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 331774 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #175 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Say what? Argument from authority has no parallel in real life?

No.  It is a phony tactic used on forums.

Like "credentials".
And Red Herrings for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Welcome to Amirworld, now available in full resolution on HA 

Now Amir, in these double secret probation private industry discussions, are any non-pecuniary interest industry insiders saddened by the use of rectangular dither to doctor the BS tests? Is there some concern about the levels used with the direct radiator beryllium domes driven >105db speakers with and without band limiting? Is anyone demanding system transparency (Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band, switching, speakers, etc) data?
Inquiring outsider minds would like to know, TIA.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #176 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
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.


The genesis of this phrase is attributed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

Marcello Truzzi and Carl Sagan, not exactly chopped liver.

Marcello and Carl have their own articles in Wikipedia and many other encyclopedias and reference works.

Heck, Wikipeida even mentions my name and credits me for inventing something fairly important in audio...  I believe that Stuart said something about "Gold standard" in reference to it.

Of course this is just an appeal to authority and who would be dumb enough to do that? ;-)

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


Something about making sense... ;-)

Oh and by the way thanks for completely ignoring the critical arguments that I presented. That's a win!

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

Reply #177 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: amirm on
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.
One minute you're advocating an audio standard which requires a 10 year old's hearing* and/or a $100k+ acoustically insulated room* to appreciate it, but when someone suggests more channels, we can't have that because we have to limit what we deliver to what can be appreciated by folks listening on their iPods.

I think we need a minute's silence to let the size of that contradiction settle in...

Neither one is my position.  Once more: I am advocating getting the bits prior to remastering for CD.  Whatever was produced before conformance with the CD format and commercialization of music to teenage girls is what I want. 

I have said nothing about wanting higher frequencies than 20 Khz. 

And what I want is already happening.  What AJ wants, multi-channel music, is not.  I stated the market dynamics.  I know the business and technology side of the audio market.  You want to ignore the former, sure, go ahead but don't ask me to participate.

Quote
P.S. * = exaggerated for effect, but I think think you can still see the serious point here.

I did.  Disappointing to see word arguments rather that substantive discussion.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #179 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
JJ is on private industry thread where we are discussing these latest developments for some time now.

Yet another of your insinuations, vs actual verifiable, public statements, like the ones I quoted above.


As it happens I'm graciously allowed on a mailing list frequented by recognizable 'names' in audio ...JJ posts there, too... and I'm very sure it's not that one, at least.  Though to see how that crowd would respond to Madrona's fancy footwork, and to Meridian's paper, would be...interesting.  I expect the latter at least will eventually get some scrutiny there.


But maybe 'what happens in private industry, stays in private industry'?

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

Reply #180 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Oh and by the way thanks for completely ignoring the critical arguments that I were presented. That's a win!
Indeed! Hope you don't mind my speading the credit around, as it wasn't all owed to you.


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

Reply #182 –
Quote from: amirm on
I did.  Disappointing to see word arguments rather that substantive discussion.


So Amir, when you resort to word arguments as you frequently do (many times on this thread alone) do you feel a sense of disappointment?

I did initially after conversing with you for the first few  times, but I learned how you work, and I'm over all that!

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

Reply #183 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Oh and by the way thanks for completely ignoring the critical arguments that I were presented. That's a win!
Indeed! Hope you don't mind my speading the credit around, as it wasn't all owed to you.

Not at all.

Some credit goes to HA moderation staff that isn't bamboozled by all of the word games and dancing around questions that he can't answer.  Happens all the time at you-know-where #1 & #2.

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

Reply #184 –
Quote from: amirm on
My elementary school teacher said: "every class needs a clown.  you just want to make sure you are not the one."


That advice seems to gone the same way as the basics of electronics usually related to a degree in electrical engineering that seemed to have gone missing by the first time I encountered you on AVS.

I have never corrected anybody in my life for as many very basic mistakes, even total laymen.

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

Reply #185 –
All I can hope to do is keep this shit on-topic and above board while allowing you guys your fun.

The last thing I want is for placebophiles in anti-DBT forums to see this thing get closed and declare a win, even though it would have been the result of it going sideways (like the other one).

It's krab's thread; he defined the topic. Those who wish to discuss something else should do him the courtesy start a new discussion.

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

Reply #186 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The paper seems to make two big omissions, both of relating to the fact that their choice of program material and listening room make their experiment almost 100% non-comparable with say Meyer and Moran or most work that proceeded it.

