Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-12 14:02:05

Quote

You cannot use a single digit SPL number for your room noise.

I didn't. I gave the room noise number in terms of bits. 

What is this then Arny:

Quote from:  link=msg=880335 date=0

So what is known about the monitoring system and room used for playback? I'll bet it wasn't your typical listening room with a 40 dB SPL noise floor...

The 40 db number without any kind of spectrum analysis is psychoacoustically blind.  Isn't it? 

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-11-12 15:32:59

I get the feeling that "Arnold B. Krueger", "ajinfla", and "amirm" know each other - maybe in the real world, and certainly in cyberspace.

It is off topic, but if you must know, Amir and I grew up together and Arnie is our godfather.
Btw David, user profiles contain info towards who/what, as does mine.

It's a bit like watching The View. I don't know what the UK equivalent would be.

Quote from: Hotsoup on 2014-11-12 16:01:49

It's a bit like watching The View. I don't know what the UK equivalent would be.

Loose Women. I've never seen it. It's daytime TV. I assume you're being insulting

all this paper seems to show is that if you don't dither at all, or dither improperly, a group of carefully trained listeners will, on some sample material, be able to distinguish the 16-bit content from the original content

temporal smearing

Amirm is Amir Majidimehr who came up through the worlds of Unix IT and Video editing. If memory serves he has a EE from Florida Atlantic University. He was MS's VP of Windows Digital Media whose relationship with MS ended about the same time they cancelled one of his major projects, HD DVD.  AJ, Amir and I previously spent the most time together at the AVS forums.

I have followed the execution and discussion of several comparative tests recently, starting with Arnie's keys. All of the tests proved to have samples that were defective. I believe this is the issue that needs to be discussed, not the results of the tests. GI = GO.

How many people here have actually bought the paper?

2. When they low-passed the signal *without* quantizing it to 16-bits, they got a statistically insignificant result.

How many people here have actually bought the paper?

Here's a rundown of some of the relevant things I don't think have been mentioned  yet (or if they have they've largely been glossed over).

Seriously, all this paper seems to show is that if you don't dither at all, or dither improperly, a group of carefully trained listeners will, on some sample material, be able to distinguish the 16-bit content from the original content, albeit with a fair-to-great amount of difficulty (they did much better worse with rectangular dither than with no dither).

Some small differences with distinctly diminished sample sizes are then used to come to some very strange conclusions. There's all sorts of guff about temporal smearing, and a ramble through some decidedly dubious literature (yes, Ooashi et al make an appearance) to portray the 'prima facies' case for hi-res as a reasonably solid one.

@armirm:
I'm sorry you missed this latest round, but the window to share your background, etc. is over.  Whether or not you feel you've been given a fair shake is not the forum's problem.

Quote from: Willakan on 2014-11-12 18:22:54

all this paper seems to show is that if you don't dither at all, or dither improperly, a group of carefully trained listeners will, on some sample material, be able to distinguish the 16-bit content from the original content

Right, and most of us were already aware this was possible.

Quote from: Willakan on 2014-11-12 18:22:54

temporal smearing

I imagine they gotta keep selling the case for magical apodizing filters.

If we are sensitive to such things as dither types then all Strawman the argument to talk about any and all small distortions not being audible is proven to be wrong. 
If we Red Herring the argument to can hear them then we can hear a lot of other artifacts we shove under the rug

I would love Red Herring the argument to to see your read of Meyer and Moran so that.....

Back on topic: for those who missed it, a test of filter audibility has already been attempted right here on HA...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=68524

Any new takers?

Cheers,
David.

Your computation there is psychoacoustically blind Arny as we have discussed.  You cannot use a single digit SPL number for your room noise.  You must look at its spectrum and see how much noise you have relative to threshold of hearing as I show in my article

08:44:21 : 01/04  93.8%  <--- Difference found.

And verification of the signature:

Signature matches; the log appears to be valid.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-12 00:21:31

Your computation there is psychoacoustically blind Arny as we have discussed.  You cannot use a single digit SPL number for your room noise.  You must look at its spectrum and see how much noise you have relative to threshold of hearing as I show in my article

I agree with the need to look at the spectrum, but disagree with your conclusions.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=871182
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=871270

It's really hard to find source material that has audible noise when you use 16-bit noise shaped dither. The current (Bob Stuart) test apparently used no noise shaping, and the wrong dither PDF.

Cheers,
David.

Meanwhile, the subject is even more complex than my brief write-up.  Noise that comes from the source is played through point sources of our speakers.