Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 91 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 739Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-31-2014, 10:35 AM
Member
 
wnmnkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

In the context of this topic, the high-res content does not cost 5X more. And if it does, then sure, each one of us can decide if the extra purity is worth it or not.
It does and sometimes more. The price is the most crucial issue on... well, not just high-res content, but music in general.

Say, Norah Johns's Come Away With Me would cost me 25 bucks for 192/24, 20 bucks for 96/24 (from HDtracks).

MP3 album would cost me 6 bucks, Or I can grab a CD which would cost me mere 5 bucks including shipping. CD has album art cover, linear notes that both mp3 and hdtrack do not have.

And then there are albums cost 35 bucks or more as in high-res contents.

Nearly 10 bucks~20 bucks difference per album. Those differences add up pretty fast as one buys more album. It is not merely a waterfall at that point. It's mount Everest. The price of these HD albums are complete nonsense since I can get a blu-ray movie at same price, or a video game at the price of two albums.


I suspect the real reason that general public 'dislikes' high-res is not because they can't hear difference. They don't really care if it is advertised as 'better than ~'. It is just because those music files are priced in absurd price that causes laughter and disdain.
RobertR likes this.
wnmnkh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-31-2014, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
I suspect the real reason that general public 'dislikes' high-res is not because they can't hear difference. They don't really care if it is advertised as 'better than ~'. It is just because those music files are priced in absurd price that causes laughter and disdain.

Then again, when they pay more, and are told upfront that they should expect 'better sound', you'd better believe that lots of people are going to report hearing 'better sound'. And then many of them are going to go ooh, ahhh, it's gotta be because of all that creamy 'high def' goodness.

And then the dancers will do their dance to convince them they're right. I imagine some will point to this very thread!

To wit: Is the Dancing Man from Madrona really now saying he routinely discerns 320 kbps MP3s from source? And claiming for the past two weeks to his campfire friends at WBF that he's 'proved' he can hear hi rez vs Redbook?

Wow. We've advanced audio science and psychoacoustics so very far, in such a short time.
tubetwister likes this.
krabapple is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 16,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
That's the trick, isn't it? Problem we face in audio is that we don't have the measurements that say, "this is audible."
But fortunately "we" have the good nature and patience to read the technical info provided (and the wonderful anecdotes), come to a conclusion and firmly state: "It depends".
Ratman is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:08 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
Weird.... my early post was gone....?

I do not have 'problem' with it. Someone with a few replies ago just mentioned some of people who could distinguish the files show that I am merely stating the fact while your claim is simply false ('lying' would be better word, I think). I don't even have to work to 'refute' it since others are doing it instead of me.
Of course there are others that have passed the ABX tests. Where have I claimed different?

If you read the thread, you'd understand the claims Amir is making based on those tests.
koturban is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:32 AM
Member
 
wnmnkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Of course there are others that have passed the ABX tests. Where have I claimed different?

If you read the thread, you'd understand the claims Amir is making based on those tests.

Let's back to very first sentence that created argument between you and me:

Quote:
Given your repeated instances of "spiking the football" with your results, any claims that you have been performing these tests in good faith are highly suspect.
And this was my response.

Quote:
That's only if his case is isolated one.
What I mean 'his case is isolated one', is that he is the ONLY one who passed ABX test. Clearly, he is NOT only one who passed ABX test. You can't say his claims are 'highly suspect' only because he used results of his test a lot. Far better words would be 'annoying', 'arrogant' or 'abusive'. But, just merely annoying to read does not automatically nullify his claims either since there are 3rd party instances that support his results. I mean you can't say 'you are wrong because your arguments are annoying'... that's not a good way to absolve the discussion, right?

By contrast, Arny's counterarguments with IM issue is far better to continue the discussion.


I will drop this now since it is clearly understanding issue between you and me.
wnmnkh is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:37 AM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 82
To save me from scrolling up several pages in the thread, can anyone please point me to the files that Arny offered (the keys files)?
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:52 AM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,593
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
The article claimes that Edison ''often personally chose the musicians who recorded on his label. Case was his favorite because of her straight, non-vibrato tone. Newspapers report Edison traveling many miles to see Case's concerts, and he asked to hear a recording of her on the first transcontinental Phone callcall.''


Edison developed hearing problems at an early age. An Edison quote ''I have not heard a bird sing since I was twelve years old.''


