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: The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads (Read 34705 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #50 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Arny, what can be concidered the jnd for level differences in broadband noise ? Your table (I've made an excel sheet myself years ago with the same numbers) shows that summing identical, but uncorrelated noise with a 10 dB level difference results in a total increase of 0.41 dB. This should be audible, right ? In my simple DAW test I found a jnd of about 12dB, which might not be accurate, but should be close.increase.


Doesn't the jnd depend on the playback level?

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #51 –
Quote from: drewfx on
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Arny, what can be concidered the jnd for level differences in broadband noise ? Your table (I've made an excel sheet myself years ago with the same numbers) shows that summing identical, but uncorrelated noise with a 10 dB level difference results in a total increase of 0.41 dB. This should be audible, right ? In my simple DAW test I found a jnd of about 12dB, which might not be accurate, but should be close.increase.


Doesn't the JND depend on the playback level?


Yes, JN( just about everything) depends on SPL.  Usually the published results are taken the 70-80 dB range because that is where the ear is most sensitive to small differences.

The ear's sensitivity to most small differences  goes down above 80-90 dB SPL.  The ear's sensitivity to most small differences goes down below about 70 dB SPL.

The ear's sensitivity to most small differences goes down if the test signals move away from the frequencies where the ear is most sensitive.

The ear's sensitivity to most small differences goes down if the test signals very with time (e.g. music).

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #52 –
Quote from: drewfx on
Doesn't the jnd depend on the playback level?
Sure, but since we're talking dither noise, the levels were just above the (my) hearing threshold.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: drewfx on
Doesn't the jnd depend on the playback level?
Sure, but since we're talking dither noise, the levels were just above the (my) hearing threshold.


The JN (just about everything) are generally relatively huge that close to the threshold.  The ear is struggling with its own limitations and then the potential for distracting and masking influences from outside the ear are great.

In general when I challenge advocates of unusual or allegedly improved dither techniques to illustrate their claims with actual recordings or something like them, they run away.

Most people who try to support their advocacy of so-called high resolution recording techniques with DBTs end up pursuing the bandwidth angle.

As a recordist you may be in a good position to develop your own recordings to support your efforts.

I seem to recall that you are using DPA 4000-series small diameter omni mics, and they are somewhat noisy as compared to most of the mics used for recording.  Something like the Rode NT-1a might be more to the point as they are allegedly 10-20 dB quieter.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #54 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
On the 137th International AES convention in Los Angeles there will be a paper about
Quote
using a double-blind psychophysical test.


What is a psychophysical test? And has anyone read this paper yet? I'm really curious about it.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #55 –
"Psychophysical" simply refers to the measurement of perceptions produced by a physical stimulus.  It is used for all kinds of experiments where a known physical stimulus is applied and the sensory results (or not) analysed.  A simple example would be playing a high frequency tone and asking subjects if they can hear anything, or playing two tones and asking if they can hear a difference.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #56 –
I'm not sure if the "Meridian" paper is available yet. Hi-Res (pcm) proponent Mark Waldrep gives some AES convention impressions on his website.
Quote
Steve Green, the Business Development Manager for the AES organization commented about the inclusion of the DEG [AES Digital Entertainment Group] High-Resolution Audio sessions that were held on Friday. And he suggested that the entire convention in New York next fall would be focused on “high-resolution audio”.
It seems the audio/music industry thinks it needs hi-res to move forward. It's just frustrating that so many of us can't hear the benefits.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #57 –
"high"-res may be an incentive to finally stop mastering the sh%§ out of music until ReplayGain says 12 dB too loud.
"I hear it when I see it."

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #58 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
It's just frustrating that so manynone of us can't hear the benefits.
FTFY.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #59 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
It seems the audio/music industry thinks it needs hi-res to move forward.
It's funny isn't it. I mean, look at the past decade or so:
Money has been made from lower quality audio (mp3 etc).
Money has been made from improving terrible quality audio (flat panel TVs) a bit (sound bars).
Money has been made from taking something that should sound awful (a very small speaker) and making it sound surprisingly good (jambox / bose mini) but still worse than the regular product has done for decades (regular sized speakers!).

Looking at those successes, what on earth would make you conclude that the profitable trend to follow is taking something that's already good enough and making it better?

Unless you count DVD-Audio and SACD.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. I do think there's money in Hi Res. It's a niche though. Whereas making genuinely crap experiences better is big business.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #60 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
I'm not sure if the "Meridian" paper is available yet.

I was hoping someone who attended the convention could report here. The main thing I was curious about stemmed from this quote from the abstract: "there exist audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD"

Since I haven't encountered such a signal, I would very much like to know what they are.

As for hi-res audio, I'm sure there's money in it somewhere. Just like there's money in lots of other audiophile niches.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #61 –
Quote from: tarsier on
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
I'm not sure if the "Meridian" paper is available yet.

