Given all the expericences with marketing and double blind studies, despite may be a small number of people, consumers will not buy more "hi res" material due to the results of a meta-analysis.

Quote from: Jakob1863 on 2016-07-25 11:49:28

Given all the expericences with marketing and double blind studies, despite may be a small number of people, consumers will not buy more "hi res" material due to the results of a meta-analysis.

Perhaps you're right there. Rather than spending some money on a decent blind study that improves on M&M's test design, the main "players" in the commercialization of hires (I'm not even singling out Meridian, there are bigger ones like Sony or Harman) spend much more money on marketing of the dumbest kind. Clearly, they know their customer.

Harman/JBL  folks have at least published good *research* that benefits home audio.  The marketing arms notwithstanding.

Maybe Jakob2 et al need Donald Rumsfeld to explain how to make "Unknown unknowns" into "Known unknowns"??
Perhaps commission a 20 year meta study to figure it all out, so we can finally have what specific positive control is to be used.
Or just keep dancing.

Maybe Jakob2 et al need Donald Rumsfeld to explain how to make "Unknown unknowns" into "Known unknowns"??
Perhaps commission a 20 year meta study to figure it all out, so we can finally have what specific positive control is to be used.
Or just keep dancing.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2016-07-25 13:44:41

<snip>
My usual remarks relate to the science of listening tests,.......

Please reread 2bedecided´s post and his citation again, i hope you then get a better idea what i was referring to...

Army makes a good point. You should try it properly. One instance of having a "night and day" difference melt away, and one of having a "subtle" different statistically proven, is enough to open most people's minds to the interesting nature of human perception

In would think that training would involve starting by comparing a 'strong' version of the impairment, with no impairment, then gradually reducing the level of the impairment until no difference could be heard.

How To Train Yourself To Be A Sensitive, Reliable Listener

The purpose of this page is to provide listening comparisons of various kinds and increasing difficulty for the purpose of listener training. A key component of the training program is the PCABX Comparator which you can download by left-clicking here.

If you left-click here, you will find an "AES 20" form that may help you quantify sound quality.

Please start at the upper left hand corner of the table at the bottom of this page and work down the column. Once you have finished a column, move to the top of the next column to the right.

Each "Training Session" relates to a kind of audible difference. Each "Training Session" is a column in the table.

Each "Training Session" is a column of of  tests ranging in difficulty to hear reliably from "Very easy" to "Might be Impossible". Each test is composed of a pair of "Reference" and "Test" samples. You need to download, compare and reliably identify each pair using the PCABX Comparator (which you can download by clicking here).

For best results start at the top of each column of tests, and download the first pair of "Reference" and "Test" samples. Then listen and learn to reliably detect the difference between the samples using the PCABX Comparator. Your goal should be to obtain 1% or less "Probability You Were Guessing" , as calculated by the PCABX Comparator. More specifically, you should try for 14 correct answers out of 16 trials.  Once you have achieved 1% or less "Probability You Were Guessing", move down the column to the next pair of files.
If you run into extreme difficulty with samples rated "Difficult" or harder, please feel free to move to he next "Training Session" which starts at the top of the next  column to the right.

If you have difficulty completing any samples rated "Difficult" or easier, please consider upgrading your playback system including loudspeakers, sound card, amplifier and listening environment. Please see  the sidebar titled  "What Makes A Good Sound System For PCABX?".

Remember that as you approach your personal limit of audibility, you probably won't hear a distinct difference. As you approach this point shut your eyes, control the PCABX Comparator with the "A", "B", and "B" keys on the keyboard, and imagine that you are hearing a difference. You will probably be successful for at least one more level of difficulty.

Did you make sure to include various degrees of artifacts from the "unknown" category to serve as positive controls like what was done in the BS "typical" filter study?

