Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-25 17:14:12

The only relevant discussion relates to the CD.

It was simple science.

(1) I created a suite of recordings of music and high bandwidth natural sounds @ 24/96 using microphones with 40+ KHz bandpass.

(2) Using myself and friends as guinea pigs I ABXed them with downsampled/upsampled versions of themselves.

None of us could hear a difference.  This was > 14 years ago when my hearing was much more sensitive to subtle differences.

Hi Arny.  Perhaps we should fill out more of this story as you told it on AVS. 

It went like this:

Quote from: Amir on AVS link=msg=0 date=

Quote

Fortunately, the above speculations are not true.  With complex music signals the limit of audiblity is more like 16 KHz due to masking, and that is more than plenty far enough away from 44.1 KHz with modern digital filters.

Ah yes.  I recall you saying this before:

Quote

I've done experiements with sliding brick wall filters down to lower and lower frequencies. Usually, they start being barely audible around 16 KHz.

Can you please outline those tests?  Were they double blind or sighted?  And was the person performing the tests had his hearing tested to make sure they could hear above 16 Khz?

And a reference to masking of everything above 16 KHz would also make for great bedtime reading for me .

You kindly replied with this:

Quote

I did what I said in the previous post. I made recordings of live  musicans in an exceedingly quiet and non-reverberent room @24/96 using 1/4" measurement mics that had strong content > 20 KHz, even 30 KHz.

I set up an ABX between the 24/96 files with a 16 KHz brickwall filter, and with full bandpass. I used speakers and amps with strong response > 30 KHz and put the listeners on axis of their supertweeters.

Quote from: Amir on AVS link=msg=0 date=

Were they double blind or sighted?

both

The training sequence was files brick walled at lower frequencies such as 9 KHz, and working up in logical steps.

Quote from: Amir on AVS link=msg=0 date=

And was the person performing the tests had his hearing tested to make sure they could hear above 16 Khz?

Yes.

So this testing was done at 32 Khz sampling.

As you know I and a number of other people passed this test.  So clearly you hearing was not that sensitive even then .

I know no such thing.  Neither I nor any of  my designated representatives were present at the AVS tests  you seem to be describing, so I don't know for sure if the tests were performed properly. I was present at the tests I described so I have some confidence about them.

When I served in the US Army (drafted) in the 1960s they had no clue about hearing protection. I qualified with 3 different firearms, worked on firing ranges, and worked routinely for about 30 months in a very noisy environment. While any damage that may have related to those experiences did not seem to hurt my hearing acuity that much when I was younger, these days things are far worse.

I now struggle to hear the effects of an 8 KHz brick wall filter at normal listening levels. So while Floyd Tooles comments may relate to Amir and you John, some of us did not have such protected lives, no fault of our own.

...
So, if the industry pushes high rez downloads, what's to prevent that mindset from proliferating more?  Won't that bring us back to where we started?  Popular music genres will be given 'modern' mastering, classical and jazz, left pretty much alone?
...
The focus of the consumer (especially the 'audiophiles' to whom this shilling is primarily aimed) should not be on 'high rez' but on MASTERING CHOICES.
...

Arny's tests may indeed not be indicative of what others may hear but by the same token, neither are yours especially since you've been so coy about disclosing what you heard.

Laptop? Practice?
Well, I decided to give my laptop a try since Amir did so well using his. Lo and behold, I had little difficulty with the 16/32 key jangling test. Not quite perfect, but I suspect a bit more practice would get me up to perfect.

My laptop is a Sony Vaio PCG-41412L with the HD upgraded to a SSD. All audio enhancements are off. I used a pair of Sony MDR-1R headphones.

The results speak for themselves; I found a critical segment that revealed an audible difference. I've had some practice, which helped—just as Amir suggested. Now, I can pass an ABX test I previously failed. I'll tackle the 16/44 test next. Oh, and it was a piece of cake to pick out the differences in the 16/16 and 22/16 tests.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2014/07/19 11:26:49

File A: C:\Users\mark_000\Downloads\keys jangling band resolution limited 3216 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\mark_000\Downloads\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

11:26:49 : Test started.
11:27:29 : 00/01 100.0%
11:28:58 : 00/02 100.0%
11:29:46 : 00/03 100.0%
11:29:59 : 01/04 93.8%
11:30:06 : 01/05 96.9%
11:30:16 : 02/06 89.1%
11:30:26 : 03/07 77.3%
11:30:34 : 04/08 63.7%
11:30:45 : 05/09 50.0%
11:31:00 : 06/10 37.7%
11:31:10 : 07/11 27.4%
11:31:29 : 08/12 19.4%
11:31:41 : 09/13 13.3%
11:32:05 : 10/14 9.0%
11:32:20 : 10/15 15.1%
11:32:30 : 11/16 10.5%
11:32:41 : 12/17 7.2%
11:32:52 : 13/18 4.8%
11:33:07 : 13/19 8.4%
11:33:16 : 14/20 5.8%
11:33:28 : 15/21 3.9%
11:33:40 : 16/22 2.6%
11:33:58 : 17/23 1.7%
11:34:12 : 18/24 1.1%
11:34:25 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 18/24 (1.1%)

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-11-25 21:23:22

...
So, if the industry pushes high rez downloads, what's to prevent that mindset from proliferating more?  Won't that bring us back to where we started?  Popular music genres will be given 'modern' mastering, classical and jazz, left pretty much alone?
...
The focus of the consumer (especially the 'audiophiles' to whom this shilling is primarily aimed) should not be on 'high rez' but on MASTERING CHOICES.
...

Something I said to Amir a month ago:
"I share your hope for better sound, but also your fear that someone will screw it up. Apple already want higher than CD resolution as input to produce AAC files. Record labels want those tracks to stand out. How long will it be before CD-style compression/limiting of high resolution files becomes common? "

So, if the industry pushes high rez downloads, what's to prevent that mindset from proliferating more?  Won't that bring us back to where we started?  Popular music genres will be given 'modern' mastering, classical and jazz, left pretty much alone?

This is what happens when the consumer is led to believe that a 'format' necessarily gives you great sound.

When he was invited to sit on Ludwig’s Platinum Mastering Panel this year, Doug Sax suggested they discuss mastering for multiple formats. “Ten years ago, you made a CD master and you were done,” Sax says. “Now you do a CD master, a master for iTunes, a high-resolution master for HDtracks, and a cutting master for vinyl.” [/color][/i]

See?  Separate mastering...

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-25 22:32:15

When he was invited to sit on Ludwig’s Platinum Mastering Panel this year, Doug Sax suggested they discuss mastering for multiple formats. “Ten years ago, you made a CD master and you were done,” Sax says. “Now you do a CD master, a master for iTunes, a high-resolution master for HDtracks, and a cutting master for vinyl.” [/color][/i]

See?  Separate mastering...

Since it is already stablished that there is no audible difference between the hi rez formats and CD format, and vinyl is obsolete. It looks like their intention is to scam the final user (consumer).

In the most characteristic "subjective audiophile" fashion I am having a strong audio gut feeling that you purpously misquoted Meyer and Moran. They mean exactly the oposite of what you are saying since 2007.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-25 05:44:51

...of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs...

That is a very illogical affirmation. It should have said it sounded diferent (not better). it s that from a scientific paper??!!

Dynamic range compression does not depend on audio format.

It is a choice made by the recording technician. Didn't Meyer and Moran know that?! I don't think they said that. I don't think you can be trusted as a source of information. Can you show some evidence?

The only myopic views are coming from your posts. If a difference can't be heard in a properly set double blind test (to get rid of bias) than that difference is irrelevant. I think you know that but you choose to believe otherwise.

You must have no understanding of mastering to say that.

Technically no, but from business point of view, it absolutely does.  The labels and talent consider CD and MP3/AAC formats as mass market so impose their wants in the form of loudness compression.  There is no such business rule for high resolution releases.

You are in a thread where such a difference was heard in double blind tests and reported in award winning peer reviewed paper in Audio Engineering Society.  Please do a bit of education before randomizing the thread.

A full disclosure, and really something more than what you posted on WBF, would be illuminating and could help to advance discussions in that area.

I am not a subjectivist

Reinventing the Audio Power Amplifier: Mark Levinson No 53
By Amir Majidimehr

But How Does it Sound?

In comparison testing I have done, switching amplifiers using the classic class D configuration always sport incredible low frequency control and power. They beat out linear class AB amplifiers almost regardless of price. What they give up though is high frequency fidelity which I find somewhat harsh. The distortion is highly non-linear and challenging to spot but it is there. The Mark Levinson No 53 is the first switching amplifier I have heard which does not have this compromise. Its bass is amazingly authoritative: tight and powerful. Yet the rest of the response is absolutely neutral and pleasant.

If you have not heard these unique amplifiers, I highly encourage you to come into our showroom for a listen. We have a pair on hand driving our Revel speakers. I am confident that they will improve the sound of your current speakers given the ease with which they can drive any load regardless of how difficult they might be (and many high-end speakers are difficult to drive). We are happy to let you evaluate them with your own system to see the benefits of this technology.  Hearing this amplifier was an eye-opener for me.  I think it will be for you too.

But you want to make CD obsolete, right?

It will happen eventually, and depending on the success of the hi-res peddler probably faster than we think.

So where is your niche market, where people have to pay more money for less destruction, when hi-res is the "mass market"?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-25 22:32:15

When he was invited to sit on Ludwig’s Platinum Mastering Panel this year, Doug Sax suggested they discuss mastering for multiple formats. “Ten years ago, you made a CD master and you were done,” Sax says. “Now you do a CD master, a master for iTunes, a high-resolution master for HDtracks, and a cutting master for vinyl.” [/color][/i]

See?  Separate mastering...

Since it is already established that there is no audible difference between the hi rez formats and CD format, and vinyl is obsolete. It looks like their intention is to scam the final user (consumer).

amir, stop moving the goalposts. This discussion is (in part) about technical benefits of "hi-res" formats, not about de-facto benefits of "hi-res" releases due to bad mastering practices for CD releases.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-11-14 10:56:25

1. We "improve" the wrong thing, to the detriment of other things that would introduce a real/greater audible improvement.

Bingo.  While Amirm and Stuart  and Neil Young are flogging this technology, we're still getting 'loudness wars' mastering. And we are still stuck ina 2-channel paradigm.  And listening in rooms that are often horrendous, acoustically.

What the hi rez cheerleading squad is doing is akin to trying to focus all attention on the font of a document that is too often contains gibberish.

The question is why...why would this be the focus, when *all of them* know  where the actual 'obvious and audible and known about  for years' problems lie?

In any case, an easy, sensible, scientific and honest way to study the benefits of "hi-res" formats is the experiment I (and many others before me) described earlier.

So, I just started using Reaper this year. It is the first time I have found myself in a situation where I can apply dither as I listen and toggle it on and off.

The dither sounds like poo.

The sound stage just gets so much smaller. So my questions are:

Is all dither obviously audible?
Does Reaper just ship with a bad dither plug?
Am I doing something wrong with a perfectly fine plug?
Is it all totally in my head and there is in fact no difference to hear because dither noise is just too low?

On a side note, this dither is going on post limiter, and then only on personal reference mixes. The final product will never see dither applied by me.

I also urge you to study what "scientific" means.

If you keep posting the same nonsense over and over this discussion will close.

14 years ago would have been year 2000, some 40 years after the firearm damage to your ears.  So surely your hearing was shot by the time you performed the 44 Khz tests, pun intended .  I hope you agree that given what you have told us, your listening test results are not reliable measure of what anyone else would hear.

I have no power to do so.  But I absolutely believe CD needs to be shot in the head and put out of its misery.  In this day and age creating plastic waste, and spinning a motor to read 650 megabytes?  Are you kidding?

No, hi-res has no influence on CD going away.  It is the mass market that pays the bills and will cause its gradual demise.

No, there is no mass market for high res.  There will be a market much larger than today.  But still roundoff error in the grand scheme of things.  Just like the unit volume for Porsche vs Ford.

If that causes you, Krab, AJ, etc. angst, that much the better. 

On what is science, feel free to open another thread and we can have a good discussion.  I assure you in five minutes I can show that none of you are following the first thing about that.

Our role in all of this is to create a meaningful market where some segment of the content producers service us.

JA - Do you still feel the high-end audio industry has lost its way in the manner you described 15 years ago?

JGH - Not in the same manner; there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.

Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.

JA - I remember you strongly feeling back in 1992 that multichannel/surround reproduction was the only chance the industry had for getting back on course.

JGH - With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of improvement left.

1. Where on earth do you see non-linear distortions? You don't even know what an LTI system is, but talk big about filters? What the..

3. I also already told you that I take the paper for what it is, and there are still unknowns. Your stereotyping of me, which you even admitted, prevents you from actually understanding my position. You don't even care about any of this. All this is for you is a "war" (your own word), that you apparently need to win at all cost, which sadly seems to include your sanity.

Amir, I reject the implication that you and I are in the same camp, audio-wise. IMO, you are a Golden Ear, pure and simple.

Quote

Amir, I reject the implication that you and I are in the same camp, audio-wise. IMO, you are a Golden Ear, pure and simple.

It is not easy to get him to volunteer such things as I am sure you know.  But volunteer he had after he saw the few of us accomplish what most could not.

No, the war has been lost.