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.

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.

So the cost difference is orthogonal to the discussion.

The other benefit is that you can download the high resolution master, but you cannot with the CD.

Benefit because the label offers downloads in every format but 16/44 WAV? They offer it in 16/44 FLAC, which is the equivalent of CD.

There is not a whit of evidence that any audiophile, anywhere, can hear any "benefit" with bigger files, in their system, in their room.

Unless you mean "artifacts" like oil can resonances without band limiting. I certainly concede that possibility of "more resolution".

What type of dither did Meyer and Moran use?  Whatever was in the A/D and D/A converters of the CD-ROM recorder, right?  Here is Stuart on his latest test:

This [playback] 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].

And

We chose to use undithered quantization as
a probe and | although we would normally rec-
ommend TPDF dither for best practice -- we con-
sidered rectangular dither to be more representative
of the non-ideal dither or error-feedback processing
found in some commercial A/D and D/A filters.

Seems reasonable to me.  After all, who knows what dither if any was used in the music that people are shipping to us in 16/44.1?  It is not like they know what you and I know about dither types.

Quote

There is not a whit of evidence that any audiophile, anywhere, can hear any "benefit" with bigger files, in their system, in their room.

There is no evidence that they are not either.  So?

So they calibrate the test for a particular system parameter but change that parameter during the actual test? And they give no citation to justify the change, but instead say "we consider"? This section should not have passed peer review (if it really did).

To the extent a high resolution file does exist, yes they do offer the downgraded versions.  Those versions however are not the CD master.

There is no evidence that they are not either.  So?

So your contention is that people heard the 26 Khz resonance in the formal listening test?  What data do you have on audibility of 26 Khz AJ?

Quote from: Ethyl's Fred on 2014-11-16 22:33:24

So they calibrate the test for a particular system parameter but change that parameter during the actual test? And they give no citation to justify the change, but instead say "we consider"? This section should not have passed peer review (if it really did).

I don't follow you.  There is no system calibration.  There is no parameter change during the test.  The type of dither or not were independent tests.  The peers read the whole paper and not just that snippet.

You are talking about this in the stereophile review?

Although the tweeter's "oil-can" dome resonance results in a narrow spike 12dB above the reference level at 1kHz, this can be seen to occur at a high 26kHz. With CD material, this resonance will have no audible consequences, as it will not be excited by the band-limited source, even when upsampled by the Meridian 800. The resonance will be excited by wide-bandwidth SACD and DVD-Audio material, but I heard nothing untoward when using these sources.
-JA

...
"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 respectively..."

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-16 21:10:15

...
"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 respectively..."

Do I detect a faint aroma of fresh-picked cherries?
Or is it that... 
mmmm, fresh cherries.

I'll remind you amir, there is not a whit of evidence to suggest 16/44 playback is non-transparent in home audio end use.

Dubious dither doctored tests and unsupervised online games are not evidence against this.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-16 22:21:28

So your contention is that people heard the 26 Khz resonance in the formal listening test?  What data do you have on audibility of 26 Khz AJ?

Nope. My contention is that purported "experts" better look at all factors that may generate artifacts in the (human) audible range (<20k) when driving DR metal dome speakers near their limits without the benefit of 22K band limiting.

It would be a very amateur hobbyist type mistake, to overlook factors that create false positive results in any test. It's bad enough that one was deliberately introduced (RPDF) to induce positives. Overlooked ones might cause unnecessary embarrassment.

We still have no idea whether any differences, supposing that they were detected reliably, were the result of the content or the hardware.

If it was the content (in the case of the Meridian test), we do not know what would have happened if the files had not been intentionally compromised with rectangular dither.

The only response that directly addressed the gist of my post was, "we don't know."

mmmm, fresh cherries.

Yes, and obvious flaws exist which were touched upon, which you have not been able to dismiss successfully.

This isn't particularly earth-shattering when it has already been conceded that 16 bits is not audibly transparent under all circumstances.  I'm pretty sure most here will also accept that not all SRCs will guarantee transparency, either.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-16 22:02:22

There is not a whit of evidence that any audiophile, anywhere, can hear any "benefit" with bigger files, in their system, in their room.

There is no evidence that they are not either.  So?

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.

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 from: 2Bdecided on 2014-11-15 23:33:45

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.

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

There are no obvious flaws.

AJ, you are typing in a thread where we are discussing an award winning, peer-review paper showing such differences can be audible.

Quote

Dubious dither doctored tests and unsupervised online games are not evidence against this.

I hear you.  You are wrong.  But I  hear you.  Buy the paper, read it and try again.

Demonstrate your point with measurements and data please.

It is tragic that such high accolades are being heaped on a document that libels and/or ignores well known previous technology (ABX testing, BS1116 recommendations, etc.)