Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali (Read 96912 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #175 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on

Do you just not remember at least what codec and bitrates and sample rates and formats you used, or what?


The sighted "learning" comparison was between LPCM at 24-bits/88.2kHz and AAC at 128kbps, derived from a Red Book version of the data, downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request)...


http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Just dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #176 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on

Do you just not remember at least what codec and bitrates and sample rates and formats you used, or what?


The sighted "learning" comparison was between LPCM at 24-bits/88.2kHz and AAC at 128kbps, derived from a Red Book version of the data, downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request)...


http://src.infinitewave.ca/




IOW Bias Peak 5.2.

Looks like Adobe Audion R2 is beter documented and has slightly better performance.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #177 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on

..., downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request)...


http://src.infinitewave.ca/


Well, it is good enough, but far from being "one of the best performing". Bias Peak 5.2's graph shows that it has a broken low-pass, that aliases into the audible band (up to -20db) instead of suppressing >22kHz frequencies. Of course there are terribly worse performing, but "the best" shouldn't solely be pit against failures as Sony Vegas'.

Compare that to some in the league of the really best perfoming, for example Izotope Steep or the free Sox VHQ Linear Phase! Those accomplish perfectly black, artifact-free plots without compromising phase accuracy. And for those who don't want linear phase there are also minimum phase versions with comparably impressive sweep results.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #178 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on

..., downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request)...


http://src.infinitewave.ca/


Well, it is good enough, but far from being "one of the best performing". Bias Peak 5.2's graph shows that it has a broken low-pass, that aliases into the audible band (up to -20db) instead of suppressing >22kHz frequencies.


Are you sure you are looking at the correct graphs? While Peak 5.2 is surpassed by Peak 6.03 (which I didn't buy until after I had prepared the Messiah files), I don't see any aliasing above -140dBFS with Peak 5.2 and it appears very similar on the sweep performance to the Barbabatch SRC, which has long been acclaimed for its performance. You appear to be describing something like the Soundhack SRC.

Quote
Compare that to some in the league of the really best perfoming, for example Izotope Steep or the free Sox VHQ Linear Phase! Those accomplish perfectly black, artifact-free plots without compromising phase accuracy.


These are very good SRCs, yes.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #179 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Well, it is good enough, but far from being "one of the best performing". Bias Peak 5.2's graph shows that it has a broken low-pass, that aliases into the audible band (up to -20db) instead of suppressing >22kHz frequencies.

I doubt it.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=537521
Quote
...There's a trade-off between no-aliasing and steep filter artifacts...
...sometimes it may be preferrable, for example, to allow a small amount of aliasing in order to preserve other aspects of signal integrity...

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #180 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Are you sure you are looking at the correct graphs?


This is what I'm getting displayed for Peak 5.2:



The reflection at the top is what I'm talking about. Other plots don't have it and it's about -20db.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #181 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

Quote
Well, it is good enough, but far from being "one of the best performing". Bias Peak 5.2's graph shows that it has a broken low-pass, that aliases into the audible band (up to -20db) instead of suppressing >22kHz frequencies.

Are you sure you are looking at the correct graphs?


This is what I'm getting displayed for Peak 5.2:



The reflection at the top is what I'm talking about. Other plots don't have it and it's about -20db.


Right, but the production of an aliasing product at that level stops when it reaches 20kHz. From then on, at all lower frequencies, the aliasing lies around -140dBFS, and is almost free from higher-order products.  Adobe Audition 2 is very similar in this respect. I was misled when you said the aliasing extended into the "audible band." I think it a stretch to describe the 20kHz-22kHz region as "audible," at least at my age :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #182 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
...There's a trade-off between no-aliasing and steep filter artifacts...
...sometimes it may be preferrable, for example, to allow a small amount of aliasing in order to preserve other aspects of signal integrity...


I'm well familiar with the relation of steepness/aliasing and also the advantages of minimum phase vs. linear phase filtering. Actually for music I haven't even preferred linear over minimum phase only once and always avoided steep filter slopes as much as posible.

Anyway, SRCs like the mentioned Izotope and Sox employ filters that I wouldn't normally use for 0-20kHz content (steep linear phase), but they still excel at every of the site's chosen quality parameters without exception. If there are qualities worth -20db aliasing, which is a considerable amount of energy, the site should provide measurements able to express these advantages.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I think it a stretch to describe the 20kHz-22kHz region as "audible," at least at my age :-)


Yes, I cannot hear the 20-22kHz range myself (and much lower). Still I would be interested to experiment wether the presence of high energy content between 20-22kHz can cause an audible degradation for the lower half of the spectrum on real world speakers. Probably not as long as it doesn't cause clipping, but maybe worth a try. Foobar is just a click away.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #183 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I think it a stretch to describe the 20kHz-22kHz region as "audible," at least at my age :-)


Yes, I cannot hear the 20-22kHz range myself (and much lower). Still I would be interested to experiment whether the presence of high energy content between 20-22kHz can cause an audible degradation for the lower half of the spectrum on real world speakers. Probably not as long as it doesn't cause clipping, but maybe worth a try. Foobar is just a click away.


