Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Listening Tests => Topic started by: krabapple on 2016-03-11 16:47:42

Title: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: krabapple on 2016-03-11 16:47:42
http://www.cepro.com/article/subjective_tests_conducted_by_immersav_technology_conclude_hi_res_audio_off
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: ajinfla on 2016-03-13 12:18:21
I almost lapsed into a coma watching that video, as good as it is.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: splice on 2016-03-13 21:36:54
I almost lapsed into a coma watching that video, as good as it is.

Strong coffee helps... I liked the "self help" message - determine your own personal limits on your own personal system.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: GUTB on 2016-03-13 23:26:59
I guess I don't understand exactly how anything was determined in this test that isn't already very well-known -- such as the audible loudness threshold. The bandwidth test is baffling to me -- if the purpose was to construct a test that is useful to music producers and listeners, recording a chime with a scientific testing microphone into a portable $300 lo-fi digital recorder, and then listening to it via $300 Walkmans, lo-fi earphones and $20 tweeters mounted in plastic tubes isn't a methodology I would think is very useful. The test does not represent the needs of producers, as they record using professional recording equipment, acoustically engineered venues, monitoring the output with actual speakers and mastering headphones. And I think PVC pipe-mounted tweeters aren't useful to music consumers -- as an actual speaker enclosure will add frequency response characteristics that are inseparable from the real-world listening experience.

Also, calling 24/96 "high resolution" is technically true, but as I think most of us should know, 24/196 is the minimal de-facto standard for what high-resolution audio is generally considered to be. Also note, the TSCAM unit shown outputs 15 bit effectively, so it suggests it records to 15 bits effective as well.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: ajinfla on 2016-03-14 13:00:10
into a portable $300 lo-fi digital recorder
Cite your evidence or TOS#8

lo-fi earphones
TOS#8

and $20 tweeters mounted in plastic tubes isn't a methodology I would think is very useful.
Evidence?

Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: theriverlethe on 2016-03-14 15:01:37
I guess I don't understand exactly how anything was determined in this test that isn't already very well-known -- such as the audible loudness threshold. The bandwidth test is baffling to me -- if the purpose was to construct a test that is useful to music producers and listeners, recording a chime with a scientific testing microphone into a portable $300 lo-fi digital recorder, and then listening to it via $300 Walkmans, lo-fi earphones and $20 tweeters mounted in plastic tubes isn't a methodology I would think is very useful. The test does not represent the needs of producers, as they record using professional recording equipment, acoustically engineered venues, monitoring the output with actual speakers and mastering headphones. And I think PVC pipe-mounted tweeters aren't useful to music consumers -- as an actual speaker enclosure will add frequency response characteristics that are inseparable from the real-world listening experience.

Also, calling 24/96 "high resolution" is technically true, but as I think most of us should know, 24/196 is the minimal de-facto standard for what high-resolution audio is generally considered to be. Also note, the TSCAM unit shown outputs 15 bit effectively, so it suggests it records to 15 bits effective as well.

The "real-world listening experience" is irrelevant to a test of audibility of ultrasonics.  However, I have to agree that an ABX testing the perceptibility of a phenomena should at least ensure the presence of that phenomena!  The Tascam unit in question indeed only handles 15-bits effectively:
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/tascam/dr-100mkii.htm


Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: greynol on 2016-03-14 15:12:35
I haven't seen the data, but if the dynamic rage requirements of the testees didn't exceed the abilities of the device, then I don't see how it matters.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: Apesbrain on 2016-03-14 15:19:37
...dynamic rage...
Freudian slip.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: Wombat on 2016-03-14 15:33:07
The Tymphany tweeter is a cute little sucker!
I remember a famous study coming to a different conclusion but never showed how much of it was only the sound of high priced Beryllium IM.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: greynol on 2016-03-14 16:51:57
...dynamic rage...
Freudian slip.
I wish I could say it was intentional. :D
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: greynol on 2016-03-14 17:04:07
The Tymphany tweeter is a cute little sucker!
I remember a famous study coming to a different conclusion but never showed how much of it was only the sound of high priced Beryllium IM.
While the 15-bit equivalent capability of the Tascam would be inadequate in demonstrating a necessity for even redbook, I fail to see how the HF portion of the test is invalid. FR of the system (the test signal being reproduced in the given environment) measures well beyond the capability of redbook, correct?  At this point critics have only the participants left to blame.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: GUTB on 2016-03-14 17:26:04
In my view, the listening experience includes all sorts of non-musical information and psychological factors that cannot be separated from the musical information, so any attempt to isolate particular aspects of this complex and not well-understood formula is really only of academic interest.

