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 331200 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #350
THAT was M&M 's point.  That great and obvious difference did not require >44kHz sampling or >16 bits  in the delivery medium, to achieve.

It did from business point of view.  What enabled labels to dump millions of dollars into new masters was the advent of new formats with strong copy protection.  If you stayed with the CD you wouldn't get it.


Good lord, this is a weak and weasely argument, even for you.

Can't you ever post something without personal remarks Steven?  It gets tiring to sift through them.

Quote
Hi rez is not marketed as 'better copy protected!'  No one reviews the copy protection of hi rez releases.  Its not what you and your ilk rave about.

Re-read my post.  I said that both high resolution formats came about not because of consumer demand but business need.  The labels needed better copy protection.  Hardware companies wanted to sell new gear and make money from patents.  These business motivations funded spending money to remaster content in those formats.

Nothing was said about marketing anything or stating the obvious that the consumer doesn't want or care about copy protection.  Dial down the level of angst and read the posts more carefully.

Quote
Here's the facts:

Sub-audiophile mastering was not a development *necessitated* by the CD format. (It's actually a perversion of the original intent of CD)

It certainly was.  CD did not have copy protection.  Labels wanted to get rid of the format so supported two new ones that had such.

So you have full context, what I am positing comes from direct and personal interactions with music labels and CE companies.

Quote
And you didn't *necessarily* avoid it with 'hi rez' either.  I have hi rez releases that are as 'smashed' as their 'modern remastered' CD counterparts.  TAKE A LOOK

Off-topic.  David asked why the small incremental fidelity like we are finding in Stuart's tests justified the new formats.  I explained that there were titles with huge difference due to different masters.  So the fidelity difference was definitely there in the form of finished goods that the consumer could buy.

Quote
So even you can see, surely, how mendacious it is to ascribe 'better sound' to the *hi rez format* ?  That's what magicians call *misdirection*.

No, I call you totally confused about what discussion David and I were having.  You keep repeating these talking points of yours regarding high res.  I hear you.  And much of it is true.  But off topic.  You are jumping in the middle of a discussion thinking it is the larger spec vs spec battle.  It is not.  We are discussing the business end of two new physical formats entering the market.

Quote
The fact is, we play the odds when be buy music.  The odds of getting an audiophile mastering might be *better* for 'hi rez' but it's  still a gamble, and it still just shows how contemptuous the industry is of us --  when the same mastering could be offered on CD or 16/44 download, for less $$.

Sure.  And I gave you even more insidious reasoning as to why high resolution formats came about.  Why are you complaining then?

I was not in any way form or fashion supportive of those physical formats.  Not because of your tired talking points.  But because of the stupidity of setting back convenience from CD. 

When Blu-ray copy protection system was being designed, I was at the table as one of the founding companies (AACS).  Studios walked in with their list of improved copy protection.  I walked in with one: one free rip of the disc included in the price.  They asked why.  I said everyone could rip DVDs.  We could not improve fidelity but then take away that option.  We better offer that right.  You may know this as "managed copy."  I left the industry and unfortunately they never finished that work which resulted in breach of Blu-ray's copy protection by both honest and dishonest users.

This is what I like about today's high resolution offer.  It is free of copy protection so can be very portable.  It doesn't harm anyone for it to be out there.  But satisfies many of us who want it.  This infuriates you why?  How many angry posts do we need to read from you Steven?  What business of yours is it to keep running around creating animosity among members with these battles?  The world has changed and you need to change with it.  This is not 2007.  It isn't.  Look it up! 

Quote
We are *talking about*, at root, the overblown claims for hi rez audibility that have accompanied it since at least the late 1990s.  The sequence of reports since then about hi rez sound from Stuart, from Oohashi et al, Meyer & Moran, from Monty, and everyone in between, have *all* been about that, in essence.

*You* don't get to dictate what *my* thread is about, Dancing Man.