Everything is a tradeoff. Pretty much all the higher-level >16kHz content on my recordings is percussion, so a touch of aliasing between 20-22kHz is only going to add spectral components that are very similar to those already present.

Thanks for the SoX mention. I checked out their website - http://sox.sourceforge.net/ - and will will try out their program in the next couple of days.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #184 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Yes, I cannot hear the 20-22kHz range myself (and much lower). Still I would be interested to experiment wether the presence of high energy content between 20-22kHz can cause an audible degradation for the lower half of the spectrum on real world speakers. Probably not as long as it doesn't cause clipping, but maybe worth a try. Foobar is just a click away.


The most powerful reason for not hearing sounds > 16 KHz is masking. There are very very few situations where audio > 16 KHz is not accompanied by audio < 16 KHz that masks *everything* > 16 KHz. Just about the only way to have audio > 16 Khz without audio < 16 Khz is to listen to sine waves > 16 KHz.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #185 –
The SRC discussion is slightly off-topic, so I have started an additional thread for it. I have provided samples that stress these findings to the extreme to evaluate wether they can matter at all or not.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #186 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
Quote from: ShowsOn on
I completely agree with you that the rejection of perceptual encoding is in effect a rejection of an aspect of human nature, specifically that human perception is in many ways flawed, and that consciousness itself is essentially an extremely elaborate series of perceptual illusions that - thanks to our large brains - interact in an extremely complex way.

I quite agree, but as this thread is all about rhetoric, it might be well to think about the language here. I'm not actually sure that it's right to say that human perception is "flawed": we don't hear as high frequencies as a bat, or as low volumes as a cat, but that's a selectivity, part of the complex evolved way we perceive the world.


What you refer to is a statement of *limits*.  That would not be what I would mean if I write that human perception was flawed .

By flawed, I would mean that perception cannot be assumed to be a particularly accurate (much less perfect) modeler of reality. And by 'perception' I would include the process of integrating the various senses, as well as the cognitive process of linking causes and effects based on those inputs.

"Sighted" perception of audio difference/ quality commonly leads to mistakes in cause-effect relationships (e.g., 'The sound was X because of Y'), because information other than the sound becomes a nuisance factor.  *That* is the main 'flaw' in perception as relates to audio, and it is exactly what blind testing helps correct.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #187 –
Quote from: euphonic on
It thus strikes me as quite useless to try to extract real proof of anything from such demos. But in the white-room conditions of an ABX test, rhetorical sway and groupthink become useless and the ability to discriminate remains as the only thing that matters.


FWIW, I've trawled through the two threads that discuss JA's 'Music MAtters' demo at the Colorado ListenUp! store, as well as his 2008 Rocky Mountain demo, and gathered what I think is all the descriptive information JA has posted about them.  I hope to edit it all into a readable form sometime this week, at which point I'll add it to this thread as a single post, or post it as a new thread if people think that makes a difference.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #188 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on

..., downsampled using the SRC in Bias Peak 5 at its highest-quality setting, which independent tests had shown to be one of the best-performing (link available on request)...


http://src.infinitewave.ca/


Well, it is good enough, but far from being "one of the best performing". Bias Peak 5.2's graph shows that it has a broken low-pass, that aliases into the audible band (up to -20db) instead of suppressing >22kHz frequencies. Of course there are terribly worse performing, but "the best" shouldn't solely be pit against failures as Sony Vegas'.



One might also ask why JA strove for 'the best' in other aspects of the demo -- 'optimal' listening conditions via a high-end salon rig, high-quality SRC --  but insisted on 'typical' Fraunhofer mp3 encoding circa 2003 (which we know isn't 'typical' either, for 2009) and a demonstration/reporting method that could not hope to reliably interrogate three-step progressive audible degradation of a high-rez source.



lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #189 –
Quote from: krabapple on
By flawed, I would mean that perception cannot be assumed to be a particularly accurate (much less perfect) modeler of reality. And by 'perception' I would include the process of integrating the various senses, as well as the cognitive process of linking causes and effects based on those inputs.

*Yawn* That "flawed" thing you refer to, is capable of much more demanding analization and "linking" of information, than any man-made tool nowadays is able to (and i would say CAN be able to, because of the way how most current man-made machines work). What you are outputting here, is pure ideologic propaganda and in no way short of biases and rethoric.

