Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 92 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 733Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #2731 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 04:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2732 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 05:40 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
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 !

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; 07-31-2014 at 06:05 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2733 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 05:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,078
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 750 Post(s)
Liked: 434
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.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #2734 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 06:16 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
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

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; 08-01-2014 at 05:06 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2735 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 06:39 PM
Member
 
wnmnkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 14
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 !

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 ?
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.
Saying without reservation; you are really absurd.


Before you are trying to ridicule me, I highly suggest you to at least try search related topic before making this pure nonsense, insulting and ignorant post.

http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-interne...80p-720p-1080p

Very first webpage when "youtube audio quality" is typed on google. It does not matter what input sources are; youtube automatically downgrades the audio quality.

Vast majority of people, who would be using mobile webbrowser, are automatically chosen to use the lowest bitrate possible, 240p, which only gives 96kbps. Even if they choose best possible quality, the max possible bitrate is 192kbps (which, unfortunately hardly used even with max possible resolution. It seems most of them are settled to 128kbps instead) For comparison, Spotify's lowest setting is 96kbps, but the highest setting allows 320kbps (for paid people I think. I might be wrong with this case, but it seems unpaid is locked with 160-ish)

So, here is the gist: With average people are already satisfied with 96kbps~128kbps range (with free streaming from spotify and youtube), there is little chance they will be interested in anything higher than 320kbps mp3. Heck, we can't even convince them to buy redbook quality files, let alone ultra expensive high-res audio.
amirm likes this.

Last edited by wnmnkh; 07-31-2014 at 06:41 PM. Reason: typos
wnmnkh is offline  
post #2736 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 06:57 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,078
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 750 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
The idea that audio measurements are useless because they can't predict what one arbitrarily chosen person will hear at any time is irrelevant.
Why? You are always trying to say that someone you don't even know couldn't have heard what they have heard. Surely then the measurements must apply to everyone or you don't have a case with respect to reading the tea leaves in the graphs as far as audibility.

Quote:
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.
That is true. That's why I don't look to those brands to produce best in class performance products. Difference between Honda and BMW.

Quote:
That's another golden ear myth - that audiophiles as a rule have specially golden ears.
Once again, when I say Golden Ear, I am using the industry definition. That definition says nothing about "audiophiles" or all of them having golden ears. You continue to use the layman forum use of that phrase. And at any rate, I said nothing about "audiophiles as a rule have specially golden ears."

Do you have Golden Ears Arny?

Quote:
From doing DBTs we know that the secret to exceptional listener sensitivity is training, not just buying an expensive stereo.
True. Hopefully we remember that there are those with exceptional listener sensitivity when we declare that we can tell what is audible and what is not from measurements.

If you have done enough DBTs, hopefully as I have, you have also run into people who without training have above average listening ability. We have had a few people in this thread already. Pretty sure they have not been through any kind of formal training.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #2737 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 2,295
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
me i'd rather be chillin wit a hot babe at outdoor concert listening to da real thing and havin a tall cold one and some bud screw dees bits and zero's bro!
tubetwister (Frank), this one's for you:


* Bonus: http://www.ipn.at/ipn.asp?BHX
tubetwister likes this.

Bests, ~ Robert § (Bob)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
NorthSky is online now  
post #2738 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 07:14 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Where is the chief of the boat ?

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 -
tubetwister is online now  
post #2739 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 07:17 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
tubetwister , this one's for you:]
Thanks but no ...........not my type ........... to skinny

I'll have to kick you down a like though very clever ☺☺

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; 07-31-2014 at 10:52 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2740 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 07:44 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
Saying without reservation; you are really absurd.

Before you are trying to ridicule me, I highly suggest you to at least try search related topic before making this pure nonsense, insulting and ignorant post.

http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-interne...80p-720p-1080p

Very first webpage when "youtube audio quality" is typed on google. It does not matter what input sources are; youtube automatically downgrades the audio quality.

