"ScottW" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fFQqd.156697$bk1.116981@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "ScottW" wrote in message
om

Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions,
Scott.

Alright, let me try to summarize.

1) PCABX is a listening test.

2) As a test, all steps in the test chain must not audibly mask the
source.

3) You claim to manage masking in PCABX buy using hi-rez
sources and playback devices.

I'm not managing proven masking with hi rez formats. Instead, what
I'm managing is the *possibility* that masking might take place.

This is where you have admittedly fallen into the snake oil pit.

No Scott, I've known your character or lack of it for a long time.

However this isn't the only potential source of masking and isn't
likely to even be the predominant one.

Agreed.

Still, it is the only one for
which you have offered a solution, albeit, a snake oil one.

Simply not true. However feel free to prove me wrong by providing your list
of sources of masking.

As the results of the tests actually come out for *everybody*, one
of the hi rez formats that I successfully use to show where masking
takes place, is 16/44. However, I use 24/96 to answer questions
about the 16/44 format. Whether the tests for masking are done with
16/44 files or 24/96 files, the point of zero audible masking by the
format is something like 14/32. I'm under the impression that the
BBC chose roughly this format over 20 years ago for their own
digital networks.

So, if I may interpret, this paragraph indicates that your solution
to the "possibility of masking" in the digital realm is without
foundation and clearly resorting to unnecessary snake oil.

Interpret incorrectly as you wish, Scott.

So 2 and 3 must be true or the concept of PCABX will be flawed.

That's because you misunderstand the purpose the use of hi-rez
formats (ironically 16/44 is one of the hi rez formats that actually
works for the purpose of avoiding masking) of item 3.

4) But you also claim that hi-rez formats are snake-oil as they
cannot be shown to have any audible improvements over 16/44.

This is true.

Then your solution to possible digital masking is snake oil when
applied to any listening tests like PCABX.

It's not snake oil that I invented or espouse. However, it is so popular
that I felt obliged to offer it as a potential solution.

But if 4 is true then 3 cannot satisfy 2 and PCABX is flawed.

That's because you misstated my goals in item 3.

Actually, your goal in item 3 is completely lost when you resort to
listening as the final step in the test chain with inferior resolution
to all preceding steps.

What alternative to listening do you propose, Scott?

Somehow you seem to have concluded that this
step sets the resolution requirements for all the preceding steps to a
rather low level, that of audibility.

So?

Care to discuss cumulitive degradation in analog stages now that we have
shown your digital mask
management is snake oil?

I've never had any problems with *cumulitive* errors.

ScottW