Just to give you a hint: The difficulty of differentiating between selfgenerated differences, and differences already there when the input arrived, has absolutely nothing to do with humans. It also has nothing to do with human senses. It not even has something to do with consciousness. Exactly the same issue applies to any tool, if it were to have no simultaneus measurements available from a different place, so that it can compare its own data, and the data from the other location. What is so difficult to understand about the simple concept of a processing chain, with something at one end trying to find out which information should be attributed to which part in the processing chain?

Comments like the one quoted above, remind me about why i left ha.org in the first place, and why i shouldn't turn my current "guest-appearence" into a permanent one.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #190 –
Quote from: krabapple on
By flawed, I would mean that perception cannot be assumed to be a particularly accurate (much less perfect) modeler of reality. And by 'perception' I would include the process of integrating the various senses, as well as the cognitive process of linking causes and effects based on those inputs.

"Sighted" perception of audio difference/ quality commonly leads to mistakes in cause-effect relationships (e.g., 'The sound was X because of Y'), because information other than the sound becomes a nuisance factor.  *That* is the main 'flaw' in perception as relates to audio, and it is exactly what blind testing helps correct.


I agree, of course, but still quibble over the word "flawed" (and it is only the word I'm worried about). Our complex perception is "flawed" compared with instrumentation if we want to identify single factors, but presumably we've evolved this way because it is in some way advantageous.

All I'm saying is that the word "flawed", as opposed to "limited" or "complexly multifactorial"    encourages the belief that somehow some people have hearing that is less flawed, which adds to the neurotic uncertainty which Certain Hucksters feed and feed on.

Blind testing is necessary, of course, but if one is trying to persuade people, it might be easier to say "Your perception of sound is a wondrous and complex thing, but we have to do work to isolate one of the many factors influencing it," rather than "You can't hear for crap, you need to do this sciency stuff." I exaggerate, of course, but maybe that's how some of the convertable might hear it.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #191 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
I agree, of course, but still quibble over the word "flawed" (and it is only the word I'm worried about). Our complex perception is "flawed" compared with instrumentation if we want to identify single factors, but presumably we've evolved this way because it is in some way advantageous.
(Underlining by Lyx)

Plain and simply: No.

If you feed an instrument - no matter if mental, biological or mechanical - with two inputs which are to be drawn as a single plot, then what you get, is a plot with the combined rating of both inputs. What else did you expect? If you dont want to measure something, you exclude it from the measurement. With a mechanical instrument, you disable certain sensors. With consciousness, you hide/block the undesired input (i.e. product appearance). If you want to measure influence A without influence B, you only measure influence A. If you want to only measure influence B without influence A, then you make sure that only B is measured. And if you want to measure the interaction between both, you measure both. And for this simple logic, it does not matter if the measurement-instrument is mental or mechanical - it applies to both.

There is no difference in this regard, and the distinction between "subjective" and "objective" methods and entities is in this regard a scientific illusion.  (Clarification: What i am saying is not that the choice of methodology is irrelevant. Methods differ in their efficiency depending on the task at hand. What i was saying was that the claimed differences between mental measurement and mechanic measurement do not exist, and that therefore, the on this claim built associations with "subjective" and "objective" as well are bogus.)
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #192 –
Quote from: Lyx on
If you feed an instrument - no matter if mental, biological or mechanical

The point I am making is that to think of the mind as an instrument is mistaken. The object is to produce a good music experience for humans; along the way there are engineering tasks, for which instrumentation is necessary, and for these purposes the human mind isn't so good (because it is very hard to block all but one channel).

But, if the objective is to produce something pleasing to human perception, it's kind of self-defeating to think of your objective as "flawed." It is what it is.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #193 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
...along the way there are engineering tasks, for which instrumentation is necessary, and for these purposes the human mind isn't so good (because it is very hard to block all but one channel).

Can you name an example? My problem is: All cases i can think of, are not a matter of filtering, but instead situations, where one needs *different* sensors than humans have (i.e. different spectrum range and sensivity, different interpretation-process, etc.).
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #194 –
Quote from: Lyx on
Quote from: krabapple on
By flawed, I would mean that perception cannot be assumed to be a particularly accurate (much less perfect) modeler of reality. And by 'perception' I would include the process of integrating the various senses, as well as the cognitive process of linking causes and effects based on those inputs.

*Yawn* That "flawed" thing you refer to, is capable of much more demanding analization


No doubt, and I guess you're nominating yourself to do it.

Quote
and "linking" of information, than any man-made tool nowadays is able to (and i would say CAN be able to, because of the way how most current man-made machines work). What you are outputting here, is pure ideologic propaganda and in no way short of biases and rethoric.


What you are 'outputting' here, appears to be the sound of an axe grinding.  Which we all get to do, but really, why so abrasive on *this* of all points?

