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: lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali (Read 93974 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #75 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Of course there is at least one other explanation - and that is people who are mislead by all of the hype surrounding tubed amps. 

I've got a little patch of psoriasis, and I think that I read someplace that listening to music through tubed amps would cure it! ;-)


Only if you use the tube amp in homeopathic dosages.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #76 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
The start was a look at some codecs, playing 192/24 vs 128kbps mp3 (ProTool High Quality - is that FhG based?) - and playing the difference signal - i.e. subtracting the original from the downsampled > encoded > decoded > upsampled version. He played a lot of examples of the noise added by the codec, saying "how can we do this to music?".
It's a pity that he didn't continue with another test: listen to the difference signal from a 24/96 or 24/192 source and its 16/44.1 SRC'd version. Very illustrative IMHO.


I did do this demonstration at the 2008 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I showed that the difference between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data was only audible at the listening position if you boosted its level by 24dB. So the question devotes to: Does adding something that is inaudible on its own to Red-Book audio result in something that is perceived as being og higher quality? The answer may not neccessarily be "no."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #77 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I did do this demonstration at the 2008 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I showed that the difference between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data was only audible at the listening position if you boosted its level by 24dB. So the question devotes to: Does adding something that is inaudible on its own to Red-Book audio result in something that is perceived as being og higher quality? The answer may not neccessarily be "no."


No, the question devotes to: When 96db (Redbook's SNR) + 24db (Atkinson's revolutionary finding) = 120 db SNR and there is no audible difference below that, does Atkinson promote listening at levels that may seriously injure your ears at prolonged exposure?

Seriously, even the difference between 32 bit audio (199db SNR) and 33 bit (205db SNR) audio would be audible if you just turn the volume up enough. Lets promote 33 bit audio, Stereophile!

The real question devotes to: Where do we draw a reasonable line with regard to the limits of human perception, maximum listening levels, and maximum dynamic range found in content. Where are commercial DVD-A and SACD releases with actually more dynamic range than 90db?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #78 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I did do this demonstration at the 2008 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I showed that the difference between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data was only audible at the listening position if you boosted its level by 24dB. So the question devotes to: Does adding something that is inaudible on its own to Red-Book audio result in something that is perceived as being og higher quality? The answer may not neccessarily be "no."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This explanation sounds like an argument from ignorance. You are proposing that since you couldn't find evidence at regular listening volume of any difference in the files, therefore it is possible that there is a difference in the files! A lack of evidence can't be used as proof that there is evidence.

Do you always listen to CDs 24 dB louder than your DVD-Audio discs or SACDs?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #79 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
The real question devotes to: Where do we draw a reasonable line with regard to the limits of human perception, maximum listening levels, and maximum dynamic range found in content. Where are commercial DVD-A and SACD with actually more dynamic range than 90db?

The problem with CD isn't related at all to the technical capabilities of the format. The problem is how the format has been used for the last decade, i.e. with horrendous mastering standards that don't exploit the format's dynamic range.

It is sad that audiophile magazines often write glowing reviews of horrendously mastered CDs, while providing incoherent lectures on how technically flawed the format is!

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #80 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I did do this demonstration at the 2008 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I showed that the difference between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data was only audible at the listening position if you boosted its level by 24dB. So the question devotes to: Does adding something that is inaudible on its own to Red-Book audio result in something that is perceived as being [of] higher quality? The answer may not [necessarily] be "no."

This explanation sounds like an argument from ignorance.


Ah, what would  HA be without the usual ad hominem stuff. All I am doing is trying to get people to put aside their preconceived notions and think a little more deeply about this matter.

Quote
Do you always listen to CDs 24 dB louder than your DVD-Audio discs or SACDs?


No, and I didn't suggest that I did. As I wrote, I first played people the difference signal between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data at the same playback level as the originals. (They had previously auditioned the originals.) No-one could hear it. I then showed that I had to add 24dB gain to make that difference audible at the same playback level, ie, that while there _was_ content in the difference file, that content was indeed inaudible without that additional gain. I fail to see what is controversional or ignorant about this demonstration.

Quote
You are proposing that since you couldn't find evidence at regular listening volume of any difference in the files, therefore it is possible that there is a difference in the files! A lack of evidence can't be used as proof that there is evidence.


