Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 95 - 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 08-01-2014, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Correct me if I'm wrong but even with two "perfect" mono systems (two sets of perfect IM-free sources, amps, and speakers, sitting side by side in the same rooms air space), producing different frequencies, we can still get IM products, in a certain sense, simply in the air itself! We however refer to it as a "beat frequency", not an "IM distortion product", but it's the same thing to the ear.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-01-2014 at 08:37 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-01-2014, 08:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,556
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post
I was visiting a friend when JJ called. My friend had ripped some CDs to MP3 and one was playing when he answered the call. JJ correctly identified the bitrate the CD had been ripped at over the telephone (which itself uses lossy compression). Now JJ, of course, is intimately familiar with lossy compression artefacts, having devoted much of his working life to developing codecs. But I was still gobsmacked.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What was the bitrate?
krabapple is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 08:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1257 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
JJ sides with my camp, at least on this point he addressed to me in another thread:


I have seen, by the way, many speakers and headphones distort with ultrasonic inputs and thereby create audible frequencies.


J

The "Official" All CD Players Sound the Same Thread


He also said to krabbapple once in another thread :

Well, I have heard examples of 30 and 33 kHz being audible via their 3kHz intermod, either in air (the ultrasonic speaker that makes birds chirp at a distance) or in the speaker itself (3kHz is coming right out of the speaker, never mind it's not going in).

I do think that some of the reports we hear are due to exactly such distortion mechanisms, but of course that's not "hearing above 20kHz".


CD Player recommendations for my setup


Sorry, the quote function button isn't working for me right now. It seems to come and go. Don't know why.

just add [quote***=insert name] ofc without the ***wildcard (can be done multiple times within a posting for serial cut and paste quoting )☺☺☺

body of text
yadda yadda yada
end of body of text
[/quote]


looks like this when done ☺☺
Quote:
Originally Posted by me

body of text
yadda yadda yada
end of body of text

☺ I think krabapple showed me that

"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 08:47 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 08:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,556
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
I was a dealer for all three of the SACD players Meyer and Moran used so I know them well. I know for a fact all three had a>b phrase repeat functions which the listener could engage at will from their seated position, via remote. On two of the machines, a SonyES and the Yamaha they say they used predominantly, this function even has its own dedicated remote button making it very easy to access. On the third machine, a Pioneer which I also own, you need to negotiate to the correct menu screen first to get there, but once there it operates quite easily.

BTW, I don't know them well, however I have met both of these fine gentleman, one only passingly at a BAS meeting I co-attended.

Meyer & Moran's (2007)'s experiment did not include training, though few if any of the many, many, many proponents of 'hi rez sound' have had formal 'listener training' (e.g., progressive training to hear artifacts as their level is decreased from 'obvious' to 'inaudible') either. So M&M were merely testing the *common claim by audiophiles* that they can routinely 'hear' hirez vs Redbook. Audiophiles often claim this *even for recordings that are not 'purist' hi rez* -- e.g, ones that went through an analog stage.

Some of M&M's subjects were audio professionals , and some of the trials took place in professional studios.

None of that has stopped the hi-rez dancers from doing their dance about M&M (2007). To them it's a 'no goal' because they (dancers) have moved the goalposts. Now it's only *trained or exceptional listeners* using *pure hi rez' recordings, that demonstrate the magic.
krabapple is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 08:52 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
None of that has stopped the hi-rez dancers from doing their dance about M&M (2007). To them it's a 'no goal' because they (dancers) have moved the goalposts. Now it's only *trained or exceptional listeners* using *pure hi rez' recordings, that demonstrate the magic.
And don't forget the "finding the segment" part and the "locking in" on it.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 08:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,556
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post
And now 'jj' is much more interested in posting on political and social interest forums.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=280922
Believe it or not, the audibility of differences between 'hi rez vs redbook' is really not that interesting a 'problem' to be solved or discussed, compared to things that make a *substantial* and *easily verified* difference to sound quality. Such as loudspeaker design, loudspeaker configuration / channel number / DSP, room acoustic treatment, mastering choices.....

