Skip to main content
Topic: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (Read 34101 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #125
Paper:
In summary, these results imply that, though the effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect, the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain "is affected" by operating beyond conventional consumer oriented levels. Furthermore, though the causes are still unknown, this perceived effect can be confirmed with a variety of statistical approaches and it can be greatly improved through training.

PR:
said Reiss. “Our study finds high-resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content."

At a glance i think "markedly beyond" is exaggerated.
Bullshit. Nothing in the papers mined statistics of dubious results, suggests any "advantage". That's pure believer wishful thinking, at best.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #126
As a layman with no knowledge of statistics and little of scientific method, would I be far off in understanding this meta-analysis as amounting to something like...

have nothing to new to offer,  for some reasons or none, one might as well gather together and quote other work on what people call High-Resolution Audio. None of it conclusively shows any advantages, except, perhaps to certain rare beings with unusual hearing ability, but hey, lets go on talking about it.

If the aim was to keep people talking about it, it seems to have been effective.

The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #127
See, the paper reached its goal and makes people accept now that some people have unusual abbilities.
Audiophiles have unusual abbilities and have many wordings for what they hear, others are ignorant.
The abbility is nowhere explained at a level i understand. It may only be these people catch some distortion in the audible band only present with high samplerates.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #128
Quote
Besides being self-evident, it's also a very cheap get-out-of-jail answer in such a discussion.
"cheap get-out-of-jail answer" might be a suitable phrase for forums, but in science?
"Science"?

Even catagorizing this propaganda as bad science would be overly-charitable.

Quote
At a glance i think "markedly beyond" is exaggerated.
Funny you should use the word exaggerated, and by funny, I really mean stupid.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #129
As a layman with no knowledge of statistics and little of scientific method, would I be far off in understanding this meta-analysis as amounting to something like...

have nothing to new to offer,  for some reasons or none, one might as well gather together and quote other work on what people call High-Resolution Audio. None of it conclusively shows any advantages, except, perhaps to certain rare beings with unusual hearing ability, but hey, lets go on talking about it.

If the aim was to keep people talking about it, it seems to have been effective.

Archimago expressedmy feelings almost  exactly (bolding mine)

Quote
Seriously folks, if we're trying to decide whether a high-res album sounds different from a CD 16/44 (of the same mastering of course), it should not need a meta-analysis. As a consumer, I can go on HDTracks this morning and see that a 24/192 version of Eric Clapton's recent album I Still Do costs US$27.98. And the CD on Amazon is US$10.90. It looks like both the CD and download are from the same DR11 master. The question for me in considering the purchase is not whether they may sound different, but rather does this difference justify a 250% markup!? In this context, does a 52.3% accuracy rate in a research setting sound like a valuable proposition to grab the high-resolution version?

You know guys, the fact that we're even going through the contortions of complex statistical analysis after >15 years since the release of SACD and DVD-A clearly indicates that those who claim to hear "obvious" differences are plainly wrong. When a meta-analysis is used in science to gather data far and wide to find and declare statistical significance of this kind of tiny magnitude, it just means that the "signal to noise" ratio is poor and that the magnitude of the effect is obviously academic. The author stated just as much: "In summary, these results imply that, though the effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect, the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain is affected by operating beyond conventional consumer oriented levels." Notice the careful wording... In no way does it imply that these "small" and "difficult to detect" differences are necessarily "better" as audiophiles always desire to promote. I like this wording and think Dr. Reiss did a fantastic job putting this together. By the way, these results are of no surprise as we've been talking about this for years!

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #130
I'll take that as a yes! Thanks!

See, the paper reached its goal and makes people accept now that some people have unusual abbilities.
Audiophiles have unusual abbilities and have many wordings for what they hear, others are ignorant.
The abbility is nowhere explained at a level i understand. It may only be these people catch some distortion in the audible band only present with high samplerates.

