@kevn 

@amir_asr  - hi there amir, thank you for your participation in audiogon, and your extensive replies. I have a question that is very important to me to ask, and I hope you will find my request in the sea of responses this thread has become. There is a pretty basic test I found on the internet, of listening ability based on two different digitally configured formats, one in a higher resolution. Here is the said link -

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Thank you for kind words.  I am not at all a fan of this kind of test.  They are usually designed by people who want to get a "no, there is no difference" answer.

The proper way would tell you this is the high resolution file and CD one.  Then you are presented with a randomized test to identify the samples against those two versions.  What this does is enable you to go through a training phase where in sighted listening, you can work to learn the difference if they exist.  Once there, then you can take the blinded version.  Such training is highly important and part of any protocol for such tests such as international ITU standard BS1116:

"Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems"

"4.1 Familiarization or training phase

Prior to formal grading, subjects must be allowed to become thoroughly familiar with the test facilities, the test environment, the grading process, the grading scales and the methods of their use. Subjects should also become thoroughly familiar with the artefacts under study. For the most sensitive tests they should be exposed to all the material they will be grading later in the formal grading sessions. During familiarization or training, subjects should be preferably together in groups (say, consisting of three subjects), so that they can interact freely and discuss the artefacts they detect with each other."

The reason for this is that if there are any potentially audible issues, we want to find them.  We don't disadvantage the listeners by throwing two samples and so "go."  There is no way to get trained this way as you don't know which sample is which.

Now, if our goal is to challenge someone saying they can tell the difference between high-res and CD in their sleep, then sure, you can run this kind of test.  But you better not run and declare there are no audible differences. There can very well be and you will be missing it in this type of testing.

I post this video before on what it means to get trained.  In there, I show how I passed a test of high-res vs 16 bit.  Something you can learn how to do and bust the theory of people who say everything sounds the same:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk

@amir_asr Then what is @soundfield talking about when he says you have never participated in a blind test outside of your own?

First thing you want to learn that nothing AJ tells you is the truth unless you verify it yourself. I don't know anyone who sacrifices the truth to serve his agenda more than him.  And his agenda is that nothing in audio makes a difference other than I guess speakers.  He used to walk the halls of forums and stomp on you repeatedly if you dared to say otherwise.  I came into the picture and he repeated the same.  The problem for him was that I am a professionally trained listener in addition to knowing the technology whereas he is none of that.

He would challenge me on audibility and I would routinely show him that with tests put forward around that time that his assertions were completely wrong.  That I could, in computerized automated double blind tests, I could pass them.  That would cause him to blow a fuse and accuse me of teaching.  Those accusations were as empty as his inaudibility claims.  I explain this in detail in the video I post above.  Here it is with the timestamp:

https://youtu.be/0KX2yk-9ygk?t=1561

Above I show how you cannot just edit the output of these ABX programs due to cryptographic hash in the newer version.  He also accuses me of watching an analyzer while performing the test.  This is completely silly as real-time analyzer is not going to let you pass many of these tests such as the high-res one where countermeasures are in there to assure that very thing.

Bottom line, he likes to create FUD around anyone who can create these tests as to claim there is not ever any audible difference in audio no matter what.  Pass a test like this and you must be a cheater.  Well, no, he is the one that is the problem because there are reasons why one can pass these tests and not everything presents an inaudible difference.

Mind you, AJ himself has never taken a single test.  He has no training or again, knowledge of technology. So I can see why it is miraculous to him that someone can pass these tests.  But that is his problem, not mine.

BTW, I am not the only one passing these tests.  The late Arny Krueger and friends created an ABX test of amplifiers showing them to have audible differences.  

Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/double-blind-tests-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

If you don't know Anry, he was a staunch objectivists who like AJ, believed you all are wrong about hearing any differences between just about anything.  Kind of like AJ but less ruthless.

Bottom line, don't listen to AJ.  There is a reason I threw him out of ASR even though he claims to be a hardcore objectivist.  See how he doesn't even post measurements of his speakers.  When facts go against his stance, he all of a sudden pretends facts don't matter.

@soundfield you heard the man. Show us some measurements. It is odd I couldnt find any checking now. 

To be fair to both of you, you both are to me, the worst that audio has to offer. Neither of you have provided answers. 

@amir_asr still hasn't answered why he closed the thread. AJ needs to post some proof his speakers are worthy of ASR. LOL