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?

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?

Quote from: greynol on 2014-11-15 16:58:25

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?

you know: me.  Shameless bad-title-maker and proxy-battler. 

So please don't use them against me or I will write a much longer response next time.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-15 16:10:13

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.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-15 17:39:23

So please don't use them against me or I will write a much longer response next time.

The question remains as to whether it would be worth reading.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-15 17:39:23

So please don't use them against me or I will write a much longer response next time.

The question remains as to whether it would be worth reading.

In real life my doctor's medical training and degree trumps my lay opinion without being called argument from authority.
That authority has value

Let's start:  "how do you even imagine that one can hear a difference between two systems, one with noise 98 dB down and the other 146dB down, when the level is set to peak at 96dB?"

How do you explain how "obviously difference" fails to show up in even the worst kind of ABX test?

I have yet to see a whit of evidence that "high-rez" matters for final presentation to a listener.  Have you any, bearing in mind that citing non-blind-testing proves nothing but the incompetence, the complete and total incompetence, of the person citing it as evidence.
Bear in mind the hard evidence for the persistance of loudness memory while you're at it.


I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.
So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.

He called you out twice.  I guess you're doubly-important.

So if you care about this stuff at all it's good to be aware of what story is being propagated/propagandized on other audio forums.

Quote from: greynol on 2014-11-15 17:42:18

He called you out twice.  I guess you're doubly-important.

graph from a Hydrogenaudio wiki

So if you care about this stuff at all it's good to be aware of what story is being propagated/propagandized on other audio forums.

I'm glad that graph stirred things up and I was able to convince someone to remove it.

No matter how well-intentioned, that ill-advised graph should have never been created.

But hey, the fb2k ABX plugin has and has always had a bug, so all results ever obtained by using it are officially null and void.

Down is Up, I guess!

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-15 17:39:23

In real life my doctor's medical training and degree trumps my lay opinion without being called argument from authority.
That authority has value

Fantastic Amir, we agree!

Quote from: Woodinville on 2012-08-14 00:07:23

Let's start:  "how do you even imagine that one can hear a difference between two systems, one with noise 98 dB down and the other 146dB down, when the level is set to peak at 96dB?"

How do you explain how "obviously difference" fails to show up in even the worst kind of ABX test?

I have yet to see a whit of evidence that "high-rez" matters for final presentation to a listener.  Have you any, bearing in mind that citing non-blind-testing proves nothing but the incompetence, the complete and total incompetence, of the person citing it as evidence.
Bear in mind the hard evidence for the persistance of loudness memory while you're at it.


I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.
So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.

Amir, hopefully this meets your luminary-authority requirements sufficiently as not to question it?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-15 13:26:30

Quote from: mzil on 2014-11-15 12:48:09

@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.

If we do on anything, I will have to go and hang myself.

Quote from: Woodinville on 2012-08-14 00:07:23

I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences.

The "whit of evidence" and non-sighted test manifested itself in the form of Stuart's paper

...and us passing the forum ABX tests.

JJ is on private industry thread where we are discussing these latest developments for some time now.

Quote from: greynol on 2014-11-15 16:58:25

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?

Steven is Krabapple.

On the first comment, that is a forum debating technique which has no parallel in real life.

In real life my doctor's medical training and degree trumps my lay opinion without being called argument from authority.

In a patent dispute I can bring expert witnesses and they are not being dismissed as arguing from authority.

In forums we like to pretend that such real life experience has no value and hence our lay opinion matters as much.

We build up a portfolio of these phrases we throw at people and stand back as if it have real meaning.  They don't.

Stuart is an authority in signal processing and psychoacoustics.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-15 15:23:27

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-15 13:26:30

Quote from: mzil on 2014-11-15 12:48:09

@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.

Motherhood and apple pie.

To those of us who are already well-informed in the area it is a tutorial for newbies.

If you are a newbie, then it is probably pretty impressive.

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.

Say what? Argument from authority has no parallel in real life?

It appears that Stuart has played an amateur's game for decades when it comes to psychoacoustics and subjective audio testing.

Dog forbid, I turn my blunt scalpel on this discussion.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-15 16:10:13

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.

On the master thread on AVS on Monty's write-up, this is what I said on page #1 after your posts: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post21750075

Quote

[color="#0000FF"]The goals for setting a standard here shouldn't be what is adequate but what has some safety margin as to give us high confidence of inaudibility. In that regard, we need to also allow for less than optimal implementations. To that end, Bob Stuart has published a much more authoritative version of this report at AES. Here is an online copy: http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF. These are his recommendations:

"This article has reviewed the issues surrounding the transmission of high-resolution digital audio. It is
suggested that a channel that attains audible transparency will be equivalent to a PCM channel that
uses:
· 58kHz sampling rate, and
· 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping, or
· 20-bit representation in a flat noise floor, i.e. a ‘rectangular’ channel"


So as we see, the CD standard somewhat misses the mark on sampling rate. And depending on whether you trust the guy reducing the sample depth from 24-bit to 16 bits, we may be missing the right spec there too.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-11-14 16:41:36

However, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

They don't really.  This line came from a couple of devotees in the skeptic camp and has no other foundation.

I don't know why it keeps getting repeated in these discussions as if it is a universal truth.

That aside, who is to say what is extraordinary?  To my wife, it is extraordinary claim that blu-ray looks better than DVD.  She thinks they look the same.  Do I need to come up with extraordinary proof to show she is wrong?  I do not.

Quote

A few of the results posted, if they were obtained fairly, are the start of some useful evidence. Many are just the result of badly set-up or performed tests. I haven't seen you discount these faulty tests, but then I haven't trawled through all the relevant threads.

I will do so now.  I discount all of them.  Every test has flaws.  But we are told that if we pass a "DBT ABX" folks would believe.  Well, we passed them and passed them all.  Yet, it has managed to do absolutely nothing.  Now they are all out to discredit validity of these tests.  Which way is up now?  We have schmucks now saying we have to have witnesses to prove we did not doctor up some log to win a point online.  Really?

On adding more channels, the market has spoken.  The music buying industry is young people who want their tunes with headphones and such so we are stuck with stereo.  Multi-channel music's era came and gone.  Sure, there is a path through Blu-ray but highly limited.  If you want to boil the ocean by advocating that the whole market transform around your wishes, go ahead.  I don't like hitting my head against the wall nearly as much as you do.