I didn't propose any such thing. First, I rephrased the question concerning the supposed superiority of hi-rez media in terms of the difference signal that had been introduced by another poster. I then offered the opinion that what might be thought the superficially obvious answer to that question might not automatically be correct. I think that remains to be proved, as demonstrated by the posting I made a few days back pointing out the surprising complexity of designing a blind test where the difference in sample rate is the _only_ variable being examined. 

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #81 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The sighted "learning" comparison was between LPCM at 24-bits/88.2kHz and AAC at 128kbps, derived from a Red Book version of the data, downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request), and reduced to 16 bits using the POWR-2 redithering algorithm.

The single-blind comparison (using a different piece of music) used first, the original PCM at 24-bits/88.2kHz, Red Book PCM prepared in the same manner just described, AAC at 320kbps prepared from the Red BooK PCM, and an MP3 at 128kbps, again derived from the Red Book PCM version using the Fraunhofer codec in Adobe Audition 1.0. The splices between the 4 different versions were seamless, and there was no indication to listeners other than the possible change in sound that anything had changed. Levels were matched precisely, the lossy compressed and sample-rate-reduced files were reconverted to 24 bits and 88.2kHz sample rate so that the DAC would be behaving identically with all the examples. As I said, this was the exact methodology used by Linn's Philips Hobbs at the 2007 AES Conference.


So, help me understand correctly: you split a file into four segments, and each segment encoded differently : the 24/88.2 original, the same downconverted to 16/44.1, the downcoverted file encoded at 320, and to 128kbps (CBR or VBR?) with the FgH codec of Audition 1.0 (vintage 2003).  Then the latter three were  upconverted to 24/88.2 (involving an mp3-->wav conversion for the lossy files), and concatenated to the high-rez segment.  Thus listeners heard a single file that progressively decreased in objective quality in three steps.

Is that right?  If so, some notes:


First, the Audition 1.0 Fraunhofer codec is hardly SOTA in 2009 (arguably it wasn't in 2003, either) -- and IIRC you were told this already on that other thread. 

Second, nowadays you can convert directly from 88.2/24 to mp3, with LAME (and other codecs, for all I know; I have personal experience with LAME)

Third, you say the listeners 'were not aware of what they were listening to' but what did the listeners know about the track they were listening to?  How and when did they signal their opinions of sound quality? How could htey compare, say, the hi-rez to the Redbook segment particularly? Or were they just asked what they felt when the track was over? I wasn't at Phillip Hobbs' AES demo in 2007 so you'll have to bear with me.

Fourth, the playback wasn't over a PA type system, was it?


Fifth, AIUI there are potential (and avoidable) clipping issues when converting an  mp3 file to a wav file.  Perhaps someone on HA could verify or correct me. If so such potential degradation would have to be accounted for.


Quote
And thank you for agreeing - "of course" - that the degradation in quality should have been audible.


You're misquoting me -- I wrote that "*OF COURSE* the sound would get worse, if you progressed far enough down through lossy bitrates."  (emphasis added)  The degradation in quality in a conversion to 320kbps should NOT be routinely audible, under normal conditions.  Even 128 kbps (with a good codec) has a good chance of sounding 'transparent' to many listeners under normal conditions -- 200 'audiophiles' included.


Quote
Oh well. It must remain a mystery, therefore,  why you are so concerned with the details of the test, Mr. Sullivan.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Just trying to keep the 'authorities' in the high end honest, Mr. Atkinson.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #82 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I fail to see what is controversional or ignorant about this demonstration.

It's not the ignorance of the demonstration, it's ignorance over the meaning of the demonstration.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I think that remains to be proved, as demonstrated by the posting I made a few days back pointing out the surprising complexity of designing a blind test where the difference in sample rate is the _only_ variable being examined.

...especially by someone who seems to be unwilling (if not utterly clueless about how) to conduct a proper double blind test for even something that doesn't necessarily have to have such complexity.

It's actually quite easy to put together a test comparing different sample rates.  Are you suggesting that you'll somehow get a statistically significant result that would otherwise be hidden by the steps required to downsample and then upsample one of your signals?  What are you afraid of, Stereoeditor?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #83 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
...So the question devotes to: Does adding something that is inaudible on its own to Red-Book audio result in something that is perceived as being [of] higher quality? The answer may not [necessarily] be "no."

Quote from: ShowsOn on
This explanation sounds like an argument from ignorance.

Ah, what would  HA be without the usual ad hominem stuff. All I am doing is trying to get people to put aside their preconceived notions and think a little more deeply about this matter.



