Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 85 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-28-2014, 06:16 AM
Member
 
wnmnkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 14
This thread has become nothing but sheer obstinacy.

Can we accept the test results (not just those form Amir's. Plenty from others and WBF) and move on?

What's so hard to accept the fact that some people can hear what others can't? Science that does not adapt new findings is no longer science, but religion.
tubetwister likes this.
wnmnkh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-28-2014, 06:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Would you please explain, without calling me stupid again , how it is that you say if we hear distortions as a results of those hugely elevated test tones in green, that it would explain hearing the same in the actual recording of the keys we have been comparing?
Here are the statistic for the keys jangling portion of the track:



The peak levels in the tracks are about -2 dB FS and -1 dB FS. This easily justifies using -0.5 dB FS signal as a test, including a small safety margin.

BTW here is the ABX log for me running an ABX test on just the keys jangling portion of the file:

--------------------------------
*Note - levels and passage selection fudged for best false positives


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/28 07:53:00

File A: C:\Users\client64\Music\AVS\Keys jangling\keys jangling full band 2496 test tones f3 4416.wav
File B: C:\Users\client64\Music\AVS\Keys jangling\keys jangling full band 2496 test tones f3.wav

07:53:00 : Test started.
07:54:38 : Trial reset.
07:56:40 : 01/01 50.0%
07:56:55 : 02/02 25.0%
07:57:15 : 03/03 12.5%
07:57:21 : 04/04 6.3%
07:57:27 : 05/05 3.1%
07:57:35 : 06/06 1.6%
07:57:42 : 06/07 6.3%
07:57:55 : 07/08 3.5%
07:58:10 : 08/09 2.0%
07:58:27 : 09/10 1.1%
07:58:35 : 10/11 0.6%
07:58:52 : 11/12 0.3%
07:59:09 : 12/13 0.2%
07:59:15 : 13/14 0.1%
07:59:22 : 14/15 0.0%
07:59:52 : 15/16 0.0%
07:59:59 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)
--------------------------------

Obviously, I'm not going to BS anybody, this was a bogus test. I selected the level and the portion of the track that I actually listened to to maximize the audible difference based on nonlinear distortion in the crappy monitoring system in this PC producing more audible IM with the 2496 test file than with the 4416 file.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	keys jangling full band statistics.png
Views:	207
Size:	12.3 KB
ID:	183722  
imagic and antoniobiz1 like this.
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 06:20 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
This thread has become nothing but sheer obstinacy.

Can we accept the test results (not just those form Amir's. Plenty from others and WBF) and move on?

What's so hard to accept the fact that some people can hear what others can't? Science that does not adapt new findings is no longer science, but religion.
It's really easy to accept that you can hear a difference between the files, especially after you do it yourself. The real question is why did people hear a difference. Adapting to "new findings" while ignoring the scientific method is religion. Science is not about taking Internet posts at face value and moving right along.

Eventually everyone sees Waldo, because he is there. It just takes some people longer to spot him, especially if they don't know a good method for searching. Once you see him, you can't make him go away. The real question is, what is he doing there?

Here’s Waldo: Impress your friends and humiliate your children using Slate’s foolproof strategy for finding the missing man.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com

Last edited by imagic; 07-28-2014 at 06:31 AM.
imagic is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 08:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Here are the statistic for the keys jangling portion of the track:



The peak levels in the tracks are about -2 dB FS and -1 dB FS. This easily justifies using -0.5 dB FS signal as a test, including a small safety margin.
Good morning Arny. Thank you for not calling me stupid again .