Real instruments produce frequencies up to and excess of 100 kHz. Humans receive high-frequency information through bone conduction (not 100% certain we can't also receive it through the ear). Intermodular distortion, from its many sources, can both alter the audible spectrum, AND effect listeners psychologically. Room acoustics also heavily influence the listening experience. On top of all that, actual music is produced with attempts at implementing various techniques introducing psychologically-pleasing distortions. As has been very well established, perceptions of music enjoyment are linked to psychological frame of mind.

In my view there is a huge difference between the perception of sound vs the perception of music.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: greynol on 2016-03-14 17:33:16
None of that lends even a modicum of credibility that your hi-res unicorns exist.

IOW, you're just making it harder for yourself, not for those skeptical of your unsupported position.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: Wombat on 2016-03-14 17:39:27
In my view there is a huge difference between the perception of sound vs the perception of music.
You may be right and for music HF content is even less important as some test scenarios suggest. Try if you can hear a 18.5kHz lowpass.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: GUTB on 2016-03-14 17:46:40
None of that lends even a modicum of credibility that your hi-res unicorns exist.

IOW, you're just making it harder for yourself, not for those skeptical of your unsupported position.

Have you tried to find the hi-res unicorn and was unsuccessful? Could you post information about your listening chain? Here is mine:

Source: PCs playing 24/192 and DSD material mastered by audiophile labels from DXD masters.
DAC: Custom Sabre implementation (high-end op-amps and caps, discreet transformers for analog and digital circuits)
DAC transport: Schiit Wyrd with LH Labs Silver Sonic USB
Amp: Pioneer VXS-816
Headphone: Fostex TH900

The difference between the high-res and 16/44.1 downsamples of the same material is quite obvious with this setup. This is a fairly modest setup in regards to hi-fi audio (just a little over $2,000). I'm not trying to prove anything, because weather you believe me or not won't change what I hear, but maybe I could help you find what you've been missing out on.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: ajinfla on 2016-03-14 17:53:25
I'm not trying to prove anything
You can't.

weather you believe me or not won't change what I hear
About 80 degrees here and what you heard could simply be imagination, since you failed to account for it.

maybe I could help you find what you've been missing out on.
We have our own imagination to rely on, thanks.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: theriverlethe on 2016-03-14 18:00:48
In my view, the listening experience includes all sorts of non-musical information and psychological factors that cannot be separated from the musical information, so any attempt to isolate particular aspects of this complex and not well-understood formula is really only of academic interest.

Real instruments produce frequencies up to and excess of 100 kHz. Humans receive high-frequency information through bone conduction (not 100% certain we can't also receive it through the ear). Intermodular distortion, from its many sources, can both alter the audible spectrum, AND effect listeners psychologically. Room acoustics also heavily influence the listening experience. On top of all that, actual music is produced with attempts at implementing various techniques introducing psychologically-pleasing distortions. As has been very well established, perceptions of music enjoyment are linked to psychological frame of mind.

In my view there is a huge difference between the perception of sound vs the perception of music.

Sure - this is basically my reasoning for maintaining a library of extremely "high resolution" audio, by which I mean 16 bit 44kHz FLAC.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: krabapple on 2016-03-14 19:37:03
In my view, the listening experience includes all sorts of non-musical information and psychological factors that cannot be separated from the musical information, so any attempt to isolate particular aspects of this complex and not well-understood formula is really only of academic interest.

Yet, it's hardly the case that we know *nothing*.   And what we do know comes mainly from 'academic' research, most of which I'm guessing is unfamiliar to you.

Quote
Real instruments produce frequencies up to and excess of 100 kHz. Humans receive high-frequency information through bone conduction (not 100% certain we can't also receive it through the ear).