Vast majority of people, who would be using mobile webbrowser, are automatically chosen to use the lowest bitrate possible, 240p, which only gives 96kbps. Even if they choose best possible quality, the max possible bitrate is 192kbps (which, unfortunately hardly used even with max possible resolution. It seems most of them are settled to 128kbps instead) For comparison, Spotify's lowest setting is 96kbps, but the highest setting allows 320kbps (for paid people I think. I might be wrong with this case, but it seems unpaid is locked with 160-ish)

So, here is the gist: With average people are already satisfied with 96kbps~128kbps range (with free streaming from spotify and youtube), there is little chance they will be interested in anything higher than 320kbps mp3. Heck, we can't even convince them to buy redbook quality files, let alone ultra expensive high-res audio.
NOTE this post and my orig reply (post 2730 ) have been edited for correctness and brevity based on information you gave me and other information I have recently been made aware of .

Note: ultra expensive high-res audio after almost a decade has never been proven by widely accepted scientific methods and testing to offer a substantial improvement over Redbook 16/44.1 with all conditions being equal e.g, mastering and recording . ofc you are free to ignore the science ofc .


[B 192kbps AAC [/B] vbr (variabe bit rate )is sometimes considered considered equivalent and or superior to 320kbps CBR (constant bit rate) mp3 but not always. you provided (good link BTW)

If Spotify is using cbr 320kbps mp3 CBR I would argue it *may not*be better than 192kbps VBR AAC or no? in any case you would not likely be able to hear the difference of those 2 anyway so it doesn't matter .
Knock yourself out if you want to buy hires some of it is mastered and recorded much better than same CD ,some not when it is it can offer a worthwhile improvement other wise maybe not that's one of the benefits or sales hooks depending on how you look at it .

Some good points I will go with *some of* those and I may have been partly wrong Your comments IMO were vague and derogatory to some and without qualification e.g, mobile web browser, PC, game console,HTPC , 'smart TV' ,Roku or other streamer (subscriber bandwidth) YT quality discussion link etc but you added the appropriate
qualifiers to support your argument in your reply so it's all good from here could this ultimately be a very good discussion or it's own thread if continued imagine that !


IMO this thread ..........screw that see post 2742 that about sums it up couldn't have said it better myself

True some mobile users may not be interested in higher bandwidth/quality some might ( but why bandwidth caps or no ?

OTOH nothing wrong with stating an opinion in a less derogatory manner ( I do so frequently ) just know hopefully you are right it's AVS you know, if not you might suddenly disappear into black imprisonment ☺☺☺.

In concluding I will say my bad (maybe but reserve the righto rescind pending further investigation by the proper authorities ofc that could take years these days )

Oh kudos for the cool link that's what I'm taking about I might have to reconsider some
(perhaps incorrect )impressions after all , very good supporting argument there !☺☺

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; 08-01-2014 at 06:37 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2741 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 09:16 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
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:
Thanks for the new found knowledge.................... no.... really I did not know that SRSLY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
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.
You know if there are any I will find them ☺Perhaps there are none after all ? In any event 192kbps vbr often sounds better IMO than a lot of 320kbps CBR

ofc as you know better than I that can be content and or encoding software/method dependent so I'm not trying to prove an argument or hypothesis here .


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
Do you want to go toe to toe with me?
Not on perceptual encoding or any software /firmaware/hardware encoding or similar at all none are my area of expertise ,education or professional experience as it is /was yours . Perhaps a friendly game of cribbage some day ?

If you would recall I said I would link references to *some of how * lossey codecs work to wnmnkh obviously I'm not an expert and don't claim to be if I'm linking wikiopinion

I both admit and recognize my limitations (usually) though you should try that sometimes folks respect that more than what you typically convey take a look at post 2742 tell us what you think? .

Let The Folks Decide ! .

wnmnkh provided an interesting link , I'll quote some of it below .
As you may know a few videos that you or I may sample (even if looking for exceptions either way ) hardly establishes a representative statistical sample of anything nothing much to add there. Anyway FWIW here is a cool blog quote and link your buddy wnmnkh was so kind to oblige me with kudo's to the man for that!

quote:
Quote:
Link : http://www.h3xed.com/web-and-interne...80p-720p-1080p

Jun 10, 2014 Nick Vogt Share Tweet
YouTube plays audio quality independent of the video quality selected, and will usually stream 192 kbps AAC audio if the originally-uploaded video had high-enough audio quality available. This 192 kbps audio will be played in most cases, whether the user selects 240p, 1080p, or anything in between.