Championing the cause of microscopic 'problems' like HDMI jitter and the 'need' for 'high rez' in light of those elephants in the room, is farcical almost to the point of decadence. In other words, it's the 'high end'.
krabapple is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 08:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong but even with two "perfect" mono systems (two sets of perfect IM-free sources, amps, and speakers, sitting side by side in the same rooms air space), producing different frequencies, we can still get IM products, in a certain sense, simply in the air itself! We however refer to it as a "beat frequency", not an "IM distortion product", but it's the same thing to the ear.

Only at very high levels, or when you've got almost-similar tones from 2 speakers, and you hear the envelope, but that still requires higher levels.

You only get a real 3kHz beat (i.e. one that can be measured) from nonlinearities.

James D. (jj) Johnston

Last edited by jj_0001; 08-01-2014 at 09:10 PM.
jj_0001 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
What was the bitrate?
Don't recall, and haven't been listening to MP3 for some years now.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
And don't forget the "finding the segment" part and the "locking in" on it.
You dispute that careful selection of material is important? Or what?

I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.

So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.
Garidy likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1257 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
Meyer & Moran's (2007)'s experiment did not include training, though few if any of the many, many, many proponents of 'hi rez sound' have had formal 'listener training' (e.g., progressive training to hear artifacts as their level is decreased from 'obvious' to 'inaudible') either. So M&M were merely testing the *common claim by audiophiles* that they can routinely 'hear' hirez vs Redbook. Audiophiles often claim this *even for recordings that are not 'purist' hi rez* -- e.g, ones that went through an analog stage.

Some of M&M's subjects were audio professionals , and some of the trials took place in professional studios.

None of that has stopped the hi-rez dancers from doing their dance about M&M (2007). To them it's a 'no goal' because they (dancers) have moved the goalposts. Now it's only *trained or exceptional listeners* using *pure hi rez' recordings, that demonstrate the magic.

very interesting and informative post and interpretation of same thanks !

With or without imajic, does he know about this yet? ☺☺


Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1
And don't forget the "finding the segment" part and the "locking in" on it.
Interesting interpretation (again depends what camp you are in ) How come I didn't think of that?

You guys know the COB ( chief of the boat ) ran off with a mermaid from pearl right ? ☺☺☺
word is he snuck out over the starboard side in the harbor at pearl when we first left port stop!

"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 10:48 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
And don't forget the "finding the segment" part and the "locking in" on it.
So what you are saying is that the distortion needs to span the whole track or else, we don't care? By that logic we should not care about any audio lossy compression distortions because its artifacts are also segment specific.
amirm is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
Championing the cause of microscopic 'problems' like HDMI jitter and the 'need' for 'high rez' in light of those elephants in the room, is farcical almost to the point of decadence. In other words, it's the 'high end'.
There is no elephant in the room. There are tons of threads and discussions on speakers, room correction, etc. Having a discussion on this topic does not exclude any other discussion.

Question is, why does it bother you so much that there is a discussion on this topic? I mean you can just ignore the thread and move on if it is not important. But if you are concerned, then we are here to deal with that.
amirm is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:23 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
You dispute that careful selection of material is important? Or what?
No, I was actually referring to the method used by Amir as he described it. However, I think that the selection of material should be done just like Meyer and Moran did: get a bunch of recordings from a variety of genres, in order to sample what actually exists in the real world.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:25 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
So what you are saying is that the distortion needs to span the whole track or else, we don't care? By that logic we should not care about any audio lossy compression distortions because its artifacts are also segment specific.
He's at least indicating that he feels like creating a new branch of debate within this thread!

Careful of the hook!
Garidy is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:27 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
So what you are saying is that the distortion needs to span the whole track or else, we don't care? By that logic we should not care about any audio lossy compression distortions because its artifacts are also segment specific.
No, what I'm saying is that without this trick you would not find it. So you have to stop listening to music and start doing something else. That distortion is meaningless unless you start looking for it, and even after that, you have a hard time finding it. In your last test, you missed the last two attempts.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,556
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 310 Post(s)
Liked: 310
Hi JJ.

