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: Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback  (Read 331620 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #125 –
Quote from: mzil on
Unless the speakers were used near field, then their actual room SPL at 40 kHz comes into question since the polar response pattern of tweeters [one inch dome, "semi horn loaded"] up at that frequency becomes extremely narrow and they shoot out like a laser, or say a spot light instead of flood light, and the actual acoustical power in the far field is steeply reduced at that frequency. Does the paper explicitly say the 40 kHz was MEASURED at the seated position [and with what distance, mic, and with what SPL meter that goes THAT high?] or is his claim of 40kHz actually just the 1m response as typically measured anechoicly, as I suspect?
 

Normal, sane speaker reviewers never show us what the polar response is at 40 kHz, since it is immaterial to human perception, but look how much narrower it is already at 30 kHz, compared to 10 kHz:




40kHz would be even worse and narrower still, so the room's actual power response at 40kHz, measured in the far field, would be tiny. [Plus ultrasonic content diminishes with distance more quickly, to a degree, and doesn't reflect off of typical room surfaces as well. It tends to dissipate and scatter more than "bounce".]

"To actually hear ultrasonics the listener must be very carefully aligned with the driver, both horizontally and vertically...This precision in alignment is unlikely in music listening.". - Griesinger

PPT slide on Ultrasonic Directivity: http://slideplayer.us/slide/3320/

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #126 –
Quote from: mzil on
40kHz would be even worse and narrower still, so the room's actual power response at 40kHz, measured in the far field, would be tiny. [Plus ultrasonic content
diminishes with distance more quickly, to a degree, and doesn't reflect off of typical room surfaces as well. It tends to dissipate and scatter more than "bounce".]

"To actually hear ultrasonics the listener must be very carefully aligned with the driver, both horizontally and vertically...This precision in alignment is unlikely in music listening.". - Griesinger

PPT slide on Ultrasonic Directivity: http://slideplayer.us/slide/3320/



Meridian doesn't explicitly claim that the differences that their successful listeners heard between filters, was due to hearing ultrasonics. 

Of course, that still leaves the question of what it is they *did* hear.  The paper is rather vague on that score.  'Temporal smearing' is offered as one hypothesis.
 

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #127 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"This level was
chosen for comfort, and because it was high enough
for details to be audible but also low enough that 16-
bit RPDF dither would be inaudible at the listening
position [30]."


@Arny, what reference does "30" lead to? Notice he wrote, "so 16 bit RPDF dither WOULD be inaudible" so apparently an actual test of humans, for noise audibility, in situ, was NOT performed. Had it been he would have presumably said so, and written "so 16 bit RPDF was kept to an inaudible level". Instead, by the use of the word "would", his assertion that it was kept to an inaudible level seems based on theory and conjecture. [Pending whatever "[30]" refers to].

New topic. Mark Waldrep from AIX records gave us the redbook vs. Hi res files in those AVS forum threads, to compare, having never checked them for level matching nor time alignment after his expensive, high end studio gear did the down res conversion, so if Stuart et al. has made the exact same mistake, that could be the reason why his subjects found audible differences. [90 correct answers in 160 trials, as I understand it] So Arny, does the paper make ANY mention of level matching or testing for time alignment (I presume in the digital domain) and if so how it was done?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #128 –
[30] J. R. Stuart. Noise: methods for estimating
detectability and threshold. AES 93rd Convention, Berlin, 1993.

I am unable to find a mention of whether/how level-matching and time alignment were verified.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #129 –
Quote from: mzil on
@Arny, what reference does "30" lead to? Notice he wrote, "so 16 bit RPDF dither WOULD be inaudible" so apparently an actual test for this, in situ, was NOT performed. Had it been he would have presumably said so, and written "so 16 bit RPDF was kept to an inaudible level". Instead, by the use of the word "would", his assertion that it was kept to an inaudible level seems based on theory and conjecture. [Pending whatever "[30]" refers to].


J. R. Stuart. Noise: methods for estimating
detectability and threshold. AES 93rd Conven-
tion, Berlin, 1993.

The problem is that AFAIK Stuart has never before based any of his claims on relable listening test. Any DBT that is criticallly contingent on potentially flawed principles is obviously highly suspect.