I tested both HTML5 and Flash players and found that YouTube played full 192 kbps AAC audio at all resolution settings, including 144p, 240p, 360p, 480p, 720p, and 1080p. I also used Fiddler to throttle down the Internet speed in order to test it, with the same results. YouTube may still store lower-quality audio and might play it in specific circumstances, but I could not get it to.

This is a change to how YouTube used to play audio. Prior to 2014, YouTube would play a specific audio bitrate depending on the video quality selected. For example: 240p would get 64 kbps MP3, 360p would get 128 kbps AAC, and 720p would get 192 kbps AAC. For a full list of the legacy bitrates that YouTube used, see the tables further down.

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; 08-01-2014 at 05:36 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2742 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 09:19 PM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by isa View Post
I very disappointingly must disagree, after several attempts to contribute to this effort. Overall, I think Arny is earnest and keeps the proper perspective, while Amir is a true audio predator, among the nastiest to emerge in years. Amir plays a game of appearing to be all about science, but that couldn't be further from the truth. No later than July 13, Amir created a thread in his WTF forum entitled "Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different". From that date on if not sooner, any true commitment to thoughtful discussion and the scientific method was over with Amir, even if he didn't have the guts to admit his position here. For those of us now wise to his tricks, he likely put the term "proof" in quotes to appeal to his sycophants while reserving the right to deny in a superficial manner he meant that in jest to those aligned with the scientific method. His blizzard of posts across two websites now allows him to cherrypick his own text for quotes to support whatever misleading message he decides to emphasize next. Some have been tricked into playing his game, but I will not.

The scientific method is pretty clear on focusing on eliminating bias, investigating sources of error and seeking explanations within the bounds of known science before concluding that results are the result of new science, the latter pithily captured by "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But no later than July 13, Amir was done with all of that. Forget that this was an informal, "fun" test. Forget that no credible person could claim proper control of variables or statistical significance for any results. Amir was beyond all of that no later than July 13. If anyone believes otherwise, Amir got you. I give him props that he is garrulous, relentless, clever and an effective bully, so being deceived or silenced by him is understandable. I'll note at this time that I regard this as my first post that does not meet Amir's arbitrary requirement for suitable contribution, so I have at least 4 more coming before he can really try to silence me.

The original intent of this test by Scott and Mark was to conduct an informal, fun, thoughtful exercise to explore 96k/24 versus 44.1k/16 for music recorded at very high quality and with verifiable content above 22k. Had that remained the mission, several weeks ago we likely would have conducted a parallel audio test of the files using SoX per Andyc56. Not to humiliate anyone. Not to insult anyone. But to see if the resampling process could account for unexplained differences in gains and number of samples that may or may not be audible. Arny even tried to introduce a complimentary test with keys to investigate a credible source of unexpected difference, but Amir's relentless attacks on Arny's intent and files was received loud and clear by many.

I'm still open to the possibility that there is an audible difference between Mark's 96k/24 files and a 44.1k/16 version of them. But I will never, ever accept that with the current path as moderated by Amir. Might Amir eventually cough up the timestamps of the key parts of the files he detected a difference? Maybe. But enough people have asked, and he's ignored, that I will no longer hold my breath waiting for what he should have offered up in the interests of learning weeks ago. Might Amir eventually use tools like Audio Diffmaker to seek a reason for his results at whatever mysterious timestamps he hears differences that does not invoke new science? Maybe, but I no longer care to trust his objectivity. Can I detect a difference in the files? No, mainly because I don't have access to a system that can play 96k without at least one intermediate resampling step in my playback system. But should that eliminate my interest, participation and contribution to this effort? I think not.

If this appeal to the higher ground isn't enough to try to restart this discussion on more reasonable terms, I hope, Amir, you get it that truly talented people are just waiting for you to attempt a published paper on this informal test. Your bluster will meet true competence and commitment at that point, in a very public way. You can consider that a promise .
This wins the post of the month! Thank you for such a well described reply.
imagic, andyc56 and tubetwister like this.
spkr is offline  
post #2743 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 09:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 2,295
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 360
I must confess, I kind of like it too.
tubetwister likes this.

Bests, ~ Robert § (Bob)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
NorthSky is online now  
post #2744 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 09:30 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
This wins the post of the month! Thank you for such a well described reply.
Here here .............give the bloke a room and a fine winch and a bottomless pint our best ale !
In fact I think both of you deserve the same just go on over and see the barkeep he will fix you right up govnor!
NorthSky too!
:

I will add this ,

IMO this thread ..........screw that see post 2742 that about sums it up couldn't have said it better myself

Alrighty then, Let the Forum Bloodsport Resume At The Next Dawn !