I hardly use MP3 anymore either, except to add to my (rarely used) iPod. But I'm always wary of, and by now weary of, anecdotes about (or dismissals of) MP3 such as John Atkinson's, that do *not* specify a bitrate, an encoder, and at best, the probe 'signal' (track) itself.

I needn't tell *you* any of this, but some MP3 are more readily audible as such than others, thanks to differences in bitrates, codecs, and what's been compressed.

If you or anyone can identify not only the 'lossiness' but even the *bitrate* of a 320 kbps CBR or >=192 VBR MP3 generated by a good codec like LAME, and do so via *phone speaker* hats off! That, to me, would be impressive.

But bitrate-specific ID of a low-to-moderate bitrate MP3 generated by who knows what codec, even over a phone connection, by someone who pretty much invented MP3 -- no, I would not be so amazed by *that*.
krabapple is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:33 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
So what you are saying is that the distortion needs to span the whole track or else, we don't care? By that logic we should not care about any audio lossy compression distortions because its artifacts are also segment specific.
Besides, you previously admitted that you didn't think you would pass the test. That means that all these years of developing audio codecs, working with hires and all this, as you proudly told us (and rightly so) were not enough to convince you that hires was better, or at least different. You had to use foobar and microsegments to prove it to yourself that you could do it.
So, until July 13th, hires was meaningless to you too.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
No, what I'm saying is that without this trick you would not find it.
It is not a "trick." This is how we do listening tests in the industry/research day in and day out.

Quote:
So you have to stop listening to music and start doing something else. That distortion is meaningless unless you start looking for it, and even after that, you have a hard time finding it. In your last test, you missed the last two attempts.
??? You are interpreting the results wrong. Here is an abbreviated version of my post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
=============
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%
[..]
19:49:11 : 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%
[...]
15:24:23 : 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%)
The last two attempts are 100% success. That is why the probability of guessing is dropping down to 0% and staying there.

And of course I stop listening to music. I am being a human instrument. A real instrument doesn't listen to music, nor do I. If we are claiming transparency, then it should not matter that I am not enjoying the music and focusing on finding differences. The differences should not be there if we are claiming no audible difference.

Also keep in mind that you are seeing my results. My high frequency sensitivity is shot as I have said repeatedly. Others may be able to pass these tests with much more ease than me. Indeed, I have surprised myself that at this age, I am still able to find these differences.
amirm is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
Besides, you previously admitted that you didn't think you would pass the test. That means that all these years of developing audio codecs, working with hires and all this, as you proudly told us (and rightly so) were not enough to convince you that hires was better, or at least different. You had to use foobar and microsegments to prove it to yourself that you could do it.
So, until July 13th, hires was meaningless to you too.
Once more, I think this is the tenth time if not more, I have said nothing about "hi rez being better." I have said to seemingly deaf ears, that I don't care about the difference. I want the original file as produced. There can be little or no difference. I don't care. What I care is that by getting the original file, I short circuit all of these arguments, testing, etc. I have the best copy there is.

And yes, as I said, my time has come and gone in being a proper listener. That I can outperform all the vocal opposition is a surprise to me, saying how bad their hearing must be to lose to me. Yes, I was trained but at my age there is a lot lost hearing wise. For one thing, my ears have shrunk and are now half the size they used to be!
amirm is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Only at very high levels, or when you've got almost-similar tones from 2 speakers, and you hear the envelope, but that still requires higher levels.

You only get a real 3kHz beat (i.e. one that can be measured) from nonlinearities.
Here's a video demo of IM distortion, erm, "beat frequencies" occurring naturally in the air, as I contend. It's at the end of the video.
It certainly can be measured and heard, plus these seem like reasonable levels to me.

http://video.mit.edu/watch/tuning-fo...equency-11447/

Anyone else's claims of "Well that mic is producing the problem, but the guy standing there doesn't hear the same thing we do through the mic" I think is just being plain silly

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-01-2014 at 10:39 PM.
m. zillch is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 09:54 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Once more, I think this is the tenth time if not more, I have said nothing about "hi rez being better." I have said to seemingly deaf ears, that I don't care about the difference. I want the original file as produced. There can be little or no difference. I don't care. What I care is that by getting the original file, I short circuit all of these arguments, testing, etc. I have the best copy there is.

And yes, as I said, my time has come and gone in being a proper listener. That I can outperform all the vocal opposition is a surprise to me, saying how bad their hearing must be to lose to me. Yes, I was trained but at my age there is a lot lost hearing wise. For one thing, my ears have shrunk and are now half the size they used to be!
Okay, so you took the bait! Are you going to give back his hook or are you going to snap his line?

This is one huge negative loop.

Ears - Fears, Tears and Beers, 360-degree loop of repetitive commentaries, clarification upon clarification, and nothing as intended results, in a form of a useful take-way, to apply to everyday endeavors relating to music reproduction. Technically, this makes us all trolls; as I said, the results of this negative loop, produce unintended take-a-ways!

Last edited by Garidy; 08-01-2014 at 10:00 PM.
Garidy is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
jj_0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the rain
Posts: 893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
Here's a video demo of IM distortion, erm, "beat frequencies" occurring naturally in the air, as I contend. It certainly can be measured and heard. Any claims of "Well that mic is producing the problem, but the guy standing there doesn't hear the same thing we do through the mic" I think is being silly.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/tuning-fo...equency-11447/
Um, don't confuse beat frequencies with envelope due to addition of two tones, m'kay?

You are confusing envelope beating with actual generation of a new tone. There is no "new tone" in that demonstration, what you hear is envelope modulation, which is a standard result of

sin (xt) + sin ((x+delta)t)

This still only has two frequencies in it.

When you get the new tone at delta, as opposed to envelope modulation, then you would get

sin(xt) * sin((x+delta)t)

One is linear, one is not.

Completely different issues, and very different results in perception of inaudible tones.
Garidy likes this.

James D. (jj) Johnston
jj_0001 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1257 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1
And don't forget the "finding the segment" part and the "locking in" on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001
You dispute that careful selection of material is important? Or what?

I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.

So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.
FWIW I did the SACD vs 16/44.1 red book CDR sighted evaluation of quite a few same same SACD/CDR recordings a few years ago all meeting the same conditions e.g.,source and or recording + mastering my unqualified result/opinion = null (to me) SACD device playback chain was all Sony ES electronics.


FWIW Same recently unqualified result/opinion (to me) with *a few*sighted evaluation and recently *a few* unqaualified ABX comparison of same same 24/96kHz and 16/44.1 downloaded commercial music files here YMMV ......... or not ! ☺☺☺


Playback chain(s) were PC + amplified 192kHz Xonar STX soundcard set to 96kHz and Sennhieser studio heaphones with 27kHz resolution and other more flat at least equally resolving studio tracking phones + same phones on PC DAW and pro interface /or instead of phones mid field passive studio monitors and ~475wpc amp or other 145wpc amp with at least 50kHz unverified claimed resolution in PCM data direct mode w/o pro interface

****None of the above equipment was specially prepared or otherwise verified for accuracy to specifications.****

****No additive or subtractive EQ or SE in any of these examples !****

Not inexpensive comparisons w/combined equipment + media in *these cases* YMMV ............ or not
additionally expensive equipment *may not * be required for 24/192kHz (or other hires) vs 16/44.1 red book files or red book CDR .evaluations and or ABX testing .
.

On the awol COB thing Sparks will be raising SQ on the squawker soon ofc he will drop it in NMPC 's lap at fleet will see what shakes out and keep advised stop.☺☺

"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 10:57 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:07 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
It is not a "trick." This is how we do listening tests in the industry/research day in and day out.
Again, people here don't want to do research, just listen to music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
??? You are interpreting the results wrong. Here is an abbreviated version of my post:
I stand corrected. I recalled you achieving 0% in one test, but missing the last two attempts. Sorry. However, you missed once in one of the tests, and four times on the other. So, very very slight differences, and sometimes you are wrong.

