"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when I
am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this on my
laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I enjoy, which
seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate compression. I would also
feel better knowing that I have personally prepared the files for
comparison.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and my
laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't seem to
exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from compression that I
hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I prefer. I will make my peace
with the PCABX test this weekend and truthfully report my results!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and my
laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't seem to
exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from compression that I
hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I prefer. I will make my peace
with the PCABX test this weekend and truthfully report my results!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and my
laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't seem to
exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from compression that I
hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I prefer. I will make my peace
with the PCABX test this weekend and truthfully report my results!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results when
I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music selections for
comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to an FTP site if you
want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX application I
downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to extract the audio
from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a wave file and again
as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the saved MP3 and resave it
as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone have any issues with this
methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and my
laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't seem to
exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from compression that I
hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I prefer. I will make my peace
with the PCABX test this weekend and truthfully report my results!

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results
when I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music
selections for comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to
an FTP site if you want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX
application I downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to
extract the audio from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a
wave file and again as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the
saved MP3 and resave it as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone
have any issues with this methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and
my laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't
seem to exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from
compression that I hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I
prefer. I will make my peace with the PCABX test this weekend and
truthfully report my results!

I'm trying to make a point here, and it's obviously being missed. Please let
me try to improve my communication skills.

Based on widespread misleading experiences with sighted evaluations; lots of
people think that differences that are actually subtle, are easy to hear. To
counteract this widespread problem, I formulated the PCABX web site so that
it provides a gentle but usually effective introduction to the messy
business of actually hearing differences.

I have no problem with people formulating their own listening tests once
they are actually familiar with the problem at hand. Indeed, I actively
encourage it.

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results
when I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music
selections for comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to
an FTP site if you want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX
application I downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to
extract the audio from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a
wave file and again as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the
saved MP3 and resave it as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone
have any issues with this methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and
my laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't
seem to exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from
compression that I hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I
prefer. I will make my peace with the PCABX test this weekend and
truthfully report my results!

I'm trying to make a point here, and it's obviously being missed. Please let
me try to improve my communication skills.

Based on widespread misleading experiences with sighted evaluations; lots of
people think that differences that are actually subtle, are easy to hear. To
counteract this widespread problem, I formulated the PCABX web site so that
it provides a gentle but usually effective introduction to the messy
business of actually hearing differences.

I have no problem with people formulating their own listening tests once
they are actually familiar with the problem at hand. Indeed, I actively
encourage it.

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results
when I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music
selections for comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to
an FTP site if you want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX
application I downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to
extract the audio from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a
wave file and again as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the
saved MP3 and resave it as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone
have any issues with this methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and
my laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't
seem to exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from
compression that I hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I
prefer. I will make my peace with the PCABX test this weekend and
truthfully report my results!

I'm trying to make a point here, and it's obviously being missed. Please let
me try to improve my communication skills.

Based on widespread misleading experiences with sighted evaluations; lots of
people think that differences that are actually subtle, are easy to hear. To
counteract this widespread problem, I formulated the PCABX web site so that
it provides a gentle but usually effective introduction to the messy
business of actually hearing differences.

I have no problem with people formulating their own listening tests once
they are actually familiar with the problem at hand. Indeed, I actively
encourage it.

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


I downloaded the ABX application and will give you the results
when I am back at my desktop and have prepared some music
selections for comparison. I'll also happily upload the files to
an FTP site if you want to hear them for yourself. Since the ABX
application I downloaded only accepts .wav files, my plan is to
extract the audio from a CD with Sound Forge 7, then save it as a
wave file and again as an MP3 at 128kbps. I will then reopen the
saved MP3 and resave it as a .wav file for comparison. Anyone
have any issues with this methodology?

Why not just get started with some files downloaded from:

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

As I said..I'm out of town for a few days and don't want to do this
on my laptop and I would prefer to use the style of music that I
enjoy, which seems to be particularly effected by lower bitrate
compression. I would also feel better knowing that I have personally
prepared the files for comparison.

I guess you are opaque to the wisdom of "walk before you try to run".

No, I just know what I hear on the music content that I listen to and
my laptop is not a particularly hi-fi device. Popular music doesn't
seem to exhibit the kind of high frequency cymbal swirling from
compression that I hear on the brashier mainstream jazz that I
prefer. I will make my peace with the PCABX test this weekend and
truthfully report my results!

I'm trying to make a point here, and it's obviously being missed. Please let
me try to improve my communication skills.

Based on widespread misleading experiences with sighted evaluations; lots of
people think that differences that are actually subtle, are easy to hear. To
counteract this widespread problem, I formulated the PCABX web site so that
it provides a gentle but usually effective introduction to the messy
business of actually hearing differences.

I have no problem with people formulating their own listening tests once
they are actually familiar with the problem at hand. Indeed, I actively
encourage it.

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this
problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

I guess I'm being misunderstood. I have no problems with your test
application. I'm merely going to use equipment and music that I am familiar
with and that I feel suffers the most from compression. Just farting around
here in my hotel room with my laptop and it's crappy underpowered headphone
output, I can't tell much difference between anything at 128kbps. It's very
obvious at 96kbps even on my laptop. So are you saying that there is
something special about the downloadable selections that are on the ABX site
that I downloaded the application from? I'm not trying to change your test,
I just want to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare
the same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for download
for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is great and I
understand the value you place upon it.