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; 07-31-2014 at 11:51 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2745 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 11:04 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
tubetwister , this one's for you:
NorthSky, here are Results of Web brain dominance test at bonus link you provided so what does it mean ?.... Fair and balanced ?
Let the Folks Decide!

stay cool!

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; 08-01-2014 at 12:23 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2746 of 2920 Old 07-31-2014, 11:44 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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Yo NorthSky started what could be a pretty cool thread see below found it by accident
lets get all over that and check it out !

What was the last hi-def/hi-res movie that you watched?
LINK : What was the last high definition picture/high resolution audio movie you watched?

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; 07-31-2014 at 11:48 PM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2747 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 02:04 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
amirm

Maybe you can take this 28 question brain test that sky hooked me up with and post a screenshot ( shouldn't be any challenge at all 4U )

It checks out your left side right side brain dominence or ying and yang thang just wanna see if UR balanced an all been havin some doubts about that lately

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 -
tubetwister is online now  
post #2748 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 03:28 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post
Not at all. Human perception is not a linear process. As I said in my AES Richard Heyser Memorial lecture - see http://www.stereophile.com/content/2...ring-sound-qua - I discussed the standard model of how human beings don't perceive reality directly but instead construct internal models based on their experience and expectations. Those models are updated when new stimuli are recognized, However, until that recognition takes place, new properties of the stimulus are ignored. They are simply not perceived.

In my lecture I mentioned the well-known example of Edison's 1915 live vs recorded demonstration between the live voice of soprano Anna Case and his Diamond Disc Phonograph, where, given the audience's unfamiliarity with the flaws of the phonograph, they could not perceive any difference between Ms. Cases' voice and the reproduction of it. But once the flaws become familiar, what was once non-existent first becomes subtly noticeable, then significant. Witness the postings in this thread where people who thought there was no difference learned to recognize it. Perception involves learning - the ear is not a microphone.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John I kept my my word and read the richard-c-heyser-memorial-lecture- article in it's entirety the premise of the article overall is sound IMO and not an unreasonable overall concept as written IMO bty .Inexcusable on my part to comment first without reading it in it's entirety or at all .

So I have to man up do the right thing and admit it looks to me that having not read the article in it's entirety
or at all and commenting as I did I now believe my suppositions,suggestions and comments were wrong about your intentions,motivations and purposes relating to that article and any postings by you in this entire thread discussion
.In all fairness I believe I should man up and apologize so there you have it. You know guys hate to do that ☺☺even if
we created the necessity in the first place !

ofc you know that means in all fairness I should revisit any other assumptions I may or may not have and take another look at Sterophile as whole and refrain from commenting going forward at this point and hopefully only be able to contribute positive comments about Stereophile going forward .

Only thing I can offer to the Edison discussion is he may have rigged the demonstration not an unreasonable
thing to wonder about him all things considered but even at that I believe it wouldn't materially affect the overall concept,validity or purpose of your article anyway if that were proven.

You should know I'm putting my gotcha back in my ... pocket ouch the thing bit me!☺ foot in the mouth ain't to tasty neither is crow ☺☺

I will also go back and edit or remove my prior related comments in this entire thread as I believe that would be appropriate in this case .
EDIT (see below )

Best 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; 08-01-2014 at 05:48 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2749 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 03:48 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
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
I believe your assumptions and arguments are correct having read the article just now . Yes I did not read it before commenting and am reversing and retracting my position (s) related to the article linked below and your posts overall in this entire discussion thread please see post 2748 for more on that . lesson learned read something before commenting on it.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/2...ring-sound-qua

EDIT: I removed or edited all my recent postings in this thread relating to you as I felt were appropriate
and left brief comments in place eg,
Comments removed by original poster see retractions and comment in postings 2748 and 2749
Posting edited by original poster see postings 2748 and 2749 for more comments


John ,You are of course welcome to review all of these postings at your convenience in case you may think I have missed anything if so feel free to let me know either in this discussion or a PM that will be kept in strict confidence .

