Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: katananja on 2018-11-03 21:32:27

Title: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-03 21:32:27
Images say much more than words, people are saying they can hear the difference, how?

This is the original Japanese press of the Andrea Bocelli Sogno album.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTYxbXTP/Sogno-cd-japan.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5G7twfV/03-Sogno-cd-japan-flac.png)

This is the same album, with a big K2 HD label on it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbmpRdd4/Sogno-cd-japan-k2hd.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwzyqqn9/03-Sogno-k2hd-flac.png)

This is the Vivere album, also with a big K2 HD label on it, more compressed than the K2 HD sogno album.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKShdks/sogno-vivere.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxmF19HT/02-Sogno-vivere-k2hd-flac.png)

How this clown, Takeshi Hakamata (http://victorstudio.jp/flair/e/engineers/212.html) manage to call himself "audio engineer"? He is deaf or something?

Sorry to use this words but this crap cost money to import and it wasn't cheap! I'm tired of this shit, how come the original standard Audio CD sound better than the K2 HD version and there are people saying that the K2 HD version is better??
WHERE???
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: spoon on 2018-11-03 22:59:00
Is that not the main task of audio engineers these days, to compress the audio? Louder tracks = sell more
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: JabbaThePrawn on 2018-11-03 23:22:57
Is that not the main task of audio engineers these days, to compress the audio? Louder tracks = sell more
The engineer may well be acting on instructions from higher up the industry food chain. For all we know, he loathed every moment that he spent compressing this recording to buggery.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-04 07:13:18
The guy also signed the album...
Master Engineer: 袴田剛史 Hakamata Takeshi
(https://i.postimg.cc/QNcqnY91/master-engineer.jpg)

Let's get rid of our volume controls, let's this clowns decide how loud we listen this stuff up...
Dynamic range, who cares?
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: magicgoose on 2018-11-04 08:10:53
The guy also signed the album...
Master Engineer: 袴田剛史 Hakamata Takeshi
(https://i.postimg.cc/QNcqnY91/master-engineer.jpg)

Let's get rid of our volume controls, let's this clowns decide how loud we listen this stuff up...
Dynamic range, who cares?
The only way now is to vote with money.
If you bought a damaged record, upload log to DR database, tell other people, request a refund from the seller or label, etc.
If you know a record is gonna be shit, don't buy it.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-04 13:07:15
The only way now is to vote with money.
If you bought a damaged record, upload log to DR database, tell other people, request a refund from the seller or label, etc.
If you know a record is gonna be shit, don't buy it.
I wish if life could be that easy...
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Moni on 2018-11-04 13:45:48
It's a mastering chain/process that has been around for a long while. Some details: http://www.stereomojo.com/K2%20HD/K2HDReview.htm

In short, you can use whatever converters, dithering, etc. you want, if it is lacking in dynamic range and exhibits artifacts from overzealous dynamics processing, it simply won't matter.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-04 13:59:40
I have to admit that one extremely well sounding CD in my collection is Rob Wasserman's Duets as K2HD version.
I don't have the standard version anymore to compare.
The pure DR numbers are the same for my K2HD release as the regular one in the database here: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/13760
The digipack also credits Hakamata Takeshi.
I remember to have read some of the K2HD releases are new transfers while others only seem to be pimped versions.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: magicgoose on 2018-11-05 13:20:05
The only way now is to vote with money.
If you bought a damaged record, upload log to DR database, tell other people, request a refund from the seller or label, etc.
If you know a record is gonna be shit, don't buy it.
I wish if life could be that easy...
At least this has some chance. Simply doing nothing obviously won't work better than this. And I'm not sure if there's some 3rd strategy that will work better than this... Other than being a musician/producer yourself and setting a good example.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: krabapple on 2018-11-05 19:01:35
Is that not the main task of audio engineers these days, to compress the audio? Louder tracks = sell more
The engineer may well be acting on instructions from higher up the industry food chain. For all we know, he loathed every moment that he spent compressing this recording to buggery.

I would hardly call the waveforms shown above 'compressed to buggery'.  They're not exactly the bricks we see in pop or rock music.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-05 19:44:26
Indeed.

Many tend to focus only on the loudest parts of the tracks without noticing that the quieter portions aren't also jacked. In fact the loud parts in this situation look to be only subjected to fairly mild limiting.

It seems like people are just looking at pictures and data instead of first listening inevitably leading to expectation bias.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-07 14:12:02
It seems like people are just looking at pictures and data instead of first listening inevitably leading to expectation bias.
I can only talk about myself, once you learn where to look in to, you get it every time and you can't ignore it, just like when you learn to ride a bike, you can't unlearn it.
This over compress music sound too full to many of us, matter of fact, the experience it's in fact not what you can hear but what you can't. Is possible to understand this if you get the experience to be in an anechoic chamber, it's a terrible experience by the way.

