I'm not asking a naively complex question without believing that your use of "typical" should mean you have more than speculation.

Exactly! That is why I don’t trust the use of the word “typical” in the paper. But I also don’t trust your use of it. I can (and have) read many datasheets and understand that many options are available and therefore possible. But I don’t know what is “typical” and as you say, neither do you. It would be better if both you and Stuart’s group would avoid that term without better justification.

Whether those filters are typical or not is beside the point if you are trying to show that the CD format itself is incapable of audible transparency. For that, you would have to show that the format is not transparent even for the optimal choice of filter characteristic, otherwise you just show that there are bad filter characteristics. The research would be valuable in showing which characteristics to avoid, but it would do nothing to solve the question of whether the format itself is transparent.

The fact that the authors ignore this very basic reasoning does not speak for them.
[snip]
They are in the market for an "improved" replacement format and need a justification for it.

Furthermore, it is quite clear why they conflate this; it is almost certainly deliberate.
[snip]
The paper is obviously part of an effort to fabricate this justification.

If somebody is as sensitive to such issues as you have shown to be, I would have expected you to see this larger picture.

I have provided both examples of and the means by which a technically informed person can (and judging by other posts in this thread) and have satisfied themselves that the means that I have provided are independent evidence based, and thus more than mere speculation.

I have already pointed out that in general modern ADCs and hardware resamplers use digital filters that are very similar to those in comparable DACs, and that those digital filters,  whether in resamplers,  DACs or ADCs  have transition bands that are 2 to 4 or more KHz wide for a 44.1 KHz sample rate.

This contrasts with the far narrower transition bands that were used by John Stuart et al, according to their JAES paper.

Thus the claim that the paper involved typical filters in ADCs, DACs or hardware resamplers continues to be false.

This is not speculation, this is fact whether any particular person choses to recognize it or not.

However, many mastering engineers like to tweak resampler settings to what sounds seems best to them.

Quote from: pelmazo on 2016-08-30 11:16:41

Whether those filters are typical or not is beside the point if you are trying to show that the CD format itself is incapable of audible transparency. For that, you would have to show that the format is not transparent even for the optimal choice of filter characteristic, otherwise you just show that there are bad filter characteristics. The research would be valuable in showing which characteristics to avoid, but it would do nothing to solve the question of whether the format itself is transparent.

True, if the goal is finding the optimal capability under perfect, error-free conditions.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2016-08-29 22:24:02

I have provided both examples of and the means by which a technically informed person can (and judging by other posts in this thread) and have satisfied themselves that the means that I have provided are independent evidence based, and thus more than mere speculation.

I have already pointed out that in general modern ADCs and hardware resamplers use digital filters that are very similar to those in comparable DACs, and that those digital filters,  whether in resamplers,  DACs or ADCs  have transition bands that are 2 to 4 or more KHz wide for a 44.1 KHz sample rate.

This contrasts with the far narrower transition bands that were used by John Stuart et al, according to their JAES paper.

Thus the claim that the paper involved typical filters in ADCs, DACs or hardware resamplers continues to be false.

This is not speculation, this is fact whether any particular person choses to recognize it or not.

I’m going to set aside dealing with your problems with reading comprehension

and writing comprehensibly as a waste of time,

and get back to my problem with the use of the word “typical”.

If the narrow transition band used in the paper is very atypical, then as you and others have pointed out, the paper is weakened, perhaps fatally.

One main focus is whether signals can be encoded transparently by a typical CD.

Unless the narrow band is typical or common or even sometimes used, the paper does not address the actual question of the CD’s ability to be transparent in the recording->playback chain.

I assume (and ask for correction, if needed) that the “typical” recording takes the path:
1- record by digitizing at a rate higher than 44.1kHz

2- process the recording (mix, master, etc.) in digital form

3- downsample to 44.1 using a software SRC, e.g. izotope (as mentioned by bandpass)

4- stamp and sell CDs

Yes, I know there are exceptions. But is this typical? If so, user:bandpass points out that the default for izotope doesn’t use such a narrow band, but:

Quote from: bandpass on 2016-08-29 15:55:38

Quote

However, many mastering engineers like to tweak resampler settings to what sounds seems best to them.

For a person who likes to pretend he hates speculation, you sure seem to like to spread it around. ;-)

Quote

Although you (Arny) correctly point out that only a market survey gives a reliable answer, I’m curious whether those with experience creating commercial CDs could share their experience.

True, if the goal is finding the optimal capability under perfect, error-free conditions. My car can get 80 mpg, if I drive like I never do (Audi A2 - 3L version). The way I normally drive I get 65 mpg. I find both regimens helpful: ideal and typical.