Quote
New topic. Mark Waldrep from AIX records gave us the redbook vs. Hi res files in those AVS forum threads, to compare, having never checked them for level matching nor time alignment after his expensive, high end studio gear did the down res conversion, so if Stuart et al. has made the exact same mistake, that could be the reason there are audible differences. So Arny, does the paper make ANY mention of level matching or testing for time alignment (I presume in the digital domain) and if so how it was done?


I think that the general answer to that question and questions like it is to try to duplicate the Stuart results using procedures and principles that are at our far higher level of scientific orthodoxy.

I have what the footnotes to the Stuart paper claims to be the music they used, and I have their list of cut points and statements about which are the most diagnosis segments. Each segment is about 15 seconds long and is thus AFAIK  suitable to public posting without concerns about copyrights. I could put a few of them up and interested parties can listen with Foobar2000 R2.

Comments?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #130 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
This recording can be downloaded in a number of different formats from here:

https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/35847


$38 for the MCH version of album.
$42 for the "eXtreme Definition" 352kHz/24bit....2ch. 

Requires special iso-ward room, doctored dither, direct radiator beryllium domes driven >105db, to be just barely distinguished by trained listeners.

I think I'll stick to used CDs on Amazon for $2....

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #131 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I could put a few of them up and interested parties can listen with Foobar2000 R2.  Comments?
  So that in a week from now we can read some pompous, self serving propaganda in another forum brag about how "Not only myself but even some of the doubters at HA had to admit THEY could even distinguish the difference between Arny's new files, proving Stuart's paper is correct!" And by "others" that'll mean me, simply because I found an artifact you later had to correct  for? No thanks.

When that manipulation happens, as I believe you are aware has already occurred with the earlier tests, it's an abusive misrepresentation which soils my reputation by falsely aligning my results and conclusions with that of a manipulative con artist for his own benefits, and stopping this established pattern of abuse (which makes me feel stepped on) is completely impossible. Post them if you wish, but I probably won't be participating.

Also, you do realize that foobar ABX v2 is still in beta, a work in progress, and even with its new "verified signature" thing, which a computer wiz could forge, there are still numerous, easy, free OTHER ways to post fake results.

Any failure to detect differences will be dismissed by our detractors simply because none of us are using the correct $20K+ Meridian speakers, etc., plus none of us have appropriate listening environments with single digit SPL background noise levels. Hearing the modulated noise from the rectangular dither would be dependent on that.

Regarding Stuart's reference to his own study, I agree it seems to be based on theory, predictions, and models, not actual human studies. [It also is about steady state noise, not modulated noise, I believe.]

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #132 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: mzil on
@Arny, what reference does "30" lead to? Notice he wrote, "so 16 bit RPDF dither WOULD be inaudible" so apparently an actual test for this, in situ, was NOT performed. Had it been he would have presumably said so, and written "so 16 bit RPDF was kept to an inaudible level". Instead, by the use of the word "would", his assertion that it was kept to an inaudible level seems based on theory and conjecture. [Pending whatever "[30]" refers to].


J. R. Stuart. Noise: methods for estimating
detectability and threshold. AES 93rd Conven-
tion, Berlin, 1993.

That is a superb paper by the way. It is the closest thing to figuring out how to correlate signal noise to threshold of hearing that was determined by Fletcher/Munson's listening tests which used test tones.  I am not the only one who thought so.  The paper was elevated to higher status and published in the Journal of AES: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=6959

Noise: Methods for Estimating Detectability and Threshold
JAES [Journal of Audio Engineering Society] Volume 42 Issue 3 pp. 124-140; March 1994

Quote
The problem is that AFAIK Stuart has never before based any of his claims on relable listening test. Any DBT that is criticallly contingent on potentially flawed principles is obviously highly suspect.

So now your position is that the Journal of AES publishes papers that are based on flawed principals? 

When had you read this paper and where has it gone wrong?  Seeing how the paper overlays modeling and predictions on top of the Fletcher and Munson listening tests, I am at a loss as to why you think it did not include such.