I was hoping someone who attended the convention could report here. The main thing I was curious about stemmed from this quote from the abstract: "there exist audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD"

Since I haven't encountered such a signal, I would very much like to know what they are.
That's nothing new. A loud 23kHz tone is audible to young listeners. A briefly 125dB pulse won't deafen you, and the dither may be audible a minute later. etc.

I haven't seen the paper.

Cheers,
David.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #62 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
That's nothing new. A loud 23kHz tone is audible to young listeners. A briefly 125dB pulse won't deafen you, and the dither may be audible a minute later. etc.

Ok, granted. I should have said I hadn't encountered such signals in my listening collection. But those are rather specialized cases and if they were to find their way into a soundtrack of some sort that is not just the playback of testcases, then sure. CD wouldn't cut it. But can a young person who can hear a 23 kHz tone tell the difference between a fantastically recorded and reproduced recording at 96/24 kHz and that same recording downconverted to 44.1/16? How many audio productions are there out there that actually require something beyond CD for final delivery format? Even with instruments or any other sounds (natural, synthesized, or otherwise) that have energy way beyond 20 kHz, does it actually make an audible difference to rec/repro all that? I'll be happy to conclude that it does when a proper double-blind study shows that it does. And I'd certainly suggest that such a study be done with young listeners among the subjects.

Guess I just need to get a hold of the paper and see what it says.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #63 –
The Mridian paper addresses:
Quote
Filter responses tested were representative of anti-alias filters used in A/D (analog-to-digital) converters or mastering processes. Further tests probed the audibility of 16-bit quantization with or without a rectangular dither. Results suggest that listeners are sensitive to the small signal alterations introduced by these filters and quantization.


This is not a new subject for the authors.  Try reading this for an overview of the thinking:
https://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #64 –
According to Hi-Res Central (admittedly not a source that exudes neutrality), the paper won some kind of AES award at the LA Convention for its insights...My interest is piqued

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #65 –
Funny thing is that on all places i read my daily dose of audio related things not a single person seems to have been at this meeting. For people that always knew that HighBitrate stuff sounds better there surely was no need but i expected some critics to take part at this meeting.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #66 –
Quote from: tarsier on
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
I'm not sure if the "Meridian" paper is available yet.

I was hoping someone who attended the convention could report here. The main thing I was curious about stemmed from this quote from the abstract: "there exist audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD"

Since I haven't encountered such a signal, I would very much like to know what they are.


I have and I'll bet so have you  - signals that peak at like -60 dB will have at best an approximate 35 dB SNR which is audibly hissy, if amplified to normal listening levels.

The mention of undithered signals raises another caution - there is a word for undithered digital audio signals - broken.

Just because JA likes to test with them doesn't make them right or relevant.

Noise shaping has been around for about 20 years, and an early proponent was, umm Meridian. Trouble is, noise shaping is a recrding/mastering time enhancement with current and legacy technology recording and playback equipment so there is no money in that...


Quote
As for hi-res audio, I'm sure there's money in it somewhere. Just like there's money in lots of other audiophile niches.


SACD and DVD's failure in the mainstream marketplace cost its proponents millions, ended some lucrative job positions and failed to deliver much hoped-for contract work related to remastering on a broader scale.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #67 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Funny thing is that on all places i read my daily dose of audio related things not a single person seems to have been at this meeting. For people that always knew that HighBitrate stuff sounds better there surely was no need but i expected some critics to take part at this meeting.



I've put out some feelers, with no positive responses. My sources are in the Eastern Time Zone, and the conference was in Pacific time.  Air travel ain't the cheap and easy thing it once was...

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #68 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
As for hi-res audio, I'm sure there's money in it somewhere. Just like there's money in lots of other audiophile niches.


SACD and DVD's failure in the mainstream marketplace cost its proponents millions, ended some lucrative job positions and failed to deliver much hoped-for contract work related to remastering on a broader scale.

Launching a new optical disc format with the assumption it will replace the existing one (not to mention launching it into a format war!) is a different proposition from putting a website up and seeing if anyone will pay more for higher sample rates. You can play the latter game comparatively cheaply. The real question, commercially, is: why wouldn't you?

Cheers,
David.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #69 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
As for hi-res audio, I'm sure there's money in it somewhere. Just like there's money in lots of other audiophile niches.


SACD and DVD's failure in the mainstream marketplace cost its proponents millions, ended some lucrative job positions and failed to deliver much hoped-for contract work related to remastering on a broader scale.

Launching a new optical disc format with the assumption it will replace the existing one (not to mention launching it into a format war!) is a different proposition from putting a website up and seeing if anyone will pay more for higher sample rates. You can play the latter game comparatively cheaply. The real question, commercially, is: why wouldn't you?