Your perception of hearing change 100%, you feel that something is missing, same happen with this over compressed crap, it's not about what you can or can't hear.
It's hard to describe, once you are used to music with no compression and with full dynamics, once you hear crap like this I feel anxious, eager, restless. My analogy it's like if you take a deep breath in, breathe out a small chunk of air and try to take a full breath in again, but you can't, your lungs are overloaded. You try to do this a minute or two to understand how anxious you gonna get.

I feel the same with this over compressed crap.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-07 17:20:05
I'd say the last version should be obvious, but the middle one not so much, especially since the first version appears to have compression/limiting applied as well!

I can say this much for certain, the amount of compression in the middle one would definitely not be an issue for contemporary, non-acoustical music.  ...unless people are first judging with their eyes. ;)
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: krabapple on 2018-11-07 23:24:27
It seems like people are just looking at pictures and data instead of first listening inevitably leading to expectation bias.
I can only talk about myself, once you learn where to look in to, you get it every time and you can't ignore it, just like when you learn to ride a bike, you can't unlearn it.
This over compress music sound too full to many of us, matter of fact, the experience it's in fact not what you can hear but what you can't. Is possible to understand this if you get the experience to be in an anechoic chamber, it's a terrible experience by the way.

Your perception of hearing change 100%, you feel that something is missing, same happen with this over compressed crap, it's not about what you can or can't hear.


An experience in an anaechoic chamber of feeling that there are things you 'can't hear' comes from the fact that you are hearing *nothing*. No auditory stimuli.  With dynamical range compression this feeling, to the extent it exists at all, would come from have louder, distracting input.  IOW, just the opposite.
 

Quote
It's hard to describe, once you are used to music with no compression and with full dynamics, once you hear crap like this I feel anxious, eager, restless.

Then again, there is compression in virtually *all* popular recorded music, dating back to at least the 1960s. It's not all the same and it doesn't all produce the same response.


Quote
I feel the same with this over compressed crap.

I seriously doubt you have ever tested yourself to find what  levels constitute uncomfortable 'over compression' to you.  Especially if you rely on waveforms, replaygain values,  and TNT Meter nonsense, versus your ears. 
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-08 15:07:15

An experience in an anaechoic chamber of feeling that there are things you 'can't hear' comes from the fact that you are hearing *nothing*. No auditory stimuli.  With dynamical range compression this feeling, to the extent it exists at all, would come from have louder, distracting input.  IOW, just the opposite.
This is not what I was talking about, I was talking about the capability of our brain to fill in the gaps, it doesn't matter if it's music notes, images, etc. And the missing gap that our brain keeps filling in, specially when it is over stimulated, it might result in this anxious and restless feeling.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124214-your-brain-fills-gaps-in-your-hearing-without-you-realising/
https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/09/19/brains-hippocampus-helps-fill-in-the-blanks-of-language/

This is related with psychophysics by the way.

Quote
Then again, there is compression in virtually *all* popular recorded music, dating back to at least the 1960s. It's not all the same and it doesn't all produce the same response.
Partially agree.
We have a much more personal and portable music now than we had in the 60's. One thing is to make your music louder to play in a 60's radio or inside a noisy store, other very different is to make it even louder to people to listen to with headphones.

Quote
Especially if you rely on waveforms, replaygain values,  and TNT Meter nonsense, versus your ears.I seriously doubt you have ever tested yourself to find what  levels constitute uncomfortable 'over compression' to you.
I don't rely only on waveforms, I've described how anyone can sense this if you know what to look/listen for. For the sake of waveforms and people saying that "you don't listen to music and just look at the graphics",  you don't stick your hand inside the fire to mesure temperature, you have more sophisticated ways to do that.
With or without waveforms, it sound like crap anyway.

Our brain makes no sense about a lot of things, I don't trust it and science have proven that you shouldn't either. A simple test made in 1995 by the Professor Edward H. Adelson at Vision Science at MIT, both A and B squares has the same values of gray and it doesn't matter how hard you look at it you'll see A and B different.
(https://i.imgur.com/s22sccn.png)

Look at this two pictures, witch one is sharper?
(https://i.imgur.com/7H5gTPb.png)

If you said the guy on the right, your own brain is making a foll out of you again. What you eyes see and your brain wrongly interpret as sharper is this white noise.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It doesn't matter how hard I try to tell you otherwise, you'll see the right image sharper and not noisier, unless you know where to look. Remember what I've told about learning to ride a bike, I'm sure you'll never look in to a "sharper" image the same again.

