Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress (Read 88488 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #225 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: amirm on
ABX/blind testing is not something you throw at people and expect them to know what to do with it.  But with just a couple of hints online this  untrained member quickly managed to pass the test.  Imagine how far Meyer and Moran testers would have gotten if they a) had a control like Arny's test did and b) they were shown how to detect the same in double blind tests.

Note that Bob Stuart's AES test includes exactly the above scheme.  And we see how it creates a positive outcome.


My apologies for not having read this entire thread, but if you're going to try and ABX high frequency content, I'm curious how you control for nonlinear distortion ?


High frequency nonlinear distortion has been controlled in tests I set up by means of two tone test segments using two ultrasonic tones about 4 KHz apart, at various frequencies.

The question asked the user is whether or not the test tones sound the same whether they have been downsampled to 44/16 or not. If there is an audible difference, then there must be nonlinear distortion in the monitoring system.

Sample test files can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjaw0fd9vgcodg1/k...s%20f3.zip?dl=0.  There have been suggestions that the methodology used to create those files may need additional refinement. The 4416 file probably needs to be remade using shaped dither during the downsampling.

The test files are composed of about 12.5  seconds of the sound of keys jangling and this is to be location of your listening related to the issue of high res versus 4416.

The rest of the files are related to other issues, first testing the nonlinear distortion of your monitoring system, and then just the difference between the original and downsampled files. If these segments are audible, then your monitoring system should be disqualified on the grounds of excess high frequency nonlinear distortion.

After the keys jangling segment there is a 1 segment of a low level 4 kHz training test tone, which is similar to the audible artifact most expected if there is nonlinear distortion in your monitoring system.  However, we have subsequently found that substandard monitoring systems can emit a variety of different and unpredictable sounds due to their nonlinearity.

Following the 1 second 4 KHz tones are 4 one second segments of ultrasonic monitoring system testing twin tones. Their frequencies are different but they are always 4 KHz apart. They are separated by clicks. An ideal monitoring system will render them (all but the clicks) as being completely inaudible.  The last 12.5 second segment is just the difference between the original 2496 file and itself after being downsampled to 44/16. 

Theoretically failure to reproduce the 4 each 1 second ultrasonic test tones was expected to take the form of a 4 KHz tone, but in practice there have been reports of monitoring systems that render them as various noises and tones or combinations of tones. or noises and tones.  Rendering them as anything but silence raises questions about the nonlinearity of the monitoring system.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4rw0lar9kgbiamu/k...3%20e2.zip?dl=0

is the same file as above with an added 4416 file that was prepared using e2 noise shaping.  It contains both the flat dither 4416 file and the e2 dither 4416 file. 

All of the files in the archive are 2496 sampled files but the ones with 4416 in their names were round tripped through 4416 (Redbook format) to determine if that causes actual audible degradation.

At this point the status of these files is experimental  to test the means of presentation.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #226 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: amirm on
Arny, would you please try using the new ABX comparator with your own test and report whether you can still pass it?  I have a feeling that the new comparator has taken a big step backward and want to confirm my theory with you trying it as the master of all things ABX.


Asked and answered many times on this forum and to you specifically Amir on other forums. Please stop being mean by making a point out of my age-induced hearing problems, which I've made no secret of on many occasions.

I don't follow Arny.  You post your results in the AVS Forum already.  I am simply asking if you can duplicate them with the latest ABX comparator since you are asking me the same. 


Asked and answered. As I have explained again and again, I'm considerably older than you and most people who post on audio forums, and it is probable that any age-induced losses in my hearing are far worse. This is getting very tedious.

The best way to test any ABX comparator is to run relevant technical tests on it.

It may be possible to set up listening-based tests using special test files and requiring just listening, but the scope of such tests can be limited (e.g. just nonlinear distortion)

Right now I don't know what people are complaining about. Do they perceive asymmetrical performance between A & B, problems with switching, or what?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #227 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Right now I don't know what people are complaining about. Do they perceive asymmetrical performance between A & B, problems with switching, or what?
Lack of cross-fading when switching...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=880622
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=880663

EDIT: Oh, I see you've seen that. I don't think I can explain it any better. If you are going to switch between two signals with very different waveforms, you need to cross fade. The presence of large amounts of ultrasonic content means audibly identical signals can have very different waveforms. Hence cross fading is needed for this test.