In the case of recorded music, unless the optimal method is guaranteed or certified, I’m much more concerned with “typical” or “common”, than hoping for perfect behavior and choices of those involved. I buy typical CDs, not fastidiously produced ones. I’m speaking to my interest, not anything stated by others.

I don’t accept these as fact, but I appreciate your opinion.

The big picture for me includes what is relevant to buying music produced with imperfect choices and mistakes that human sound engineers would likely make. If typical “hi-res” is audibly better than “typical” CDs, that may be important to some. It would be important to me because I’m interested, but on its own, it would not make my buying decisions. In combination with, say, price, it could.

In the case of recorded music, unless the optimal method is guaranteed or certified, I’m much more concerned with “typical” or “common”, than hoping for perfect behavior and choices of those involved.

I buy typical CDs, not fastidiously produced ones.

I’m speaking to my interest, not anything stated by others.

I don’t accept these as fact, but I appreciate your opinion.

The big picture for me includes what is relevant to buying music produced with imperfect choices and mistakes that human sound engineers would likely make. If typical “hi-res” is audibly better than “typical” CDs, that may be important to some.

If it is true that you are interested in the typical (quality level of music releases), then you are entirely on the wrong track when you are bothering with this paper. The quality of the typical releases you can buy have next to nothing to do with the limitations of the CD format, or with the exact shape of the filters used in mastering. The quality you are getting is what the producers want you to give. They are not restricted by any technical limitation, only by their budget and their "artistic concept" (which is actually a marketing concept). If you think you are getting inferior quality because the medium CD doesn't allow any better, you merely buy their bullshit.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but note that I didn't present them as fact. It is just the most obvious explanation for their conduct. If you think a different conclusion is warranted, please offer your rationale.

The paper didn't show this to be false, even though that's what they want people to believe.

In the case of recorded music, unless the optimal method is guaranteed or certified, I’m much more concerned with “typical” or “common”, than hoping for perfect behavior and choices of those involved. I buy "typical" CDs, not fastidiously produced ones.

if the (concocted) filters are atypical, the paper may be interesting to me for several reasons, but completely irrelevant to real-world CDs.

The internet is filled with smart people, helpful people, annoying people, trolls and jerks. Some use their real names (but differently on different sites), while some use pseudonyms (different or the same on different sites). It is too much to keep track of everyone, so we all classify or group people. Many only deal with 2 groups: us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys, objectivists vs. subjectivists, or audiophools vs. rational people. Unfortunately for me, I don’t come out well after such grouping. I am a “them” for a whole lot of people, regardless of how “us” is defined.
I am not a defender of Jackson’s paper or Reiss’ paper.

In fact, in this thread, I have only criticized Jackson’s paper.

This is true even if I criticize or challenge someone who has criticized or challenged either paper. My wholly unoriginal criticism is that if the filters are atypical, the paper may be interesting to me for several reasons, but completely irrelevant to real-world CDs. Because they don’t address this issue well in the paper, *I* can’t judge the relevance, which is a huge weakness of the paper for me.

When someone says the paper’s filters are not typical because “typical” transition bands are 2-3kHz, also with insufficient (in my view) support,

I will (and did) call that out. If typically CDs are created with software SRCs,

telling me about DAC chips doesn’t help.

“Answering” with fully unsupported claims that many CDs are created with tracks recorded at 44.1kHz or if not, they use hardware SRCs is an appeal to self-authority from one who frequently condemns appeals to self-authority.

Funny is that meanwhile we take the differences heard in the legendary test as being the filter as granted. It still can be something completely different.
Talking about typical i did read from Yuri Korzunov, the coder AuI Converter talks about doing his software for professional studios. It uses a very stepp filter at 20kHz. He has no complaints from his customers or even does this by their wishes.
Graphs at http://src.infinitewave.ca/
I still wonder if having nothing above is simply better

Based on your comments:
(1) "Transition band" is just an abstract phrase to you. You don't know where it comes from, where it is, what it is, or how it affects the operation of digital audio gear.
(2) Even when told how and where to find relevant independent authorities, ...

This would seem to be because you don't understand the common elements of ADCs, DACs, and SRCs.

Quote

I will (and did) call that out. If typically CDs are created with software SRCs,

At this point for you this is pure speculation without one ounce of evidence to back it up.

Quote

“Answering” with fully unsupported claims that many CDs are created with tracks recorded at 44.1kHz or if not, they use hardware SRCs is an appeal to self-authority from one who frequently condemns appeals to self-authority.

My  recent 12 years of professional recording and production work means nothing in your eyes as compared to your idle, poorly informed speculations.  That was preceeded with another 4-6 years of hands on study and experimentation.  And for you?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2016-08-31 14:39:19

Based on your comments:
(1) "Transition band" is just an abstract phrase to you. You don't know where it comes from, where it is, what it is, or how it affects the operation of digital audio gear.
(2) Even when told how and where to find relevant independent authorities, ...