That is the true.  It is the difference between hobby work (Meyer and Moran) and that of professionals (Stuart).


Interesting that up until this paper the so called professional had AFAIK only authored  AES papers that failed to substantiate
their exceptional  claims with professional listening tests. Please show the BS1116 compliant tests by Stuart that had been substantiating Stuart's many exceptional claims prior to this one.

"Exceptional claims" don't make it as papers to the Journal of AES.  But let's say it does have exceptional claims.  That it was accepted  means that those "exceptional claims came with exceptional proof."  Right?  Right. 

Quote
Interesting that ABX for audio was raised up by hobbyists while the rest of the AES (the so-called hobbyists were AES members) were publishing papers in the Journal that were based on sighted evaluations.

Much of psychoacoustics/acoustics research is done with sighted analysis Arny.  Almost all industry research is done using sighted testing.  I can show you modern papers published in ASA that are done sighted.  You live in this fictitious world that is called an audio forum where you have convinced yourself the onlything valid is something with the words "ABX DBT" stamped on it.  That is not reality.  Go get a job in the industry instead of being a hobbyist and you quickly realize that is not how it works.

Double blind test are used sparingly because they take so long to administer and are so resource intensive.  And when they are done, they are not ABX.

Please don't confuse hobbyists performing sighted listening tests and forum arguments for real life.  In real life, you want the real answer and you want it efficiently.  You don't sit there trying to please Arny's of the world.

You mention ITU BS1116 which of course our hobbyists friends, Meyer and Moran did not use or reference.  That aside, there is absolutely no reference to ABX in BS1116.  Here is what it does stay about the testing methodology:

The “double-blind triple-stimulus with hidden reference” method has been found to be especially
sensitive, stable and to permit accurate detection of small impairments.

The tests use a grading system and not binary forced choice like ABX.  So not sure why you reference BS1116 when it is not supportive of your view.

Quote
In fact the program material that M&M used was in an audio format that met or exceeded every criteria that Stuart had called for.

It didn't remotely seeing how they did not even test to see if their content was high resolution.  ITU BS1116 says this about the proper test content:

* When selecting the programme material, it is important that the attributes which are to be assessed are precisely defined.
The responsibility of selecting material shall be delegated to a group of skilled subjects with a basic knowledge of the
impairments to be expected.

Meyer and Moran score: FAIL.  They did not delegate the selection to skilled subjects with the knowledge of impairments.  They self appointed themselves as the experts with no understanding of audio theory.

Stuart: PASS:  As an expert in the field, and evidenced by their test results, absolutely was qualified to pick the test material.

* Prior to formal grading, subjects must be allowed to become thoroughly familiar with the test facilities, the test
environment, the grading process, the grading scales and the methods of their use. Subjects should also become
thoroughly familiar with the artefacts under study. For the most sensitive tests they should be exposed to all the material
they will be grading later in the formal grading sessions. During familiarization or training, subjects should be preferably
together in groups (say, consisting of three subjects), so that they can interact freely and discuss the artefacts they detect
with each other.

Meyer and Moran Score: FAIL.  Nothing remotely like this was done.  No control/degraded reference so that they could familiarize themselves with what they were supposed to hear.

Stuart: PASS.  They followed the above to the letter.  A degraded positive control was used to train and familiarize testers.

So if you are in favor of compliance with BS1116, then you need to back the outcome of Stuart's test.  Since you are not, I imagine having BS1116 listed on your now defunct ABX web site was a farce.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #187 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Say what? Argument from authority has no parallel in real life?

No.  It is a phony tactic used on forums.  I have been to countless technical conferences.  Not once have I seen anyone stand up and say, "Sir, that is appeal to authority."  Or "that is a strawman."  Or "excluded middle." 


I attribute that to several strong influences:

(1) Conference speakers who know enough about basic rhetoric to not commit those gaffes.

(2) Audiences who are too polite and wise to waste everybody's time and patience pointing those gaffes out when poor speakers and politicians make them.

(3) Audiences who are already bored by the crappy speaker and know better than to do anything to extend the boredom.

However if you step out of the public show presentations and enter the (now mostly figurative) smoke filled rooms, well stuff happens.

I guess you never got invited that far inside...  I have.

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

Reply #188 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The paper seems to make two big omissions, both of relating to the fact that their choice of program material and listening room make their experiment almost 100% non-comparable with say Meyer and Moran or most work that proceeded it.