Pointing out that your explanation is argumentum ad ignorantium does not make an argumentum ad hominem in the process. A textbook example of an appeal to ignorance would be to suggest a premise is true simply because it has not been proven false, and your above statement is remarkably close to that example.

Shouldn't trying to get people to "think a little more deeply about this matter" also include rejecting formal fallacies like appeals to ignorance?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #84 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The sighted "learning" comparison was between LPCM at 24-bits/88.2kHz and AAC at 128kbps, derived from a Red Book version of the data, downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request), and reduced to 16 bits using the POWR-2 redithering algorithm.

The single-blind comparison (using a different piece of music) used first, the original PCM at 24-bits/88.2kHz, Red Book PCM prepared in the same manner just described, AAC at 320kbps prepared from the Red BooK PCM, and an MP3 at 128kbps, again derived from the Red Book PCM version using the Fraunhofer codec in Adobe Audition 1.0. The splices between the 4 different versions were seamless, and there was no indication to listeners other than the possible change in sound that anything had changed. Levels were matched precisely, the lossy compressed and sample-rate-reduced files were reconverted to 24 bits and 88.2kHz sample rate so that the DAC would be behaving identically with all the examples. As I said, this was the exact methodology used by Linn's Philips Hobbs at the 2007 AES Conference.


So, help me understand correctly: you split a file into four segments, and each segment encoded differently : the 24/88.2 original, the same downconverted to 16/44.1, the downcoverted file encoded at 320, and to 128kbps (CBR or VBR?) with the FgH codec of Audition 1.0 (vintage 2003).  Then the latter three were  upconverted to 24/88.2 (involving an mp3-->wav conversion for the lossy files), and concatenated to the high-rez segment.  Thus listeners heard a single file that progressively decreased in objective quality in three steps.

Is that right?


Yes.

Quote
First, the Audition 1.0 Fraunhofer codec is hardly SOTA in 2009 (arguably it wasn't in 2003, either) -- and IIRC you were told this already on that other thread.


And as I said, I wasn't concerned with presenting MP3 at its absolutely best possible, only at a typical level of quality, ie, 128kps CBR.

Quote
Second, nowadays you can convert directly from 88.2/24 to mp3, with LAME (and other codecs, for all I know; I have personal experience with LAME)


Indeed. But that is not currently SOP for the commercial production of MP3s. I was interested in _typical_ performance.

Quote
Third, you say the listeners 'were not aware of what they were listening to' but what did the listeners know about the track they were listening to?


Nothing, other than it was a recording of Handel's Messiah.

Quote
How and when did they signal their opinions of sound quality?


I asked them what they had perceived after the demonstration had concluded. There was no talking or other communication while the music was playing.

Quote
Fourth, the playback wasn't over a PA type system, was it?


I used the word "optimal" and the system was accordingly very high quality: B&W 802D loudspeakers driven by Ayre or Classe amplification; source was a MacBook running iTunes 8 (with AudioMidi utility set for the correct sample rate and bit depth) feeding an Ayre QB-9 D/A processor via asynchronous USB.

Quote
Fifth, AIUI there are potential (and avoidable) clipping issues when converting an  mp3 file to a wav file.  Perhaps someone on HA could verify or correct me. If so such potential degradation would have to be accounted for.


There was no clipping of any of the versions of the original. Messiah has a fairly low average level and the peaks rarely approach -3dBFS, let alone 0dBFS. In any case, I verified the transcodes by comparing the waveform displays when I was splicing the segments together.

Quote
Just trying to keep the 'authorities' in the high end honest, Mr. Atkinson.


Whatever.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #85 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
As I wrote, I first played people the difference signal between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data at the same playback level as the originals. (They had previously auditioned the originals.) No-one could hear it. I then showed that I had to add 24dB gain to make that difference audible at the same playback level, ie, that while there _was_ content in the difference file, that content was indeed inaudible without that additional gain. I fail to see what is controversional or ignorant about this demonstration.


It's not the ignorance of the demonstration, it's ignorance over the meaning of the demonstration.


I have made no statement about the meaning. I rephrased the question over the putative benefit of high-resolution audio and offered the opinion that the obvious answer to that question may not be correct. That is the issue that still needs to be tested.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
I think that remains to be proved, as demonstrated by the posting I made a few days back pointing out the surprising complexity of designing a blind test where the difference in sample rate is the _only_ variable being examined.

...especially by someone who seems to be unwilling (if not utterly clueless about how) to conduct a proper double blind test for even something that doesn't necessarily have to have such complexity.