I am at a loss, yes I know that happens all the time , how that is the answer to the question I have asked. Those statistics do not tell you whether the peak amplitude is due to ultrasonic frequencies or not. This graph that I post readily does:



Clearly the test signals represent amplitudes way, way in excess of the same spectrum in the key jingling portion. So any distortion they cause would be far in excess of what the actual recording of keys did. As such it cannot be used as a diagnostic tool for why we could hear differences.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 08:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Are there any audio files of Arny or Amir clipping their toenails? It may be better than jingling keys.
quad4.0 and tubetwister like this.
Ratman is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 08:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
It's really easy to accept that you can hear a difference between the files, especially after you do it yourself. The real question is why did people hear a difference.
That is certainly something to explore. But the more immediate question is, why did we in this thread and countless others assumed it was impossible to hear the differences? Didn't that bias you to think you couldn't pass the test initially?

How many people run around demanding "ABX DBTs" knew they could result in positive detection? I am pretty sure there would be far less forum noise and hostility if they knew they were making empty bluffs.

We do know what has changed though. People have learned how to listen. How to search for differences and reliably identify them. That claims of hearing damage are really excuses for not knowing how to listen critically.

The data we have, even without any investigation of cause, should if there is any logic to be had, completely change the landscape of these discussions. That there are people with better listening abilities so just because we can't hear a difference, doesn't mean others cannot. That professional training, just like any other field, matters. That just because you listen to music, it doesn't qualify you to reach conclusions regarding what others can hear.

We don't need any more data to reach these conclusions.

Quote:
Adapting to "new findings" while ignoring the scientific method is religion. Science is not about taking Internet posts at face value and moving right along.
Yet that is exactly what has happened since start of Internet discussions. People read someone like Arny challenging people to pass DBTs and take that absence of data as data and run around telling people there are no differences. You were biased this way, no?

Quote:
Eventually everyone sees Waldo, because he is there. It just takes some people longer to spot him, especially if they don't know a good method for searching. Once you see him, you can't make him go away. The real question is, what is he doing there?
Per above, we were told there is no Waldo. That because a color blind person couldn't see it, no one else is able to either.

As you rightly say, now that you know how to listen, hopefully you won't accept assertions that this and that is not audible. And that you ignore stuff you read on the Internet from non professionals .
stereoeditor likes this.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Good morning Arny. Thank you for not calling me stupid again .

I am at a loss, yes I know that happens all the time , how that is the answer to the question I have asked. Those statistics do not tell you whether the peak amplitude is due to ultrasonic frequencies or not. This graph that I post readily does:



Clearly the test signals represent amplitudes way, way in excess of the same spectrum in the key jingling portion.
No they don't. Now that I prepared a file with everything below 23Khz filtered out, I know that the content> 23 Khz peaks at about 5 dB FS.

But, it is an irrelevant number because when playing the 2496 keys jangling file, the monitoring path has to handle the full bandwidth signal, not just the frequencies above some arbitrarily chosen frequency.

Yet another rabbit hole filled in!
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
This thread has become nothing but sheer obstinacy.
I visited Yellowstone National Park.

Cars were stopped in both directions.

A herd of buffalo were moving from the pasture on the east side of the road to the same pasture on the west side of the road.

There were two buffalo stuck in the center of the road, one facing east, one west, face to face.

The one on the east side would take a step back, then a step and a half forward, bumping squarely into the head of the buffalo facing east, but forcing him back maybe a half step, sometimes.

Then they would just stand there for a minute or three, and then repeat. Literally a few inches at a time.


Somebody from one of the cars approached them to take a picture. He got pretty close.

The buffalo facing west, the one doing the bumping, slowly turned his head, looked directly at the guy with the camera, and snorted.


The guy with the camera couldn't get back to the relative safety of his car quickly enough.
tubetwister likes this.

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,661
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Why doesn't everyone hear a difference? Because not everyone is using the same playback hardware/software nor (perhaps) have golden ears.

It's really simple. Otherwise, let the two (or three) re-enter the cage for yet another UFC challenge.

Kids! Go outside and play. Don't come home until the streetlights come on.
quad4.0 and tubetwister like this.
Ratman is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 671

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:16 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
That is certainly something to explore. But the more immediate question is, why did we in this thread and countless others assumed it was impossible to hear the differences? Didn't that bias you to think you couldn't pass the test initially?