As has been shown, you can't only trust on your brain to interpret what you see or hear, if you still can't agree answer this, Yanny or Laurel? I hear Yanny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X_WvGAhMlQ
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 15:32:40
Little to none of what you presented is news to krabapple (or me for that matter).  What you haven't shown is what the actual difference between your first to examples besides what little can be gleaned from your pretty pictures.

Please keep your anecdotes to yourself.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 15:39:22
BTW, you have shown nothing to support the idea that your brain filling gaps has any relation to dynamic range compression.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 15:56:33
If you want to use pictures to provide visual support for the differences between the first two versions, show 3:05 to 3:20 zoomed in from -6dB to 0dBFS.  I recommend using a a better program than Audacity to do this, but go ahead and use what you have.

That is the area with the most significant difference.  It would be a far more reasonable baseline in terms of a visual demonstration. It still doesn't serve as objective evidence, however. Quite frankly, no amount of visual evidence or hand waving is going to cut it.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-08 16:07:51
Beside the obvious compression and lack of dynamics?

The Japanese CD cost me about at the time $10 bucks, maybe less, the crap cost me $300 plus shipping. I don't mind to pay premium to import products, like SACD, DVD-A, some rare QUAD album/reels.

What else can be shown?

Quote
BTW, you have shown nothing to support the idea that your brain filling gaps has any relation to dynamic range compression.
If this is not new to you or your friend, as you said, you should known better what an anecdotal evidence is. Can I hear this difference, yes I can! Can I show you how, no I can't. The only way to prove it is showing some fancy, beautiful, graphics.
The same way "Yanny or Laurel" audio does to everybody, if you are deaf at high frequencies you will never understand how people can perceive audio dynamics and you will keep hearing "Laurel" instead of "Yanny".

You can't hear it or perceive it, so to you, it will make no sense at all.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 16:15:20
Please review our terms of service which you agreed to follow upon registering, paying special attention to rule 8.

If you know anything about psychoacoustics you wouldn't have bothered trying to pass off what are unsubstantiated (i.e.: useless) claims.  Your doubling-down with unrelated scientific studies only worsens your position.

Claims without evidence are anecdotal. What you've provided thus far is textbook anecdotal.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-08 16:28:42
That's pretty subjective.
There is no scientific studies that can quantify how much you love your mother, for example. I have mine and you have yours, doesn't matter how scientific you want to get, it's all anecdotal, it can't be proven.

By your logic, if you say you love your mother, I can assume your "claim" is false by lack of evidence.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-08 16:34:24
Proof...

Promise
(https://i.postimg.cc/859r7RXR/k2hd-03.gif)

Delivered
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwzyqqn9/03-Sogno-k2hd-flac.png)

Standard CD
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5G7twfV/03-Sogno-cd-japan-flac.png)

Nobody hear that high, but any way, if you want to look at something, this is another place to look.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 16:53:34
...and by that you mean, "now for something completely unrelated..."

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,3974.html
See #8 and the description that follows later.

This forum was founded on the principle of operating from objective evidence as it specifically applies to the field of psychoacoustics.

...not psychobabble.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-08 17:13:13
I don't know how more objective that can be.
1. I've shown that you can't trust your brain to see or hear anything.
2. You need tools to assist you test something.
3. I've also shown that you can't proof anecdotal evidence.

I also recommend that you read the title, I'm affirming or questioning?
The topic is much more a discussion about the K2HD crap than a topic about objective evidence that K2HD is crap.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 17:32:46
I recommend you stop embarrassing yourself and read that link I provided.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-08 17:54:54
I recommend you the same, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN!
You are the one embarrassing yourself and you look dumb doing it.
Quote
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims.

What do I need to provide?
Quote
Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on

What you said about my waveforms and graphs?
Quote
I seriously doubt you have ever tested yourself to find what  levels constitute uncomfortable 'over compression' to you.  Especially if you rely on waveforms, replaygain values,  and TNT Meter nonsense, versus your ears.

If I can't rely on waveforms and graphs what do you expect me to rely on?
As a moderator you should NEVER escalate things, ever!

You have something to say YOU counterargument my points, you counterargument my graphs and waveforms and not act like a stupid.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-08 18:08:51
"Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support."

If you want to go back the broader scope of your discussion that, "K2 sounds like crap," then it is up to you to validate that claim per our rules.  If "the best of your ability" doesn't meet the criteria required by these rules then we can't actually have a meaningful discussion and as such you have no business raising the issue.

There is no need to provide any counterarguments.  The burden falls on you to prove your claim.

you can't trust your brain to [...] hear anything.
Indeed, hence our requirement for objective evidence by way of properly controlled double-blind testing.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 11:16:44
Sorry mate, the forum didn't notified me about your reply.

Well, I'm not asking for support or either offering support to anything, it's just a discussion and yes I have a business raising a discussion.