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; 08-01-2014 at 05:45 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2750 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 04:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Why? You are always trying to say that someone you don't even know couldn't have heard what they have heard.
Sure me for pointing out that claiming audibility maybe 3-6 orders of magnitude below the average JND is pretty high class magic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Surely then the measurements must apply to everyone or you don't have a case with respect to reading the tea leaves in the graphs as far as audibility.
Most JNDs relate to the components and structure of ears. Show me a person with 3 foot diameter pinnae, and maybe, just maybe you have a case for extreme sensitivity. ;-)



There's no truth to the rumor that this guy is one of Stereophile's reviewers. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #2751 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 04:18 AM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 341
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
John I kept my my word and read the Thomas Edison part of the richard-c-heyser-memorial-lecture- article,and the article in it's entirety the premise of the article overall is not an unreasonable overall concept as written IMO bty .Inexcusable on my part to comment first without reading it in it's entirety or at all .
Thank you for taking the time to plow through those 15,000 words! It is not often that someone is given the opportunity to put down all their current thinking in one place - I am in the Audio Engineering Society Technical Council's debt for being invited to give the 2011 Richard Heyser Memorial Lecture on a subject of my own choosing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
So I have to man up do the right thing and admit it looks to me that having not read the article in it's entirety or at all and commenting as I did I now believe my suppositions,suggestions and comments were wrong about your intentions, motivations and purposes relating to that article and this discussion .In all fairness I believe I should man up and apologize so there you have it.
Apology accepted of course. Again thank you, tubetwister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
ofc you know that means in all fairness I should revisit any other assumptions I may or may not have and take another look at Sterophile as whole and refrain from commenting going forward at this point and hopefully only be able to contribute positive comments about Stereophile going forward .
Don't hold back from criticizing anything you read in Stereophile.What I do object to are the generalized criticisms made of someone like me as being typical of audiophiles without there being any specific connection to something I have written or published.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
Only thing I can offer to the Edison discussion is he may have rigged the demonstration . . .
I am sure he tried. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
tubetwister likes this.
stereoeditor is offline  
post #2752 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 04:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 1161
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post
If you had actually read my article that I referenced, Mr. Krueger, you will have noted that I did include this qualifier.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
It's a clear case of the little boy who cried "Wolf" That article has been waved under my nose more times than I can count, and I actually read it once or twice.

Furthermore, it seems to understate the relevant facts.

You say:

"Much later, Anna Case admitted that she had toned down her voice to better match the phonograph."

Others say:

"Anna Case finally came clean 50 years after the Carnegie Hall show, admitting that she, and the other singers that took part in the tone tests, actually trained their voices to sound like the machine! Not only that, but even at a large venue like Carnegie Hall, the voice of an operatic soprano would certainly overwhelm the modest sound coming from the phonograph – so while the record played full volume, Anna had to turn hers down a bit. - See more at: http://blogs.mycentraljersey.com/hil...co-conspirator

IOW your account suggests she changed the volume of her singing, but her own admission was that she also changed its timbre.

In any case your lecture did present a reasonable conclusion which is:

"Still, the point is not that those early audiophiles were hard of hearing or just plain dumb, but that, without prior experience of the phonograph, the failings we would now find so obvious just didn't fit into the acoustic model those listeners were constructing of Ms. Case's voice."

Or as I would put it, over 100 years ago the simple phrase "sounds the same" meant something completely different to a casual observer, than it does to a person who is truly sophisticated about sound quality today. For example by the early 1990s I had done enough DBTs related to audio electronics and speakers that it was arguable that as far as sonic defects in audio gear went, not much would surprise me. Then I started doing DBTs related to the emerging perceptual coder technology and I heard an entirely new world of sonic defects.

However, as we commonly see with people of shall I say a creative bent (not meant in a good way) truth was used as a cover for personal attacks on a despised group of people who disagree with subjectivism:

"Footnote 3: For a long time, I've felt that the difference between an "objectivist" and a "subjectivist" is that the latter has had, at one time in his or her life, a mentor who could show them what to listen for. Raymond was just one of the many from whom I learned what to listen for."

I'll counter that with the assertion that the best way I know of to learn what to listen for involves an ABX comparator. That way you know that you are hearing a difference and not some will-o-the-wisp invention of your brain operating in wish-fulfillment mode.