How many people run around demanding "ABX DBTs" knew they could result in positive detection? I am pretty sure there would be far less forum noise and hostility if they knew they were making empty bluffs.

We do know what has changed though. People have learned how to listen. How to search for differences and reliably identify them. That claims of hearing damage are really excuses for not knowing how to listen critically.

The data we have, even without any investigation of cause, should if there is any logic to be had, completely change the landscape of these discussions. That there are people with better listening abilities so just because we can't hear a difference, doesn't mean others cannot. That professional training, just like any other field, matters. That just because you listen to music, it doesn't qualify you to reach conclusions regarding what others can hear.

We don't need any more data to reach these conclusions.


Yet that is exactly what has happened since start of Internet discussions. People read someone like Arny challenging people to pass DBTs and take that absence of data as data and run around telling people there are no differences. You were biased this way, no?


Per above, we were told there is no Waldo. That because a color blind person couldn't see it, no one else is able to either.

As you rightly say, now that you know how to listen, hopefully you won't accept assertions that this and that is not audible. And that you ignore stuff you read on the Internet from non professionals .
Platitudes.
koturban is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
No they don't. Now that I prepared a file with everything below 23Khz filtered out, I know that the content> 23 Khz peaks at about 5 dB FS.
I filtered the whole file as you say, i.e. the jingling and tones just the same, and this is the spectrum comparison I get Arny:



The legends are the same as before. They don't look the same Arny. Are we trying to fool the natives? If so, give me a wink and I will let the topic go .

Quote:
But, it is an irrelevant number because when playing the 2496 keys jangling file, the monitoring path has to handle the full bandwidth signal, not just the frequencies above some arbitrarily chosen frequency.
I didn't choose any arbitrary frequency in my original measurement Arny. That was a full bandwidth signal:



As you see, it starts at 0 hz and goes to maximum.

That aside, I thought your case was that ultrasonics cause intermodulations in the low frequencies that are audible. It is those frequencies that are chopped off in the conversion to 44.1/16. Your test tones live in that environment yet their levels are highly exaggerated. You can't explain that away with what you just said Arny.

Quote:
Yet another rabbit hole filled in!
You don't know what you have started if you stick to this story of using such high peak ultrasonic tones Arny . Another battle may be lost already if you don't back off from validity of these test tones .

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:46 AM
Senior Member
 
briansxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Amir wrote: "That is certainly something to explore. But the more immediate question is, why did we in this thread and countless others assumed it was impossible to hear the differences? Didn't that bias you to think you couldn't pass the test initially?

How many people run around demanding "ABX DBTs" knew they could result in positive detection? I am pretty sure there would be far less forum noise and hostility if they knew they were making empty bluffs.

We do know what has changed though. People have learned how to listen. How to search for differences and reliably identify them. That claims of hearing damage are really excuses for not knowing how to listen critically.

The data we have, even without any investigation of cause, should if there is any logic to be had, completely change the landscape of these discussions. That there are people with better listening abilities so just because we can't hear a difference, doesn't mean others cannot. That professional training, just like any other field, matters. That just because you listen to music, it doesn't qualify you to reach conclusions regarding what others can hear.

We don't need any more data to reach these conclusions."

Amir, I believe the "bias" against the ability to hear differences arises from a number of elements, including: data about human hearing capabilities; Nyquist's theorem; published, controlled studies that indicate people cannot detect differences between "hi-res" and "redbook" versions of the same master at tolerable listening levels. For many posters here, including myself, the "no humanly-detectable differences" position seems both reasonable and supported by the available evidence. Your results challenge this "paradigm" and hence demand increased scrutiny.