As a moderator, greynol, perhaps it behoves you to refrain from insults. It is not me who is saying that designing such a test is complex; instead I have been reporting what those involved in doing so - "AES Fellows, some university professors, some well-known recording and mastering engineers, and even JJ" - are finding during the planning of such a test. If you are offering the opinion that those people are "clueless," you need to rethink that position. And if you are saying that _I_ am "clueless" about how to conduct a "proper double blind test," I fail to see anything I have written in this or any other thread that supports your opinion.

Quote
It's actually quite easy to put together a test comparing different sample rates.


Not according to those I mentioned. The simple procedure appears to be prone to both false positives and negatives.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #87 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
And as I said, I wasn't concerned with presenting MP3 at its absolutely best possible, only at a typical level of quality, ie, 128kps CBR.


But,as you've been told , all codecs are not created equal.  Therefore all 128kbps mp3s of a track are not created equal.  As the wiki page I linked to will demonstrate if you mine down into the links therein.

128kbps FgH mp3 circa 2003 is not typical in 2009.  And arguably 128 kbps CBR itself isn't even 'typical'.  The iTunes Store went to higher bitrates awhile ago, for example.

Quote
Quote
Second, nowadays you can convert directly from 88.2/24 to mp3, with LAME (and other codecs, for all I know; I have personal experience with LAME)


Indeed. But that is not currently SOP for the commercial production of MP3s. I was interested in _typical_ performance.


As of 2003, apparently.


Quote
Quote
Third, you say the listeners 'were not aware of what they were listening to' but what did the listeners know about the track they were listening to?


Nothing, other than it was a recording of Handel's Messiah.

Quote
How and when did they signal their opinions of sound quality?


I asked them what they had perceived after the demonstration had concluded. There was no talking or other communication while the music was playing.


Very unclear to me here -- these 200 audiophiles were attending ...what?  What did they think they were in for?  Didn't they know this was a 'demonstration' of the effects of mp3, or a comparison of some sort?

And how could one know from this  whether there was *progressive* subjective difference?  How would you know , from this demo, that listeners thought , e.g., Redbook was inferior to hi rez? Or 320kbps inferior to Redbook?  Versus , say, 320 vs 128 (the comparison most likely to be within reasonable bounds of audio memory in your 'demonstration')?



Quote
Quote
Fourth, the playback wasn't over a PA type system, was it?


I used the word "optimal" and the system was accordingly very high quality: B&W 802D loudspeakers driven by Ayre or Classe amplification; source was a MacBook running iTunes 8 (with AudioMidi utility set for the correct sample rate and bit depth) feeding an Ayre QB-9 D/A processor via asynchronous USB.


Good enough.  MP3s aren't necessarily 'tuned' to sound good over public address systems.

Quote
Quote
Fifth, AIUI there are potential (and avoidable) clipping issues when converting an  mp3 file to a wav file.  Perhaps someone on HA could verify or correct me. If so such potential degradation would have to be accounted for.


There was no clipping of any of the versions of the original. Messiah has a fairly low average level and the peaks rarely approach -3dBFS, let alone 0dBFS. In any case, I verified the transcodes by comparing the waveform displays when I was splicing the segments together.


AIUI, it's not a result of clipping on the original, it's peaks near 0dBFS that can become clipped. But -3dBFS peaks would probably guard against that.

So this leaves basically just a few issues (besides the whopper of a premise that this was a 'demonstration' of anything serious about mp3s): 1) codecs used for lossy, and 2) what sort of expectations the listeners had, and how results were related to the presentation.  I might also add ,how the results were tallied.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #88 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
As a moderator, greynol, perhaps it behoves you to refrain from insults. It is not me who is saying that designing such a test is complex; instead I have been reporting what those involved in doing so - "AES Fellows, some university professors, some well-known recording and mastering engineers, and even JJ" - are finding during the planning of such a test. If you are offering the opinion that those people are "clueless," you need to rethink that position. And if you are saying that _I_ am "clueless" about how to conduct a "proper double blind test," I fail to see anything I have written in this or any other thread that supports your opinion.



I am would wager that JJ would not dream of 'demonstrating' performance of different formats the way you or Mr. Massenburg did.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #89 –
Quote from: greynol on
As an act of good faith, feel free to conduct some double blind tests, Stereoeditor, even if they're personal tests.