That is the true.  It is the difference between hobby work (Meyer and Moran) and that of professionals (Stuart).



The subjective testing by Stuart up until lately wasn't even up to the level of Meyer and Moran until just lately as I have documented.

Quote
Interesting that up until this paper the so called professional had AFAIK only authored  AES papers that failed to substantiate
their exceptional  claims with professional listening tests. Please show the BS1116 compliant tests by Stuart that had been substantiating Stuart's many exceptional claims prior to this one.
Quote

"Exceptional claims" don't make it as papers to the Journal of AES.



Very many exceptional claims made it into the Journal back in the days right before ABX. One topic that was rife with them related to Slew Induced Distortion. The very rapid acceptance of ABX by the AES was expedited due to displeasure among top AES officers over how much floobydust was making its way into the Journal.


Quote
Interesting that ABX for audio was raised up by hobbyists while the rest of the AES (the so-called hobbyists were AES members) were publishing papers in the Journal that were based on sighted evaluations.

Much of psychoacoustics/acoustics research is done with sighted analysis Arny.

Of course, and it is completely appropriate in many of those cases.

Quote
Almost all industry research is done using sighted testing.


Of course, and again it is completely appropriate in many of those cases.

Quote
I can show you modern papers published in ASA that are done sighted.


Of course, and again it is completely appropriate in many of those cases.

However the ASA was publishing a great many papers based on the JASA version of ABX long before the AES even mentioned the AES version of ABX.  People who read journals and don't just drop their names know such things.  They also know the nature of the differences between the two. One of the items in the committee review of Clark's AES ABX paper included clarifying these things because enough people in the AES knew about the ASA version of ABX whcih came much earlier.  So did we.  BTW the letters ABX in the AES were originally a play on my initials.

(This particular forum has a fairly low limit on quoting and rather than running afoul of it I will just skip over the many errors and misrepresentations that follow in the post I am responding to. I know that you will ignore most of my answers because you cannot muster any convincing response to them.)

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

Reply #189 –
Quote from: krabapple on
...  And listening in rooms that are often horrendous, acoustically. ...


The phrase "The elephant in the room" is being used a lot in these discussions.
It might be more appropriate to say "The elephant is the room."
Regards,
   Don Hills
"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

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

Reply #190 –
Quote from: splice on
Quote from: krabapple on
...  And listening in rooms that are often horrendous, acoustically. ...


The phrase "The elephant in the room" is being used a lot in these discussions.
It might be more appropriate to say "The elephant is the room."



One ironic fact is that while the recent Meridian test's organizers no doubt have a vast array of acoustical test gear at their disposal, their report appears to contains no measurements of the listening room that they used. Not even its dimensions - I guess their tape measures went missing!

This is the description of the listening room: "All signals were presented via loudspeakers. Subjects sat in a silent and soundproof listening room with near-optimal acoustic properties." Compliance with well-known recommendations for the listening room (BS 1116) don't seem to be even hinted at.

There's even a likely spot to report some of this information (Figure 3), but I see nothing about the room.

The text's description of Figure 3 is: "Fig. 3 shows the frequency analysis of the test signal on the same axes as behavioural thresholds MAF (minimum audible eld) and UEN (uniformly-exciting noise) threshold [29, 30]."

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

Reply #191 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: krabapple on
The Stuart AES Convention paper is now available for purchase/download at the AES library


I sure hope it's not an engineering report, anchors were used extensively and Bob has his credentials in order.


It's a convention paper -- so, not even peer reviewed.  (It's also a completely in-house affair -- all three authors work for Meridian). 

Thus, I expect Our Man from  Madrona will reject it forcefully, using at least three if not four different font colors.

You were right about the last sentence.  This answer will be in technicolor.  Why?  Because you are misstating such simple facts and it is important to get the right data out. 

This is what is on the title page of Stuart and crew's listening test paper:
----------
Winner of the AES 137th Convention Best Peer-Reviewed Paper Award

Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper
Presented at the 137th Convention
2014 October 9-12 Los Angeles, USA

The audibility of typical digital audio lters in a high-delity playback system

Helen M. Jackson, Michael D. Capp, and J. Robert Stuart
Meridian Audio Ltd, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 6YE, England
----------
Winner of best *peer-reviewed* paper award.  You say you have the paper but didn't see that?  And positioned it as not being peer-reviewed?

