Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected.

Well, a good test would have both positive and negative controls. Training also.

There is no such video. Stop making stuff up AJ. I have never, ever used an analyzer when taking these blind tests.

Umm, over your right shoulder, in background

Edit, can't embed image but its on the video

@soundfield

He must be talking about an amplifier or DAC.

Nope.  I presented him two speaker frequency response measurements and asked him if he gets nothing out of them and that was his answer.  Here is the post again (cant get the link, it is just a few posts above yours):

@ossicle2brain 

And just to repeat, Amir has made me realize how little measurements actually matter. 

[amir] So you are saying that you learn nothing from measurements of these two speakers?

Only if you promise to be one of the everyone.

Why?  Set up the test.  Show the people here that they can't tell the difference between high res and CD as you like to claim.

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

What the audiologist does is exactly that: whether a signal can be detected under the conditions of the test.  They even play noise and then a tone to see if you can hear one over the other.  Seems like you have neither taken an audiologist test, nor an ABX.

As to multiple trials, that is exactly what I showed.  Each row represents a randomization of the samples and you are asked the question again:

Difference between 24/96 kHz and 16/44.1 with file provided by the late ArnyK:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/24 20:27:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling amir-converted 4416 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

20:27:41 : Test started.
20:28:07 : 00/01 100.0%
20:28:25 : 00/02 100.0%
20:28:55 : 01/03 87.5%
20:29:02 : 02/04 68.8%
20:29:12 : 03/05 50.0%
20:29:20 : 04/06 34.4%
20:29:27 : 05/07 22.7%
20:29:36 : 06/08 14.5%
20:29:44 : 07/09 9.0%
20:29:55 : 08/10 5.5%
20:30:00 : 09/11 3.3%
20:30:07 : 10/12 1.9%
20:30:16 : 11/13 1.1%
20:30:22 : 12/14 0.6%
20:30:29 : 13/15 0.4%
20:30:36 : 14/16 0.2%
20:30:41 : 15/17 0.1%
20:30:53 : 16/18 0.1%
20:31:03 : 17/19 0.0%
20:31:07 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 17/19 (0.0%)

0.0% probably of chance.

Above, the test was repeated 19 times and I got 17 right making the probability that I was guessing less than 0.0%.

As to multiple listeners, that is if we want to establish detection thresholds for a population.  In the case of a personal challenge, if  you pass a test like above, it is a significant factor that calls for standing up and paying attention.  This is orthogonal to what an ABX test is.

So no, there is no confusion here.  @kevn said he passed the test of high-res vs CD but provided no evidence whatsoever.  And the test that he said he did run, is not about high-res vs CD.  For my part, I took whatever challenges were common at the time and ran the in a proper program to see if I could tell the difference.  

Have you taken an ABX test and if so, can you post the outcome of any?