About the criteria, ABX or AB tests has a flaw in it that I've already explained, you can't trust your brain to interpret what you see with your eyes or hear with your ears to make qualified decisions unless you know what to look for or has some training in the field to pick up the small nuances and subtle details. People are different, that is why you need tools to assist you.

I'm not saying that DBT is not important,it is, but you can't rely only on them to make decisions because our brains it's not binary, A or B, 1 or 0, our brain has too many variables to account for.
Here is Paul McGowan to share some light on the issue, the guy is CEO of PS Audio and share the same opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2MsscuBnM

If AB test is so important to you, there you have it, enough to test your senses.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: magicgoose on 2018-11-10 15:21:45
Sorry mate, the forum didn't notified me about your reply.

Well, I'm not asking for support or either offering support to anything, it's just a discussion and yes I have a business raising a discussion.

About the criteria, ABX or AB tests has a flaw in it that I've already explained, you can't trust your brain to interpret what you see with your eyes or hear with your ears to make qualified decisions unless you know what to look for or has some training in the field to pick up the small nuances and subtle details. People are different, that is why you need tools to assist you.

I'm not saying that DBT is not important,it is, but you can't rely only on them to make decisions because our brains it's not binary, A or B, 1 or 0, our brain has too many variables to account for.
Here is Paul McGowan to share some light on the issue, the guy is CEO of PS Audio and share the same opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2MsscuBnM

If AB test is so important to you, there you have it, enough to test your senses.

Apparently you don't get it.
What he wants is a proof that you are able to hear the difference. This means, at least, a log from ABX comparing utility where you consistently detect the difference between these samples.
And it's not there, the archive contains only samples themselves.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-10 15:22:49
Well, I'm not asking for support or either offering support to anything, it's just a discussion and yes I have a business raising a discussion.

About the criteria, ABX or AB tests has a flaw in it that I've already explained, you can't trust your brain to interpret what you see with your eyes or hear with your ears to make qualified decisions unless you know what to look for or has some training in the field to pick up the small nuances and subtle details. People are different, that is why you need tools to assist you.

I'm not saying that DBT is not important,it is, but you can't rely only on them to make decisions because our brains it's not binary, A or B, 1 or 0, our brain has too many variables to account for.
Here is Paul McGowan to share some light on the issue, the guy is CEO of PS Audio and share the same opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2MsscuBnM

If AB test is so important to you, there you have it, enough to test your senses.
Hydrogenaudio is not for you then, thanks.
Edit: A nice place where variable brain binaries can help Alien Abduction Help Forum (http://alienabductionhelp.com/phpBB3/index.php)
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 16:48:56
And there you have it: you need to be able to detect subtle nuances when you don't know which sample you're listening to. When you do know which is which ahead of time, the differences are night and day.

Classic.

So which is it, the middle K2 release is obviously crap, making you feel like you're in an anechoic chamber or the differences between middle K2 release and the non-K2 release are only subtle?
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 17:17:34
Apparently you don't get it.
What he wants is a proof that you are able to hear the difference. This means, at least, a log from ABX comparing utility where you consistently detect the difference between these samples.
And it's not there, the archive contains only samples themselves.
Apparently, you are.
Here:
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.5 report
foobar2000 v1.4
2018-11-10 15:12:40

File A: _a.flac
SHA1: 6bb13eaaf1e88834a70821f6ed944df669cfbf44
File B: b.flac
SHA1: 105c78ff2ac0bf37a1075e35f9d4e3d74b5b007e

Output:
DS : Driver de som primário
Crossfading: NO

15:12:40 : Test started.
15:13:54 : 01/01
15:14:04 : 02/02
15:14:14 : 03/03
15:14:22 : 04/04
15:14:33 : 05/05
15:14:44 : 06/06
15:14:59 : 07/07
15:15:12 : 08/08
15:15:26 : 09/09
15:15:38 : 10/10
15:15:38 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

 -- signature --
c120902a839f19e31891ff12cb93f617aee80fd7

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.5 report
foobar2000 v1.4
2018-11-10 15:05:09

File A: 03. Sogno_cd_japan.flac
SHA1: b05d756a44e46fa76e91c7de2f20c7f1ffa31878
File B: 03. Sogno_k2hd.flac
SHA1: 6c0de7fb3169025d8641bb8d6f42b05fab8f52b8

Output:
DS : Driver de som primário
Crossfading: NO

15:05:09 : Test started.
15:06:39 : 01/01
15:06:50 : 02/02
15:07:00 : 03/03
15:07:15 : 04/04
15:07:23 : 05/05
15:07:31 : 06/06
15:07:38 : 07/07
15:07:47 : 08/08
15:07:57 : 09/09
15:08:06 : 10/10
15:08:06 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%

 -- signature --
81aa6b9e34aa39ca77f6507b5f4251ffe3e20443
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 17:29:34
For giggles I went ahead and watched the youtube video and agree that in order to be good at listening tests you need training and an adequate reproduction system.