Why do I have to? I haven't violated Tos#8 by posting personal opinions concerning sound quality to this forum. Yes, my published opinions on the benefits of high-resolution _have_ been posted to this forum, but that was done by Arny Krueger, not me. I don't see that his doing so obliges me to suppoort those opinions on HA. Otherwise, I would be vulnerable to every troll on the Internet.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #90 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
... who can judge in that environment at listening levels that make your ears ring?
[..]
He played a lot of examples of the noise added by the codec, saying "how can we do this to music?".
David.

Hmm, when he played back the "error noise" on the same level as the original, that would explain the reason for loud levels. The noise would be not very impressive unless turned up.

(I wish Mr. Krueger and others would not make such a personal thing here about a disagreement, as long as everybody sticks to the ToS of this forum)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #91 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It is not me who is saying that designing such a test is complex; instead I have been reporting what those involved in doing so - "AES Fellows, some university professors, some well-known recording and mastering engineers, and even JJ" - are finding during the planning of such a test. If you are offering the opinion that those people are "clueless," you need to rethink that position.


I don't think that you are completely honest here. You know the basic procedure: Compare a plain 88.2 kHz record to a time synchronized 88.2 kHz -> 44.1 kHz -> 88 kHz record. If that shows, that no difference can be heard under double blind conditions, you already have very solid results and it doesn't get any more complicated than that.

It would only get complicated if a difference could be heard! But not before that, and that's what you are not honest about. And tell me one robust experiment, that would have shown that. Your own non-DBT show-biz experiment mixed up with 16bit/24bit differences at high volume levels excluded.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #92 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

Quote
How and when did they signal their opinions of sound quality?


I asked them what they had perceived after the demonstration had concluded. There was no talking or other communication while the music was playing.


Very unclear to me here -- these 200 audiophiles were attending ...what?  What did they think they were in for?


The 200 audiophiles took part in 3 music evenings presented at 3 Colorado audio stores, under the umbrella title "Music Matters." From the events' promotional material: "Billed as 'three special evenings devoted to a celebration of recorded music,' each Music Matters event will be highlighted by presentations from Stereophile editor John Atkinson and AudioQuest's Joe Harley. Other Music Matters participants will include: Steve Silberman (Ayre Acoustics), Dave Baker (B&W Loudspeakers), Dave Nauber (Classé Audio), Carl Porter (McIntosh), David Solomon (Peachtree Audio), Dave Ellington (Sonus Faber, Pro-Ject), and Martin Cooper (Wadia)." There was nothing published prior to the event about my own presentation, other than, IIRC, the discussion on HA.

The two demonstrations of the possible artefacts of data reduction (first sighted, then single-blind, as explained earlier in this thread) took up about a third of the 45 minutes time allocated for me.  The rest of my presentation involved playing examples of my many commercially released recordings from the original 24-bit/88.2kHz masters, which no-one would have heard before, and demonstrating how mike techniques and mixing strategies affect soundstage perception. As I said before, I gave 10 presentations over the 3 days to an average of 20 people each time.

Quote
Didn't they know this was a 'demonstration' of the effects of mp3, or a comparison of some sort?


Not before they came in. They did know in the first "learning" dem, though they did not know what was to follow. With the subsequent blind presentation, they had no idea to what they were listening to until after it had concluded, as I said before.

Quote
And how could one know from this  whether there was *progressive* subjective difference?


Because that is what most of the listeners said they had perceived in the subsequent discussion.

Quote
How would you know , from this demo, that listeners thought , e.g., Redbook was inferior to hi rez? Or 320kbps inferior to Redbook?  Versus , say, 320 vs 128 (the comparison most likely to be within reasonable bounds of audio memory in your 'demonstration')?


There was no way for anyone to identify when exactly the degradation set in, but that was not the point. All I was interested in was whether or not listeners detected the progressive change in quality.

Quote
So this leaves basically just a few issues (besides the whopper of a premise that this was a 'demonstration' of anything serious about mp3s): 1) codecs used for lossy, and 2) what sort of expectations the listeners had, and how results were related to the presentation.  I might also add ,how the results were tallied.


You have this annoying habit, Mr. Sullivan, of asking questions that have already been answered. I know you stated yesterday that you don't bookmark my postings, but do you really _not_ remember the answers I have offered you in the past? Again, there was _no_ tallying of results. All I did was ask the listeners what, if anything, they had perceived during the prior 5 minutes or so of music. Following that, I explained what they had been listening to and answered any questions people may have had about file formats and about computer audio in general. I then moved on to the next part of my presentation, as explained above.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #93 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It is not me who is saying that designing such a test is complex; instead I have been reporting what those involved in doing so - "AES Fellows, some university professors, some well-known recording and mastering engineers, and even JJ" - are finding during the planning of such a test.