If we look at the history of science, paradigm-challenging results fall into a number of categories, including (not an exhaustive list by any means):

- they are real and do refute the paradigm
- they arise from factors/artifacts that are spurious or do not challenge the paradigm
- they are specific to a very limited data set and not generalizable
- they are faked

So, in light of a surprising result, more data is indeed needed and the experiment needs to be repeated under controlled conditions and with many more samples to establish its 'reality." I agree that your result should change the landscape of these discussions, but not, perhaps, in the same ways you think it should.

Best,

Brian
amirm and FreeFire like this.

Last edited by briansxx; 07-28-2014 at 09:49 AM.
briansxx is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 09:51 AM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
This thread has become nothing but sheer obstinacy.
What do you mean has become? It's nothing more than a reinforcement thread for OP's sales pitch for the products he sells and it still is.
tubetwister likes this.
spkr is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
May I pull two more quotes from Meyer & Moran (2007)? Just so we can be clear about what they actually claimed, re: 'impossibility' ? (aka, dance with the partner what brung you, not the one you wish for). Particularly relevant to the question of , how loud are you playing these tracks?



Quote:
The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop
on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance:
49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers.
The sole exceptions were for the condition of no signal
and high system gain, when the difference in noise floors
of the two technologies, old and new, was readily audible.


Quote:

The high-resolution sources when played back at the
+14-dB level were unpleasantly (often unbearably) loud,
and modern, aggressively mastered CDs even more so.
Room tone and/or preamplifier noise in almost all recordings
masked the 16/44.1 noise floor, though we did find
one or two productions in which there was a detectable
difference in room tone at gain settings of +20 dB or more
above the reference level. At these very high gains we
could also hear subtle low-level decoding errors in all but
the most expensive of the high-resolution players.


From the many different recordings we used it emerged
that almost no music or voice program, recording venue,
instrument, or performer exceeds the capabilities of a well-
implemented CD-quality record/playback loop. The CD
has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home
reproduction task, and it is a rare playback venue that is
quiet enough to reveal the 16-bit noise floor of our A/D/A
loop—which has no noise shaping and was therefore
less than optimal in this regard—even at gains above our
reference
.
krabapple is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 11:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by briansxx View Post
Amir wrote: "That is certainly something to explore. But the more immediate question is, why did we in this thread and countless others assumed it was impossible to hear the differences? Didn't that bias you to think you couldn't pass the test initially?

How many people run around demanding "ABX DBTs" knew they could result in positive detection? I am pretty sure there would be far less forum noise and hostility if they knew they were making empty bluffs.

We do know what has changed though. People have learned how to listen. How to search for differences and reliably identify them. That claims of hearing damage are really excuses for not knowing how to listen critically.

The data we have, even without any investigation of cause, should if there is any logic to be had, completely change the landscape of these discussions. That there are people with better listening abilities so just because we can't hear a difference, doesn't mean others cannot. That professional training, just like any other field, matters. That just because you listen to music, it doesn't qualify you to reach conclusions regarding what others can hear.

We don't need any more data to reach these conclusions."

Amir, I believe the "bias" against the ability to hear differences arises from a number of elements, including: data about human hearing capabilities; Nyquist's theorem; published, controlled studies that indicate people cannot detect differences between "hi-res" and "redbook" versions of the same master at tolerable listening levels. For many posters here, including myself, the "no humanly-detectable differences" position seems both reasonable and supported by the available evidence. Your results challenge this "paradigm" and hence demand increased scrutiny.

If we look at the history of science, paradigm-challenging results fall into a number of categories, including (not an exhaustive list by any means):

- they are real and do refute the paradigm
- they arise from factors/artifacts that are spurious or do not challenge the paradigm
- they are specific to a very limited data set and not generalizable
- they are faked

So, in light of a surprising result, more data is indeed needed and the experiment needs to be repeated under controlled conditions and with many more samples to establish its 'reality." I agree that your result should change the landscape of these discussions, but not, perhaps, in the same ways you think it should.

Best,

Brian
Very good post Brian. Just a few points if I may .