Cheers,
David.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #228 –
Just to be clear, since the term "cross-fading" usually refers to two non-zero signals: "cross-fading" with silence is needed also at the transitions between playing one signal, and not playing it, i.e. starting and stopping.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #229 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote
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.

-JJ

Not mentioned there but if you ever make it to JJ's house, you see that he has a collection of LPs.

Dance all you want Amir, but despite your insinuations to the contrary, it is clear that the real expert/non-hobbyist in this area, who does not have pecuniary interests in the matter, has stated the above at least 3 times now. That's strike 3, you're out. 
In fact, the only support for the Hi-Rez scam, is from those with a vested pecuniary interest. Let's make that very clear.

Quote from: amirm on
You are asking me to violate TOS #5 of this forum so I am not going to follow you there.

You mean like the 20 times you've mentioned M&M, despite this being about the hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 online computer file test train wrecks?
Actually, you are the one who claims listener training is a must for hearing the Hi-rez scam products. What listener training do you offer through Madrona for customers you have peddled Hi-Rez products (like the Berkley) to? How are they suppose to hear the purported scam benefits with no training?

Quote from: amirm on
And here is another train to add to the list, this time in the form of Ethan Winer's generational loss:
I think he post a newer one in WBF Forum and I passed that too.  If I find it, and see you still posting random stuff AJ, I will post it. 

There is no doubt the ex-MS exec can "pass" hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 online unsupervised computer file tests on your Windows pc. But they are still completely worthless, no matter how much dancing you do. This very thread contains a pass like you did, to demonstrate the worthlessness of such unsupervised gameable/cheatable "tests". These non-ITU amateur games are worthless, per a self assessed expert source I can quote again if you wish.....and prove only the underhandedness of the Hi-Rez peddlers, nothing else.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #230 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: saratoga on
My apologies for not having read this entire thread, but if you're going to try and ABX high frequency content, I'm curious how you control for nonlinear distortion ?  Is there an appropriate control sample being used in those tests to ensure that the system is linear enough for that ABX test to work?


Arny added ultrasonic tones to his tests to see if it causes problems by itself.  It did not on my system and others.  See my copy of response from AVS Forum here: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=880492


That seems like a good test, or at least a good starting point.

Quote from: amirm on
The Stuart AES listening test paper says this about their setup:

The playback system had a wide
frequency response (up to 40 kHz determined by the
tweeter), had very low di erential group delay, and
showed a compact impulse response with insigni -
cant ringing.

So they are relying on in situ measurements to make sure the system has clean ultrasonic response.


hmm?  Thats unrelated to nonlinearity.  Did they really not control for it?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #231 –
Quote from: amirm on
Speaker tests like above are for detection of linear distortions such as speaker coloration. The topic here is different.

Correct. The speaker tests showed real soudwaves/soundfield differences, are detected by both trained and untrained listeners.
There is not a a whit of evidence to suggest either can hear Hi-Rez scam products. The hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 online tests have long ago been exposed as garbage, so they are completely worthless, as is the concocted dither BS tests that were doctored up and still showed barely any detectability.

Quote from: amirm on
Quote
Amir, could you please supply your data, showing the untrained Hi-Rez buying audiophile capable of detecting 16/44 artifacts on par with trained listeners....or anything whatsoever.

Sure. When Arny post his  hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 tests, the hobbyist imagic (Mark).....

IOW, no you can't show a shred of supervised ITU-BS1116 data. Cool, so you admit to having zero valid data...and one new dither-doctored up BS test. Excellent.
So how do you sell these scam products to untrained customers?

Quote from: amirm on
ABX/blind testing is not something you throw at people

Correct. Supervised ABC/HR is much more appropriate, if one is really interested in finding small impairments, or in this case, the purported benefits of Hi-Rez scam products.
Got any ITU-BS1116 data? No? Well, I guess you'll just have to peddle the scam without valid "data".
Don't worry, the vast majority of believers reject blind tests anyway. See the latest SP.