Or so you say, John. You have a track record for making highly questionable claims, so in the absence of *any* confirming evidence we should discount this as yet another highly questionable claim from a person who has being making questionable claims in print for several decades.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #94 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It is not me who is saying that designing such a test is complex; instead I have been reporting what those involved in doing so - "AES Fellows, some university professors, some well-known recording and mastering engineers, and even JJ" - are finding during the planning of such a test. If you are offering the opinion that those people are "clueless," you need to rethink that position.


I don't think that you are completely honest here. You know the basic procedure: Compare a plain 88.2 kHz record to a time synchronized 88.2 kHz -> 44.1 kHz -> 88 kHz record. If that shows, that no difference can be heard under double blind conditions, you already have very solid results and it doesn't get any more complicated than that.


But you haven't eliminated all variables and the result may still be a false negative, thus not transportable. All you can conclude is with _that_ recording_ with _that_ hardware and _that_ testing protocol, no difference could be identified to a given degree of statistical certainty. But you haven't proved anything concerning sample rate _alone_.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #95 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
As an act of good faith, feel free to conduct some double blind tests, Stereoeditor, even if they're personal tests.


Why do I have to? I haven't violated Tos#8 by posting personal opinions concerning sound quality to this forum. Yes, my published opinions on the benefits of high-resolution _have_ been posted to this forum, but that was done by Arny Krueger, not me. I don't see that his doing so obliges me to suppoort those opinions on HA. Otherwise, I would be vulnerable to every troll on the Internet.


John, isn't it true that you're only vulnerable because of all the questionable things that you've said?

If you don't support your opinions when you are asked questions about them, isn't that the same as distancing yourself from them?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #96 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It is not me who is saying that designing such a test is complex; instead I have been reporting what those involved in doing so - "AES Fellows, some university professors, some well-known recording and mastering engineers, and even JJ" - are finding during the planning of such a test.


Or so you say, John. You have a track record for making highly questionable claims, so in the absence of *any* confirming evidence we should discount this as yet another highly questionable claim from a person who has being making questionable claims in print for several decades.


Circular reasoning at its finest, Mr. Krueger. You say I can't be trusted because you don't trust me and you don't trust me because I can't be trusted. :-)

Yet I am the one about to celebrate 27 years of a career as the editor in chief of two very successful  audio magazines...perhaps my readers and my employers know something you don't, Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #97 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I haven't violated Tos#8 by posting personal opinions concerning sound quality to this forum. Yes, my published opinions on the benefits of high-resolution _have_ been posted to this forum, but that was done by Arny Krueger, not me. I don't see that his doing so obliges me to suppoort those opinions on HA. Otherwise, I would be vulnerable to every troll on the Internet.


John, isn't it true that you're only vulnerable because of all the questionable things that you've said?


No.

Quote
If you don't support your opinions when you are asked questions about them, isn't that the same as distancing yourself from them?


Not at all. On this forum, I am complying with its ToS#8. Outside this forum, in what is generally called the "real world,"  ToS#8 doesn't apply.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #98 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Second, nowadays you can convert directly from 88.2/24 to mp3, with LAME (and other codecs, for all I know; I have personal experience with LAME)


Maybe a bit offtopic, but: LAME resamples such input to 48kHz. And I think that LAME internal resampler was designed to be fast (and simple), and there are better (in terms of absolute quality) samplerate converters.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #99 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But you haven't eliminated all variables and the result may still be a false negative, thus not transportable.


Don't make me laugh!

1. You would have already eliminated many more variables than any test concerning the matter, that you have presented so far.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
All you can conclude is with _that_ recording_ with _that_ hardware and _that_ testing protocol, no difference could be identified to a given degree of statistical certainty.


2. In a very strict sense this can be said about any scientific induction.

Mr. Atkinson, you are equipped with considerable ressources, regarding the availability of highest end equipment, knowledgeable people as possible advisors, and financially. A solid demonstration, that high rez really was superior, like your magazine has always claimed, would surely pay-off in every respect.

Just show us one example where a difference between 88.1 kHz & 44.1 kHz is audible. And I will shut up regarding this forever.

The fact, that people with your ressources and supposed motivation have failed to produce this until this day, is itself already a pretty sold result.