1. The theories you mention mean those things on paper/ideal execution. We can't build those systems. Bandlimiting with digital filters for example will mean ringing, or sacrifice of the pass-band response. Not saying these are audible necessarily but that they are considerations for real products as opposed to paper assumptions based on ideal math.

2. There is plenty of research that says 16 bits is not enough. Here is my earlier post from prosecution's witness, professor Vanderkooy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Let's review the latest argument. It started with a link to a blog/forum discussion with a person outlining what he heard at the local chapter of Audio Engineering Society:

Attended an AES seminar today given by John Vanderkooy of the University of
Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario entitled: "A Digital-Domain Listening Test for
High-Resolution Audio"

Vanderkooy maintained that he has no doubt, after many ABX and DB tests
performed at the University that "...some people can, reliably, and in a
statistically meaningful way, detect the differences between 16-bit, 44.1 KHz
audio and the same program material recorded at 24-bit and 176.4 or 192 KHz."
He also added that there are also many people who CANNOT hear these
differences in a statistically meaningful way, so the jury is still out on
the efficacy or need for high-resolution digital audio.


Arny responded to the whole transcript with this:

I sent a copy of the above to John Vanderkooy, and his private emailed reply
included the word "misquote", and not in a good way. Suffice it to say that
the above in no way represents the talk that he thought he gave.


As we know in this thread, no record of Arny's email exchange remains with Professor Vanderkooy. So we are left with some detective work. For that, let's review the AES paper which Professor Vanderkooy had presented at Audio Engineering Society:

A Digital-Domain Listening Test for High-Resolution
John Vanderkooy
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

At the outset, let me state my bias that CD-quality audio
(44.1 kHz, 16 bit) is essentially transparent.
Under
pristine conditions it may just be possible to hear
residual channel noise.
Listening tests [1] have agreed
with this position, but there is much anecdotal evidence
that higher sampling rates and longer wordlengths have
significantly superior performance
I also noted but won't repeat here research papers in JAES from Stuart and separately from Fiedler, showing using math and listening test results of threshold of hearing that 16-bit channels have audible noise.

3. The listening tests you show are more flawed than any test we are doing here. The Meyer and Moran for example has no measurement whatsoever of the content they tested. Indeed it has turned out that they used bandlimited content. This is the kind of thing that would make Arny say "rookie mistake." Yet we rely on it like it is the bible.

The test also did not use trained listeners. Nor showed any attempt to find content that was revealing.

4. Following the last comment above, in these forums we had convinced ourselves that there is no such thing as a "golden ear" listener. In real life these people exist as well as sun rises from the east. And they get their label because they are able to perform listening tasks that blow ordinary people out of the water. And do so repeatedly across countless tests.

At the risk of appearing immodest, that is how I got that designation. An example was the search for a watermark for the DVD Audio format. Microsoft research had an algorithm they wanted to propose. Before the final submission I asked to test the samples to make sure the insertion of watermark was transparent. They gave me two versions of 3+ minute songs at 24/96 and asked me to find the mark.

The algorithm for watermark uses a perceptual model of human hearing and attempts to insert its bits where it would be masked by music. The number of bits inserted is a fraction of the total number of bits in the file. As such, the insertion algorithm will search and search and find the best spot to insert them. The insertion may change just a few PCM samples -- a needle in a haystack if there ever was.

Given the above, much of the track will then sound identical since nothing was inserted. At first I found the test daunting. I listened and listened and the files were identical. Then all of a sudden, I thought I heard the tiniest bit of distortion that I didn't recall was there before. So I proceeded to isolate that segment down to a fraction of a second. Then I was sure.

I communicated that to the researcher (really his manager) and he just about fell off his chair. They could not believe that I had managed to not only differentiate the files, but found the precise spot down to milliseconds. They looked at the code, found the bug and fixed it. No one else had found the difference before.

It is stories like above that repeated over and over again that gave me that reputation to be able to able to find distortions that others could not.