Quote from: amirm on
Imagine how far Meyer and Moran...

TOS #5...again.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #232 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Asked and answered many times on this forum and to you specifically Amir on other forums. Please stop being mean by making a point out of my age-induced hearing problems, which I've made no secret of on many occasions.

???  We keep talking past each other Arny.  I am referencing these foobar results you posted: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post26085394

=====

*Note - levels and passage selection fudged for best false positives


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/28 07:53:00

File A: C:\Users\client64\Music\AVS\Keys jangling\keys jangling full band 2496 test tones f3 4416.wav
File B: C:\Users\client64\Music\AVS\Keys jangling\keys jangling full band 2496 test tones f3.wav

07:53:00 : Test started.
07:54:38 : Trial reset.
07:56:40 : 01/01 50.0%
07:56:55 : 02/02 25.0%
07:57:15 : 03/03 12.5%
07:57:21 : 04/04 6.3%
07:57:27 : 05/05 3.1%
07:57:35 : 06/06 1.6%
07:57:42 : 06/07 6.3%
07:57:55 : 07/08 3.5%
07:58:10 : 08/09 2.0%
07:58:27 : 09/10 1.1%
07:58:35 : 10/11 0.6%
07:58:52 : 11/12 0.3%
07:59:09 : 12/13 0.2%
07:59:15 : 13/14 0.1%
07:59:22 : 14/15 0.0%
07:59:52 : 15/16 0.0%
07:59:59 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)

---------------------------------

I like to see you try the new ABX plug-in and tell us if you can pass with the same ease or not.  If you cannot, then we know the new version has taken a step backward in finding true positive differences.  Would you please do that for us?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #233 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
The hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 online tests have long ago been exposed as garbage...

You just called Meyer and Moran garbage since it did not remotely follow ITU BS1116.  You are comfortable with that or will now backpeddle? 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #234 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Got any ITU-BS1116 data?
Has anyone? Seriously? A fully compliant BS1116 listening test that meets every single requirement?

I wonder how many of those exist in the world?

Cheers,
David.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #235 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: ajinfla on
The hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 online tests have long ago been exposed as garbage...

You just called Meyer and Moran garbage since it did not remotely follow ITU BS1116.  You are comfortable with that or will now backpeddle?

Nope, just the thread topic gameable/cheatable online tests, unsupervised and being taken on Windows pcs, some by Windows execs, with zero oversight.
If you want to discuss M&Ms test without TOS#5 violation, start a new thread (or find an existing one). We'll discuss their treatment of audiophile (digital) disorder and the Hi-Rez scam there.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #236 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: ajinfla on
The hobbyist/gameable/cheatable non-ITU BS1116 online tests have long ago been exposed as garbage...

You just called Meyer and Moran garbage since it did not remotely follow ITU BS1116.  You are comfortable with that or will now backpeddle?

Nope, just the thread topic gameable/cheatable online tests, unsupervised and being taken on Windows pcs, some by Windows execs, with zero oversight.
If you want to discuss M&Ms test without TOS#5 violation, start a new thread (or find an existing one). We'll discuss their treatment of audiophile (digital) disorder and the Hi-Rez scam there.

cheers,

AJ

You are trying too hard to be annoying AJ.  A little goes far.


Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #237 –
Quote from: amirm on
You are trying too hard to be annoying AJ.  A little goes far.


This isn't your type of forum where "Technical Experts" can claim to hear improvements with upside down DACs under your reign Amir.

Here extraordinary claims about audio (like Hi-Rez audibility) are contested a bit more seriously, however annoying that may be.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #238 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
You are trying too hard to be annoying AJ.  A little goes far.


This isn't your type of forum where "Technical Experts" can claim to hear improvements with upside down DACs under your reign Amir.

Here extraordinary claims about audio (like Hi-Rez audibility) are contested a bit more seriously, however annoying that may be.

cheers,

AJ

I am just saying to be yourself AJ.  That would be annoying enough.  Trying to impress folks here by showing you can be even more, might blow your cover and show people that you only post to get a rise out of people.  As opposed to any interest in discussing audio.

Try to say something technical once in a while; some other than the above line, etc.  Just trying to help my old friend get along in new land.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #239 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: amirm on
So they are relying on in situ measurements to make sure the system has clean ultrasonic response.
That's a good thing to do. Unfortunately that's hard to do when using headphones or in ear monitors, leaving us in the dark about their (in situ) performance. Did they also measure the noise floor (spectrum) of the room ?



Methods section of paper says only:

'Subjects sat in a silent and soundproofed listening room with near-optimal acoustic properties'.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #240 –
Quote from: krabapple on
'Subjects sat in a silent and soundproofed listening room with near-optimal acoustic properties'.
That's not a very scientific description, especially since noise close to the hearing threshold is examined.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #241 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: krabapple on
'Subjects sat in a silent and soundproofed listening room with near-optimal acoustic properties'.
That's not a very scientific description, especially since noise close to the hearing threshold is examined.


The lowest noise level on the recording is about 70 dB Below FS. The paper says that the peak SPL they listened to was 105 dB SPL, so the lowest noise level on the recording is around 35 dB SPL.  Some components of that 35 dB SPL noise may have been below threshold and of course we know that some were.

I think that the really quiet listening room may be the biggest asymmetry in the test.

The paper seems to make two big omissions, both of relating to the fact that their choice of program material and listening room make their experiment almost 100% non-comparable with say Meyer and Moran or most work that proceeded it. They appear to also falsly demonize ABX testing.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #242 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
They appear to also falsly demonize ABX testing.

They don't demonize it, falsely or otherwise.  They state its failings and back it up with simple explanation.  If you disagree, please quote the paper and explain how it supports what you just said.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #243 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The paper seems to make two big omissions, both of relating to the fact that their choice of program material and listening room make their experiment almost 100% non-comparable with say Meyer and Moran or most work that proceeded it.

That is the true.  It is the difference between hobby work (Meyer and Moran) and that of professionals (Stuart).  When searching for small differences, you need a highly transparent test setup.  And you need to know the nature of the content you are using so that it is revealing of differences.

This forum does a lot of codec testing, yes?  MPEG reference clips are used universally by research and industry to create better coding technology.  Just a handful of clips determine if one technology is better than the other.  Hobbyists picking random clips due to unawareness of the technology under test may not apply I am afraid.

We want to know the truth Arny. If there is an audible difference, we want to find it, not see in what way we could create a test that wouldn't show it.  Once we have the results, of course you can choose to follow or ignore the difference.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #244 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The paper seems to make two big omissions, both of relating to the fact that their choice of program material and listening room make their experiment almost 100% non-comparable with say Meyer and Moran or most work that proceeded it.

That is the true.  It is the difference between hobby work (Meyer and Moran) and that of professionals (Stuart).


Interesting that up until this paper the so called professional had AFAIK only authored  AES papers that failed to substantiate
their exceptional  claims with professional listening tests. Please show the BS1116 compliant tests by Stuart that had been substantiating Stuart's many exceptional claims prior to this one.

Interesting that ABX for audio was raised up by hobbyists while the rest of the AES (the so-called hobbyists were AES members) were publishing papers in the Journal that were based on sighted evaluations.

Quote
When searching for small differences, you need a highly transparent test setup.  And you need to know the nature of the content you are using so that it is revealing of differences.


In fact the program material that M&M used was in an audio format that met or exceeded every criteria that Stuart had called for.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #245 –
Quote from: amirm on
When searching for small differences, you need a highly transparent test setup.

Where is the evidence for that in the BS test?
Let's do my favorite thing, Amir  ....where are the measurements and listening tests for the BS paper switching apparatus transparency?
And for the direct radiator Beryllium dome speakers driven to >105db?

Out of curiosity Amir, have you ever seen this SP test of an older Meridian speaker? You know I'm not terribly technical here, so would you mind explaining what JA is talking about referring to "oil-can" resonances and CD replay being "band-limited"?
Do you think this might be relevant to the system "transparency" you talk about, being required in the BS paper?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #246 –
Hey krab, since no one can seem to keep the two topics separate, what do you think of my merging your two discussions into one enormous train wreck?

In the meantime, this discussion will now close.

Anyone who wishes to discuss the topic defined by the original post, send me a PM and I will re-open it.