Remember, this forum requires such proofs of audible difference.  See TOS #8 in my last post.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-22 22:33:20

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-22 21:34:27

So low-res audio is not about sales?

Sure it is. But it's not a $cam, like inaudible benefit "Hi-Rez" for more $$.

Who says?

You say I have claimed to hear audible problems.  I have not.

Can you prove you can hear the difference  between CD and MP3 Ammar?

Remember, this forum requires such proofs of audible difference.  See TOS #8 in my last post.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-22 22:33:20

I sell speakers...

You do more than that Ammar.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-22 22:36:46

Can you prove you can hear the difference  between CD and MP3 Ammar?

I don't have to, as it's only purpose would be to Red Herring or Ad Hominem the arguments about the BS paper.

And no I won't meet you in the schoolyard for a fight after classes either Amir.

If you feel I've violated forum rules, please report it. Otherwise, let's get back to the BS paper and you inability to defend it, the real source of your worries. 

If you read the fine-print you'd have seen that the award was given on basis of the abstract and a 750-word summary, which has been peer-reviewed. They explicitly say that the paper itself has not been peer reviewed. How can a journal in good conscience hand out an award in that case?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-16 21:17:03

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-16 17:09:00

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 The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed.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.

And anyway, highlighting the names of the authors or the fact that this paper got an (dubious) award also means nothing at all. What's more interesting is that all of the people work at a company with a strong interest to push "hi-res" mass-market adoption.

In numbers, yes, but in terms of human hearing there is still, to this date, no peer reviewed, published study which has found even a single individual, anywhere, under any conditions, using either music or specially designed test tones (to make the challenge even easier), who can distinguish between CD quality sound and Hi-res even in an ideal, specially treated room, using $20K-$80K/pr speakers [$46k?], under controlled, blind, level matched conditions, sourced from the same master recording, at normal listening levels, with statistical significance.

Are you ever going to stop trying to shift the burden of proof? Again, it makes you look retarded and impossible to take seriously. Your deluded statements do not help your case either. You may even be partially right, but no one here is going to take you seriously the way you state your case. I am not an engineer so I do not understand the technical details, but I do not need to if one side of this never ending debate is clearly irrational. You lose by default. It's getting old.

Every DBT thrown at me I have taken and passed.

I've filtered some 24/96 audio with the linear phase (050) and maximum phase (100) 20k impulses, and uploaded the results here:
...

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2010-07-07 12:58:27

The files I linked to in this thread have expired.

To make sure the files remain accessible, I've also put them online on my website.
Note that these are slightly modified files made on Jul 9 2010 by bandpass.
The shell-script used to generate the latest samples is available as well.
...
limehouse_20k.zip
...

{Link to AVS post = http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post29132777 }
Amirm,
as you have indicated an ability to ABX test pairs provided by AVS for this thread, I wonder whether you would be good enough to try out the test pair below, On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_X2.flac and On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_Y2.flac, one of which is the first two minutes of a true 24/96 hi-res version as supplied by AVS Forum, and the other of which is the same file constricted to 16/44 and then resampled back to 24/96, using readily available software, the SoX utility.

I would be interested in:

• Whether you feel you hear differences.
• If so, whether you are able to establish that objectively using ABX software.
• How pronounced the subjective differences are for your ears, and what character the differences have for your ears.

I note that the dither used was a slightly modified version of TPDF dither. It is not the rectangular dither used for the AES 137th Convention Paper, The audibility of typical digital audio filters in a high-fidelity playback system.

I note also that the files are time aligned and level-matched. This can be verified by inverting one, playing both together, using an editor such as Audacity, and hearing silence.

Quote from: MLXXX on AVS Forum link=msg=0 date=

{Link to AVS post = http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post29078954 }
In this post, I provide an updated version of level-matched, time-aligned, files for the first two minutes of On_The_Street_Where_You_Live.

If anyone does try comparing X2 and Y2, at a normal, moderate listening volume, and succeeds with an ABX test, I'd be interested in any subjective comments as to how pronounced they found the difference(s) to be for their hearing.

...

The new files have been encoded as flac and can be downloaded from these links:
On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_X2.flac
On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_Y2.flac

If anyone wishes to verify the test files they are free to download SoX  and then run the commands specified in the full wording of the above quoted post. (You may find it convenient to place the original 24/96 .wav file in the same directory as sox.exe and run the command prompt from that directory.)

Quote from: Satellite_6 on 2014-11-23 04:12:26

Are you ever going to stop trying to shift the burden of proof? Again, it makes you look retarded and impossible to take seriously. Your deluded statements do not help your case either. You may even be partially right, but no one here is going to take you seriously the way you state your case. I am not an engineer so I do not understand the technical details, but I do not need to if one side of this never ending debate is clearly irrational. You lose by default. It's getting old.

Shift the burden of proof?  Proof has been provided.  Every DBT thrown at me I have taken and passed.

And so a better test was developed which is the topic of this thread.

Did I mention weak results? People, we got weak results. There is a tradition that requires an audible situation to be detectable 70% of the time to be worthy of serious consideration, but this paper only obtained 56% reliable detection.  Even though a relatively large number of trials were run, only 95% confidence was achieved. The problem with this is that when there is 95% confidence we can expect about one chance in about 20 that the results were really due to random guessing. 17 different musical segments were tested, so the 1 in 20 chance may be a real possibility.