Have you any idea how loud you'd have to play music over loudspeakers, for bone conduction of UHF to work?

Quote
Intermodular distortion, from its many sources, can both alter the audible spectrum, AND effect listeners psychologically.

You mean 'intermodulation' distortion ...  and, so what?   The effect is in the *audible* band.  (Not to mention, do you really want to be inducing IM in your playback system?  That's what happens when you overload it with UHF and it's not a wide-range system.)


Quote
Room acoustics also heavily influence the listening experience.

You don't say?

Quote
On top of all that, actual music is produced with attempts at implementing various techniques introducing psychologically-pleasing distortions. As has been very well established, perceptions of music enjoyment are linked to psychological frame of mind.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that every damn fool belief one has about audio, is true, just because one  'perceived' something.  Cognitive bias factors into 'psychological frame of mind' in an extremely powerful and ubiquitous way.    That's why research into human audio perception virtually demands using double-blind controls for bias.

Quote
In my view there is a huge difference between the perception of sound vs the perception of music.

You get to have all sorts of 'views', but you don't get to have your own facts.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: krabapple on 2016-03-14 19:40:53
Also, calling 24/96 "high resolution" is technically true, but as I think most of us should know, 24/196 is the minimal de-facto standard for what high-resolution audio is generally considered to be.

Most 'audiophiles' maybe believe this nonsense, and some unscrupulous high-end marketers may tout it, but you'll find that most of 'us' here -- and most professionals who actually understand the science -- find that claim laughable.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: GUTB on 2016-03-14 21:22:54
Yet, it's hardly the case that we know *nothing*.  And what we do know comes mainly from 'academic' research, most of which I'm guessing is unfamiliar to you.

Well, at least you are willing to admit that there is much we still don't know.

Quote
Have you any idea how loud you'd have to play music over loudspeakers, for bone conduction of UHF to work?

Not off the top of my head, but considering that brain activity in relation to high frequency sound has been measured at reasonable listening volumes from loudspeakers, we can assume that bone conduction (or ear reception) is responsible for it. We aren't talking about tinnitus treatment machines.

Quote
You mean 'intermodulation' distortion ...  and, so what?  The effect is in the *audible* band.  (Not to mention, do you really want to be inducing IM in your playback system?  That's what happens when you overload it with UHF and it's not a wide-range system.)

We are discussing the test posted by the OP. I watched the presentation, in which the presenter states his goal as coming up with tests that are useful for music consumers and producers. Intermodulation, in my view (not closing the door on other views, thereby indicating my view can be subject to change), is an inseparable component of the music-listening experience through loudspeakers, and for a test to be useful to music consumers and producers, the test should account for all phenomena that are commonly encountered in the listening experience.

Quote
Yes, but that doesn't mean that every damn fool belief one has about audio, is true, just because one  'perceived' something.  Cognitive bias factors into 'psychological frame of mind' in an extremely powerful and ubiquitous way.    That's why research into human audio perception virtually demands using double-blind controls for bias.

Rather, it's up to research efforts to account for differences between perception and measurements, with the understanding that measurements are very limited, and many unknown factors remain. For example, you might believe that the difference between a $200 3-lbs class D amp from a $10,000 160-lbs class A amp comes down to SNR, IMD and THD ratings, and a few other minor measurements. However, those that listen to these amps can tell a tremendous difference that seem to have little to do with noise performance. Why? No one really knows -- not even the designers of the high end amp, who end up designing products through trail and error with many different components until they find a combination that sounds good to them. The job of research efforts is to try and identify and measure the phenomena at play.

Oh, and passing off amateur hour stunts at convention meetings (visual bias) as "research" shouldn't count.

Quote
You get to have all sorts of 'views', but you don't get to have your own facts.

Facts are welcome. Do you have any that contradict the views above?
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2016-03-14 21:39:28
It is not possible to conclusively disprove a statement. I could state that I have an invisible friend, why is a magical pink unicorn, and if you don't believe me, I invite you to disprove its existence. But luckily for me, its magical nature prevents any kind of measurement. Do you see where I'm going with this?

You're making outrageous statements that contradict the current scientific understanding of electronics used for the reproduction of recorded audio signals, therefore you must also provide the proof to back up your statements, if you expect people to believe them.