Once again, you are totally confused.  Go back and start reading from David's post.  I have explained it all again above.  You are so emotional that you can't even read what is post objectively.  Or let totally logical arguments sink in.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #351
*You* don't get to dictate what *my* thread is about

I tried to make this point earlier.

With respect, the only thing you are trying to do is fan the flames of personal battles.  Why is it so hard to stay on the technical topic?  Why do you have to keep posting taking sides in personal bickering?  Is there a shortage of technical things you could say?

Post after post is full of derogatory terms, personal insults, and you go on to praise them as being right?  Is this what this forum is about?  No objective discussion of technology but encouraging personal fights by running commentary?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #352
There was no 105 db tone hitting the tweeter at 30 Khz.  The music signal is down to 20 db SPL at that frequency.  Any intermodulation would be at far lower level.

You're continuing to flail wildly is amusing me.
Now who's speculating? 
Fact is amir, your assumption that the system was transparent to the object of the BS test is just that, an assumption. No data whatsoever, especially for the critical HF performance.
Then of course there is the rest of the chain, software switching, etc, etc.
Have I mentioned JJ's statement about the difficulty of such tests due to artifacts? Pity you pay no heed to the real experts in the field.

You would be saying that...

Nope, that's Amir doing that saying for me. 


CONCLUSIONS
1. FIR filters that emulate downsampling for sample rates of 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz can have a deleterious effect on the listening experience in a wideband playback system.
2. 16-bit quantization with and without RPDF dither can have a deleterious effect on the listening experience in a wideband playback system.


Yaaawwwwnn
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #353
With respect, the only thing you are trying to do is fan the flames of personal battles.

Because you're being called out on multiple occasions for not honoring the topic, I'm fanning the flames of personal battles?

Meanwhile you keep flogging the same chart and tired unconvincing arguments and you wonder why there is a lack of technical discussion?

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

Reply #354
So let's leave such arguments to AJ, mzil, Arny's of the world and keep the level of discussion at high technical level.

The only BS test I know is the Meyer and Moran where they had not even heard of BS116 it seems

When did you learn to measure stuff AJ? You didn't go and learn something about audio in the last year or two, did you?


Post after post is full of derogatory terms, personal insults, and you go on to praise them as being right?  Is this what this forum is about?


Thank goodness you always rise above the fray with professionalism and laser focus on the argument amir.

cheers,

AJ


Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #355
You left out his  po-faced concern trolling when a response to him get too 'personal'.

Indeed!

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

Reply #356
With respect, the only thing you are trying to do is fan the flames of personal battles.

Because you're being called out on multiple occasions for not honoring the topic, I'm fanning the flames of personal battles?

Meanwhile you keep flogging the same chart and tired unconvincing arguments and you wonder why there is a lack of technical discussion?

So there is no hope of you contributing technically and constructively, taking the high road and encouraging members to act professionally?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #357
Can't you ever post something without personal remarks Steven?  It gets tiring to sift through them.


Add 'utterly unself-aware' to the list of your charms.

Quote
Quote
Hi rez is not marketed as 'better copy protected!'  No one reviews the copy protection of hi rez releases.  Its not what you and your ilk rave about.

Re-read my post.  I said that both high resolution formats came about not because of consumer demand but business need.  The labels needed better copy protection.  Hardware companies wanted to sell new gear and make money from patents.  These business motivations funded spending money to remaster content in those formats.


Typically for your posts, that's not the whole story.  DSD was invented as a worry-free archiving format for Sony, easily convertible to Redbook or any multiple sample rate thereof; it was then co-opted into a (highly copy protected) distribution format.  Mark Waldrep has  a nice 3-part summary of the genesis of DSD, though he of course is biased in favor of the competing technology; still, it accord with everything I have read previously about subject.