It is this kind of background that gives me a positive attitude as I enter these tests. I don't start with assuming it is impossible and give up as most people would.

None of this is known or talked about in these arguments on forums. Here is the worst part: when I tell these stories as I have to Arny for example, I just get ridicule and denial.

5. There are people who are better than me and some are untrained. Recall that my hearing sensitivity to high frequencies is shot so I can't hear distortions there as readily as others do.

Given all of this, I think the only thing unusual should be, after taking the test yourself, that our listening abilities sharply differ. A pathologist can read an X-ray a lot better than I can. It may seem like it is just a picture to look at but their training allows them to see the smallest anomalies which would go unnoticed by millions of ordinary people. This fact doesn't break any paradigm and should not in audio either.

Fact that others managed to also get there once given positive motivation shows that a lot of this is simply the wrong set of conclusions we have reached on these forums.

The best way then to scrutinize these results is to practice yourself. Knowing what you know now, see if you too can hear the difference. Once there, you can do all the analysis you want on yourself .

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 11:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
This thread has become nothing but sheer obstinacy.

Can we accept the test results (not just those form Amir's. Plenty from others and WBF) and move on?

What's so hard to accept the fact that some people can hear what others can't? Science that does not adapt new findings is no longer science, but religion.

That's a lot of logic-leaping there.

No one AFAIK questions that some people can hear what some others cannot....routine audiology testing would be pointless otherwise, no?

Nor do I see people piling on Sean Olvie and Harman for offering a Listener Training software suite (which he's done on AVSF too)

So stop with that strawmen, please.

Assuming one accepts the self-reported results at face value, the question at hand is, if something was heard, what caused it? *Was* it just 'high rez' vs Redbook itself -- extra bandwith + extra bit depth above Redbook -- or was it an error in the files, or was it an artifact of playback setups?

These are, in fact , the very questions that real researchers into this issue have had to address in their published academic papers. And they've gone to great lengths to address them. The results has been a result set that is *far* less definitive and black/white than the one being reported here.


Does that raise any flags for you?
FreeFire, koturban and tubetwister like this.
krabapple is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I filtered the whole file as you say, i.e. the jingling and tones just the same, and this is the spectrum comparison I get Arny:



The legends are the same as before. They don't look the same Arny. Are we trying to fool the natives? If so, give me a wink and I will let the topic go .


I didn't choose any arbitrary frequency in my original measurement Arny. That was a full bandwidth signal:



As you see, it starts at 0 hz and goes to maximum.

That aside, I thought your case was that ultrasonics cause intermodulations in the low frequencies that are audible. It is those frequencies that are chopped off in the conversion to 44.1/16. Your test tones live in that environment yet their levels are highly exaggerated. You can't explain that away with what you just said Arny.


You don't know what you have started if you stick to this story of using such high peak ultrasonic tones Arny . Another battle may be lost already if you don't back off from validity of these test tones .
One very serious problem with your analysis is that you are apparently unknowingly comparing apples and tomatoes. Music is an incoherent signal and naturally shows up on a FFT as a large number of significantly lower data points.

Test signals are coherent signals and show up on a FFT as a small number of data points at far higher amplitude(s) when both signals contain the same amount of energy. Of course they don't have the same amount of energy in this situation for other reasons such as the vast difference in crest factors.

I suspect that my pure sine waves are actually too small to catch all monitoring systems that are causing audible distortion during these tests.

It appears that it is not unusual for headphone-based systems have fewer dynamic range reserves than loudspeaker-based systems.
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Liked: 671
"The first results of our high-resolution audio experiment are in, and they are very interesting."

AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: The Results So Far

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 01:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
"The first results of our high-resolution audio experiment are in, and they are very interesting."

AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: The Results So Far
Thanks. Didn't realize he had post the results. This is a stand-out:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post
Among those who have HRA-capable systems, all six identified the high-res versions perfectly—there wasn't a single incorrect determination. Obviously, both results support my contention that high-res audio requires a high-res audio system to reliably discern the difference that HRA can make to the sound of a recording.
So many arrows pointing to the same direction these days .