The audibility of typical digital audio filters in
a high-delity playback system

Preliminary data and feedback suggested that some
time was required for listeners to become familiar
with the task and with the kind of listening required.
To this end, each listener was trained on the task in
several ways before the formal testing began.
In the rst phase of training, listeners were able to
listen to the whole piece of music (about 200 seconds) a number of times. They were encouraged
to pay attention to technical aspects such as musi
cal texture and playing technique, and also on more
qualitative aspects of listening such as the size and
location of the auditory image. Listeners could listen
to the piece as many times as they liked; in practice,
none listened more than twice.
The second phase of training was intended to familiarise listeners with the filtering used and with
using the GUI. Two intervals were presented, as for
the main test, but the first interval always contained
the unfiltered extract and the second always contained the filtered extract; listeners were informed
of this, with the intention that labelling the extracts
as having been processed differently might aid the
identification of didifferences. Listeners were able to
listen to as many labelled pairs of extracts as they
liked before progressing to the test. The lter used
here was an FIR lter with a frequency transition
band spanning 8{10 Hz. This lter was chosen as it
would have been straightforward for most listeners
to identify differences introduced by its application.

The third phase of training occurred before each
block of the test, where listeners had the chance
to hear the processing for that condition using the
paradigm for training phase 2, where the extracts
were known. This allowed listeners to become accustomed to each condition before it was tested. Listeners were not limited in the number of training
extracts they could hear for each test condition, but
the maximum that any listener chose to hear was
nine.

Some would prefer these inconveniences go unnoticed.

Good Science can be far more inconvenient to actually  do.

Side question: is it common for JAES papers with such far-reaching implications to get 2 comments of discussion on aes.org?

I'll work on something.

rrod, earlier this month you wrote that you would "work on something" regarding the statistical implications of several independent mechanisms whose interactions are unknown:

Quote from: rrod on 2016-07-07 19:02:57

I'll work on something.

Are you still on it? Has something come out of this yet?

So... 18 papers were taken into this meta-analysis.  Can someone point me to the part where each of these papers' methodologies and/or sponsor links were presumably taken apart.

The only discussion I've been able to locate so far is the discussion on the 2014 Jackson paper: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?ID=416

I don't think such a thing exists. I did an analysis of just one aspect of the papers - how the source signals were created. This required that I download all of the papers cited in the article, and analyze each and every one.  This was eased by the fact that all but one of the papers were AES papers, and at the time I did the analysis they were freely accessible to AES members such as myself on the AES web site. I eventually obtained the non-AES paper and analyzed it as well.  The results of that analysis is summarized in an earler post.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2016-08-07 19:20:44

I don't think such a thing exists. I did an analysis of just one aspect of the papers - how the source signals were created. This required that I download all of the papers cited in the article, and analyze each and every one.  This was eased by the fact that all but one of the papers were AES papers, and at the time I did the analysis they were freely accessible to AES members such as myself on the AES web site. I eventually obtained the non-AES paper and analyzed it as well.  The results of that analysis is summarized in an earler post.

Great--can you point me to it?  I've scanned several pages of this thread and failed to locate it 

Can someone point me to the part where each of these papers' methodologies and/or sponsor links were presumbly taken apart--given the high confidence that everyone here has that the meta-analysis is a meta-analysis of a pile of crap?

Especially since I'd basically brushed aside all the >50% result experiments as poorly conducted experiments sponsored by industry interests, and am now being asked to substantiate this claim

So... 18 papers were taken into this meta-analysis.  Can someone point me to the part where each of these papers' methodologies and/or sponsor links were presumbly taken apart--given the high confidence that everyone here has that the meta-analysis is a meta-analysis of a pile of crap?

Not doubting the conclusion here, just wondering how it was arrived at   Especially since I'd basically brushed aside all the >50% result experiments as poorly conducted experiments sponsored by industry interests, and am now being asked to substantiate this claim

The only discussion I've been able to locate so far is the discussion on the 2014 Jackson paper: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?ID=416