinking, that your thinking is fallacious and that you are incapable of learning, despite your false claims to the contrary:

Regardless of which unit you used, your answer was still WRONG, neither -30dSPL nor your same answer expressed in micro-pascals can actually exist and despite explaining this to you at least twice, you refuse to learn, you just keep repeating the same INCORRECT answer. Worse still, you falsely claim your answer is wrong because it uses the wrong unit and you (conveniently) ignore the fact that it is wrong regardless of the unit, but at least you admit this is all your own “thinking”! lol

G

 

[71 dB]

CDs are definitely not garbage. You have every right to enjoy them.

I don't enjoy all of them. Most of them, I believe, contain music I don't enjoy. Also there are CDs containing music I would enjoy if it wasn't for bad sound quality due to bad recording/mixing/mastering/etc. Nobody has ever denied my right to listen to the music format I want. I just wish the amount of copies of many releases would have been larger and closer to the demand. In many cases I have discovered the music myself decades after the release and hunting down an affordable copy can be frustrating.

 

[71 dB]

Cool, thanks a lot for your sharing. I really enjoy it. "Find your personal things in life that make you happy"

You're welcome! I'm glad you liked reading it!

For me I have been using CD for decades. My offical Hi-Res journey just started a few months ago when I got my PC.

As a new PC, it has a lot of excessive power. One day, I saw someones mentioned HQPlayer and they said it sounds very good. Given I have a new PC, I decided to try it (as it is free). Then you could guess what happened.

Not sure if you can hear the difference or not. For me, I do. I am not younger than you. It has no harm to try so I did it.

I of course don't know what differences you hear comparing CD and hi-res, but it is good to keep in mind that our hearing does tricks to us sometimes. It is easy to hear what you want to hear. To really be certain of hearing something it is necessary to remove these tricks of mind with proper listening tests.

CD is very good indeed, you don't have to change if you want. Sometimes, I would just play the raw CD files as I need the extra power in my PC for number chrunching.
Bottom line: No matter it is Hi-Res or CD, "hear the difference or not", enjoy the music you love! Cheers

Certainly the most important thing is we love the music!

 

[Ryokan]

I just wish the amount of copies of many releases would have been larger and closer to the demand. In many cases I have discovered the music myself decades after the release and hunting down an affordable copy can be frustrating.

Amazon US can print cd's when they're not available, it would be good if more places offered this service.

 

[sunjam]

Amazon US can print cd's when they're not available, it would be good if more places offered this service.

Just wondering what do you mean by print cd? Do you mean they can make CD-R copy for you? Do yo need to somehow provide the source? Thanks.

 

[sunjam]

Careful of Amir here, while I applaud his efforts to provide objective measurements and priority on ASR is typically given to science/fact rather than marketing, he has an agenda of his own regarding hi-res! We had a run-in with him here several years ago and he’s not beyond misunderstanding/misrepresenting the science/facts or at least bending them, if his ego is questioned/threatened.

OK, so we have your admission that even you believe you’re at kindergarten level, we’ll come back to that! Next, you claim you “want to learn”, we’ll come back to that too.

Now we run into a serious problem, a conflict between your claim of a “background in physics” and your quoted assertion. Someone with a background in physics knows that pretty much all physics is limited by conditions, even 1+1=2 is conditional. For example, 1 star plus 1 star can equal 1 star (but of combined mass of course). Virtually all physics breaks down in black holes or before the Big Bang and the vast majority of physics is conditional under less extreme conditions, IE. There are conditions under which it does not work well or at all. In other words, someone with a background in physics could not be ignorant of limitations or conditions because it’s a fundamental part of physics and is definitely always a fundamental part of all practical applications of physics.

What “our”? It is only YOUR incorrect deep beliefs in a “universal truth”, it is not ours, neither is it someone’s with a background in physics and again, even 1+1=2 has conditions!

That is a contradiction! You have not solved everything, in fact you haven’t even begun to solve anything at all, beyond the obvious that everyone else already knows or should know. Practical engineering does have “compromises under real world situations” but that obviously does NOT solve everything, the next obvious and logical step is: What are those compromises and what practical impact or relevance do they have? However, you have NOT taken that next step, you simply stopped and bleated for pages about what perfect means.

In other words, you are delusional! Your thinking is NOT “critical thinking” and it has not helped you, it has failed you. By you own quoted definition of critical thinking (from Wikipedia), “Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations and arguments …”, it is NOT arriving at one fact (that digital audio is not absolutely perfect in practice), stopping there and ignoring all the other available facts, especially as it is so logical and obvious that there are other relevant facts. Instead of investigating and “analysing the available facts”, you just stopped at one fact and then spent all your efforts in concocting fallacies and falsehoods to support your erroneous conclusion. That’s a perfect example of confirmation bias and the exact opposite of critical thinking. Hence why you MUST be delusional to believe you are employing critical thinking or, you are just lying about it all!

And that is only one example. For instance, your thinking has lead you to arguing in a sound science discussion forum against the proven/demonstrated science when you have a self-admitted kindergarten level of understanding. In contrast, actual “critical thinking” would lead to the realisation that arguing from a position of ignorance is fallacious!

No offence but you crack us up! No one stated you are an AI Bot, so that is yet another strawman argument and if that’s not enough; ironically, you have just admitted/confirmed what we did actually state we suspected!

Perfect! What you demonstrated is that your “own analytical skill to analyse the information” is insufficient due to you having a kindergarten level of understanding, that you did effectively copy-and-paste without thinking, that your thinking is fallacious and that you are incapable of learning, despite your false claims to the contrary:

Regardless of which unit you used, your answer was still WRONG, neither -30dSPL nor your same answer expressed in micro-pascals can actually exist and despite explaining this to you at least twice, you refuse to learn, you just keep repeating the same INCORRECT answer. Worse still, you falsely claim your answer is wrong because it uses the wrong unit and you (conveniently) ignore the fact that it is wrong regardless of the unit, but at least you admit this is all your own “thinking”! lol

G

Just out of curiousity, are you a native English speaker?

 

[71 dB]

Amazon US can print cd's when they're not available, it would be good if more places offered this service.

I haven't used Amazon US for many many years because the shipping costs to Europe are ridiculous. I have zero experience on these "on demand discs."

For example F. R. David - Reflections. All I see is used from $50 (+shipping $60!! ) and new from $79.

 

[gregorio]

Just out of curiousity, are you a native English speaker?

Just out of curiosity, is your only response, deflection?

G