He is completely off the mark by saying that the difference between blind AB testing and ABX testing is that people are standing over you, not allowing you the proper time to make choices. He is also wrong in implying that one can't take their time and listen to A or B in an ABX test and freely switch between the two.  Also, in an ABX test you are allowed to know which is which, you just need to match X up to one or the other. It really is no different than how he describes his ideal AB forced-choice test.

If you truly like the sound quality of A or B better than you will have to identify the difference in either style of test.  If one is truly able to perceive a difference then it shouldn't be a problem getting the same result after a dozen trials. In order to be able to determine whether you can do better than deciding by flipping a coin is to be presented with X which is either A or B while still always knowing that you can switch between a known A and a known B as often as you like for as long as you like.  If one sounds like crap or you are trained to identify subtle differences, passing the test should be no problem. If it turns out the the differences are too subtle to pass the test then they are too subtle to matter.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 17:38:27
...of course the two samples have to be time-aligned and level-matched.  Level-matching is a requirement that Paul McGowan stated, himself.  I'm sure he would agree that the samples be time-aligned in order not to provide a cue as to which is which.

Neither time-alignment nor level-matching have been done with the samples used in the ABX test above.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 17:49:45
"You need proof that you are able to hear the difference...a log from ABX"
"...of course the two samples have to be time-aligned and level-matched.  Neither have been done with the samples used with the above ABX test."

Do I need to jump in one foot while I do it too?
Hahahahahahahahahaha... Omg!

You have the same samples I have (check the hash), why don't you guys share some logs with us?
What ever dude...
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-10 18:04:38
Hearing and abx this 1dB level difference of the samples does not exactly need golden ears or variable brain binaries.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 18:06:45
Time alignment and level matching aren't that difficult.  They are crucial, dude.

FWIW, I am a trained listener and have been employed in that capacity.  The differences between the two time-aligned and level-matched samples are only subtle at the most.  One is definitely not utter crap compared to the other.

Quite honestly, I'd prefer a more dynamic version than either of these two.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 18:13:23
Well, trained listener, show us some logs not less than mine.
If you or who ever can't do that and now are given excuses, we have nothing else to discuss.

K2HD is crap, simples as that.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 18:43:38
Hearing and abx this 1dB level difference of the samples does not exactly need golden ears or variable brain binaries.
Yeah but, can your ears pickup  a 1 dB difference in a ABX test? You figure that out using tools, that my point since the beginning.
Or you need time alignment, planet alignment or what ever excuse people will came up with next.

You guys are taking too much time to come up with the logs, it's easy right?
I have something better to do.

Have a good one.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-10 18:47:00
Lets talk about 0.3dB or less in level difference is hard to abx. If 1dB is you have the wrong hobby.
Please show us the log of the samples greynol fixed for you.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 18:53:23
Well, trained listener, show us some logs not less than mine.
If you or who ever can't do that and now are given excuses, we have nothing else to discuss.

K2HD is crap, simples as that.
What if I gave you a test that showed I could do no better than using a coin to do the selection?

Do you get it now?

Try the corrected samples I provided.  Then tell me how a difference that is hardly stark can distinguish between crap and not crap in any rational way.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 19:06:44
Yeah but, can your ears pickup  a 1 dB difference in a ABX test? You figure that out using tools, that my point since the beginning.
You use tools that test your ability to hear differences, actually hear differences.

Pretty graphs test your ability to detect light.  Last I checked, the tools that are used to detect light aren't the ones that are used to detect sound.

An ABX test isolates the tool used to detect sound from other tools that do not.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: The Irish Man on 2018-11-10 19:43:46

Yeah but, can your ears pickup  a 1 dB difference in a ABX test? You figure that out using tools, that my point since the beginning.
Or you need time alignment, planet alignment or what ever excuse people will came up with next.

I say you losing this argument.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 19:46:33
With three versions one can perform an ABC/HR test which allows for ranking.  This is a great way to separate crap from not crap.

The caveat is that ranking the reference too low will invalidate the rest of the test results.  This can easily happen when someone isn't conservative enough and tries to show a large difference in preference between all three when a large preference isn't appropriate.  This can easily happen when at least two of the three samples have only very slight differences and the person performing the test makes a mistake in identifying the reference.  Whenever there is the slightest doubt one will need to rank the top two with the highest score which doesn't work so well in demonstrating that anything besides the reference is crap.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 19:53:40
Try the corrected samples I provided.  Then tell me how a difference that is hardly stark can distinguish between crap and not crap in any rational way.