Quote
Just to give you a hint: The difficulty of differentiating between selfgenerated differences, and differences already there when the input arrived, has absolutely nothing to do with humans. It also has nothing to do with human senses. It not even has something to do with consciousness. Exactly the same issue applies to any tool, if it were to have no simultaneus measurements available from a different place, so that it can compare its own data, and the data from the other location. What is so difficult to understand about the simple concept of a processing chain, with something at one end trying to find out which information should be attributed to which part in the processing chain?


I'm actually happy to say I haven't a clue from this why you're so upset over the idea that people are commonly overconfident regarding their perception of causes and effects.  That 'ideology' is the basis for controls in scientific experiments. 

Quote
Comments like the one quoted above, remind me about why i left ha.org in the first place, and why i shouldn't turn my current "guest-appearence" into a permanent one.


And that would be tragic for HA because......?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #195 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
Blind testing is necessary, of course, but if one is trying to persuade people, it might be easier to say "Your perception of sound is a wondrous and complex thing, but we have to do work to isolate one of the many factors influencing it," rather than "You can't hear for crap, you need to do this sciency stuff." I exaggerate, of course, but maybe that's how some of the convertable might hear it.


I think our only difference is that you would emphasize the wondrousness and then bring in the need for controls, whereas I'm cutting right to the chase 
There are plenty of wonderful examples one can show people to illustrate how easily we can be perceptually 'fooled', not just for sound but for other senses.

I don't think anyone here commonly says 'you can't hear for crap ' (or its milder analogues) -- that tends to be more the sort of thing that 'audiophiles' imply of those who express skepticism over the effects of tweaks.  What 'we' here more often say is, you can't implicitly trust your 'hearing' in situations where it's not just your hearing that is in play.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #196 –
Quote from: krabapple on
I don't think anyone here commonly says 'you can't hear for crap ' (or its milder analogues) -- that tends to be more the sort of thing that 'audiophiles' imply of those who express skepticism over the effects of tweaks.  What 'we' here more often say is, you can't implicitly trust your 'hearing' in situations where it's not just your hearing that is in play.

For sure, indeed. All I'm thinking of is a few cases where people have turned up, have asked questions and have been hazed in various ways, which might give the impression that HA, and the debunking of 'phoolery in general, is about wanting people to hear like instruments. They tend to get p'ed off and go away, even though not in the grip of invincible ignorance.

But then again, I spent a working life teaching Humanities in universities, and I may be excessively prone to suffering fools gladly.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #197 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
Quote from: Lyx on
If you feed an instrument - no matter if mental, biological or mechanical

The point I am making is that to think of the mind as an instrument is mistaken. The object is to produce a good music experience for humans; along the way there are engineering tasks, for which instrumentation is necessary, and for these purposes the human mind isn't so good (because it is very hard to block all but one channel).

But, if the objective is to produce something pleasing to human perception, it's kind of self-defeating to think of your objective as "flawed." It is what it is.


I see your point, I think. For example, one might say that human hearing is flawed because of its well-known bandwidth limits and also the way masking keeps certain sounds from being heard.

OTOH, if the human ear had wider bandwidth limits and didn't mask, then the brain would have far more stimulus to deal with, with a corresponding decrease in thinking power availble for other purposes, such as  seeing or thinking abstractly at the same time. After all, the physical world is basically zero-sum and the capabilities of the human body are generally zero sum.
 

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #198 –
This is correct, Arnold. The problem however is: This as well applies to every single mechanical instrument on its own. What i take issue with is the statement "human senses are flawed"... flawed compared to WHAT? Mechanical instruments? No. Those as well each have limits on their own, because - well, one cannot be two different things at the same time :) It would be valid to say "a single instrument on its own, is flawed/suboptimal, compared to having many different instruments available" - sure, but at that point, human senses are just "another measurement tool". To get to the point: The implied normative rating "machine sensors > human sensors" is bogus, UNLESS one considers all possible mechanical sensors an entity of their own, in which case it isn't a fair comparison anymore. (Analogy: It basically would be similiar to saying "Human sensors are flawed compared to the sensors of all animals")
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #199 –
Quote from: Lyx on
This is correct, Arnold. The problem however is: This as well applies to every single mechanical instrument on its own. What i take issue with is the statement "human senses are flawed"... flawed compared to WHAT? Mechanical instruments?

There need not be a comparison. If visual stimuli can trick the brain into hearing something that is not heard without them then human senses simply are flawed. That such problems also apply to other things, does not mean they are not a problem.

As already said before, this assumption is one of the rationals behind scientific method. If you want to disagree with that, and wish to hold on to some sort of romantic view where the human brain is a wonder of creation, fine. I honestly don't see the point, however.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."