I'll be home tomorrow night so look for something from me sometime on
Sunday.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this
problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

I guess I'm being misunderstood. I have no problems with your test
application. I'm merely going to use equipment and music that I am familiar
with and that I feel suffers the most from compression. Just farting around
here in my hotel room with my laptop and it's crappy underpowered headphone
output, I can't tell much difference between anything at 128kbps. It's very
obvious at 96kbps even on my laptop. So are you saying that there is
something special about the downloadable selections that are on the ABX site
that I downloaded the application from? I'm not trying to change your test,
I just want to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare
the same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for download
for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is great and I
understand the value you place upon it.

I'll be home tomorrow night so look for something from me sometime on
Sunday.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this
problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

I guess I'm being misunderstood. I have no problems with your test
application. I'm merely going to use equipment and music that I am familiar
with and that I feel suffers the most from compression. Just farting around
here in my hotel room with my laptop and it's crappy underpowered headphone
output, I can't tell much difference between anything at 128kbps. It's very
obvious at 96kbps even on my laptop. So are you saying that there is
something special about the downloadable selections that are on the ABX site
that I downloaded the application from? I'm not trying to change your test,
I just want to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare
the same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for download
for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is great and I
understand the value you place upon it.

I'll be home tomorrow night so look for something from me sometime on
Sunday.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

But please show due respect for an account of the gravity of this
problem
from a person with almost 30 years of experience with it; especially given
that I've giving away (for free!) a proven solution for the problem, at my
own personal expense.

I guess I'm being misunderstood. I have no problems with your test
application. I'm merely going to use equipment and music that I am familiar
with and that I feel suffers the most from compression. Just farting around
here in my hotel room with my laptop and it's crappy underpowered headphone
output, I can't tell much difference between anything at 128kbps. It's very
obvious at 96kbps even on my laptop. So are you saying that there is
something special about the downloadable selections that are on the ABX site
that I downloaded the application from? I'm not trying to change your test,
I just want to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare
the same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for download
for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is great and I
understand the value you place upon it.

I'll be home tomorrow night so look for something from me sometime on
Sunday.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


So are you saying that there is something special about the
downloadable selections that are on the ABX site that I downloaded
the application from?

Yes, the PCABX samples are *special* both in terms of context and content.
The goal - practical instruction in the messy business of actually listening
for small differences. For example, the "PCABX Listening Room" samples at
the top of the table really are easy, but the ones at the bottom can be
pretty hard, and there is a more-or-less uniform progression in-between.

Both context and content are designed to be maximally instructive in the
messy business of listening for small differences. For example, in many
cases the coders are violently obsolete, but the listening tests themselves
teach lessons about listening to coders.

I'm not trying to change your test, I just want
to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare the
same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for
download for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is
great and I understand the value you place upon it.

Like I said, do roll your own tests, but please only after you play with
mine for a while and get the hang of listening for small differences.
Listening blind is quite a shock for many people. My goal is that it be an
emotionally and intellectually survivable experience.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


So are you saying that there is something special about the
downloadable selections that are on the ABX site that I downloaded
the application from?

Yes, the PCABX samples are *special* both in terms of context and content.
The goal - practical instruction in the messy business of actually listening
for small differences. For example, the "PCABX Listening Room" samples at
the top of the table really are easy, but the ones at the bottom can be
pretty hard, and there is a more-or-less uniform progression in-between.

Both context and content are designed to be maximally instructive in the
messy business of listening for small differences. For example, in many
cases the coders are violently obsolete, but the listening tests themselves
teach lessons about listening to coders.

I'm not trying to change your test, I just want
to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare the
same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for
download for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is
great and I understand the value you place upon it.

Like I said, do roll your own tests, but please only after you play with
mine for a while and get the hang of listening for small differences.
Listening blind is quite a shock for many people. My goal is that it be an
emotionally and intellectually survivable experience.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


So are you saying that there is something special about the
downloadable selections that are on the ABX site that I downloaded
the application from?

Yes, the PCABX samples are *special* both in terms of context and content.
The goal - practical instruction in the messy business of actually listening
for small differences. For example, the "PCABX Listening Room" samples at
the top of the table really are easy, but the ones at the bottom can be
pretty hard, and there is a more-or-less uniform progression in-between.

Both context and content are designed to be maximally instructive in the
messy business of listening for small differences. For example, in many
cases the coders are violently obsolete, but the listening tests themselves
teach lessons about listening to coders.

I'm not trying to change your test, I just want
to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare the
same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for
download for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is
great and I understand the value you place upon it.

Like I said, do roll your own tests, but please only after you play with
mine for a while and get the hang of listening for small differences.
Listening blind is quite a shock for many people. My goal is that it be an
emotionally and intellectually survivable experience.

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message


So are you saying that there is something special about the
downloadable selections that are on the ABX site that I downloaded
the application from?

Yes, the PCABX samples are *special* both in terms of context and content.
The goal - practical instruction in the messy business of actually listening
for small differences. For example, the "PCABX Listening Room" samples at
the top of the table really are easy, but the ones at the bottom can be
pretty hard, and there is a more-or-less uniform progression in-between.

Both context and content are designed to be maximally instructive in the
messy business of listening for small differences. For example, in many
cases the coders are violently obsolete, but the listening tests themselves
teach lessons about listening to coders.

I'm not trying to change your test, I just want
to use music that I have prepared, and I'd also like to prepare the
same selections with 128kbps WMA9 files as well MP3. I promise not to
cheat and I'll make my prepared musical selections available for
download for any one who is interested. I think your methodology is
great and I understand the value you place upon it.

Like I said, do roll your own tests, but please only after you play with
mine for a while and get the hang of listening for small differences.
Listening blind is quite a shock for many people. My goal is that it be an
emotionally and intellectually survivable experience.