Of course any read of the paper would convinced you of its high quality and in no need of any award. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #193 –
Source of the BS paper tracks.
https://shop.klicktrack.com/2l/35847

16/44 (FLAC) tracks: $16 Score: PASS Reasonable, on par with B&M store

HiRez Scam tracks: up to $42 Score: FAIL Highly unreasonable for no whit of evidence of audibility in purchaser system

Website contains no purchaser requirements for:
Listener training:  Score FAIL
Iso-ward listening room: Score FAIL
Speakers with DR metal domes driven to near maximum levels that might create audible artifacts without band limiting FAIL
Use of atypical rectangular dither filters in Hi-Fi playback system FAIL

Luckily, there is a specific market that craves scams like no other.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #194 –
An independent, non-pecuniary interest outsider grading of the BS paper:


Adherence to ITU BS1116: BS Paper score: FAIL: "some" adherence, not full.

BS expert in the fields covered by paper  score: FAIL: Red Herring, only thing that matters are methods and results, not "expertise".

Test results, BS Paper score: FAIL: Deliberate use of Rectangular dither instead of their own recommended best practices Triangular, to fabricate positive results.

I add several other concerns/grades about the BS paper:
No system transparency (Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band, switching, speakers, etc) data, score: FAIL
Levels used with the direct radiator beryllium domes driven >105db speakers with and without band limiting possibly the cause of artifacts, score: FAIL

I certainly hope those with pecuniary interests in Hi Rez don't hang their hats on this Farce, but I guess we will see in the long run.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #195 –
To borrow a communication style I've seen used recently:

So let me get this straight...

If I were to spend exorbitant amounts of money on speakers, I might possibly hear a difference between 24/96 content and an improperly dithered 16/44 version.

Can the differences always be attributed to the actual content and not the equipment and/or SRC algorithm?

If yes:
What assurances do I have that spending exorbitant amounts on content will provide a difference in my listening experience?
What do these differences sound like, and under what circumstances in the content will I hear them?

If no:
How am I to know for certain when the differences are only attributable to the content?

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

Reply #196 –
Quote from: greynol on
To borrow a communication style I've seen used recently:

So let me get this straight...

If I were to spend exorbitant amounts of money on speakers, I might possibly hear a difference between 24/96 content and an improperly dithered 16/44 version.


There was an overall 0.56 fraction of correct identifications.

"We analysed the percent-correct scores for
each of sections 1-17 across all conditions, and found
that some sections yielded a higher ratio of correct
results than others. For example, sections 2, 6 and
17 gave correct-to-total ratios of 0.714, 0.710 and
0.769 respectively, whereas sections 1, 7 and 10 gave
correct-to-total ratios of 0.541, 0.455 and 0.509 re-
spectively..."


 

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

Reply #197 –
Quote from: amirm on
Winner of best *peer-reviewed* paper award.  You say you have the paper but didn't see that?  And positioned it as not being peer-reviewed?

The copy of the paper I just obtained from the AES web site starts out:

"This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed
by at least two quali ed anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention
paper has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the
Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents."

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

Reply #198 –
Quote from: greynol on
To borrow a communication style I've seen used recently:

So let me get this straight...

If I were to spend exorbitant amounts of money on speakers, I might possibly hear a difference between 24/96 content and an improperly dithered 16/44 version.

This would be a hypothesis to be tested in another listening test.  This one found differences in the system they tested.  The outcome says nothing one way or the other about lesser systems.

FYI, I passed all of my double blind ABX tests using my laptop and headphones.  Does that mean everyone with every laptop and headphone can hear the same?  Of course not.

These points aside, if a very expensive speaker managed to do something everyday speakers cannot do with respect to bring out small differences in how the content was encoded, that by itself is quite significant.  That high-end hardware brings with it better resolution of audio and with it, potentially lend claim that if someone hears a difference on a high-end system and you cannot, it could very well be due to the system cost/performance.

Quote
Can the differences always be attributed to the actual content and not the equipment and/or SRC algorithm?

The paper analyzes the content and demonstrates that this is indeed very good content as far as having a noise floor that is well below the threshold of hearing in the playback system/test.  Does that prove that it played a critical role in this test?  We don't know.  We can either validate or invalidate the null hypothesis.  We cannot validate alternative hypothesis without running another set of tests.

The SCR algorithm is very specifically documented in the paper so I leave it to everyone to read it.  And I answered the bit about equipment above.

Quote
If yes, what assurances do I have that spending exorbitant amounts on content will provide a difference in my listening experience?