I was not equating rare beings with audiophile. Audiophiles may be rarer than the makers of expensive kit and the publishers of over-priced music formats would like them to be, but they are not rare enough!
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #131
Archimago expressedmy feelings almost  exactly (bolding mine)

Quote
I like this wording and think Dr. Reiss did a fantastic job putting this together. By the way, these results are of no surprise as we've been talking about this for years!
Archimago should perhaps have added that the wording he likes is the one in the paper. I'm quite sure he wouldn't approve of the wording in the press release.

It is of course the press release that will have the greatest impact with the public. A cursory search of the internet reveals how many media outlets have promptly picked this up. It doesn't look as if many of them had bothered to read the actual paper beyond the abstract, let alone put it under scrutiny. The almost universal message is that the paper supports the claims of audiophiles and the respective manufacturers. This applies even to the media that aren't associated with the audiophile sector.

Seen from this angle, the paper merely acts as a pretext for the propaganda that gets disseminated via the media. The paper's actual content isn't particularly important, as long as it appears to point in the "right" direction. Reiss obviously knows how scientific reporting works, and how the audiophile scene works, and uses this knowledge to further the audiophile agenda. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier, that the audiophile scene has learnt how to work the system.

Given what Archimago quite rightly pointed out, it should come as no surprise that the audiophile scene craves desperately for scientific confirmation of their daydreams. The fact that this is brewing for 20 years with no clear result, is an embarassment of the highest order when you try to build a mass market on it. No wonder there are attempts like those whe are discussing here.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #132
Quote from: Archimago
Seriously folks, if we're trying to decide whether a high-res album sounds different from a CD 16/44 (of the same mastering of course), it should not need a meta-analysis. As a consumer, I can go on HDTracks this morning and see that a 24/192 version of Eric Clapton's recent album I Still Do costs US$27.98. And the CD on Amazon is US$10.90. It looks like both the CD and download are from the same DR11 master. The question for me in considering the purchase is not whether they may sound different, but rather does this difference justify a 250% markup!? In this context, does a 52.3% accuracy rate in a research setting sound like a valuable proposition to grab the high-resolution version?
Quote from: Wombat
I can imagine if the CD was done with best quality in mind it may be possible to sound even better as the HiBitrate download because of some watermark used for UMG related labels and online distribution.
The Clapton pretty surely has that watermark.

I was not equating rare beings with audiophile. Audiophiles may be rarer than the makers of expensive kit and the publishers of over-priced music formats would like them to be, but they are not rare enough!
Audiophiles that read the Reiss paper will feel rare enough :)
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #133
Audiophiles that read the Reiss paper will feel rare enough :)
This was not a hypothetical example.
From a self assessed "objective" audiophile, who finds Hi Re$ "based on something real, not snake oil, placebo, self delusion, etc." and "listens" "as carefully as possible".
No kidding. ::)

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #134
<snip>
Well, this applies to an individual study. For a meta-analysis, I would expect the "independent variable" to be the same for each input study. If it isn't, I don't know anymore what the result actually says, nor whether the combining of the individual results makes sense. That may be my fault, and perhaps someone manages to enlighten me here.

As stated before, in some cases combining results in the way Reiss did, is justified. If the CD-format is really transparent, it doesn´t matter if there are more bits or higher sampling frequency or both, because more than "transparent" is not possible. If there is nevertheless an effect then it is an useful result. Why should you expect that a meta-analysis has to deliver an answer to any further question?
As said before, it is quite common that authors of meta-analysis (or systematic reviews) do strongly recommend further research.

Quote
<snip>
However, the conclusion would be wrong, because it would have been the result of the flaws in the tests. In each case the subjects' ability to distinguish the stimuli was because of secondary effects that compromised the test's internal validity.

So even though the individual tests reached the right conclusion, because the error wasn't strong enough to tip the balance, the meta analysis results in a wrong result.

For all these reasons (to adress the question you have to (re)read all papers) i still haven´t finished my analysis of Dr. Reiss´s meta-analysis and i am wondering that so many others that obviously haven´t done what is needed (most likely considering the contents of their posts) draw "categorical conclusions" .

Quote
That's why I directed the argument at you. Reiss is of couse entitled to recommend further research. I just would have wished he didn't oversell his own results.

I am a bit puzzled at this point; if you didn´t reanalyzed the papers used and didn´t do the statistics to see which effect inclusion or exclusion of various papers might have, how do you know that he "oversells his results" ?

Quote
That was my state of knowledge at the point in time when I wrote it.

That why i wrote you "missed" . You could and should have known better.


Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #135
Archimago expressedmy feelings almost  exactly (bolding mine)

That raises imho the interesting question which percentage/mark up relation one should consider to be "justifying" . Would "75% "qualify or is "100%" needed? ;)

I´d recommend, that everyone should listen for himself to see, if "hi- res" is useful and any mark-up justified.
Even if other people somewhere,somehow were able to differentiate between "cd-format" and "hi-res" to 100% i wouldn´t buy "hi-res" material without evaluating it myself.

Quote
It is of course the press release that will have the greatest impact with the public. A cursory search of the internet reveals how many media outlets have promptly picked this up. It doesn't look as if many of them had bothered to read the actual paper beyond the abstract, let alone put it under scrutiny. The almost universal message is that the paper supports the claims of audiophiles and the respective manufacturers. This applies even to the media that aren't associated with the audiophile sector.

Thats the way it is. And it was the same when Meyer/Moran came up with their publication, it was just the other camp of believers.

Everybody adressing criticise to Dr. Reiss´s meta-analysis should reread his comments on Meyer/Moran and ask himself if he was nearly as critical back then. And the Meyer/Moran was really seriously flawed and as said back then, after reading it, i didn´t understand which way it could pass the peer review process at the JAES.
As stated before, their hypothesis might nevertheless be true, but the validity of their study was questionable to a degree where no further conclusions are warranted.

Quote
Given what Archimago quite rightly pointed out, it should come as no surprise that the audiophile scene craves desperately for scientific confirmation of their daydreams. The fact that this is brewing for 20 years with no clear result, is an embarassment of the highest order when you try to build a mass market on it. No wonder there are attempts like those whe are discussing here.

I don´t see that the "mass market" is really influenced by anything like this. Audiophiles are just a very small subgroup....

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #136
<snip>
Well, this applies to an individual study. For a meta-analysis, I would expect the "independent variable" to be the same for each input study. If it isn't, I don't know anymore what the result actually says, nor whether the combining of the individual results makes sense. That may be my fault, and perhaps someone manages to enlighten me here.

As stated before, in some cases combining results in the way Reiss did, is justified. If the CD-format is really transparent,

Repeating blind support for bad science doesn't make bad science right or even less wrong.

There's no way that conflating orthogonal and contradictory parameters as Reiss did is justified,

Furthermore, you apparently have unilaterally decided to change the topic, because the subject paper does not deal with the question of whether or not the CD format is really transparent.

Please let me remind you that its title is "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation" Whether or not High Resolution Audio (whatever that is) is transparent was not covered, either.


Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #137
Please reread my posts, as i did address that point already. What was meant by "combining" is, that combining studies related to "more bits" or "higher sampling rate" or "more bits and higher sampling rate" is justified under the constraints already explained.




Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #138
Please reread my posts, as i did address that point already.

Hence my comment about repeating false claims not making t bad science right or even less wrong. 

Quote
What was meant by "combining" is, that combining studies related to "more bits" or "higher sampling rate" or "more bits and higher sampling rate" is justified under the constraints already explained.

So some keep repeating again and again.  Looks to me like phases like "higher sampling rate" and "more bits" are just catch phrases with no actual physical meaning to many people,

One thing is clear - some people know so little about evaluating the transparency of a medium or format that they can't detect the absence of it in descriptions of tests or even just the title of a paper.






Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #139
I´d say, a bit less drama and provision of more arguments instead could help. ;)

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #140
I´d say, a bit less drama and provision of more arguments instead could help. ;)
I´d say, a bit less drama and provision of more arguments instead could help. ;)

There's no incentive to do the work required to form additional arguments when the ones that have been provided are dismissed out of hand.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #141
I totally agree..... ;)

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #142
I totally agree..... ;)

Yes, your posts repeated;y state their agreement with the Riess anti-science, pro placebophlie PR campaign, but add no supporting  or clarifying arguments to the weak ones that may exist or are obviously missing from the Reiss paper.

 

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #143
Did you really expect anything more from this intellectually dishonest placebophile apologist?
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #144
Did you really expect anything more from this intellectually dishonest placebophile apologist?

Good point. One of his more interesting tells is in this statement:

"Even if other people somewhere,somehow were able to differentiate between "cd-format" and "hi-res" to 100% i wouldn´t buy "hi-res" material without evaluating it myself."

The obvious implication is that the author has not evaluated his own ability to differentiate between "cd-format" and "hi-res" , because if he had, he would have written that he had properly evaluated the difference himself as justificaiton for some course of action.

For the record, I have done dozens of DBTs and evaluated my own ability to differentiate between "cd-format" and "hi-res". It was null and it has been null for all the persons that I have seen testing it in the same way.


Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #145
If the CD-format is really transparent..
Which of the selected tests were for that question Jakob2 ?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #146
I'm not saying it is audible, but it is audible.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #147
As stated before, in some cases combining results in the way Reiss did, is justified. If the CD-format is really transparent, it doesn´t matter if there are more bits or higher sampling frequency or both, because more than "transparent" is not possible. If there is nevertheless an effect then it is an useful result.
And what exactly does that result mean?

If the research question was to find whether the CD format was transparent, then several of the studies used by Reiss should have been excluded, because they used test conditions (filters, dithers, etc.) which are not inherent nor typical in the CD format, and which may have had audible consequences with the potential for false positives. But even if this hadn't been a problem, a positive result would only have meant that in some circumstances, the CD format wasn't completely transparent. It still wouldn't be clear whether those circumstances have any relevance for the listening experience encountered in practice, nor would it be clear whether any of the HiRes formats would be an improvement. In other words, even in the most optimistic case, assuming no ill effects from the base studies, it would be inappropriate to draw any other conclusion than that the CD format isn't transparent in all possible situations.

In this form this conclusion wouldn't be a surprise, either. Meyer/Moran, for example, have noted in their study, that the noise floor of the CD format becomes noticeable at very high playback volume settings. It wouldn't have taken a Reiss meta study to come to the conclusion that you can construe circumstances that allow the limitations of the CD system to be heard. If that had been the question, the Reiss study would have been superfluous. On top of that, even the result given in the paper would have been an overinterpretation, let alone the press release.

Quote
Why should you expect that a meta-analysis has to deliver an answer to any further question?
In the case we have here, the study is useless if the answer is limited to what you posit.

Quote
As said before, it is quite common that authors of meta-analysis (or systematic reviews) do strongly recommend further research.
Well, in this (your) interpretation all of the work is still ahead of him. The meta study didn't even help with identifying where further research is likely to be most profitable.

Quote
I am a bit puzzled at this point; if you didn´t reanalyzed the papers used and didn´t do the statistics to see which effect inclusion or exclusion of various papers might have, how do you know that he "oversells his results" ?
This reveals itself quite readily by just comparing the results stated in the paper with the conclusions offered in the press release. No detailed investigation is needed for something that obvious.

Quote
That why i wrote you "missed" . You could and should have known better.
I'm not prepared to take a lecture from you in this regard.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #148
For the record, I have done dozens of DBTs and evaluated my own ability to differentiate between "cd-format" and "hi-res". It was null and it has been null for all the persons that I have seen testing it in the same way.

Hell, considering that most people have trouble differentiating between reasonable-bitrate VBR LAME MP3 and a CD-quality lossless source, or even a "hi-res" one, I simply don't understand why people can seriously expect to hear a difference between CD quality and "hi-res".

It's completely incongruous.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

Reply #149
The ringing my friend, the ringing! Luckily the cure for ringiphobia (fear of ringing) is soon awaiting FDA approval in the form of HiRes, dsd or MQA.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020