Regardless, he has now demonstrated his analysis in the current listening test.  He has both types of evidence.  But apparently to you all more is needed???

Seems to me if pope showed up here, you all would question him on his christianity if you happen to disagree with his views!

You guys live and die by listening tests and "peer review."  Both are present here.  Neither is now good enough.  The only thing that is good enough is your lay opinion of these matters it seems.  No one else can know more with a different view.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #133 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I could put a few of them up and interested parties can listen with Foobar2000 R2.  Comments?
  So that in a week from now we can read some pompous, self serving propaganda in another forum brag about how "Not only myself but even some of the doubters at HA had to admit THEY could even distinguish the difference between Arny's new files, proving Stuart's paper is correct!" And by "others" that'll mean me, simply because I found an artifact you later had to correct  for? No thanks.


That's right.  It is all about forum battles.  Heaven forbid you learn something from another listening test.  I am not afraid of all of us failing to tell the files apart.  Because I know we will learn something and that is what I value.  Not winning or losing a battle.  Let me know if and when you ever find yourself in that situation.

Unbelievable....
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #135 –
Quote from: greynol on
You forgot independent verification.

There was none for Meyer and Moran.  Or are you referring to some other test I don't know about???


Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #136 –
What gave you the impression that I was referencing any specific test???

So you weren't making a general comment about HA?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #137 –
Quote from: greynol on
What gave you the impression that I was referencing any specific test???

I don't know.  I just work here .

This thread is comparing and contrasting the work of Stuart vs Meyer and Moran.  You put fault at the feet of Stuart for lack of independent verification.  Is it unreasonable to ask if you damn the Meyer and Moran test the same way?

Quote
So you weren't making a general comment about HA?

No.  I am referring to the vocal few who think we have a "train wreck" on our hands, that a published test by respected industry members is to be ignored and hobby test run by Meyer and Moran believed.  I am talking about people who roam many audio forums beating people into submission demanding ABX tests and then when the ABX test is performed, turn around and find every which way, including calling the ethics of the person who bothered to do as they say into question.  The list includes Arny, Steven (Krab), Mzil and AJ.

And please forgive me for being blunt but I now include you in that list given your personal commentary about me and the work that I had produced.  But not the forum at large.  Not at all. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #139 –
Quote from: amirm on
This thread is

You'll have to run that by krab.  He has a bad habit of poorly titling and/or poorly defining his discussions as well as using other forums to fight his battles via proxy.  This one is no exception.

Since we can't manage to shame him into stopping, the best I can do is contain it.

...and now you're here.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #140 –
Quote from: amirm on
So now your position is that the Journal of AES publishes papers that are based on flawed principals?


So it is your position that with its papal infallibility still intact, the AES has never published a paper containing a technical error? ;-)

Quote
Seems to me if pope showed up here, you all would question him on his christianity if you happen to disagree with his views!


Yes. It's what many Christians inside and outside of the Roman Church have done for millennia. Ever hear of Martin Luther? ;-)

Quote
You guys live and die by listening tests and "peer review."  Both are present here.  Neither is now good enough.  The only thing that is good enough is your lay opinion of these matters it seems.  No one else can know more with a different view.


One of my very recent posts on the matter called for people to try to duplicate Meridian's results, only using greater scientific rigor. Got a problem with that, Amir?

(I guess I missed the white smoke that went up when Stuart was elected pope of all things audio.);-)

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #141 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
One of my very recent posts on the matter called for people to try to duplicate Meridian's results, only using greater scientific rigor. Got a problem with that, Amir?

He's just going to deflect this by raising M&M again.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #142 –
Quote from: amirm on
This thread is comparing and contrasting the work of Stuart vs Meyer and Moran.