On Amazon I routinely see MP3 albums being cheaper than CD.  I buy the CD.  So the "exorbitant" difference in cost is not a scientific question but a personal choice.  Either you care about the differential or you don't.  Either you think you will always hear the same or you won't.

No one is twisting your or my arm to buy higher resolution audio for higher price.  I don't always do that.  It depends on what the music is.  Giving a video example, for some movies I have no issue watching the DVD my wife buys.  But if she comes home with the next Star Trek movie in DVD instead of Blu-ray, I will be grumpy.  Very grumpy.

So the cost difference is orthogonal to the discussion.  That is a economic consideration between as the buyer and the content provider/distributor.  We don't judge if a four bedroom house brings more happiness to you than three, so don't ask us about the same difference in music fidelity .

And no, there is no guarantee.  That is like asking for a guarantee that you will like some music better.  You have to be a smart shopper.  Have good ears that can detect such distortions and if your theory is right, proper hardware to play it.

Quote
If no, how am I to know for certain when the differences are only attributable to the content?

I don't know.  If I just hand you a CD what can you tell about its quality as it sits there?  Can you swear it will sound better than the MP3 to you in all cases?

Quote
What do these differences sound like, and under what circumstances will I hear them?

No one can tell you that.  How you will hear the difference is something you must experience.  You know how to do that with compressed music, right?  If you had not, would the concept of pre-echo have any meaning to you if I wrote it?  It wouldn't right? 

Same here.  Instead of hoping to win a written argument, spend some time seeing if you too hear the differences some of us have reliably reported through ABX testing.  If you do, you will then speak first hand about what we are talking about.  And if you do not, then you can sign off from this thread knowing that increased fidelity beyond CD is of no value to you.

===========

I answered your questions as you put to me.  But none of it may matter!  Not at all.  Because the high resolution stereo master may very well NOT be subject to loudness compression.  If so, then the difference will be "huge."  Night and day and that sort of thing.  Before you ask me again if that is guaranteed, no.  It is not.  Seek out reviews on WBF Forum, Computer Audiophile, etc. web site where people discuss such things including posting spectrums and such, and you will walk into your purchase with open mind.

The other benefit is that you can download the high resolution master, but you cannot with the CD.  I for example downloaded the L2 sampler that was used in the Stuart tests.  Lovely, lovely music.  That is why I bought it.  I sampled it, it was beautiful music.  1.3 gigabyte download that happened in a few minutes in the background.  Done.  No trip to store.  No ripping when my laptop doesn't even have an optical disc reader. 

If these things are not worth it to you, then ignore it.  But my hope is that you don't keep throwing word arguments at me and not looking at the larger argument.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #199 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: amirm on
Winner of best *peer-reviewed* paper award.  You say you have the paper but didn't see that?  And positioned it as not being peer-reviewed?

The copy of the paper I just obtained from the AES web site starts out:

"This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed
by at least two quali ed anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention
paper has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the
Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents."

Hi Arny.  That is just a boilerplate AES puts on every conference paper these days.  The Stuart paper is different and has this additional line I post:

Winner of the AES 137th Convention Best Peer-Reviewed Paper Award

That is the result of this (rather) new category of paper submission to the conference: http://www.aes.org/events/137/authors/137thCallForPapers.pdf

Authors may submit proposals in three categories:
1. Complete-manuscript peer-reviewed convention papers (submit at www.aes.org/137th_authors)
2. Abstract-precis-reviewed convention papers (submit at www.aes.org/137th_authors)
3. Synopsis-reviewed engineering briefs (submit at www.aes.org/137th_ebriefs)


For the complete-manuscript peer-reviewed convention papers (category 1), authors are asked to submit papers of 4–10 pages to the
submission site. Papers exceeding 10 pages run the risk of rejection without review. These complete-manuscript papers will be reviewed
by at least two experts in the field, and authors will be notified of acceptance by 2014 June 18. Final manuscript with revisions
requested by the reviewers have to be submitted before 2014 July 9. If rejected as a convention paper (Cat. 1), the proposal may still be
accepted for categories 2 or 3.

Award selection is then made from these complete, peer-reviewed papers. Winning the award opens the door to the paper being published in the journal.

I think we have slammed the door shut on any statement regarding standing of this paper in the eyes of professional AES community.  It is excellent work.  It is the most careful double blind test of small differences due to coding of audio that has been published.  It is an inconvenient truth to be sure for many, but hopefully the search for knowledge and learning trumps that negative emotion.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com