Quote
Quote
Here's the facts:

Sub-audiophile mastering was not a development *necessitated* by the CD format. (It's actually a perversion of the original intent of CD)


It certainly was.  CD did not have copy protection.  Labels wanted to get rid of the format so supported two new ones that had such.
So you have full context, what I am positing comes from direct and personal interactions with music labels and CE companies.


Naturally, your reply doesn't even address what I wrote.  And spare me your insider anecdotes and self-puffery.

Hi rez was (and *continues to be*) sold NOT as the new way for industry to protect its content from piracy.  It was (is) sold as markedly better sound for the consumer. ...but *not* just due  to better mastering.  The claim is that they sound greatly  better *due to the format*.

Stuart et al , who of course have a huge investment in DVD-A and its sequelae, are in their own way pushing this line still.

And I don't care what *you * think the topic is, so stop whining about it.  What I've seen 2bdecided (David) write here is an eloquent affirmation of what I'm writing too.  He too wonders strongly at the disjunction between the 'obvious' sonic difference (improvement!) promised for hi rez by the cheerleaders, and the paltry reality indicated even by the new Meridian report.  THAT is the topic.

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

Reply #358
And I don't care what *you * think the topic is, so stop whining about it.  What I've seen 2bdecided (David) write here is an eloquent affirmation of what I'm writing too.  He too wonders strongly at the disjunction between the 'obvious' sonic difference (improvement!) promised for hi rez by the cheerleaders, and the paltry reality indicated even by the new Meridian report.  THAT is the topic.


Greynol, so I am calibrated, would you kindly advise if Krab is right and this is the topic?  What cheer leaders say, what the industry promised, wondering about sonic difference, etc?  I am happy to have this discussion but don't want to get told I am being off-topic.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #359
So there is no hope of you contributing technically and constructively, taking the high road and encouraging members to act professionally?

That is entirely up to you.  I tried at first, only to be completely put-off by your antics.

Now if you would prefer I moderate, rather than participate, don't be surprised when large portions of the discussion are binned for being off-topic.  If it turns out to be at least 5 out of every 9 with a 95% likelihood as not to have occurred by chance, would that constitute a huge win and worthy of an award?

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

Reply #360
and btw, the hi rez 'even more perfect sound forever' pitch wasn't just to Joe Listener.  It was to recording engineers too.  Back in the early days of SACD Sony was offering SACD production tech (the Sonoma system ) *free* to studios..and what were they telling them?

Mark Waldrep relates:
Quote
I heard about the DSD hype at the time. I spoke to some folks at Sony about the Sonoma system and the theory behind the whole 64fs 1-bit miracle that was going to bring new levels of “analog like” fidelity to the digital world.

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

Reply #361
No, I started up pretty "deaf."  I remember being shocked that I could not hear much difference between 128 kbps MP3 and the source.  That bothered me .  So I started on a path to become a trained listener and after literally hundreds of hours of testing, and tons of education learning about psychoacoustics and algorithms in audio processing, all of a sudden found myself in a super unique situation of outperforming everyone else around me in such tests.  I have never liked the phrase but everyone would call me the "golden ear."

The experience taught me to use my ears as an instrument and separate it from enjoyment of music.  Today I can't let go of that skill.  It seems to be with me forever.  For that reason US DBS broadcasting (eg. XM) bothers me to no end.  I love the content but can't listen to it.

And let's distinguish between hearing and listening.  My hearing is shot due to age.  I am embarrassed to say that I can't even hear 12 Khz well.  The reason I do well still I think is that I focus on what I think technically matter and combine that with my training to look for small differences.  I suspect people with my training but intact frequency response will be able to do a lot better.  I actually ran into one such person at Microsoft who was working with a partner of ours.  He was hearing high frequency distortions I could not.  We hired him immediately .  And I moved off from doing a lot of the listening tests myself.

Let me confess.  I had no idea I could do this after so many years after retirement.  I just ran the tests because people like Arny kept egging me on so I gave it a try.