Nope. This thread is about the BS paper. You insist on comparing to Meyer & Moran, because you are Amir the illogical and thus constantly Red Herring, Ad Hominem (their "credentials", etc, etc) arguments.
The BS paper abstract is how to dither doctor concoct 16/44 vs Hi-Rez audibility, with direct radiator Beryllium dome tweeters at >105db in an iso-ward. We'll see how that pans out.
The M&M paper was about lots of Hi-Rez audiophiles, using their available Hi-Rez recordings, on their high end systems to (not) hear 16/44 vs Hi-Rez audibility in their listening rooms.
IOW, reality vs a questionable abstract concoction.
One the Hi-Rez audiophile buying public can hang their hat on, the other for desperate shills with vested pecuniary interests.
No comparison, really.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #143 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: amirm on
So now your position is that the Journal of AES publishes papers that are based on flawed principals?


So it is your position that with its papal infallibility still intact, the AES has never published a paper containing a technical error? ;-)

We are not talking about AES.  We are talking about the Journal of AES.  I am told no matter how many faults Meyer and Moran test had, the fact that it appeared in the Journal, made it immune to such criticism.  You on the other hand with a broad brush dismissed a Journal paper where peer review actually has some meaning, and said "potentially flawed principles is obviously highly suspect."

What does "potentially" mean?  You either know the principal and can tell us what is wrong with it.  Or you can't.

So state what you think those principles are.  Tell us what is wrong with them.  And give us a reference to when you had actually read the paper.  Here is mine in the WSR article I wrote a couple of years ago: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomDynamicRange.html.

Absence of that I am going to state that you have not read the paper, nor are aware of what principals it is using.  So your comment about it was without foundation.

Quote
One of my very recent posts on the matter called for people to try to duplicate Meridian's results, only using greater scientific rigor. Got a problem with that, Amir?

No, I chimed in to support it.  It was mzil who said should we hear the same differences, the game will be over and there will be lots more crying and riots in streets.

Quote
(I guess I missed the white smoke that went up when Stuart was elected pope of all things audio.);-)

Compared to your knowledge of signal processing, that of mzil, Steven and Krab, he could not have higher standing.  He is one of the luminaries in this field.  He is an AES Life Fellow.  This is why he got it: http://www.aes.org/awards/?ID=1510

The AES recognizes and honors those who have made outstanding contributions to the field of audio in engineering, technology, service, and the arts through its Awards Program.

In 1996, Robert Stuart was presented with the AES Fellowship Award for important insights into the models of auditory perception and their applications to audio technology.

In other words, he was recognized as a thought leader in the very field that you say his paper has flawed principals. 

So yes, he absolutely trumps you Arny.  Doesn't mean you can't find faults in his work.  You can.  But absence of that your blanket statement means absolutely nothing whatsoever against one of the luminaries in the industry.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #144 –
Nice argument from authority.  The funny thing is it wasn't necessary, but you couldn't help yourself and put it in anyway.

So, who is Steven?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #145 –
Quote from: amirm on
He is one of the luminaries in this field.  He is an AES Life Fellow.
In other words, he was recognized as a thought leader in the very field that you say his paper has flawed principals.

Hey Amir,
Completely theoretical, but, if you were say, a MS exec and had to hire such a luminary in the fields of signal processing and perception, who would you chose, BS or JJ (a Hi-Rez heretic)?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #147 –
Quote from: amirm on
I am here to prove that if I get the original stereo master, I don't have to worry about what you just said.


The above says nothing about logic and reason, so it must be about irrational fears. Why should other audiophiles care about your irrational fears?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #148 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
$42 for the "eXtreme Definition" 352kHz/24bit....2ch.



I thought you were kidding.  Then I clicked the link. 

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #149 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: amirm on
So now your position is that the Journal of AES publishes papers that are based on flawed principals?


So it is your position that with its papal infallibility still intact, the AES has never published a paper containing a technical error? ;-)

We are not talking about AES.  We are talking about the Journal of AES. 


Actually my statement talks about both the AES and the Journal of the AES, so your answer is totally non-responsive.

Quote
I am told no matter how many faults Meyer and Moran test had, the fact that it appeared in the Journal, made it immune to such criticism.


By whom? Me?  Not in this life!  I am of the opinion that the Meyer and Moran paper is highly flawed because they innocently took industry claims including specific claims by Stuart at face value.

Amnir, you've got quit making up false claims about other people and then arguing with them.