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 01:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
That's a lot of logic-leaping there.

No one AFAIK questions that some people can hear what some others cannot....routine audiology testing would be pointless otherwise, no?
No .

Audiology tests are very simple: they play a tone and you sit in booth with headphones and point your thumb up or down as they lower its amplitude. Doing well in this test does not at all say that you can hear subtle differences as we have been testing. I would do very poorly relative to younger people but as we have seen, I can outperform many in these listening tests.

So this is not a question of who can "hear" better and stating the difference there, is not relevant to this conversation. What is relevant and has been shown consistently and beyond doubt in this thread is that our ability to detect differences and hearing distortions wildly vary. This means listening tests like Meyer and Moran which you referenced are faulty in this regard. They had no controls so could not use it to weed out listeners who obviously did not have the right listening skills to be useful in such testing.

Remember, we are not interested in what 50 other people did in some listening test any more than we care what they ate for breakfast. We only care if their results can be representative and apply to us. Seeing how I can do far better than many on such tests, their results which did not attempt to identify testers like me, doesn't apply to me. And the same is true of the others doing better than average on these tests.

The above is why all audio compression tests are performed using trained listeners. We want to maximize applicability of the test results to the widest swath of the population possible. Anything less would mean putting one's head in the sand.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 3,227
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 639 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
I think that the phrase "hear potential audible differences" is sufficiently neutral. I'm not saying that they are audible or not, just that there is some potential for them to be audible.

However, I think I've included the phrase "or not" in some other postings of these files or files like them. Shouldn't be a big deal either way unless someone wants to split hairs.

Whoops! Have I forgotten where I am posting? ;-)

Latest versions of the files here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjaw0fd9vg...tones%20f3.zip

I've added a copy of the 2496 keys jangling file high passed at 23 KHz and cleaned up a few unessential, cosmetic details.
I agree I think your intent was perfectly clear in your orig. posting , it was to me and without ambiguity.
OTOH there may be others that create ambiguity or attempt to create ambiguity where there should be none
that was my point here in that some of those folks need to walled in a little bit if you will so they don't have an opportunity real or perceived to raise a straw mans argument.

Thanks for files I'll load them into a project and see what I can learn if nothing else this is becoming educational for me. I'm still not buying the added value hires argument though despite what the marketers ,vested interests and the hobby/ trade mags would have me believe (it's like that in car the business to an extent also just not always as obvious in all cases though they have much more money to spend on slick marketing and real added value in a lot of cases☺ not to mention some of the advertising claims they can make are regulated it wasn't always that way though some of the older automotive marketing claims and advertisements were often very specious and that's being kind....... from some one in the industry .


Regards.

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-28-2014 at 02:47 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
May I pull two more quotes from Meyer & Moran (2007)?

M&M:
"The CD
has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home
reproduction task, and it is a rare playback venue that is
quiet enough to reveal the 16-bit noise floor of our A/D/A
loop—which has no noise shaping and was therefore
less than optimal in this regard—even at gains above our
reference."


Here's an easy and cheap way anyone can accomplish a "rare playback venue" with a dead quiet background noise, suitable for the task: using IEMs such as Etymotic ER4s, with the foam plug optional tip, inserted deeply, used in the middle of the night, in an already quiet room. If you hold your breath (which otherwise acts is a loud masking sound) you can actually hear the peristalsis of your digestive tract and your own heartbeat! It is freaky as hell.





By using headphones which reduce all room noise by 30 dB, even 40 dB or more for frequencies above 4 kHz, it effectively makes your, say, 40-50 dB SPL quiet room suddenly mimic a state of the art anechoic chamber. Such facilities, when the size of a large room, often cost millions(?) to acheive and are often subterranean.