Having read the Stuart paper and prior citations, I am starting to think this may be due to time domain impact.  It certainly is not frequency domain since I can't hear the ultrasonics. Just as pre-echo is a very audible time domain artifact (although created in frequency domain), maybe these filters act the same way.


After reading this I get an even stronger sense that you must have been cheating in a lot of the logs you posted, or you have some seriously anomalous hearing (regarding detecting lossy compression).

The filters used have linear phase. The pre-echo is no echo but filter ringing at over 21 kHz that only acts on the energy that is up there.
If you can't hear well past 12 kHz then how would you detect the ringing of a filter at over 21 kHz? So please explain why this filter ringing is of concern for you.

Using the transition band from the paper to simulate 44.1 kHz within 192 kHz you get a filter order of 1715+.
A less escapist filter that starts roll-off at 20500 Hz results in an order of 508.

At 16 kHz the order would be only 130. At 12 kHz only 78. So if you "magically" could hear the ringing at 21 kHz, which doesn't seem to make any sense, you could upgrade all your CDs to hi-res quality (ignoring mastering differences) by lowpass filtering them again.
"I hear it when I see it."

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

Reply #362
And I don't care what *you * think the topic is, so stop whining about it.  What I've seen 2bdecided (David) write here is an eloquent affirmation of what I'm writing too.  He too wonders strongly at the disjunction between the 'obvious' sonic difference (improvement!) promised for hi rez by the cheerleaders, and the paltry reality indicated even by the new Meridian report.  THAT is the topic.


Greynol, so I am calibrated, would you kindly advise if Krab is right and this is the topic?  What cheer leaders say, what the industry promised, wondering about sonic difference, etc?  I am happy to have this discussion but don't want to get told I am being off-topic.



What malarkey.  This is one of Amir's steps: in all 'politeness', he will parse every word down to its atomic structure, in order to divert from the main topic, if it isn't  going his way.  "Control the narrative' never found a more fervent practitioner.

I would simply ask respondents: don't necessarily follow his lead, unless you can bring it back to the subject of claims made about the 'sound' of hi rez vs redbook. 

We have already discussed to death that NO ONE says there cannot be audible difference.  So it does really all come down to a matter of degree.  The industry has claimed for well over a decade now that hi rez, in itself, produces an inherent and *not subtle*  audible difference -- regardless of source (the first SACDs were all analog/PCM sourced, for example).

Now we have this new report,  the latest eruption of a long-bubbling vein, offering mildly positive statistical evidence that 'typical' digital filters used to render 'hi rez' down to Redbook rates can produce audible artifacts under highly specified conditions. 

Supposing the results actually hold up, the question is, does this 'explain' in any significant way, the numerous concordant and bold claims from hi rez proponents over the years, reporting from a vast variety of listening situations, of bold audible difference due to the formats?

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

Reply #363
Adding to the ringing post above:



The background signal (blue) shows a sweep from 20 kHz to 23 kHz.
The rest show this signal filtered with the following pass band edges:
magenta = 20.5 kHz
cyan = 21.591 kHz
red = 22 kHz

Stop band starts at 22.05 kHz in all cases.

Here the same graph when subtracting the filtered signals from the original:


Here's what happens when you mess up the filtering (see cyan line which doesn't null anymore with the original signal): png
"I hear it when I see it."

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

Reply #364
Greynol, so I am calibrated, would you kindly advise if Krab is right and this is the topic?

It is clear to me that this topic is about the Meridian paper and how it will be used in the on-going narrative promoting the benefits of >48/16 audio to the end user.

How the M&M test fits into the narrative is fine too, as is DSD/SACD.  The idea that DSD wasn't intentionally pitched to the end user as delivering a sonic improvement is ludicrous.

While I'm pretty sure David sees this the same way, your conversation with him does not take precedence or dictate what is on or off-topic.

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

Reply #365
The idea that DSD wasn't intentionally pitched to the end user as delivering a sonic improvement is ludicrous.