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2016-08-31 14:39:19

This would seem to be because you don't understand the common elements of ADCs, DACs, and SRCs.

Actually I understand transition band, ADCs, DACs and SRCs quite well. Quiz me.

And for me? Any resume I provide will immediately be challenged as unverifiable since I am anonymous (bobbaker is a pseudonym). It would be easier to just match verifiable facts as presented in our posts. If you label something as opinion or belief, I won’t challenge you, and expect the same from you. When you post something as fact, I expect you to be able to back it up, and of course, turnabout is fair play.
.

You must really think you are totally smarter than the rest of us.

When I see the passband graphs of AuI Free and Pyramix 6.2.3 I would say the ripples are totally atypical. Also the sweep from Digital Performer 5.1, Logic 7.2.3, Wavelab 5 internal and Sadie/6. I already excluded all freeware (except AuI Free) and only picked the more famous and expensive commercial ones.

(different or the same on different sites)

The internet is filled with smart people, helpful people, annoying people, trolls and jerks. Some use their real names (but differently on different sites), while some use pseudonyms (different or the same on different sites). It is too much to keep track of everyone, so we all classify or group people. Many only deal with 2 groups: us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys, objectivists vs. subjectivists, or audiophools vs. rational people. Unfortunately for me, I don’t come out well after such grouping. I am a “them” for a whole lot of people, regardless of how “us” is defined.

I am not a defender of Jackson’s paper or Reiss’ paper. In fact, in this thread, I have only criticized Jackson’s paper. This is true even if I criticize or challenge someone who has criticized or challenged either paper. My wholly unoriginal criticism is that if the filters are atypical, the paper may be interesting to me for several reasons, but completely irrelevant to real-world CDs. Because they don’t address this issue well in the paper, *I* can’t judge the relevance, which is a huge weakness of the paper for me. When someone says the paper’s filters are not typical because “typical” transition bands are 2-3kHz, also with insufficient (in my view) support, I will (and did) call that out. If typically CDs are created with software SRCs, telling me about DAC chips doesn’t help. “Answering” with fully unsupported claims that many CDs are created with tracks recorded at 44.1kHz or if not, they use hardware SRCs is an appeal to self-authority from one who frequently condemns appeals to self-authority.

It is true that I am interested in the typical (quality level of music releases), but that is not my only interest in life.

Since participating in journal clubs in grad school, it has been clear to me that virtually all papers published in peer-reviewed journals have both something to offer (maybe just a lesson in what to avoid) and flaws (sometimes minor, sometimes fatal). It is interesting and fun for me to find both, so I enjoy “bothering with this paper”.

You make an excellent point, that even if the filters used were typical and audible, that effect would be swamped by choices made by the producers. But as a consumer seeking to make informed choices, I want to know both the facts and their relevance.

In my truly humble opinion, I agree with you. But our opinions on their motivation or goals is not directly relevant to my evaluation of papers. All scientists are human; nearly all scientists work for money (I don’t know of any “gentleman scientists” anymore). If you exclude all papers where the authors are driven by self-advancement, money, praise or pride, and not purely for the advancement of knowledge, the greater good, you would exclude probably all the papers I’ve ever read. If you challenge their motives, what about any research done by private companies? What about all the work done at ATT in the mid-20th century? Using a clear description of the methods, you evaluate the results and conclusions, in spite of the imperfect motives of the authors.

Actually I understand transition band, ADCs, DACs and SRCs quite well. Quiz me.

I am anonymous (bobbaker is a pseudonym).

So the result is that I still don't know what you actually want to say.

Quote from: pelmazo on 2016-08-31 22:00:17

So the result is that I still don't know what you actually want to say.

I do know that a substantial portion of his posts suggest he likes knawing at Arny's ankles.  Feel free to have a look at the posts from his "bobbaker" account since he started using it (link).

Quote from: bobbaker on 2016-08-31 15:27:46

Actually I understand transition band, ADCs, DACs and SRCs quite well. Quiz me.

Ok. What are you concerns with the "typical" CDs you buy?

Quote from: bobbaker on 2016-08-31 15:27:46

I am anonymous (bobbaker is a pseudonym).

So you could be just a casual curious observer...or someone with skin in the game.

For our mutual speculation

The consequence of a narrower transition bands is the generation of excessive and unnatural artifacts including variations in the far more audible bandpass (LF) region, and ringing at or near the Nyquist frequency (22 Kz).... my preliminary tests show that digital filters get really squirrely with transition bands this excessively narrow.   The primary artifacts turn out to be surprisingly broad  peaks and dips on the order of 2-5 dB in the bandpass region, which is to say the normal audio band going down to 1 KHz and below.