Such as non-representative pathological samples?

...or use rectangular dither, knowing that it could have a stronger influence over the outcome?

And those were what?

This [playback] level was chosen for comfort, and because it was high enough for details to be audible but also low enough that 16- bit RPDF dither would be inaudible at the listening position [30].

We chose to use undithered quantization as a probe and although we would normally recommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we considered rectangular dither to be more representative of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?

What type of dither did Meyer and Moran use?

Here is Stuart on his latest test:
This [playback] level was
chosen for comfort, and because it was high enough
for details to be audible but also low enough that 16-
bit RPDF dither would be inaudible at the listening
position [30].

We chose to use undithered quantization as
a probe and | although we would normally rec-
ommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we con-
sidered rectangular dither to be more representative
of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing
found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

And those were what?

I don't know, hence my use of a question mark.  Why don't you tell us?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

This [playback] level was chosen for comfort, and because it was high enough for details to be audible but also low enough that 16- bit RPDF dither would be inaudible at the listening position [30].

I'm not buying it.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

We chose to use undithered quantization as a probe and although we would normally recommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we considered rectangular dither to be more representative of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

This doesn't pass the smell test either.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?

...or what was the true noise floor and dynamic range.

These are all poor excuses not to employ best practices, if you ask me.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

What type of dither did Meyer and Moran use?

Red Herring dither. Now stick to what BS used in his landmark tests, the only relevant one, remember?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

Here is Stuart on his latest test:
This [playback] level was
chosen for comfort, and because it was high enough
for details to be audible but also low enough that 16-
bit RPDF dither would be inaudible at the listening
position [30].

Very vague. What was the measured levels?

One more time Amir, did BS's test adhere to ITU-BS1116 or BS.1534-2?

What hidden reference anchor was used?

I actually like to measure the ABX/HR box also. Such boxes are used in all of these tests we hang our hat on yet none of us have any measurements or objective evaluations of them.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 19:38:06

We chose to use undithered quantization as
a probe and | although we would normally rec-
ommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we con-
sidered rectangular dither to be more representative
of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing
found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

Ah, so he cherry picked. Nice. 

So this has nothing to do with whether 16/44 is transparent as a playback method, but more about cherry picking a pathological case.

I can see that you clearly aren't worth my time or effort, amirm.

Quote from: greynol on 2014-11-11 19:15:44

Such as non-representative pathological samples?

And those were what?

Quote

...or use rectangular dither, knowing that it could have a stronger influence over the outcome?

What type of dither did Meyer and Moran use?  Whatever was in the A/D and D/A converters of the CD-ROM recorder, right?  Here is Stuart on his latest test:

This [playback] level was
chosen for comfort, and because it was high enough
for details to be audible but also low enough that 16-
bit RPDF dither would be inaudible at the listening
position [30].

And

We chose to use undithered quantization as
a probe and | although we would normally rec-
ommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we con-
sidered rectangular dither to be more representative
of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing
found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

Seems reasonable to me.  After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?  It is not like they know what you and I know about dither types.

What plot are you following AJ?

If something is hidden, you wouldn't be able to see it, right?    Part of the answer was in my post.

But no, they did not use a "box" to have measurements as such.  As the line in the movie Fifth Element goes, the switching mechanism was "perfect." 

He was trying to please you AJ.

Are you going to offer anything informative AJ or just keep being yourself?

Seems reasonable to me.  After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?  It is not like they know what you and I know about dither types.

Furthermore highly atypical recordings were used

...
Would you care to explain how the corrupt/gameable/non-proctored online amateur AVS files "test" adhered to ITU-BS1116...or BS.1534-2?
They did not and thus the results must be dismissed as ad-hoc garbage, per a highly reputable source. ...

A typical live recording made in a concert hall has dynamic range on the order of 12-13 bits.

IOW, no, BS didn't use MUSHRA.

We know you "like" statements such as standard ABX is "fatally flawed". Hopefully this BS test wasn't.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-11 20:15:36

But no, they did not use a "box" to have measurements as such.  As the line in the movie Fifth Element goes, the switching mechanism was "perfect." 

IOW, no measurements or objective evaluations of the switching apparatus to hang our credentialed hats on. Very amateurish.

What? Nothing as 16/44-insufficient and highly demanding as Neil freaking Young? No Floyd either?? Say it aint so.

After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?

We chose to use undithered quantization as
a probe and | although we would normally rec-
ommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we con-
sidered rectangular dither to be more representative
of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing
found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?  It is not like they know what you and I know about dither types.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-11 20:48:02

A typical live recording made in a concert hall has dynamic range on the order of 12-13 bits.

Your computation there is psychoacoustically blind Arny as we have discussed.

You cannot use a single digit SPL number for your room noise.

You must look at its spectrum and see how much noise you have relative to threshold of hearing as I show in my article, building on Fieldler's work: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomDynamicRange.html:

And?

Problem is, they (M&M) missed the next level of understanding. Let me quote International Telecommunication Union (ITU) document that is the bible of testing for small impairments in BS1116

I am afraid the plot is lost AJ.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-11 19:04:09

...
Would you care to explain how the corrupt/gameable/non-proctored online amateur AVS files "test" adhered to ITU-BS1116...or BS.1534-2?
They did not and thus the results must be dismissed as ad-hoc garbage, per a highly reputable source. ...

I have followed the execution and discussion of several comparative tests recently, starting with Arnie's keys. All of the tests proved to have samples that were defective. I believe this is the issue that needs to be discussed, not the results of the tests. GI = GO.

.

I wouldn't normally claim that the difference between the right dither and the wrong dither would be or even could be audible, but it seems possible that this test has been so carefully set up that it just might be.

Cheers,
David.

Quote

You cannot use a single digit SPL number for your room noise.

I didn't. I gave the room noise number in terms of bits. 

So what is known about the monitoring system and room used for playback? I'll bet it wasn't your typical listening room with a 40 dB SPL noise floor...

Obviously, I'm responding to a post that appears to come from someone with severe perceptual difficulties - someone who quotes "bits" and responds to "dB SPL"

I get the feeling that "Arnold B. Krueger", "ajinfla", and "amirm" know each other - maybe in the real world, and certainly in cyberspace.