Can you really trust a source that makes such mistake?
What mistake?

Bird calls are generally very faint. Just because a person's threshold of hearing is high doesn't mean that they can't hear anything.
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:53 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 488
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
Let's back to very first sentence that created argument between you and me:



And this was my response.



What I mean 'his case is isolated one', is that he is the ONLY one who passed ABX test. Clearly, he is NOT only one who passed ABX test. You can't say his claims are 'highly suspect' only because he used results of his test a lot. Far better words would be 'annoying', 'arrogant' or 'abusive'. But, just merely annoying to read does not automatically nullify his claims either since there are 3rd party instances that support his results. I mean you can't say 'you are wrong because your arguments are annoying'... that's not a good way to absolve the discussion, right?

By contrast, Arny's counterarguments with IM issue is far better to continue the discussion.


I will drop this now since it is clearly understanding issue between you and me.
Its isolated with respect to the claims he is making. Nowhere have I said he is the only one who passed the ABX.

What part of this don't you understand?
koturban is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:54 AM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,593
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
To save me from scrolling up several pages in the thread, can anyone please point me to the files that Arny offered (the keys files)?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjaw0fd9vg...tones%20f3.zip
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 11:57 AM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Comments removed see retractions in postings 2748 and 2749

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-01-2014 at 03:51 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 12:12 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
The article claimes that Edison ''often personally chose the musicians who recorded on his label. Case was his favorite because of her straight, non-vibrato tone. Newspapers report Edison traveling many miles to see Case's concerts, and he asked to hear a recording of her on the first transcontinental Phone callcall.''


Edison developed hearing problems at an early age. An Edison quote ''I have not heard a bird sing since I was twelve years old.''

quote edited for brevity



Posting edited by original poster see postings 2748 and 2749 for further comment


History has since exposed Thomas Edison's questionable ethics and practices , Edison vs. Westinghouse: A Shocking Rivalry is very revealing ) ,

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-01-2014 at 03:59 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 12:40 PM
Newbie
 
2Bdecided's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
That's the trick, isn't it? Problem we face in audio is that we don't have the measurements that say, "this is audible."

I am not a doctor but even in the water example my understanding is that there is no certainty.
Staggeringly pure water is easily available, at a cost. Almost no one drinks that. The few studies that exist suggest it's slightly less healthy than "normal" (i.e. less pure) water. I don't know if I want to stretch the analogy too far to audio, though I'm thinking that wider bandwidths can bring ultrasonic content that may not be helpful.

Quote:
What is irrational to you and me, is perfect rational to somebody else. When I started working at Microsoft, one of my bosses had made a ton of money since he had been there way before I had. Despite being far younger than me, his net worth was in a completely different class. To wit, he wanted to buy a Ferrari that had a year waiting list. Anxious to have "something" he bought a used Ferrari with intent to trade it in for the other one in a year. I did the math and the sales tax alone was more than a new Honda Accord on the "used one!" To me that was the most irrational thing I had heard. But to him, it was perfectly rational given his interest to get that car and the amount of money he had.

Should we get together and start a movement to declare the above irrational and try to stop people from doing what he did? What do we do if we ever find ourselves in his situation? How many of us drive a used compact car instead of an SUV? How many of us live in a one-bedroom apartment instead of a big house with four bedrooms? We could all sleep in one room, right?

...

What we are advocating is let's make it illegal for people to go to the top of the waterfall.
No, even in the part you quoted I said "People are free to become irrational" - that's the opposite of saying "let's make it illegal".

People are free to spend their money as they want. Even so, I think it's a false comparison you make: is there anyone on the planet who would demand double-blind testing to prove that there's a detectable difference between a Ferrari and a Honda Accord? The difference may not be proportionate to cost, but human perceptible difference there clearly is.

Quote:
In the case of high-res content, it ends and it ends quickly. Get the master that was created for the track and you are done. There is no higher hill to climb. And it doesn't cost 50X.
They make "better" masters. Haven't you heard of DSD512? It never ends. This stuff can follow Moore's law if we let it. Look at the first sentence quoted in this post - you've written that you don't know when to stop. :-)


Quote:
Well said. Unfortunately they do meet on these forums.
I know But the hi-rez fans have delivered positive ABX results. That's building a bridge - "these people" (if you'll forgive the expression) usually run a mile from ABX. The hi-res doubters are interested, but are looking for other causes. Careful investigation could find the real cause. Careful repetition could yield a study like Meyer and Moran but with the opposite results. However, two things are very important: does it sound better (rather than just different), and is it down to equipment imperfections (because we know certain types of equipment imperfections would make ultrasonics very audible - and most of us would hope to minimise those kinds of imperfections).

Quote:
Great, thought provoking post David. My apology in responding to every sentence separately. Did not mean that to come across me being critical of what you are saying .
Ditto.

btw, it's great to have full length samples legally available to test with.

Cheers,
David.
2Bdecided is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 12:57 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,593
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
That's the trick, isn't it? Problem we face in audio is that we don't have the measurements that say, "this is audible."
Excluded middle argument with elements of denial added in apparently for fun and profit.

Some of our measurements can tell us: "Just about everybody can hear this" and we have other measurements that can tell us "Nobody is going to hear this, no way". Especially the second thing is reprehensible to many high end audio dupes.

One of the things that self labels people as being hopelessly irrational anti-science subjectivists is denial of simple, common sense facts such as shown above above about the correlation of measurements and audibility. Denial of science still seems to sell a lot of copies of high end audio ragazines and a certain amount of the over-priced equipment they hype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I am not a doctor but even in the water example my understanding is that there is no certainty. We can tolerate certain amount of impurities and some can tolerate more than others.
The water example is also highly flawed and therefore misleading and false. Again its anti-science subjectivist bias destroys its credibility.

My late brother in law was a world-class public health expert. He told me that he could get a sample from a local water supply and predict how many work days per year was lost on the average resident due to water-borne diseases. He could back that prediction up with public health surveys. He could then find a clean source of water, measure it, and predict what the reduction of days work lost would be. After redirecting the area's water supply to the clean source, they would come back and repeat the survey and find that the promised improvement was delivered.

He later on repeated the same sort of thing by predicting the rates of eye disease by measuring the nutrients in local diets. It was just a matter of asking the right questions and doing the right tests and interpreting them properly.
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 01:02 PM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 350
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
It's alleged that Ms. Case later admitted to having trained her voice to sound like the phonograph." As Arny was so kind to point out
Something you *may have * conveniently omitted in your earlier post here at * AVS * as related to Thomas Edison and Ms. Case to support your obviously intended narrative.
As I posted earlier, I did indeed mention this in my AES lecture, to which I provided a link. I can only assume that neither you nor Arny Krueger bothered to click on that link. But even if Ms. Case tried to imitate the phonograph, it doesn't affect at all the point I was making about perception, that if you don't know what to listen for, you won't necessarily perceive it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
tubetwister likes this.
stereoeditor is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,503
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
What mistake?

Bird calls are generally very faint. Just because a person's threshold of hearing is high doesn't mean that they can't hear anything.
Well. The guy had a severe hearing problem from age 12. From what i understand he was deaf in his left ear and had 20% hearing in his right ear left. SEVERE_ he was kind of deaf.

It is a bit odd that a guy with severe hearing problems ''traveled many miles to see Case's concerts''. What's also odd is that he, dispite having severe hearing problems, ''loved Case because of her straight, non-vibrato tone''.


Interesting question to me is if folks were able to tell the difference between her voice and the phonographic reproduction of her voice (which includes ''wax cylinder surface noise'' as m.zillch puts it).

Less interesting to me is that Case and others trained their voices to sound like the machine. or that Case turned down her voice a bit in Carnegie Hall tone-test because of the modest sound coming from the phonograph. Was probably part of a advertisement campain..


Looks like there was lots of manipulation going on back then, and this might just be the tip of the iceberg. That Edison guy was a ''tricky dick'' Is HE considered to be ''the Father'' of audio?


8mile13 is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 01:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
To save me from scrolling up several pages in the thread, can anyone please point me to the files that Arny offered (the keys files)?
Probably a sticky post should be put up top pointing to the most current version of the files. It might cut the confusion by 0.02%, which is perhaps detectable.
krabapple is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post
As I posted earlier, I did indeed mention this in my AES lecture, to which I provided a link. I can only assume that neither you nor Arny Krueger bothered to click on that link. But even if Ms. Case tried to imitate the phonograph, it doesn't affect at all the point I was making about perception, that if you don't know what to listen for, you won't necessarily perceive it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

In your talk, did you also discuss false positives? That if you 'listen for' something, you may well 'perceive' it, whether it's real or not?


'Wrong' answers in an ABX are one type of that phenomenon (except when the subject is simply guessing).
krabapple is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 02:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 19,042
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Excluded middle argument with elements of denial added in apparently for fun and profit.
Hi Arny. Let's take the situation at hand. Can you please post the differential measurement that allowed us to tell the files apart and the ease with which it predicted that.

And explain how the same measurement can simultaneously predict the many who couldn't hear any difference.

Quote:
Some of our measurements can tell us: "Just about everybody can hear this" and we have other measurements that can tell us "Nobody is going to hear this, no way". Especially the second thing is reprehensible to many high end audio dupes.
I know as our mentor and human psychoanalysis machine, you can read all of those messages in the invisible ink of those graphs but we can't keep up with you Arny.

Let's review what got us the jingling key sequence. You said in the other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Fortunately, the above speculations are not true. With complex music signals the limit of audiblity is more like 16 KHz due to masking, and that is more than plenty far enough away from 44.1 KHz with modern digital filters.
I asked you a few clarifying questions and this was your kind response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
I did what I said in the previous post. I made recordings of live musicans in an exceedingly quiet and non-reverberent room @24/96 using 1/4" measurement mics that had strong content > 20 KHz, even 30 KHz.

I set up an ABX between the 24/96 files with a 16 KHz brickwall filter, and with full bandpass. I used speakers and amps with strong response > 30 KHz and put the listeners on axis of their supertweeters.

both [blind and non-blind]

The training sequence was files brick walled at lower frequencies such as 9 KHz, and working up in logical steps.

Yes. [the person performing the tests had his hearing tested to make sure they could hear above 16 Khz?]
As you know, that is not the outcome of us testing the same file. 16 Khz (32k sampling) was walk in the park for a number of us to tell apart. Having been able to also tell at CD's full response of 22 Khz, clearly the graphs you had read in this regard were faulty. And assertion of what is or is not audible just the same.

Quote:
One of the things that self labels people as being hopelessly irrational anti-science subjectivists is denial of simple, common sense facts such as shown above above about the correlation of measurements and audibility. Denial of science still seems to sell a lot of copies of high end audio ragazines and a certain amount of the over-priced equipment they hype.
I have no defense for the labels you are putting on me. I just beg your forgiveness for wasting your time responding to me.

I had no idea that there was such a strong correlation between measurements and audibility. Can you please explain then why we perform any DBTs? Should we close the chapter on listening tests and simply go by your interpretation?

Quote:
The water example is also highly flawed and therefore misleading and false. Again its anti-science subjectivist bias destroys its credibility.
Hey, it could be worse. I could have used a car analogy!

Nothing was wrong though about the original analogy of the situation in Naked and Afraid. The original file is the best copy, period. Just like the fact that the water on top of the waterfall is going to be cleaner than any water downstream.

Quote:
My late brother in law was a world-class public health expert. He told me that he could get a sample from a local water supply and predict how many work days per year was lost on the average resident due to water-borne diseases.
Your brother-in-law, may he rest in peace, was a smart fellow. Your water analogy though is wrong. I said that you can't take any one sample of water and tell if you and I are both going to get sick drinking it. It had nothing to do with "average resident" comment which indicates taking large samples and averaging them. I could easily lose less or more work days than his average.

The above is really the core misunderstanding here. Nothing about our discussions is meant to say what the "average" person will or will not here. Average person is not wasting time reading these threads. We care if anyone can hear these differences and if they do, our assertion that we can read graphs and tell something is not audible, is invalidated. Which is what we did with your key jingling file.
amirm is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:08 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Comments removed by original poster see retractions in postings 2748 and 2749

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-01-2014 at 04:15 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,824
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1022 Post(s)
Liked: 624
I made what I hope will be a useful video for some people who might want a little help in determining what parts of these music files are the best to focus on:
AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: Take 2

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there IS no concept of "accounting for personal taste/preference". As art consumers we don't "pick" the level of bass, nor the tint/brightness of a scene's sky, any more than we pick the ending of a novel or Mona Lisa's type of smile. "High fidelity" means "high truthfulness", faithful to the original artist's intent: an unmodified, neutral, accurate copy of the original, ideally being exact and with no discernable alterations, aka "transparency".
m. zillch is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 16,932
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1032 Post(s)
Liked: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Nothing about our discussions is meant to say what the "average" person will or will not here. Average person is not wasting time reading these threads.
Then why worry about the average person? Why keep posting and sharing "our" knowledge with those of "us" with three digit IQ's?

Many of "us" consider ourselves average and waste "our" time every day reading these threads. "We" look forward to the ~10am (EDT) wakeup from the Space Needle (It's actually a spaceship).
tubetwister likes this.
Ratman is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:40 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
@Ratman,

Almost fell outta my chair I was LMAO ! Say .................wasn't he voted off the ship what happened.............................. Somebody get the chief of the boat .................with his side arm ?

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-31-2014 at 03:45 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:42 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
I made what I hope will be a useful video for some people who might want a little help in determining what parts of these music files are the best to focus on:
AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: Take 2
Nice job I watched it . Like I mentioned in the linked thread I will certainly play with the appropriate WAV files .
Kudo's

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-31-2014 at 03:48 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:47 PM
Member
 
wnmnkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post
Then why worry about the average person? Why keep posting and sharing "our" knowledge with those of "us" with three digit IQ's?

Many of "us" consider ourselves average and waste "our" time every day reading these threads. "We" look forward to the ~10am (EDT) wakeup from the Space Needle (It's actually a spaceship).
Rather unfortunately, Amir is right on this. Anyone who is posting or regularly visits this site is anything but average.

Real average people do not really care about music in general. Those are people who are easily satisfied listening to music on youtube (video with music and static image), which is no more than 96kbs, absolute bottom quality. Those are the ones who feel paying 10 bucks per month on Spotify is too expensive, and buying an normal CD album at 5 bucks is insanity.

With music industry people's relentless pursuit on file-sharing and internet music, they successfully incubated a generation of people who are completely disinterested in seeing music as valuable object.

Anyone who is reading this thread is niche of niche.
wnmnkh is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 03:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 19,042
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
And then the dancers will do their dance to convince them they're right. I imagine some will point to this very thread!
They might! So be careful what you write....

Quote:
To wit: Is the Dancing Man from Madrona really now saying he routinely discerns 320 kbps MP3s from source?
I didn't say that. But I do OK. As a random challenge, I converted Arny's clip to MP3 at 320 kbps a few days ago and post the results in another thread on AVS:

=============
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3

19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01 50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02 25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03 50.0%
19:47:03 : 03/04 31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05 18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06 10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07 6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08 3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09 2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10 1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11 0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12 0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13 0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14 0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15 0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16 0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.

----------

Total: 15/16 (0.0%)

And just now, ran one of the tracks from the 6 samples in Scott/Mark's music and converted that to MP3. Here are those results:

===============

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/31 15:18:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav

15:18:41 : Test started.
15:19:18 : 01/01 50.0%
15:19:30 : 01/02 75.0%
15:19:44 : 01/03 87.5%
15:20:35 : 02/04 68.8%
15:20:46 : 02/05 81.3%
15:21:39 : 03/06 65.6% <--- Difference found
15:21:47 : 04/07 50.0%
15:21:54 : 04/08 63.7% <--- Dog barked!
15:22:06 : 05/09 50.0%
15:22:19 : 06/10 37.7%
15:22:31 : 07/11 27.4%
15:22:44 : 08/12 19.4%
15:22:51 : 09/13 13.3%
15:22:58 : 10/14 9.0%
15:23:06 : 11/15 5.9%
15:23:14 : 12/16 3.8%
15:23:23 : 13/17 2.5%
15:23:33 : 14/18 1.5%
15:23:42 : 15/19 1.0%
15:23:54 : 16/20 0.6%
15:24:06 : 17/21 0.4%
15:24:15 : 18/22 0.2%
15:24:23 : 19/23 0.1%
15:24:34 : 20/24 0.1%
15:24:43 : 21/25 0.0%
15:24:52 : 22/26 0.0%
15:24:57 : Test finished.

----------

Total: 22/26 (0.0%)

As you see, the results could not be more compelling on me being able to tell 320 kbps apart from the source. And these are not tracks selected to be "codec killers." It is what folks have put forward in this forum for another reason.

So that folks don't stay upset at me, talking to you Chu, I saved the markers for the above track:

Start point: 3:11.4
End point: 3:11.8

Listen to the difference in high frequencies. Listen to whether one is more congested than the other (for the lack of a better word). Now you see why I don't try to explain the differences. English words are not easy fit for them. This is why you need to do your own listening and hear the difference first hand. No amount of telling you how to fish will teach you what it feels like to catch your first one.

Quote:
Wow. We've advanced audio science and psychoacoustics so very far, in such a short time.
No, nothing has changed if you actually study the science as opposed to relying on forum folklore as your only source of knowledge. Lest you think I can do your job by just reading and arguing about it online....
amirm is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 04:15 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
Rather unfortunately, Amir is right on this. Anyone who is posting or regularly visits this site is anything but average.

Real average people do not really care about music in general. Those are people who are easily satisfied listening to music on youtube (video with music and static image), which is no more than 96kbs, absolute bottom quality. Those are the ones who feel paying 10 bucks per month on Spotify is too expensive, and buying an normal CD album at 5 bucks is insanity.

With music industry people's relentless pursuit on file-sharing and internet music, they successfully incubated a generation of people who are completely disinterested in seeing music as valuable object.

Anyone who is reading this thread is niche of niche.
EDITED /corrected by original poster see post 2740 for comment

There are no 96kbps uploads currently being accepted as standard quality uploads .By the way it's kbps not kbs
lots of 384kbps .AAC VBR stereo video uploads
on the tube these days some of them sound pretty good especially the pro ones ! It may be that 192kbps AAC VBR is maximum stereo audio playback based on the information you provided me in post 2735 . 192kbps AAC VBR *can often sound as good as 328 kbps CBR mp3 however.

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-01-2014 at 06:29 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 04:55 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,593
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Your brother-in-law, may he rest in peace, was a smart fellow. Your water analogy though is wrong.

I said that you can't take any one sample of water and tell if you and I are both going to get sick drinking it.
You are wrong about that, too. It is just a matter of having a sample of water that is bad enough. Giardia, arsenic, lots of things will make anybody sick if the bad stuff is highly concentrated.

However, in a vain attempt to make your point you biased the criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
It had nothing to do with "average resident" comment which indicates taking large samples and averaging them.
Looks like the old "If you can't convince them, distract them" argument.

I didn't say take a large number of water samples, and your example was about water.

The point is that for water purity measurements to be effective and water purification to be helpful, we don't have to keep each and every person perfectly healthy all of the time. Rather, we have to get the community healthier in general.

The idea that water measurements are useless because they can't predict what happens to one arbitrarily chosen person all of the time is irrelevant. The idea that audio measurements are useless because they can't predict what one arbitrarily chosen person will hear at any time is irrelevant.

Manufacturers like Yamaha, Pioneer, and Denon produce AVRs by the 10,000s every month. To stay in business these companies don't have to please just one arbitrarily chosen person, they have to please the vast majority of 10,000s of people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I could easily lose less or more work days than his average.
So what? If had to earn a living and you lost a significant number of work days you suffer, your family suffers, and by implication the village suffers. It turned out that a simple measurement of a water sample from a common source could predict what happened to the village. Another simple measurement was a good guide as to whether the water quality was fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
The above is really the core misunderstanding here. Nothing about our discussions is meant to say what the "average" person will or will not here. Average person is not wasting time reading these threads. We care if anyone can hear these differences and if they do, our assertion that we can read graphs and tell something is not audible, is invalidated. Which is what we did with your key jingling file.
That's another golden ear myth - that audiophiles as a rule have specially golden ears. Telling people that they have golden ears based on nothing is a cheap shot at their egos. From doing DBTs we know that the secret to exceptional listener sensitivity is training, not just buying an expensive stereo.

My wife doesn't care why our audio system produces such a pleasing and lifelike rendition of music and drama in general, and if something sounds a little strange now and then, we blame the source. But we sure enjoy those many occasions when it sounds like the drama is happening in our listening room or when the music sounds like the band is standing over there.
tubetwister likes this.
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 05:40 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
Rather unfortunately, Amir is right on this. Anyone who is posting or regularly visits this site is anything but average.

Real average people do not really care about music in general. Those are people who are easily satisfied listening to music on youtube (video with music and static image), which is no more than 96kbs, absolute bottom quality. Those are the ones who feel paying 10 bucks per month on Spotify is too expensive, and buying an normal CD album at 5 bucks is insanity.

With music industry people's relentless pursuit on file-sharing and internet music, they successfully incubated a generation of people who are completely disinterested in seeing music as valuable object.

Anyone who is reading this thread is niche of niche.
After some thought I decided I would provide a few links to help you understand lossy and perceptual encoding a little better and *somewhat how they work .B4 you find your foot in your mouth again as some AVS members(very much in the know) here were so kind as to do for me likewise in the past when I was in a similar position posting about S#!t I did not know ..............very interesting subject (s) btw.................. research it.......... you can thank me later ☺☺☺.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance...ments_over_MP3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

PS If the AVS forum consensus and particularly some members I deem to be credible prove to me and generally on the forum and I could also verify that being hires on it's own own merits is significantly better than redbbok 16/44.1 with all things being equal eg, recording and mastering ofc I would have to take that position . I'm not holding my breath hires is nothing new !

I would

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-31-2014 at 06:05 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 05:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 19,042
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
Wrong You Tube is up to 384 kbps VBR .AAC 2 channel stereo, 512kbps on multi channel now and has been for a good while now There are no 96kbps uploads currently being accepted as standard quality uploads .By the way it's kbps not kbs
lots of 384kbp .AAC VBR stereo videos on the tube these days some of them sound pretty good especially the pro ones !
You are confusing the trunk in the car for the hood. The link above is for *uploading*. It is Google's recommendations for what format you should use to send the video to their servers, not what you will be viewing. Google will transcode these down and the recommendation there is to make what you send to them high enough quality as to introduce minimum amount of new distortion.

Google does not document the rates it uses for the videos once they are transcoded. And it changes them over time at their discretion. Fortunately with the right tools, you can determine the audio/video rates. Here are some quick examples and I made sure to pick recent clips so that they reflect the latest templates used by Google:

My favorite electronics blogger's latest video:
Audio rate: 192 kbps, stereo, 44.1 Khz (this is for the 720p stream)

One of my favorite composers, Clint Mansell:
Audio rate: 128 kbps, stereo, 44.1 Khz (this is for 1080p stream)

Not so favorite random music clips on youtube:
Shakira:
Audio rate: 128 kbps, stereo, 44.1 Khz (480p)

Kt Perry:
Audio rate: 128 kbps, stereo, 44.1 Khz (480p)

No 384 kbps VBR here. So go ahead and give the links to those videos that are at 384kbps and explain how you determined the audio rate.

Quote:
Judging by your position and the rest of your otherwise ridiculous posting your lack of knowledge is not at all surprising do your research B4 posting disinformation. Do you even know what VBR .AAC is , how it works or how well it works ?
I do. Do you want to go toe to toe with me?

Quote:
No Some people are not right but only think they are if you know what I mean
NO I'm not niche of niche but I do own a small well equipped working recording /production studio my boyz are in there working as we speak.
Feel free to get help from the boys. Show them my response and see if they can help you with your argument.
amirm is offline  
Old 07-31-2014, 06:16 PM
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 5,215
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked: 618
Armin , maybe I will use one of the techniques you are so fond of frequently and deflect the argument or change the narrative altogether instead?

But no instead I will man up take my lumps and admit on face of things as currently presented at least and lacking any information to the contrary at this time that I may be completely wrong or in part wrong in this case ........... you should try it some time . In any event there is plenty of music on You Tube that sounds significantly better than anything @96kbps 2 me! then there is the reception bandwidth argument I'm sure it wouldn't apply here though .

I don't mind being wrong occasionally and expect to get called on it . It's often better if I learn something and that may be the case here if so maybe I should thank you (*regardless of your motivation* ) and I'm not above that but when I'm wrong I try to man up and own it . feel better now at least I don't have the folks hating on me haha !

You know I will be checking some you Tube Audio playback codecs as received though just so you know.I think I can can do that all on my own if not I will look at the alternatives ☺☺☺

Once again you have managed to deflect the discussion at least temporarily in another direction from the thread topic ...that's fine we all do it or a lot us anyway just don't admonish anyone else for doing that going forward and you might get some respect around here for a change.



.Exeptions usually abound everywhere when you look for them either way ......except on the hires thing other than hearing an as yet cause unproven analomy now and then ofc. ☺☺

Look at it this way you might have ONE new friend here now also,............ If you are right that is the one time I can at least remember today to be true , on some of the technical stuff I do not understand I try not to comment on it or dispute it out of hand anyway and will try to keep doing that .

You know the quotes above you presented were not directed at you right ? I try reserve my best de bunking rebuttle 4U

Last edited by tubetwister; 08-01-2014 at 05:06 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 
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