Quote
Have you any idea how loud you'd have to play music over loudspeakers, for bone conduction of UHF to work?

Not off the top of my head, but considering that brain activity in relation to high frequency sound has been measured at reasonable listening volumes from loudspeakers, we can assume that bone conduction (or ear reception) is responsible for it. We aren't talking about tinnitus treatment machines.

Please cite your sources.

And don't bother with the "hypersonic effect" that has been theorized by Tsutomu Oohashi et al., as that research has numerous glaring flaws, omissions and parts that are outright guesswork.

Quote
For example, you might believe that the difference between a $200 3-lbs class D amp from a $10,000 160-lbs class A amp comes down to SNR, IMD and THD ratings, and a few other minor measurements. However, those that listen to these amps can tell a tremendous difference that seem to have little to do with noise performance. Why? No one really knows -- not even the designers of the high end amp, who end up designing products through trail and error with many different components until they find a combination that sounds good to them.

In other words: Completely unsubstantiated grade-A bovine manure.

Reproduction and measurement of recorded signals isn't nearly as hard as the woo-woo audiophile manufacturersalchemists would have you believe.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: mzil on 2016-03-14 21:50:51
[For example, you might believe that the difference between a $200 3-lbs class D amp from a $10,000 160-lbs class A amp comes down to SNR, IMD and THD ratings, and a few other minor measurements. However, those that listen to these amps can tell a tremendous difference that seem to have little to do with noise performance. Why? No one really knows
I do. It's called expectation bias. I'd bet on it. In fact I have bet on it. It's so much fun to take money from know-it-all audiophiles while at the same time showing them up! [Although the Mark Levinson grade Proceed amp in the blind test I administered was $3500, and the Yamaha integrated amp was $500. Both were conventional class A/B.]
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: ajinfla on 2016-03-14 22:12:10
Well, at least you are willing to admit that there is much we still don't know.
Yes I admit there is much audiophiles don't know, especially about audio! Never mind logic (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_doesn't_know_everything), which they can't know.

we can assume that bone conduction (or ear reception) is responsible for it. We aren't talking about tinnitus treatment machines.
No. Believers can, "we" can't, unless with reliable, repeatable evidence.

for a test to be useful to music consumers and producers, the test should account for all phenomena that are commonly encountered in the listening experience.
100% agree.
So how do you audiophiles account for biases, volume level and self delusion commonly encountered in the "listening" experience?

For example, you might believe that the difference between a $200 3-lbs class D amp from a $10,000 160-lbs class A amp comes down to SNR, IMD and THD ratings, and a few other minor measurements. However, those that listen to these amps can tell a tremendous difference that seem to have little to do with noise performance. Why?
See above.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: theriverlethe on 2016-03-15 00:02:35
The Tymphany tweeter is a cute little sucker!
I remember a famous study coming to a different conclusion but never showed how much of it was only the sound of high priced Beryllium IM.
While the 15-bit equivalent capability of the Tascam would be inadequate in demonstrating a necessity for even redbook, I fail to see how the HF portion of the test is invalid. FR of the system (the test signal being reproduced in the given environment) measures well beyond the capability of redbook, correct?  At this point critics have only the participants left to blame.

Agreed, but high(er) dynamic range is part of the "high resolution" claim.  Benchmark Media, for example, likes to brag about their 130dB SNR.  It's equally as implausible as hearing ultrasonics, so...  What was the point of this test, again?
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: GUTB on 2016-03-15 00:16:33
Since some people on this forum hold a certain reverence for ABX testing, I decided to play around with it. I know that doing this isn't going to change anyone's mind, and I will be just be accused for cheating if I did "pass" ABX testing anyway so it's literally a lose-lose situation. But still, I'm interested, the tools are easily available, and following some famous successes at ABX-ing high-resolution audio, I went and downloaded the ABX music set from AVS -- I didn't read a single post on that thread, just scrolled down to the download link and clicked it. I didn't cheat in any way.

Going into this, I knew it would be tough -- I tried A/B-ing a 24/96 vs 16/44.1 version of one track I had in my library and I simply could not tell the difference. A/B-ing the down-sampled DSD-256 file I discussed early in another thread was much more significant. Doing it blind with songs I have never heard before, I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't hear anything at all. Now, this was a first run, just to kill an hour, so I didn't put the track through an extensive critical listening regime, I just stopped at a section I thought the difference was pronounced (symbol taps starting at 01:20) and took the test from there. Let me just say, the difference is SMALL. Very slight. It wasn't until half-way through the test that I thought I had finally nailed down what to listen for -- but at that point, audio memory was smearing things, so towards the end I was reduced to just going with my gut reaction on what I felt was that tad more open on the sound signature of the cymbals. I made these judgement on a 15 second snippet of the track, trying to determine them based solely on the symbol hits.

Quote
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.9
2016-03-14 19:31:10

File A: Just_My_Imagination_A2.wav
SHA1: 2a913086b5e4c2fa052e643a2ad11c18ea598cff
File B: Just_My_Imagination_B2.wav
SHA1: 654dcecc9137b29f980d8d28fd63b5470b4695dd

Output:
ASIO : XMOS USB Audio 2.0 ST 2023
Crossfading: NO

19:31:10 : Test started.
19:33:28 : 00/01
19:36:19 : 00/02
19:38:05 : 00/03
19:39:33 : 00/04
19:44:35 : 00/05
19:45:22 : 01/06
19:47:09 : 02/07
19:49:28 : 03/08
19:52:20 : 04/09
19:54:22 : 05/10
19:54:22 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 5/10
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: rick.hughes on 2016-03-15 04:03:43
Since some people on this forum hold a certain reverence for ABX testing, I decided to play around with it. I know that doing this isn't going to change anyone's mind, and I will be just be accused for cheating if I did "pass" ABX testing anyway so it's literally a lose-lose situation. But still, I'm interested, the tools are easily available, and following some famous successes at ABX-ing high-resolution audio, I went and downloaded the ABX music set from AVS -- I didn't read a single post on that thread, just scrolled down to the download link and clicked it. I didn't cheat in any way.

Going into this, I knew it would be tough -- I tried A/B-ing a 24/96 vs 16/44.1 version of one track I had in my library and I simply could not tell the difference. A/B-ing the down-sampled DSD-256 file I discussed early in another thread was much more significant. Doing it blind with songs I have never heard before, I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't hear anything at all. Now, this was a first run, just to kill an hour, so I didn't put the track through an extensive critical listening regime, I just stopped at a section I thought the difference was pronounced (symbol taps starting at 01:20) and took the test from there. Let me just say, the difference is SMALL. Very slight. It wasn't until half-way through the test that I thought I had finally nailed down what to listen for -- but at that point, audio memory was smearing things, so towards the end I was reduced to just going with my gut reaction on what I felt was that tad more open on the sound signature of the cymbals. I made these judgement on a 15 second snippet of the track, trying to determine them based solely on the symbol hits.

Quote
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.9
2016-03-14 19:31:10

File A: Just_My_Imagination_A2.wav
SHA1: 2a913086b5e4c2fa052e643a2ad11c18ea598cff
File B: Just_My_Imagination_B2.wav
SHA1: 654dcecc9137b29f980d8d28fd63b5470b4695dd

Output:
ASIO : XMOS USB Audio 2.0 ST 2023
Crossfading: NO

19:31:10 : Test started.
19:33:28 : 00/01
19:36:19 : 00/02
19:38:05 : 00/03
19:39:33 : 00/04
19:44:35 : 00/05
19:45:22 : 01/06
19:47:09 : 02/07
19:49:28 : 03/08
19:52:20 : 04/09
19:54:22 : 05/10
19:54:22 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 5/10

Ironic choice of material for an unlikely failed test result. Having a little fun with us?

Beginning to smell like a troll.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: mzil on 2016-03-15 05:50:42
^Well there are only three songs to choose from at that thread and that's the funny name one of them:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1598417-avs-aix-high-resolution-audio-test-take-2-a.html


@GUTB you seem to have accidentally truncated your ABX test results. Please use the scroll bar and re-paste it in its entirety, so we can see your full report. Thanks.