IOW John it looks to me like that Heyser lecture took advantage of the honor of speaking to the AES to grind one of the oldest of subjectivist axes - the war with people who know that the primary subjectivist tool, the sighted evaluation, is so hopelessly prone to generating false positives as to be completely useless for studying small differences in the interest of finding audio truth. The expectations of many were fulfilled.
tubetwister likes this.
arnyk is offline  
post #2753 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 05:16 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by isa View Post
I very disappointingly must disagree, after several attempts to contribute to this effort. Overall, I think Arny is earnest and keeps the proper perspective, while Amir is a true audio predator, among the nastiest to emerge in years. Amir plays a game of appearing to be all about science, but that couldn't be further from the truth. No later than July 13, Amir created a thread in his WTF forum entitled "Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different". From that date on if not sooner, any true commitment to thoughtful discussion and the scientific method was over with Amir, even if he didn't have the guts to admit his position here. For those of us now wise to his tricks, he likely put the term "proof" in quotes to appeal to his sycophants while reserving the right to deny in a superficial manner he meant that in jest to those aligned with the scientific method. His blizzard of posts across two websites now allows him to cherrypick his own text for quotes to support whatever misleading message he decides to emphasize next. Some have been tricked into playing his game, but I will not.

The scientific method is pretty clear on focusing on eliminating bias, investigating sources of error and seeking explanations within the bounds of known science before concluding that results are the result of new science, the latter pithily captured by "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But no later than July 13, Amir was done with all of that. Forget that this was an informal, "fun" test. Forget that no credible person could claim proper control of variables or statistical significance for any results. Amir was beyond all of that no later than July 13. If anyone believes otherwise, Amir got you. I give him props that he is garrulous, relentless, clever and an effective bully, so being deceived or silenced by him is understandable. I'll note at this time that I regard this as my first post that does not meet Amir's arbitrary requirement for suitable contribution, so I have at least 4 more coming before he can really try to silence me.

The original intent of this test by Scott and Mark was to conduct an informal, fun, thoughtful exercise to explore 96k/24 versus 44.1k/16 for music recorded at very high quality and with verifiable content above 22k. Had that remained the mission, several weeks ago we likely would have conducted a parallel audio test of the files using SoX per Andyc56. Not to humiliate anyone. Not to insult anyone. But to see if the resampling process could account for unexplained differences in gains and number of samples that may or may not be audible. Arny even tried to introduce a complimentary test with keys to investigate a credible source of unexpected difference, but Amir's relentless attacks on Arny's intent and files was received loud and clear by many.

I'm still open to the possibility that there is an audible difference between Mark's 96k/24 files and a 44.1k/16 version of them. But I will never, ever accept that with the current path as moderated by Amir. Might Amir eventually cough up the timestamps of the key parts of the files he detected a difference? Maybe. But enough people have asked, and he's ignored, that I will no longer hold my breath waiting for what he should have offered up in the interests of learning weeks ago. Might Amir eventually use tools like Audio Diffmaker to seek a reason for his results at whatever mysterious timestamps he hears differences that does not invoke new science? Maybe, but I no longer care to trust his objectivity. Can I detect a difference in the files? No, mainly because I don't have access to a system that can play 96k without at least one intermediate resampling step in my playback system. But should that eliminate my interest, participation and contribution to this effort? I think not.

If this appeal to the higher ground isn't enough to try to restart this discussion on more reasonable terms, I hope, Amir, you get it that truly talented people are just waiting for you to attempt a published paper on this informal test. Your bluster will meet true competence and commitment at that point, in a very public way. You can consider that a promise .
This.

I could not have put it more concisely or eloquently.
koturban is offline  
post #2754 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 06:11 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor

Apology accepted of course. Again thank you, tubetwister.

Don't hold back from criticizing anything you read in Stereophile.What I do object to are the generalized criticisms made of someone like me as being typical of audiophiles without there being any specific connection to something I have written or published.
John ,
Thank you for being so kind as to accept my humble apologies and reply in such a kind manner .

I don't anticipate seeking any opportunities to criticize anything in Stereophile or any other editorials or articles you may publish.
I'm sure being the editor of a widely distributed publication there is plenty of that that goes with the territory as a matter of course and much of it may not be justified.

whew glad I didn't suddenly disappear into black imprisonment . I 've heard that can happen around here if you make to many mistakes !