Ah, so the premium cost of CD over MP3 is justified.  But past that, it is a sin.
The rules we invent.  It is like saying you can go from 3 to 4 bedroom house. But oh, more than that?  It is a sin.

Award winning peer-reviewed paper

People have passed ABX DBT tests of high res vs CD's 16/44.

But we now say live witnesses are required.

The paper is misnamed because in fact no actual "...Typical filters in a HiFi playback system..." were ever used.

"Audibility of Atypical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System"....

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-23 09:19:27

The paper is misnamed because in fact no actual "...Typical filters in a HiFi playback system..." were ever used.

Yes, I noted this a while back.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-12 15:53:26

"Audibility of Atypical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System"....

I probably should also have noted, a playback system with unknown switching, loudspeaker, etc, etc, transparency to the test.

It will be interesting if it's ever revealed who the 2 anonymous reviewers were. See if we know at least one. 

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-23 09:19:27

The paper is misnamed because in fact no actual "...Typical filters in a HiFi playback system..." were ever used.

Yes, I noted this a while back.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-12 15:53:26

"Audibility of Atypical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System"....

I probably should also have noted, a playback system with unknown switching, loudspeaker, etc, etc, transparency to the test.

I think we know what speakers were ($80k/pr Meridians) , and they are active speakers so that covers the amplifier part.  A Macbook's internal audio interface was the rest of the system.

What we don't know is what the room was like, listening distance, etc.  I'll bet the speakers were boresighted on the listeners ears.

Ye, I noticed that with amirs silence when I asked him if he could figure out what the speaker distance was based on the test description.

The whole paper seems incredibly vague in many areas. Hopefully all will come to light at some point.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-23 05:11:57

Every DBT thrown at me I have taken and passed.

Amirm, I see you passed a comparison of non-linear filtering on this forum in the 20kHz brickwall filtering thread, and a particular comparison of non-aligned sources on another forum (AVS), in its "take 2" thread. I have not seen your attempt at ABXing linear filtering in the 20kHz brickwall thread, or time-aligned files in the AVS take 2 thread (my own samples X2 and Y2).

Given that your hearing is not as responsive to high frequencies as it used to be, it would be quite reasonable for you to decline. However if you wish to display a current prowess, then I would invite you specifically to try ABXing the linear 20kHz brickwall filter example on this forum,¹ and the time-aligned, level aligned, linear filtered for 44.1kHz, On_The_Street_Where_You_Live examples X2 and Y2 on AVS Forum.² If you try, and hear no differences, please advise.

Another ABX report of these samples can be found here:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=880594

2014-11-13 09:16:06

File A: limehouse_maximum_phase_100.wav
SHA1: 722dc26db8d4ce666dc03875b2c8d4570d22b521
File B: limehouse_reference.wav
SHA1: e8ad96830d23cad4bba5bf822ce875ae452b9e7c

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver

09:16:06 : Test started.
09:16:48 : 01/01
[... snip ...]
09:18:42 : 16/16
09:18:42 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 16/16
Probability that you were guessing: 0.0%

-- signature --
5b42b06c414b6ba77a3998695bf119a2d57663c0

===========

While I have you here, would you please represent if you cheated in any way in running the above test and getting positive outcome?  I am asking because I post the above but I am accused of cheating by xnor and Ammar.  More in the next post.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-23 13:52:59

Ye, I noticed that with amirs silence when I asked him if he could figure out what the speaker distance was based on the test description.

You did?  I don't read your posts all the time Ammar.  But this one is pretty easy to answer.  From the paper:

For a system gain of 75 dB, the loudest peak passage was measured as 102 dB SPL at the listening position, somewhat lower than the level we would expect from a live performance at a distance of 3 m.

So for us with the broken Imperial system, it was about 10 feet.

Compare this to 4 pages or so for Meyer and Moran....

Given that your hearing is not as responsive to high frequencies as it used to be, it would be quite reasonable for you to decline. However if you wish to display a current prowess, then I would invite you specifically to try ABXing the linear 20kHz brickwall filter example on this forum,¹ and the time-aligned, level aligned, linear filtered for 44.1kHz, On_The_Street_Where_You_Live examples X2 and Y2 on AVS Forum.² If you try, and hear no differences, please advise.

First, thanks so much for creating and uploading these files.  This is what I call constructive discussion .

Something is very puzzling or drastically wrong though if I am understanding you right.  I compared X and Y against each other in foobar.  I immediately heard a difference at the start of the tracks.  One has tons more noise added to it. You can hear it both before the music starts and during.  The noise levels are very high and not consistent with proper dither.

I pulled the files into Audition and played them with the same issue.  I zoomed into the start of the "Y" file and it indeed has noise that is elevated to -75 dbFS (~12 bits of signal to noise ratio).  The file shows the 22 Khz cut off so it is the Audacity converted one.  This is really, really broken if that is the conversion that Audacity performed.  Would you please verify your workflow and confirm what I am saying here?  Because if correct, it means Audacity signal processing is worse than junk.  And the generated noise will really screw up any "null" type tests as it will dwarf signal dependent differences.