Desire to sell a product that delivers what it promises?

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #70 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Desire to sell a product that delivers what it promises?
You and I both know it would be trivial to create new versions of most CDs sold in the last 15 years which sounded better.

Hence "buy this, it sounds better" can easily deliver on the promise.

You and I may care that "yes, but, a CD could sound just as good," but it's still a business plan that delivers on its promise.

Heck, charging for placebo is a pretty good business plan if you can get away with it. Some of us are clearly too honest to do that, but...

Cheers,
David.

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #71 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I've put out some feelers, with no positive responses. My sources are in the Eastern Time Zone, and the conference was in Pacific time.  Air travel ain't the cheap and easy thing it once was...

To bad! I believe you were the perfect person to be there. Unfortunately now it goes a bit like politics, truth is produced where the money is.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #72 –
article about the AES 2014 Hi Res Audio Panel at AVSforum


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...aes-2014-a.html


Quote
Speaking of analog, Ulyate made an interesting comment about mastering for CD—he converts the 24/48 recording to analog and then back to digital at 16/44.1 with no sample-rate conversion so he can hear the final result as he's working on it. As he said, "You must follow the files all the way to the label, including FLAC compression," which he claimed can alter the sound depending on how it's done. " -- Ryan Ulyate,  "highly regarded producer/mixer/engineer


[AFTER HAVING READ IT ALL]  gah, what a load of bollocks.


NB:
Quote
To demonstrate the difference between data-compressed and uncompressed music—as if anyone in the room needed to be convinced there's a difference—Botnick played Neil Young's "Heart of Gold," first at 24/192 and then in AAC at 256 kbps. Even on the funky PA speakers in the room, the difference was obvious—the compressed version was much more closed in, and the highs were quite muted compared with the HRA version.


I'm pretty sure I've seen it said here (by LAME developers?)  that mp3s are not tuned to be played back on 'PA systems', and that artifacts might well manifest there that would not be apparent in normal home listening.

Anyone got a link?


The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #73 –
Quote from: krabapple on
NB:
Quote
To demonstrate the difference between data-compressed and uncompressed music—as if anyone in the room needed to be convinced there's a difference—Botnick played Neil Young's "Heart of Gold," first at 24/192 and then in AAC at 256 kbps. Even on the funky PA speakers in the room, the difference was obvious—the compressed version was much more closed in, and the highs were quite muted compared with the HRA version.


I'm pretty sure I've seen it said here (by LAME developers?)  that mp3s are not tuned to be played back on 'PA systems', and that artifacts might well manifest there that would not be apparent in normal home listening.

Anyone got a link?

This is exactly written as i often read it. No word if the AAC version is really sourced from exactly this 24/192 files. My bet it is some original AAC directly from itunes against some brand new and pimped 24/192 remaster.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

The veracity of Monty's article on hi-res downloads

Reply #74 –
Quote from: krabapple on
article about the AES 2014 Hi Res Audio Panel at AVSforum

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...aes-2014-a.html


Great example of biased reporting. Yet another reason why my AVS profile is very low these days - this sort of thing is the AVS that their management seems to want. So be it - its a choice they get to make and I get to avoid supporting.

Quote
Speaking of analog, Ulyate made an interesting comment about mastering for CD—he converts the 24/48 recording to analog and then back to digital at 16/44.1 with no sample-rate conversion so he can hear the final result as he's working on it. As he said, "You must follow the files all the way to the label, including FLAC compression," which he claimed can alter the sound depending on how it's done. " -- Ryan Ulyate,  "highly regarded producer/mixer/engineer


Aghhh! He's just described what could easily be the worst SRC that one can imagine. In practice the current SOTA or reasonable digital gear pretty much ensures that as left-handed as it is, it probably is not technically that bad.

Quote
[AFTER HAVING READ IT ALL]  gah, what a load of bollocks.


Roger that. It looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum and are writing all of its progress reports and press releases.

Quote
NB:
Quote
To demonstrate the difference between data-compressed and uncompressed music—as if anyone in the room needed to be convinced there's a difference—Botnick played Neil Young's "Heart of Gold," first at 24/192 and then in AAC at 256 kbps. Even on the funky PA speakers in the room, the difference was obvious—the compressed version was much more closed in, and the highs were quite muted compared with the HRA version.



Two words: Sighted evaluation.

Quote
I'm pretty sure I've seen it said here (by LAME developers?)  that mp3s are not tuned to be played back on 'PA systems', and that artifacts might well manifest there that would not be apparent in normal home listening.

Anyone got a link?


IME not that bad of a problem, as SR systems might be among the better audio systems that many people ever listen to. It all depends.

IMO probably a tiny problem compared to that sighted evaluation thing.