Skip to main content

Topic: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (Read 21426 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Ok, Dr Reiss was kind enough to notify me this morning, it's here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #1
Ok, Dr Reiss was kind enough to notify me this morning, it's here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

Note: This is a free download for all, AES member or not.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2016, 09:56:31 AM by Arnold B. Krueger

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #2
Ok, Dr Reiss was kind enough to notify me this morning, it's here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

But if I read correctly, that article claims that some people can recognize 96 kHz sample rates and probably also quantization effects ... " Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training"

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #3
The paper summarizes existing papers. So when the BS found out people hear beryllium sounds different with high samplerates it mirrors in this paper as positive.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #4
OK I know that is metaanalysis and I do not want to "promote Hi-Res" through that. But it was kind of surprising to lead the conclusions.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #5
Right. He makes it clear that there is no good explanation or established correlation. Only that the stats point to a very small % of folks being able to discriminate. Not why. Or whether that's the preferred sound...;-)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #6
It would have been interesting to find out the characteristics of those people who can discern the differences. Maybe also higher SR are not better, simply different. All in all, interesting. Suggests that there is more to research in this area, while of course craving for Hi-Res remains a bad idea driven by desire to hear "more and better", which is not endless.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2016, 10:31:57 AM by jumpingjackflash5

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #7
Ok, Dr Reiss was kind enough to notify me this morning, it's here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

But if I read correctly, that article claims that some people can recognize 96 kHz sample rates and probably also quantization effects ... " Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training"

We long ago (late 1970s) discovered that there may be some very weak, but statistically significant results from large-population subjective testing. Because we were doing actual tests, we were able to do what Science suggests, and that is repeat the same test with the same people, music, system, etc., to see if the results were repeatable.

They weren't repeatable.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #8
Ok, Dr Reiss was kind enough to notify me this morning, it's here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

But if I read correctly, that article claims that some people can recognize 96 kHz sample rates and probably also quantization effects ... " Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training"

We long ago (late 1970s) discovered that there may be some very weak, but statistically significant results from large-population subjective testing. Because we were doing actual tests, we were able to do what Science suggests, and that is repeat the same test with the same people, music, system, etc., to see if the results were repeatable.

They weren't repeatable.

Hmmm .... interesting .....

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #9
Statistics.

The problem with the Meridian (AKA BS) test is that they were banking on a specific outcome and then dressed that pig in lipstick as best they could in order to sell it.  There will be no published repeat, let alone an attempt to refine the test because it likely won't help them sell anything.

Don't lose sight of the motivation.  The advancement of knowledge? Hardly.  It is all about the advancement of the bottom line.  The BS test it is all about commerce.  Sadly, the same goes for what the AES has now become.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2016, 12:29:38 PM by greynol
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #10
Well, I agree that more research is needed...by believers.
I also agree that listener training is important. Now exactly how these listeners are to be trained, to hear what exactly....
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #11
Well, I agree that more research is needed...by believers.
I also agree that listener training is important. Now exactly how these listeners are to be trained, to hear what exactly....
You know where to ask. There are forums full of people hearing filters at 192k and influences of -160dB noise. Wasn't there a new science forum?
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #12
Well, I agree that more research is needed...by believers.
The devout believers don't need any research.

That is probably the most amusing part about all the posturing over a 56% success rate with a body of listeners who were specifically chosen from the general population because they are more likely to spot coloration resulting from nonlinear processing which quite possibly occurred only after  the signal was converted back to analog.

I didn't read the paper, but I'm betting that jjf5 found nothing* to support his fantasy that someday he will discover unicorns in bits 17-24 of his hi-res purchases.

(*) The BS paper presented exactly *zero* evidence to corroborate the notion that trained listeners will "probably also" be able to recognize quantization effects.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2016, 03:24:13 PM by greynol
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #13
Well, I agree that more research is needed...by believers.
I also agree that listener training is important. Now exactly how these listeners are to be trained, to hear what exactly....
You know where to ask. There are forums full of people hearing filters at 192k and influences of -160dB noise. Wasn't there a new science forum?
Already banned ;-) http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-dsd-superior-or-just-the-audio-file-du-jour.534/page-2#post-15449
The high IQ types have self assessed themselves as Kool Aid free with their "real experiences".
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #14
I didn't read the paper
Open access...free!!
Nothing groundbreaking.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #15
I really like the procedure Robert Schulein lately did IM testing of a tweeter in a hf listening test. I miss such imho simple fundamentals on other attempts.
brw. Did anyone feel the urge afterwards to start another Droopy video?
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #16
Already banned ;-) http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-dsd-superior-or-just-the-audio-file-du-jour.534/page-2#post-15449
The high IQ types have self assessed themselves as Kool Aid free with their "real experiences".
Talking about dsd is not healthy. It may be good for you it ended there.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #17
Nothing groundbreaking.
I figured it would only serve to rehash a useless discussion.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #18
Already banned ;-)
If that was your last post there it couldn't have been any more perfect.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #19
Well, I agree that more research is needed...by believers.
The devout believers don't need any research.

That is probably the most amusing part about all the posturing over a 56% success rate with a body of listeners who were specifically chosen from the general population because they are more likely to spot coloration resulting from nonlinear processing.

I didn't read the paper, but I'm betting that jjf5 found nothing* to support his fantasy that someday he will discover unicorns in bits 17-24.

(*) The BS paper presented exactly *zero* evidence to corroborate the notion that trained listeners will "probably also" be able to recognize quantization effects.

The paper is mainly about sample rates, only chapter 3.5 concerns quantization, dithering etc. Unfortunately listening tests often mix SR and bit rate. I do not expect that I will be able to reliably prove that one can hear above 16 bit, if the audio scientists were not able to.

I know that I may irritate some people here with my statements about preference of 24 bit audio but they are not primarily based on searching unicorns in higher bits. As I expressed before, I simply prefer that container because given todays technology it has no practical limitations and provides (probably bigger than neccessary but we have no 20 bit or so container) safety margin for common usage.  

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #20
I didn't read the paper, but I'm betting that jjf5 found nothing* to support his fantasy that someday he will discover unicorns in bits 17-24 (EDIT: of his hi-res purchases).
I simply prefer that container because given todays technology it has no practical limitations
Practical?!?  NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

prac·ti·cal
/ˈpraktək(ə)l/
adjective

    of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.

Quote
I do not expect that I will be able to reliably prove that one can hear above below 16 bit, if the audio scientists were not able to.
Quote
I know that I may irritate some people here with my statements about preference of 24 bit audio but they are not primarily based on searching unicorns in higher lower bits.
Fixed these for you.

No, not "not primarily based," but solely  based -- as evidenced by your previous post.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2016, 03:13:36 PM by greynol
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #21
More to the notion of practical, please ponder why Meridian came up with MQA.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #22
provides (*) safety margin for common usage.
So does seeing a shrink. Maybe take a Valium.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #23
Yes it can be corrected this way, thank you ( I know that these are lower bits but their numbering is 17-24>16),  But the sense is still the same. I do not want to be seen as person who repeatedly tries to squeeze better audio experience from 24 bit containers and in that paper the majority of tests mix sample rate - bit rate testing. I do not expect that individual people can prove the benefits of 24 bit audio to the others, because even scientists with their testing equipment were not reliably able to do so. So it is up to the people if they will use 24 or 16 bit for listening - in either case they won't be wrong.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #24
So does seeing a shrink. Maybe take a Valium.
Well you can at least find some humor in his posts on hi-res, so they aren't completely without value.
  • Last Edit: 24 July, 2016, 01:45:01 PM by greynol
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?