Quote
It wasn't until half-way through the test that I thought I had finally nailed down what to listen for
I guess it must be frustrating that subsequently to taking this test, after having "nailed down what to listen for" mid way through the test, you then lost it and couldn't hear the difference any longer, I guess, so all your later tests after it similarly show your failure to distinguish any audible difference with any strong statistical significance.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: ajinfla on 2016-03-15 10:14:56
Beginning to smell like a troll.
Beginning?? ;)
Hey it's be nice and welcoming to tro...excuse me, new members week, get with the program Rick.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: dhromed on 2016-03-15 11:53:47
However, those that listen to these amps can tell a tremendous difference that seem to have little to do with noise performance. Why? No one really knows
ಠ_ಠ
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: xnor on 2016-03-15 18:07:09
Since some people on this forum hold a certain reverence for ABX testing, I decided to play around with it.
People here value methods and tests that are reproducible, try to eliminate biases, produce actual evidence instead of opinions and anecdotes. Of course! Who wouldn't?!

I know that doing this isn't going to change anyone's mind, and I will be just be accused for cheating if I did "pass" ABX testing anyway so it's literally a lose-lose situation.
No, it really isn't.  If you actually heard a difference you should be able to pass an ABX test or a set of tests.

It wasn't until half-way through the test that I thought I had finally nailed down what to listen for -- but at that point, audio memory was smearing things, so towards the end I was reduced to just going with my gut reaction on what I felt was that tad more open on the sound signature of the cymbals.
Nobody is forcing you to do trials within 1-2 minutes. Give it more time if you need that and come back if you genuinely and honestly can say (to us and especially yourself) that you've heard a difference, with evidence to back it up. Then it would be nice if you could tell us what you heard and where in the track.

Total: 5/10
Even if you say that you heard a difference in the second half of the test (which again could be just bias on your side, same as your claims about big audible differences that you now start to recognize are "SMALL" at the most), you have to realize and accept that this is not better than flipping a coin.
Even 9/10 is expected to happen by just randomly mashing buttons (or flipping a coin). That's statistics, and ABX results are useful exactly because we can quantify these probabilities.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: krabapple on 2016-03-16 16:40:55

Rather, it's up to research efforts to account for differences between perception and measurements, with the understanding that measurements are very limited, and many unknown factors remain.


You couldn't be more wrong.  And you keep making this mistake over and over. So one fore time: The very first thing an audio  perception research effort will do, is determine whether the effect exists *apart from* the cognitive biases that all humans are subject to.  Once that hurdle has been met, *then* you can start analyzing what the cause might be.


.
Quote
For example, you might believe that the difference between a $200 3-lbs class D amp from a $10,000 160-lbs class A amp comes down to SNR, IMD and THD ratings, and a few other minor measurements. However, those that listen to these amps can tell a tremendous difference that seem to have little to do with noise performance. Why? No one really knows -- not even the designers of the high end amp, who end up designing products through trail and error with many different components until they find a combination that sounds good to them. The job of research efforts is to try and identify and measure the phenomena at play.

Is this your idea of 'research'?

Quote
Oh, and passing off amateur hour stunts at convention meetings (visual bias) as "research" shouldn't count.

No, it shouldn't, and doesn't.   Neither should sighted listening anecdotes .  The fact remains that DBTs are a standard requirement for valid audio research into audible difference.  Where's your data showing that audible amp difference are 'mysterious'?



Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: krabapple on 2016-03-21 20:56:13
Immersive test coverage/links here too

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2370801-test-your-ability-hear-high-res-audio.html#post42494449
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: greynol on 2016-03-21 21:58:54
...the overwhelming majority of ignorant posts in that discussion, wow!  Even one pointing to Monty's video still got it painfully wrong.

Thanks, krab?
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: krabapple on 2016-03-22 03:21:22
I linked it here mainly for the first post, reporting Immersive's POV in some detail. 

For the rest, proceed at your own risk.    ;D   But there's definitely some HA-friendly posting in there.  It's not all wrong.


.
Title: Re: Subjective Tests Indicate High-Resolution Audio Offers No Benefits
Post by: greynol on 2016-03-22 05:27:03
I still don't see the point with such a stale subject.  A couple of our newer members might find a better fit over there, however.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019