Again, more and more excuses... it's because this, that.. the alignment, the moon, the planets, the wind...
There you have it.

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.5 report
foobar2000 v1.4
2018-11-10 17:34:35

File A: 1.flac
SHA1: dc50b0ddae78a86a8bba8cd9971a7ef8ef0848ed
File B: 2.flac
SHA1: 8ebb615cbbabeef02a278808c2891c2484681520

Output:
DS : Driver de som primário
Crossfading: NO

17:34:35 : Test started.
17:34:54 : 01/01
17:35:27 : 02/02
17:35:51 : 03/03
17:36:14 : 04/04
17:36:45 : 04/05
17:37:07 : 05/06
17:37:29 : 06/07
17:37:52 : 07/08
17:38:20 : 08/09
17:38:46 : 09/10
17:38:46 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 9/10
Probability that you were guessing: 1.1%

 -- signature --
b1d44f488c83bb3fb5791ef9596d212920b8f10c
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 19:56:42
Oh by the way...
I want a log from you guys too. ;)

Ps: Equal or better.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 20:02:04
Oh by the way 2...
Foobar sound like shit and EQ is garbage.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: The Irish Man on 2018-11-10 20:42:37
Oh by the way 2...
Foobar sound like shit and EQ is garbage.

Can I ask what have you been taking?
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 20:44:14
I want a log from you guys too. ;)
What do you hope to accomplish with this?  This about what you think and how you came about getting there.  This was never about what others can do.

So...

At 4 minutes to conduct 10 trials I wouldn't say you can honestly claim the version you didn't like as well as being crap.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 20:53:00
Oh...

Assuming you've judged the two samples without looking at them, that is to say using only your ears, which of the two would you say is crappier?
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: katananja on 2018-11-10 21:08:56
What do you hope to accomplish with this?  This about what you think and how you came about getting there.  This was never about what others can do.

So...

At 4 minutes to conduct 10 trials I wouldn't say you can honestly claim the version you didn't like as well as being crap.

What excuses you are gonna give now?
I don't agree with ABX tests for the reasons already explained, but did it any way and pass. Not enough, you asked me to repeat the test again with your samples, altered by your standards, by your "rules", by the way you felt it should be done, and I pass it, again.

This is not about what "I think", but what I can hear and you people can't, simple as that. This doesn't make me special in any way, again, people are different, there is a lot of variables to make this possible, with the proper training, years of experience it only show that I've proof my point. If I only took 4 min, so what?
I've training and expertize in the field, I know what to look for.

You know what, is pointless to try to have a conversation, I did your way didn't I? Be a man, have the balls to admit it (I'm a woman by the way), I really can hear what I say I can.
Good luck to you, I'll not return to this forum anymore.
Bye.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 21:28:25
And you still don't seem to get it.

Process in drilling down to a scientifically valid way to get to the truth was all this ever was.  I'm sorry you decided to make this a pissing contest.

I'm happy that you were willing to perform a more controlled test and, despite what you might think, I'm also pleased that you passed.  However it would be a bit silly if you came away from this strongly believing that a slightly more compressed version over an already compressed version is utter garbage.  To me the distortion in this tiny snippet is audible in either case.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-10 21:32:31
Foobar sound like shit
Now you're just taking the piss (I think I'm using the term properly).
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-10 22:41:35
(https://i.postimg.cc/859r7RXR/k2hd-03.gif)
Looking at that picture it may describe adding reconstructed harmonics.
I find myself sometimes liking this effect.
It may be the difference on the Rob Wasserman album i mentioned earlier that seems to have no additional compression.
I will try to offer some samples if interest is there.

I have a hard time to abx anything at the PC since i have a new board and only the generic Realtek onboard chip. Everything sounds slightly distorted. The 1dB difference is no problem but most other things are.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: bdunham7 on 2018-11-11 15:39:35
Quote
Process in drilling down to a scientifically valid way to get to the truth was all this ever was.  I'm sorry you decided to make this a pissing contest.

I'm happy that you were willing to perform a more controlled test and, despite what you might think, I'm also pleased that you passed.  However it would be a bit silly if you came away from this strongly believing that a slightly more compressed version over an already compressed version is utter garbage.  To me the distortion in this tiny snippet is audible in either case.

As reluctant as I am in getting near pissing contests without a good raincoat, I just wanted to make two comments.

First, I've been reading HA for a long time, and this topic is exactly the reason why--to learn about these things.  Should I buy a K2HD product?  How does it work?  Is it "better"?  Although the OP's attitude towards debate and inquiry was regrettable, I have to thank him or her for bringing it up.  I wish the discussion had been even more productive.  The topic of visual representations of sound, whether by waveform or spectrograph, and how they do or not translate into audibility, is one that I would like to see more of--less the combativeness and the assumptions that many tend to make.

