[A Jedi]

He's not actually interested in science.

Sorry dude if my test doesn't reflect what you want or expect to see.

And if you're not interested in outliers, you shouldn't be interested in anything because:

If you're a creationist, humanity is around 10,000 years old. Which, super conservatively is 20,000 generations. It takes 2 people from each generation to make a descendant. So that's 40,000 people. Every single one of those would have had to make thousands of "just right" decisions to end up with their mate when they did and create the child that they did. So, your existence (like mine and everyone else's) is an outlier. Therefore everything is an outlier.

But if that's too philosophical for you, take the rarest material on Earth (the outlier) and delete everything that relies on it. Now tell me if that outlier matters or not.

I appreciate your attempt at being holier than though with the cheating accusation. I invite you to come visit me as I take the test in front of you.

 

[bigshot]

Even if it wasn’t bigshot but some timid guy instead, what type of answer do you expect after setting such a tone? Clearly you’re looking for a fight.

It's OK. I don't read his posts any more. It's a shame, because he has interesting facts, he just doesn't understand it when people assign facts to a particular context. There's also a knee jerk contrariness there too. He'll say the same thing I say in a post, and then when I say it, he reverses and it's wrong now. I see the pattern. "You say tomato and I say tomato..." I've got better things to spend my time on here.

 

[bigshot]

Just curious... Does the test actually go beyond -51dB? How would this particular test tell someone that their ability to hear the distortion fell off right after -51dB?

#jcsinspired

 

[A Jedi]

Just curious... Does the test actually go beyond -51dB? How would this particular test tell someone that their ability to hear the distortion fell off right after -51dB?

#jcsinspired

Why not take it and see for yourself?

 

[gregorio]

It's OK. I don't read his posts any more. It's a shame, because he has interesting facts, he just doesn't understand it when people assign facts to a particular context. There's also a knee jerk contrariness there too.

You couldn’t have more perfectly proven the point I made if you tried, that’s a real gem! Lol

“The type of answer I expect is his typical one, deflection … and how he views others but not himself. What I don’t expect from him is any sort of valid “sound science” answer, EG. An answer that presents any facts/science to back up his assertions.”

G

 

[bigshot]

I was interested in seeing the bell curve based on multiple test subjects. I've seen that. I don't invest my ego in my ability to hear noise. I listen to the 99.7% that is music, not the .3% that is distortion. I have no interest in my personal hearing specs. I'm quite sure they are within a normal range for humans. I focus on the appreciation of music. If the noise rises to the level where it interferes with the music and is clearly audible, I'll start worrying about it then. The amount of distortion present in the typical DAC/amp isn't worth worrying about. There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[bigshot]

There's a tendency among audiophiles to focus on extremes... sub audible noise floors, ultrasonic frequencies, vanishingly small amounts of distortion. This stuff doesn't make anyone's music sound better in their living room. They have no impact at all to the audible quality of the sound, only the theoretical measurable fidelity. Fidelity is a noble pursuit. But when your quest for fidelity exceeds the ability of human ears to hear, you are wasting your efforts. Better to focus on things that can make big qualitative improvements, not inaudible theoretical ones.

I'm not setting out to be deliberately rude. It's just that I look at that taller bar on the far left and it throws up red flags for me. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's accurate, maybe it isn't. I suspect that if the test went further, -51 would have continued down with the expected bell curve and whatever the limit of the test was would be the spike again. I'd be less skeptical if it wasn't based on self administered tests using unknown equipment. I think it would be a good idea for people who scored that low to verify those results. If A. Jedi actually got that rating, I would encourage him to make an effort to independently verify it with a properly administered double blind test. It also might be useful to find out how far beyond -51dB his hearing goes, since the test doesn't seem to have covered that.

 

[bigshot]

In any case, I went through all this kind of stuff before when Amir claimed he could hear the difference between bitrates. I asked him some questions that made him mad and he refused to answer and stomped off in a huff. Then I see a few months later that he was called out for the same thing in another forum and admitted he was cheating the test. I don't think it's rude to question results. Skepticism is the grist that the truth is honed upon.

My interest in JCSInspired has shown me that people do lie and cheat all the time. It's probably even a more natural aspect of humanity than honesty and altruism. Just because someone claims something and swears on their mother's grave, it doesn't make it true. And just because someone with an anonymous username and avatar on an Internet forum claims something, it REALLY doesn't mean it's necessarily true. At least Amir put his name to what he claimed, and he took the hit honestly when his deception was revealed. I respect that.

JCSInspired has also shown me that it's really hard to maintain and support deception when being questioned about it. You always make a little mistake that reveals what you're doing. To avoid doing that, a deceptive person tries to shut down the questions entirely by attacking the questioner. That can make you look even more suspicious. My advice is, if you want to get away with a lie, don't engage... lawyer up, shut your mouth, and try to fade into the background as much as you can.

Another thing I've learned is that people who take the opportunity to lie and cheat, don't lie and cheat a little bit. In ten trials, they wouldn't just cheat four or five times. They would cheat every single time. A cheater is most likely going to fall into the slot of 10 right answers out of 10. If the scale goes to -51dB, they will cheat all the way up to -51dB. The motto seems to be, if you're gonna cheat, go for the gold!

Humans are interesting creatures.

 

[danadam]

Does the test actually go beyond -51dB?

No, this particular test, "Music J. Stone", does not. I'm not sure what @A Jedi meant with "After 51 I started getting the answers wrong."

And yes, I did cheat here:

 

[bigshot]

Thanks for the info. I guess it's possible to cheat this test. The figure for the number of people who have taken the test on each one is interesting too.

 

[A Jedi]

I'm not sure what @A Jedi meant with "After 51 I started getting the answers wrong."

Lower than 51db I couldn't correctly pick out the distorted version.

And how am I cheating? I'm genuinely curious because my method was as follows:

Play the tracks, pick the distorted one.

If you mean I used headphones instead of speakers then yes I cheated big time.

 

[danadam]

Lower than 51db I couldn't correctly pick out the distorted version.

But there is no lower than 51 db in this test.

And how am I cheating?

I didn't say anything about you cheating or not. I said I cheated, in order to check if the test goes below -51dB.

 

[bigshot]

He may have taken the test via Photoshop.

 

[sander99]

From 33 to 51 is 3 steps up in the test. If for example you can consistently make it to 33 by ear and then randomly choose A or B from there on, on average once in 8 (=2^3) complete tests you make it to 51.

 

[bigshot]

Interesting. That wouldn't explain the bunching up of results all at the end like that though. But it might explain some of -33 and -30. I guess if someone presented a couple of dozen tests in a row that all showed ability to hear -51 and the levels were randomly shuffled that might be more conclusive. But I'm sure a couple of dozen aces could be arranged. This test appears to be as circumventable as Swiss cheese. That bell curve is useful though. It matches my experience.

Welp! So much for that... thanks danadam and sander99 for clarifying.