Best 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; 08-01-2014 at 06:40 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2755 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 06:14 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
This.

I could not have put it more concisely or eloquently.
wow another one imagine that


koturban

stay cool bro !

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 -
tubetwister is online now  
post #2756 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 06:21 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Forum Bloodsport at dawn mates arm yourselves

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 -
tubetwister is online now  
post #2757 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 06:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East
Posts: 2,295
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1010 Post(s)
Liked: 360
I just want to say some' here.

This is a debate thread, and there are no absolute conclusions or judgement to be made during our audio journey.
We are always in the pursuit of discoveries. It is an ongoing process towards knowledge; knowledge of human scientific hearing.
It is extremely vast, complex and certainly and mostly imperfect.
Man is a very imperfect animal, full of mistakes, made every single day, and the same mistakes repeated over and over.

New technologies are discovered every day, stars in the universe as well. And all of these separate us farther apart as we realize how complex and vast our universe really is. We are expanding, not shrinking.

And that is all, for now.

* Debated discussions, not just about audio but about everything are good for the brain; it expands it in multiverse.
Everything is debatable, even human emotions and our decisions to judgement.
tubetwister likes this.

Bests, ~ Robert § (Bob)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
NorthSky is online now  
post #2758 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 06:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,078
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 750 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Sure me for pointing out that claiming audibility maybe 3-6 orders of magnitude below the average JND is pretty high class magic.
Good morning Arny. That is interesting choice of words. Isn't "magic" exactly what occurred here through experimentation? A test that you said no one in 14 years had passed was passed by me, Mark and then yourself! And no, there was no "IM distortion" in my system. Nor did I use fancy equipment. How did we manage to be 3-6 orders of magnitude better than you would have predicted just a few weeks ago?

What would have been your prediction when Scott/Mark were creating their tests? That JND would dictate no one could tell them apart, yes? That is not what happened. I did tell them apart.

Take the 320 kbps test that I recently post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
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.
Krab's understanding, formed by opinions such as expressed by yourself, was that the Just Noticeable Difference for 320 kbps MP3 was too low for people to hear such degradations with this ease. Yet, picking audio samples that you all had put forward, I am able to conclusively tell the tracks apart. How do you explain this with your JND argument?

Quote:
Most JNDs relate to the components and structure of ears. Show me a person with 3 foot diameter pinnae, and maybe, just maybe you have a case for extreme sensitivity. ;-)

How do you know my ears are not even bigger than that? How do you know I don't have an alien implant? Both of those would invalidate your JND, yes?

The shape of the ear determines what you hear. Not what you perceive Arny. The difference is the involvement of the brain which has to adjudicate the incredible amount of data being fed to it by both ears. It is that ability that I used to listen and find "high magic" differences.

JNDs are determined to predict what the general population will hear. Indeed 320 kbps is more than transparent in that regard, hence the reason music is distributed at even lower bit rates. If you know how to listen, really listen, you can easily beat the general population.

When talking to someone on this forum, you have no way of determining how well they can listen. I am sure in the 4-5 years we have been having these arguments, you never predicted we would be sitting here with such DBT results. Shouldn't that change your opinion about such things at least a little bit? What good is DBT data if it does nothing whatsoever for you when the outcome is very different than what you predicted?

Quote:
There's no truth to the rumor that this guy is one of Stereophile's reviewers. ;-)
You didn't answer the same question about you Arny: do you have golden ears?
tubetwister likes this.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #2759 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 06:59 AM
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: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 508 Post(s)
Liked: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky
* Debated discussions, not just about audio but about everything are good for the brain; it expands it in multiverse.
Everything is debatable, even human emotions and our decisions to judgement.
NorthSky,

Far out I like the multiverse thing that's neat way cool I want one !

We have new defector requesting asylum on the enlightened side here you know ? koturban came over so asylum's a done deal for him anyway !

I was thinking we are going to need a Grand Philosopher or whatever they call the head Philosopher on the grand council when we remove the the current dictatorship here ..... you up to it?

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; 08-01-2014 at 07:05 AM.
tubetwister is online now  
post #2760 of 2920 Old 08-01-2014, 07:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,445
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
As a courtesy to Scott Wilkinson, I thought any debate about hi-res vs CD should be here.
Hm-m-m...

Well! That worked out well.
Ratman is offline  
Closed Thread Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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