Second, reducing the debate to disputing a characterization such as "utter garbage" is not helpful.  The OP called K2HD "crap" and other things, Greynol points out that the differences are small.  I would opine that K2HD, at least in this small example, is indeed "utter garbage" and the fact that the end product of this wonderful process is only marginally worse than the original just proves that point.  Those of us who are audio hobbyists are continually bombarded with new products that purport to improve our sound and those products can be worthwhile, unnecessary, worthless, ludicrous or even detrimental.  Anything in the last two categories that is falsely marketed as beneficial will get an enthusiastic "UG" rating from me.  And reading HA is one thing that helps me root out the trash.  That and 6moons.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: The Irish Man on 2018-11-11 16:03:39
I always though this forum was mainly about audio.
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum. :))
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: includemeout on 2018-11-11 16:16:16
Oh by the way 2...
Foobar sound like shit and EQ is garbage.
  
Can I ask what have you been taking?
 
 Or what he/she hasn't?

https://mymentalage.com/new
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: bdunham7 on 2018-11-11 16:35:09
Quote
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum.

Nothing strange about it.  Representing audio or any signal visually in various ways is neither new or controversial.  I think the appropriate discussion is correlating observations of those visual representations with specific audible effects instead of making unwarranted assumptions about how they may sound.  ABX testing to see whether they are even audible at all is a start, but I think there's much more to be had. 


Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: includemeout on 2018-11-11 16:43:01
Quote
Lately, it seems people want to use images to show the differences in the audio they are talking about.
which is slightly strange on a audio forum.
  
Nothing strange about it.  Representing audio or any signal visually in various ways is neither new or controversial.  I think the appropriate discussion is correlating observations of those visual representations with specific audible effects instead of making unwarranted assumptions about how they may sound.  ABX testing to see whether they are even audible at all is a start, but I think there's much more to be had.
 
 Thankfully, people with such mindset don't last long over here (or simply don't bother coming back) than they do in your run-of-the-mill audiophool/pseudo scientific forum - where such attitudes are ovbiously not only encouraged, but also find a fertile ground to thrive and spread bullshit all over our beloved Google search results.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-11 17:43:48
As reluctant as I am in getting near pissing contests without a good raincoat, I just wanted to make two comments.
You'd only need a raincoat if you wanted to challenge others to perform a listening test seemingly to make it look like you have superior listening skills.  Then act as if this superiority justified making highly exaggerated claims about the audible difference.

First, I've been reading HA for a long time, and this topic is exactly the reason why--to learn about these things.  Should I buy a K2HD product?  How does it work?  Is it "better"?
Feel free to start a discussion asking these questions.  This topic was never about that.  Read the first post.

 
The topic of visual representations of sound, whether by waveform or spectrograph, and how they do or not translate into audibility
Unless you believe that >22kH can come from CDDA or that the application of dynamic range compression is a necessary result of K2HD mastering then these images could be used to make an argument one way or another. Again, the original post does not set the topic up in this way.  It wasn't until post #21 that the discussion addressed one (bogus) aspect of the K2HD process, which was presented to justify a claim that the product sounded like crap. It was not presented in order to have a meaningful discussion on differences in audibility. How could it have?

I would opine that K2HD, at least in this small example, is indeed "utter garbage" and the fact that the end product of this wonderful process is only marginally worse than the original just proves that point.
I see nothing here to suggest that DRC is a direct and necessary result of the K2HD process. Without that criteria in place I don't see how you can use this as a means to jump to that conclusion.  While I doubt one will easily find it, given the penchant to use DRC, a K2HD title without additional DRC compared to other releases would shoot that argument down in flames.  I don't think it reasonable to draw the conclusion that K2HD must employ additional DRC, however. The fact that two versions released as K2HD have differing amounts of DRC doesn't exactly play well if one were to argue that additional DRC comes directly from K2HD process.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: magicgoose on 2018-11-12 07:14:47
https://mymentalage.com/new
btw I don't recommend this test, it looks biased. It said I'm about twice as old as I actually are, probably because I simply don't approve Apple products for example (why they are even there in questions lol). Also about half of the questions simply could not have an acceptable answer (esp. the one with political views) so one needs to really think which answer is the closest one.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: includemeout on 2018-11-12 11:47:05
https://mymentalage.com/new
  btw I don't recommend this test, it looks biased. It said I'm about twice as old as I actually are, probably because I simply don't approve Apple products for example (why they are even there in questions lol). Also about half of the questions simply could not have an acceptable answer (esp. the one with political views) so one needs to really think which answer is the closest one.
 