Last edited by m. zillch; 07-28-2014 at 02:14 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 3,227
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 639 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Forgot one more question on PC >Xonar STX amplified sound card> into studio phones that can resolve 27 kHz (much more than I can ofc ) . I have the card set to 96 kHz it *can do 192 kHz as that is it's native sample rate my question is which would be the better setting for these hires files which IIRC are 96 kHZ .

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-28-2014 at 02:35 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Science that does not adapt new findings is no longer science, but religion.

But we don't have any new findings. What we appear to have is a single result (of a not-exactly carefully conducted experiment) that doesn't fit all the old findings. Usually what that means is that somebody screwed up the experiment.

Before we get to any new findings, somebody has to do the considerable work of explaining this outlier result.
tubetwister likes this.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento delta N. Cal. US Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 3,227
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 639 Post(s)
Liked: 384
Just played both of the Just My Imagination and also Mosaic A2 ,B2 downloaded files (exactly level matched) in a sound editor reading unzipped WAV files directly form HDD rather than importing them as a project to assure they remained unaltered.
I switched back and forth without knowing which was which rez playing from the 2:00 min mark to the 3:00 min mark on each file repeatedly on this playback chain PC >Xonar STX 192 kHz amplified sound card> into Sennsheiser studio phones that can resolve 27 kHz with ofc no added EQ or effects .

FWIW or not (at this point ) IMO I could not reliably discern any difference in playback . I might try these files in the studio on the same phones on a pro external audio interface and see what shakes out .

I also tried the samples on a different very flat and accurate pair of studio tracking phones same opinion , also from the 1 to 2 minute marks in addition to the 2 to 3 min marks same opinion both ways .


One should keep in mind ultimately consumer opinions are what matters in the marketplace not mfr marketing advertisement , commercial website or enthusiast/hobby magazine reviews .

eg, Cnet recently reviewed a Visio FALD TV said basically stated it was it was greatest thing since slices bread in it's size period. I went and looked at it in 3 different stores actually to minimize any display variations IMO the fit,finish and picture quality were readily apparent to me to be pretty inferior to the Sony I ultimately purchased .

ofc ultimately other credible TV review sites published panel specifications/tests and other comparisons that confirmed that as well. ofc C net did not review the Sony I purchased . OTOH the same size Sony cost quite a bit more .


As a consumer I would want any differences to be readily apparent on an ordinary playback chain that is capable of resolving these resolutions .

Hires Music formats ..............."Why does it sound like a CD ?" ............. can we make it louder "?
"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-29-2014 at 02:03 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 4,894
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2121 Post(s)
Liked: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
"The first results of our high-resolution audio experiment are in, and they are very interesting."

AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: The Results So Far
Not much so far; not enough to draw a definitive/abso!ute conclusion.
tubetwister likes this.
NorthSky is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post
Science that does not adapt new findings is no longer science, but religion.

But we don't have any new findings. What we appear to have is a single result (of a not-exactly carefully conducted experiment) that doesn't fit all the old findings. Usually what that means is that somebody screwed up the experiment.

Before we get to any new findings, somebody has to do the considerable work of explaining this outlier result.
Supposedly we have multiple sets of such results, if the What's Best forum participants are counted (I haven't checked there to verify that claim).

And given that there now have been at least two sets of files made available for each 'listening test' -- 2 for Scott's and 2 for Arny's -- plus one set of IM distortion test files --- it's all rather a clusterf*ck. I can hardly wait for it to be published in JAES. Or somewhere

In the meantime I've posted pointers to this thread and Scott's, at Hydrogenaudio.
tubetwister likes this.

Last edited by krabapple; 07-28-2014 at 03:42 PM.
krabapple is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 03:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,967
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Is it possible for something to be recorded and the signal split such that one part goes to a 44.1 DAC while the other goes to a 192 DAC?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 4,894
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2121 Post(s)
Liked: 612
Everything is possible, in audio.
krabapple likes this.
NorthSky is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off