However, the (overstated) criticism of the Myer and Moran paper is that most of the listening material was not from a hi res master. 

CD-quality masters? That's hardly high-resolution.
Sure, but it's about the music, right? Stuart indicates that MQA is not about high resolution in the usual sense; it's about "authenticity".
"As far as we're concerned, anything from a cylinder forward is legitimate as long as it's the definitive statement about a recording," Stuart told me. "If a recording is important enough, and all there is is a 78, that's where we start. . . We're really concerned about producing the definitive thing," not the thing with the highest bit depth or sampling rate.

surely it is timely to do another Myer and Moran type study

Quote from: old tech on 2016-11-11 05:03:12

surely it is timely to do another Myer and Moran type study

Yes if you are a believer. No if you have >2 functional brain cells.

I hope it's okay that I bump this thread, as I hope a friendly person could summarize a bit for me as well as inform me about a few other related things that were being debated in other similarly themed threads some years back (and as this thread is current it makes more sense for me to post here). I'm not as technically-minded as most here, so simple explanations, easy to understand numbers, and yes/no answers are greatly appreciated whenever possible :-).
I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread but read a bit here and there (mostly beginning and end). Arny's last comment seemed to summarize everything pretty well: So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?

A while ago I read the AES paper about distinguishing between 44.1 and 88.2 kHz sample rates (this one: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398), and today I read the HA discussion about this. I was still a bit unsure if this paper was actually considered to properly show a difference could be detected. Can anyone elaborate/explain?
My own understanding of that paper seemed to be that they concluded that three people who answered wrong were considered as answering right, and their "statistically significant" results were only around 60 % correct. This seemed a strange conclusion to me.

Lastly, in 2010 the HA user 2Bdecided started a thread about the audibility of brickwall filters (this: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,68524.0.html). What came of that? There were several positive results. Did anybody draw a conclusion about brickwall filters actually being audible in general, or was there a flaw in the files, software or the methodology?

Thanks, everybody :-)

Well I can't comment on the rest of your questions, but for the brickwall filter test, note that everybody settled on trying to ABX the maximum phase filter because 2B said that should be the easiest to ABX.  Ahem, nobody in their right mind would use a maximum phase filter for the brickwall, so...

So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?

Quote from: Joe Bloggs on 2017-01-04 18:29:08

Well I can't comment on the rest of your questions, but for the brickwall filter test, note that everybody settled on trying to ABX the maximum phase filter because 2B said that should be the easiest to ABX.  Ahem, nobody in their right mind would use a maximum phase filter for the brickwall, so...

So, the test that generated positive results used a type of filter that is not in use in any DAC in production?
If I understand that correctly, is a filter like that a filter that cuts nothing off above the Nyquist frequency?

Thanks, Ajinfla :-)!

By the way: What do you guys think of the results in the paper that gave scores of anywhere from 55 % to 74 % correct?

So far no reliable paper has shown that hi-res can reliably be distinguished from CD quality in a listening test. Correct?

I got a bit confused when I googled "maximum phase filter". A webpage said it was the same as an all-pass filter, but when I look at the pictures (again) that was posted on that specific HA discussion, the picture clearly shows content has been cut off at the top. So, I probably misunderstood :-).

Ajinfla, I take it you think those reports are faulty, but the reason I added another sentence after the sentence you quoted was to ask the people who had read them to explain why they were faulty.

Quote from: board on 2017-01-06 23:33:42

Ajinfla, I take it you think those reports are faulty, but the reason I added another sentence after the sentence you quoted was to ask the people who had read them to explain why they were faulty.

I did.
Now perhaps you can specify which cherry picked "55 % to 74 % correct" results you want discussed....again, relevant to my explanation.

Well, all of them actually :-). But if that's a bit much to ask, maybe the ones with 61-74 % correct answers. I figured those would be the ones least prone to be dubbed "chance". Also, especially the Mizumachi study from 2015 if possible.

Quote from: board on 2017-01-07 20:44:24

Well, all of them actually :-). But if that's a bit much to ask, maybe the ones with 61-74 % correct answers. I figured those would be the ones least prone to be dubbed "chance". Also, especially the Mizumachi study from 2015 if possible.

Why did they have to install a "custom" supertweeter, made by a manufacturer for the study, in the cars? What was the XO frequency used for ST?
Why could they distinguish between the "Hi Re$" and Redbook, but not MP3?
What your real interest "Board"?
What would any of it have to do with what I spelled out previously about >"CD quality"?

I don't understand what you're asking me...?

Perhaps also the Jackson paper from 2016, if possible.
Thanks :-)!