 I know! I just meant it as a way to treat someone who's obviously taking the piss (the Foobar comment does it, IMO) with the same kind of "scientific approach" they have been using so far! :))
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: krabapple on 2018-11-14 00:16:12

I'm not saying that DBT is not important,it is, but you can't rely only on them to make decisions because our brains it's not binary, A or B, 1 or 0, our brain has too many variables to account for.
Here is Paul McGowan to share some light on the issue, the guy is CEO of PS Audio and share the same opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2MsscuBnM


Jeez, no.  Just stop.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: krabapple on 2018-11-14 00:34:42
What do you hope to accomplish with this?  This about what you think and how you came about getting there.  This was never about what others can do.

So...

At 4 minutes to conduct 10 trials I wouldn't say you can honestly claim the version you didn't like as well as being crap.

What excuses you are gonna give now?
I don't agree with ABX tests for the reasons already explained, but did it any way and pass. Not enough, you asked me to repeat the test again with your samples, altered by your standards, by your "rules", by the way you felt it should be done, and I pass it, again.

This is not about what "I think", but what I can hear and you people can't, simple as that. This doesn't make me special in any way, again, people are different, there is a lot of variables to make this possible, with the proper training, years of experience it only show that I've proof my point. If I only took 4 min, so what?
I've training and expertize in the field, I know what to look for.

You know what, is pointless to try to have a conversation, I did your way didn't I? Be a man, have the balls to admit it (I'm a woman by the way), I really can hear what I say I can.
Good luck to you, I'll not return to this forum anymore.
Bye.

Your complaint was to the effect that 'K2HD sounds like garbage', which would imply there's something *intrinsic* to the K2HD mastering process that turns the audio to audible 'garbage'. What you've shown of the K2HD process, from promo literature,  is merely that it involves nonsensical 'restoration' of  nonaudible frequencies, which is not a thing that would audibly matter. Unless dynamic range compression -- severe, not mild -- is an intrinsic part of the K2HD mastering process, there's nothing you've shown that indicates K2HD processing itself is turning audio to garbage.  IOW, it's almost certainly just the usual mastering choice to compress the dynamic range.   It may in fact be part of the K2HD workflow, but there's nothing special about that, it's part of most mastering workflows these days.  And being able to ABX two different masterings is not rocket science.   Nor does it prove your point.  A proper test would be to take a CD recording, and apply either 1) the 'high frequency reconstruction' that K2HD claims to use  , or 2) the same dynamic range compression that was used in the 'garbage' version versus the less compressed version*.  Then ABX the original versus the processed, in a level-matched, time synched way.  ABX'ing (2) would not be a heroic achievement, btw.  It would give you a basis for saying why you preferred one versus the other.


Your idea about ABX and foobar2k are similarly malformed.


*Leaving aside too the strong likelihood of  EQ differences ion the audible range, between the versions you showed, beyond DR tweaking. Which is again standard, not anything special to K2HD.

Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-14 02:47:17
I simply can’t see how such a subtle difference can separate utter garbage from not utter garbage.  I find it elitist as well as intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: soundping on 2018-11-14 22:33:24
Just my opinion.. K2HD and MQA are gimmicks.
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-16 04:50:43
Oh by the way...
I want a log from you guys too. ;)

Ps: Equal or better.
Just for completeness.
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.4.1
2018-11-16 05:42:34

File A: 1.flac
SHA1: dc50b0ddae78a86a8bba8cd9971a7ef8ef0848ed
File B: 2.flac
SHA1: 8ebb615cbbabeef02a278808c2891c2484681520

Output:
DS : Primärer Soundtreiber
Crossfading: NO

05:42:34 : Test started.
05:42:54 : 01/01
05:43:17 : 02/02
05:43:31 : 03/03
05:43:44 : 04/04
05:43:59 : 05/05
05:44:09 : 06/06
05:44:26 : 07/07
05:44:38 : 08/08
05:44:53 : 09/09
05:45:07 : 10/10
05:45:19 : 11/11
05:45:28 : 12/12
05:45:28 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 12/12
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

 -- signature --
aa75e0f06a7eb0a595eaaf2ce1ba56f3e46ad2e1
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: greynol on 2018-11-16 06:28:52
Which sample did you like best?

Would you say that it is not crap but the other sample is?
Title: Re: K2 HD is the new crap around?
Post by: Wombat on 2018-11-16 14:39:40
Fill in any audiophile buzzword you like...
In the end i can't hear any more quality with one over the other but perceive a slight difference in loudness :)
The HD 590 headphones sound slightly distorted to me with everything on my Asus Prime no matter what EQ i try. It may be the audiophile capacitors they use or the 1220 Realtek simply has not enough juice without additional OP amps.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018