Very much so.  What I can't figure out is why you are attributing that to me.

And thanks for the answer.  I will take forum thread titles with a grain of salt from here on.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #366
You say that the quality difference was incremental/tiny.  Not at all.  Music that we remastered for these formats sounded far better than the CD.  You can read this in Meyer and Moran report:

[color="#0000FF"]Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.


The above text does not appear to be supported by the DBTs that the authors claimed to have performed. While ABX is great for detecting small differences, it is well known to be very suboptimal for ranking sound quality among alternatives that do sound different.  In short, I see no use of DBT procedures that are preferred when the goal is ranking preference.

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

Reply #367
I fail to see the relevance of this line of arguments to the topic at hand.

It is already accepted that different masters can be used for different formats.

If one wants to discuss format limitations, please search for an existing topic.

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

Reply #368
It's not relevant.  It's just annoying ankle-biting.

Remastering differences are what people are typically hearing when they hear differences between 'hi rez' releases and CD.  This was M&M's point.  It's hardly a world-shaker.  Objectively and comparatively, those differences tend to be 'huge': decibel-range differences in EQ and compression and sourcing, after all, not differences in noise floors and ultrasonic content and degree of  'temporal smearing'.  It hardly 'requires' a DBT to differentiate them (though for *preference* the proper DBT would be ABC/hr, or similar, not ABX, yadda yadda yadda)  Subjectively, they are the drivers of preference too...unless the listener has also been primed to believe that 'hi rez' makes things sound much better, and they know nothing about 'remastering'.  In that case, they will ascribe the 'big' difference they hear, to hi rez.

And here we are again:

Are the 'big' differences that fans ascribe to 'hi rez', really due to it?  The M&M paper strongly suggests not.  The Meridian paper doesn't seem to support a  robust 'yes' to that question either.  Does *any* work support it?

 

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

Reply #369
I guess others (perhaps c|net, Wired, New Scientist, etc.) will report on the Meridian paper's significance (if it has any significance at all, that is).  Anyone seen any reports?

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

Reply #370
We have already discussed to death that NO ONE says there cannot be audible difference.  So it does really all come down to a matter of degree.  The industry has claimed for well over a decade now that hi rez, in itself, produces an inherent and *not subtle*  audible difference -- regardless of source (the first SACDs were all analog/PCM sourced, for example).

Now we have this new report,  the latest eruption of a long-bubbling vein, offering mildly positive statistical evidence that 'typical' digital filters used to render 'hi rez' down to Redbook rates can produce audible artifacts under highly specified conditions.


I find it rather interesting that this article is based on listening tests that never came within a country mile of involving anything like the typical digital filters that one finds in a Hi-Fi playback chain.  Their operational frequencies were wrong, and their transition bands were wrong. The test also went off-topic as compared to its title and purported to test word length reduction, and got that wrong as well. 

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

Reply #371
I guess others (perhaps c|net, Wired, New Scientist, etc.) will report on the Meridian paper's significance (if it has any significance at all, that is).  Anyone seen any reports?


I just asked Google that question, and she found pre-conference mentions at just HA, Gearslutz, HiRezAduioCentral and ComputerAudiophile.

However Google's little webbot seems to be a little behind in its chores, she seems to think that this thread has 25 posts, the last dated 10/6/2014

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

Reply #372
To be fair, the earliest mainstream-ish reference to M&M I can find is Mixonline's "The Emperor's New Sampling Rate", a good 6 months after M&M published.



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

Reply #374
I guess others (perhaps c|net, Wired, New Scientist, etc.) will report on the Meridian paper's significance (if it has any significance at all, that is).  Anyone seen any reports?

Stereophile officially denounced blind/honesty controls testing as relevant in this months issue (Krab linked earlier), so I would expect this BS paper to be touted by Amirs side in next months issue as a, see, we told you deaf objectivists so.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer