Quote from: krabapple on 2008-04-24 23:16:20

While the mass cannot generally ABX high-quality mp3s from source -- myself included in the mass -- a very few trusted HA posters (ones tending to be involved in LAME development)  have reported the ability to ABX of the highest-quality lossy encodes on a regular basis.  Don't know whether that's because of HF cut, or some other artifact.

That might be a little exaggerated. I think the few posters you are referring to can regularly ABX select tracks but I suspect that most tracks even they are not able to ABX a high-quality encode.

And the ones that they are able to ABX they usually report such things as pre-echo, warbling, sandpaper sounds, things like that. I don't recall any case where they report it as being "less bright" or something similar that would indicate loss of high requencies.

I don't think you can make that leap. Lots of CD content rolls off above 20kHz, while some encoders keep everything up to about 19kHz, so the loss is tiny. The loss of 22-48kHz is huge in comparison. I'm not saying it's audible - I'm saying your argument is not safe.

IIRC there was one individual who could ABX a 19kHz low pass filter. This was back in the r3mix forum days, so you won't find the post on HA.

the fact that i can hear the highest frequency available on CDs is a bit unsettling.

why not go the extra mile here and cover all frequencies audible to even the golden ears.

indeed, i took the test on the wrong frequency :P

http://www.rhintek.com/tutorial/Frequency/index.php

Quote from: CoyoteSmith on 2008-04-25 13:33:29

indeed, i took the test on the wrong frequency

http://www.rhintek.com/tutorial/Frequency/index.php

Eh, even if that were 22khz, this would tell you NOTHING about your hearing-capabilities, because those are test-tones. One can even engineer sounds so that you can hear even the slightest distortion regardless of your hearing capabilities (udial). So in short, test-tones are an entirely different beast than actual music - or do you listen to test-tones on your mp3-player while on the go? I can hear test-tones up to about 18khz.... but i'd never be able to perceive content that high in actual music. So in short: the true test is actual music, not testtones.

Quote from: 2tec on 2008-04-24 03:06:31

This makes sense if you consider that for there to be those who can't hear a difference, they must be conterbalanced by those who can hear a difference.

For instance, for there to be people who have never met aliens, they must be counterbalanced by those who have met aliens?

thanks for the input, but i do listen to drone music which is often a single frequency fluctuating.

First..if you're going to attempt sarcasm, it's best not to display ignorance instead -- it's 'JAES', as I wrote,  which stands for the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

Second, Moran posted to this HA thread about the paper which I guess you were unable to call up by searching for 'moran' , like I just did.

Third, I misremembered.  In fact, there was no retesting...because no subject achieved a score where p< 0.05, unless levels were jacked up to abnormal levels.  Quoted from the paper (emphasis mine):

Specifically, on music at normal levels as defined here,
audiophiles and/or working recording-studio engineers got
246 correct answers in 467 trials, for 52.7% correct. Females
got 18 in 48, for 37.5% correct. Those subjects able
to hear tones above 15 kHz got 116 in 256 trials, for 45.3%
correct; listeners aged 14–25 years old (who were, as it
turned out, the same group), also got 116 correct in 256
trials, 45.3%. The “best” listener score, achieved one
single time, was 8 for 10, still short of the desired 95%
confidence level. There were two 7/10 results. All other
trial totals were worse than 70% correct.

Quote from: krabapple on 2008-04-24 16:14:59

First..if you're going to attempt sarcasm, it's best not to display ignorance instead -- it's 'JAES', as I wrote,  which stands for the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

Well, apparently since you think it was an attempt at sarcasm, perhaps the attempt was actually completely successful?

Oh, and as for the spelling thing, ya I misspelt it, however, you, apparently, still got the point.

Sigh, sorry, but how was I to know which "moran" post was the one that 'you' were talking about? From where I'm from, if you claim something, you should be the one to provide the reference, no?

It seems to me that this quote illustrates my point concerning the better than average listeners, no?

Quote from: krabapple on 2008-04-24 16:14:59

Specifically, on music at normal levels as defined here,
audiophiles and/or working recording-studio engineers got
246 correct answers in 467 trials, for 52.7% correct.

Quote

Females
got 18 in 48, for 37.5% correct.
Those subjects able
to hear tones above 15 kHz got 116 in 256 trials, for 45.3%
correct;  listeners aged 14–25 years old (who were, as it
turned out, the same group), also got 116 correct in 256
trials, 45.3%. The “best” listener score, achieved one
single time, was 8 for 10, still short of the desired 95%
confidence level. There were two 7/10 results. All other
trial totals were worse than 70% correct.

Perhaps you could explain this to me, since, clearly, I don't understand how you can believe that this study 'proves' that no one can hear any better than anyone else. My take on this study seems to be that a 16 bit path in an otherwise higher bit rate process simply produces no statistically significant auditory artifacts in the final product. Did I miss something?

thanks for the input, but i do listen to drone music which is often a single frequency fluctuating.

Quote from: CoyoteSmith on 2008-04-25 14:30:45

thanks for the input, but i do listen to drone music which is often a single frequency fluctuating.

I do so as well, but this is still way more complex and organic than testtones. Not even Coils "Time Machines" is similiar to testtones, although thats probably almost as droney and pure as one can get in the genre.

Quote from: CoyoteSmith on 2008-04-25 14:30:45

thanks for the input, but i do listen to drone music which is often a single frequency fluctuating.

I do so as well, but this is still way more complex and organic than testtones. Not even Coils "Time Machines" is similiar to testtones, although thats probably almost as droney and pure as one can get in the genre.

Quote from: Lyx on 2008-04-25 17:57:54

Quote from: CoyoteSmith on 2008-04-25 14:30:45

thanks for the input, but i do listen to drone music which is often a single frequency fluctuating.

I do so as well, but this is still way more complex and organic than testtones. Not even Coils "Time Machines" is similiar to testtones, although thats probably almost as droney and pure as one can get in the genre.

Interesting, that's not a genre I am familiar with. Would you mind posting a (short, even 10s) sample for me to look at? I wasn't aware people listened to test tones for pleasure  :)

Actually it appears you've imagined something, though at this point I wouldn't doubt you're missing something too.  You seem to think that someone here (me?), or in the paper, is saying 'no one can hear any better than anyone else'.  I predict few on HA would be stupid enough to make such an unqualified claim, and I am 100% certain I would never make such a claim.

If I recall Meyer and Moran's paper correctly, they did retest initial 'high-scorers', who ended up doing no better than chance in multiple tests.

First off, I am not an expert, however, it seems to me that there may be a 'flaw' in one of the conclusions of this study, if they only look at averages. One conclusion was that no one could tell between the two sample rates, but they don't mention how many particular individuals scored much higher than chance. If there were such individuals, then they, and they alone, would benefit from higher sampling rates. This makes sense if you consider that for there to be those who can't hear a difference, they must be conterbalanced by those who can hear a difference.

A 10secs sample wouldn't explain much, because it isn't really music in the conventional way, but mood only... and even the word mood may imply something too complex. In short, imagine expressing aurally how it feels being "almost" in narcosis... the state where you're neither unconscious nor conscious... like a blank hypnotised stare - including that slight dizzyness.... thats how time machines sounds like. Expressed simply with rather pure soundwaves which slowly change in modulation.

Coil released a lot of their material - including AFAIK time machines - in extremely low numbers (hundreds, not thousands) on their own label, with intentionally doing no reprint. Filesharing and ebay are quite probably the only ways nowadays to get Time Machines. WP Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Machines

Quote from: krabapple on 2008-04-25 17:21:08

Actually it appears you've imagined something, though at this point I wouldn't doubt you're missing something too.  You seem to think that someone here (me?), or in the paper, is saying 'no one can hear any better than anyone else'.  I predict few on HA would be stupid enough to make such an unqualified claim, and I am 100% certain I would never make such a claim.

Yes, you did, right here: 

Quote from: krabapple on 2008-04-24 03:16:35

If I recall Meyer and Moran's paper correctly, they did retest initial 'high-scorers', who ended up doing no better than chance in multiple tests.

So, were 'high-scorers' able to discern if a 16 bit process was used in an otherwise 32 bit process, or not?

BTW, (and only as a reply to your off-topic ad hominem)

a) When I want to use an example, personally I always try to provide the link rather than make all the readers guess at which page I'm referring too.
b) People don't actually need to completely read the actual paper, in order to add something intelligent, sadly however, the reverse doesn't appear to be necessarily true.
c) Yes, I was indeed being sarcastic, and on more than one occasion!