Mind you, as I told you more than once, I believe that you achieved such results, and they are obviously significant from an abstract point of view. In real world, not so much. In fact:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
And of course I stop listening to music. I am being a human instrument. A real instrument doesn't listen to music, nor do I. If we are claiming transparency, then it should not matter that I am not enjoying the music and focusing on finding differences. The differences should not be there if we are claiming no audible difference.
If two files are different, they will be, well, different. It makes no sense to think they will sound the same, because they won't. So transparency is out of the question. Unless we listen to them from a human perspective. So you cannot become an instrument. As a matter of fact, you are useless as an instrument, because a real instrument will be a lot more precise than you. If you start acting like a human, by your own admission you will fail the tests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Also keep in mind that you are seeing my results. My high frequency sensitivity is shot as I have said repeatedly. Others may be able to pass these tests with much more ease than me. Indeed, I have surprised myself that at this age, I am still able to find these differences.
This is a part of your posts that I like less, to be honest. You use the simplest pc in the world (why?), you have dogs barking around you (why?), your ears are gone (they obviously aren't). You seem to downplay everything you do. It gives the impression that you're saying "I can beat you with my right hand tied behind my back". Not really nice, but maybe I'm wrong about this.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:11 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj_0001 View Post
Um, don't confuse beat frequencies with envelope due to addition of two tones, m'kay?

You are confusing envelope beating with actual generation of a new tone. There is no "new tone" in that demonstration, what you hear is envelope modulation, which is a standard result of

sin (xt) + sin ((x+delta)t)

This still only has two frequencies in it.

When you get the new tone at delta, as opposed to envelope modulation, then you would get

sin(xt) * sin((x+delta)t)

One is linear, one is not.

Completely different issues, and very different results in perception of inaudible tones.
Thumps - up!
Garidy is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:12 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Once more, I think this is the tenth time if not more, I have said nothing about "hi rez being better." I have said to seemingly deaf ears, that I don't care about the difference. I want the original file as produced. There can be little or no difference. I don't care. What I care is that by getting the original file, I short circuit all of these arguments, testing, etc. I have the best copy there is.
Again, I said "better, or at least different".

If you say you want the original file no matter what, I agree with you. However, here we are discussing the significance in terms of reduction of quality of the downsampled file. So, in a way, your request is excluded by definition from this discussion.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, X_Machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 11,727
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4930 Post(s)
Liked: 2046
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
NorthSky,

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

I was thinking we are going to need a Grand Philosopher or whatever they call the
head Philosopher on the grand council when ....................................... ..... you up to it?
Tube , just for curiosity fun; did you ever click on the last line of my sig?

Last edited by NorthSky; 08-01-2014 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Size
NorthSky is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 358
From the video titled "MIT Physics Demo - Tuning Forks: Resonance & Beat Frequency"


"When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats."


You might want to contact MIT about their sloppy language.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..
m. zillch is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:49 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post
From the video titled "MIT Physics Demo - Tuning Forks: Resonance & Beat Frequency"


"When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats."


You might want to contact MIT about their sloppy language.
It might be a better idea for you to carefully read jj's reply, then re-watch the video. jj and MIT are in agreement.

Perhaps you're confusing the creation of a Beat to mean Tone. There are only two Tones (Envelops Structures). The Envelops add to each other to create the effect that you heard, the patterning / beating of Tones/Envelops. Note in the formula provided by jj, there are only two frequencies, and that the Delta of the two 'sins', is the propagation of the effect, referred to commonly as Envelop Modulation, not Intermodulation.

Last edited by Garidy; 08-01-2014 at 11:03 PM.
Garidy is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 10:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 358
I guess what they meant when they wrote, " When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats" they really meant " When two different tuning forks are struck at the same time, the interference of their pitches produces beats, but not really."


And in the video text, "The tuning forks produce different pitches, which interfere to create beats." they actually meant "The tuning forks produce different pitches, which interfere to create beats, according to the poorly informed at least."

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass, etc., any more than we pick the ending of a play. High fidelity means an unmodified, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original artist's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

Last edited by m. zillch; 08-01-2014 at 11:01 PM.
m. zillch 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