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: [TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S (Read 4806 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Quote from: ajinfla on
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 

Hi AJ.  You know I missed all of this at AVS.  My elementary school teacher said: "every class needs a clown.  you just want to make sure you are not the one."  I took his advice and you are proving him right.

Quote
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?


Did someone help you with all of those phrases AJ?  Used to be you would just stop at the personal remarks.  Now you have moved up in the world throwing around technical terms.

What's that?  You understand them?  Really?  OK, take this test.  Here is a picture of another setup to test high resolution vs CD rate:



What do you think?  Did it hit > 105 db?  With or without band limiting? 

Quote
Inquiring outsider minds would like to know, TIA.

I am detecting fair amount of jealousy there.  Maybe next time you won't name drop JJ.  Yeh, I know, not likely.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #1 –
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."  I took his advice and you are proving him right.

Pity he didn't teach logic lessons and advise against scamming and audio shysterism; Ah well.

Quote from: amirm on
Quote
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?


Did someone help you with all of those phrases AJ?

Yes, my teachers taught that when dealing with illogical and underhanded super hearing audio salesmen, nicely ask them direct, kryptonite questions about thread topics, assured to expose illicit Red Herrings and prancing.
....So Amir, in these private industry discussions, are any non-pecuniary interest industry insiders asking why rectangular dither was used to doctor the BS tests, when Meridians own website recommends TPDF as best practice? Is JA who reviewed the Meridian speaker with the oil can resonance that I linked earlier, one of the insiders expressing deep concern about the levels used with the direct radiator beryllium domes driven >105db speakers with and without band limiting? Is there any data regarding the BS system transparency (Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band, switching, speakers, etc)?
Thanks again.
I look forward to some more evasion and Red Herring for breakfast. Have a good night. 

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #2 –
Quote from: amirm on
OK, take this test.  Here is a picture of another setup to test high resolution vs CD rate:



What do you think?


It's perfect.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #3 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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."  I took his advice and you are proving him right.

Pity he didn't teach logic lessons and advise against scamming and audio shysterism; Ah well.

Seems you are resenting his characterization of you.  Remember you can't change him (you don't even know him), but you can change yourself.  Now that is logical advice, no?

Don't change on my account though.  Because I love having the mean and nasty AJ around.  Every forum needs an AJ.

Quote from: amirm on
....So Amir, in these private industry discussions, are any non-pecuniary interest industry insiders asking why rectangular dither was used to doctor the BS tests, when Meridians own website recommends TPDF as best practice?

The reason was clearly given in the paper.  You have the paper, right?  I guess not.  Too bad.  No soup for you.

Quote
Is JA who reviewed the Meridian speaker with the oil can resonance that I linked earlier, one of the insiders expressing deep concern about the levels used with the direct radiator beryllium domes driven >105db speakers with and without band limiting? Is there any data regarding the BS system transparency (Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band, switching, speakers, etc)?
Thanks again.
I look forward to some more evasion and Red Herring for breakfast. Have a good night.

You know I love you AJ.  If I didn't feed your medicine back to you, who would?  You should be thankful given your lack of self-awareness.

And oh, I don't mind kippers.  Not going hunting so no issue there at all.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #4 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
OK, take this test.  Here is a picture of another setup to test high resolution vs CD rate:



What do you think?


It's perfect.

Ah, what a relief.  So is the Meridian speaker then.  Next!
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #5 –
Quote from: amirm on
I mention ITU BS1116 repeatedly, BS Paper score: FAIL: By own admission, "some" adherence, not full.

As an expert in the field, BS Paper score: FAIL: Red Herring, only thing that matters are methods and results, not personalities.

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

I agree with most of this and add several 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.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #6 –
I wonder if anyone, other than the actual participants, bother to wade through all this.

I think I'll go and listen to someone who's listening to some cables...
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #7 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
the elitists, bullies, [illogical] condescending snobs
Looks to me like a perfect self-characterization of your own, krabapple's, xnor's and some other regulars' behaviour not only in this thread.

I have the impression that you are not really interested in helping others to correct their assertions you consider to be wrong; instead, you seem to need to demonstrate again and again a certain intellectual superiority (a legitimate claim? If so, you should be able to easily prove it without getting personal) and to elicit applause by other members. I would like to state 'it's fun to read these kind of contributions even so', but it's not. It is annoying.

I don't have your, krabapple's, xnor's or amirm's degree of specialized knowledge, but from what I understand each of you (Amir included) presented arguments which would have deserved to be investigated a little deeper, to either reject or to confirm them afterwards and to reach an agreement on that points.

Is there a chance to see this style of discussion realized in this thread?
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.
 

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #8 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
We know based even on just the highly flawed and biased recent Meridian AES paper that whether it sounds different than the CD version of it is difficult or impossible to determine, particularly if we wish for that determination to be adequately reliable.

Putting aside the mischaracterization of Stuart paper, no we don't know that Arny.  High resolution masters not suffering from loudness compression have clearly audible fidelity difference that you have to be blind in addition to deaf to not hear it .

Irrelevant. This discussion is about Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System, not the audibility of loudness compression. Mention of this highly irrelevant topic is so far off topic that it raises serious questions about the mental acuity of any person who would try to bring this irrelevant issue into the discussion.

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #9 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Amir, please help us out here.

Sorry, you are beyond help Ammar.  I say that for two reasons:

1. My very first post was to follow you and Arny's discussion around amplifiers in the other thread with this topic: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=880378

I was told in no uncertain terms I better not engage in such talk by our kind moderator:
Your first post in a discussion where your credibility has been called into question and you choose to feed an off-topic tangent? That's rich!

Let's be clear, this discussion will revert back to the original topic so long as I have anything to say about it.

Refer to rules #5 and #7 if you or anyone else has any questions.

I am pretty sure he has something to say about this . So if you want to risk your membership here, do so and keep talking about off-topic amplifiers and such.  I won't go there.

2. As I said, you sold us out when it mattered most.  You had set up shop at a high-end show.  Blogger after blogger showed up and wrote about your wares.  Instead of taking the opportunity to tell the people there how stupid they are, you joined them with showing $2,300 cables and modded players that don't have a single measurement to show any improvement.  That is what got press.

Now you show up here pretending to be a believer again.  Can't go there.  You are booted out of the camp as far as I am concerned.  All it took was smell of money and you sold your principals Ammar. 

I can help you by giving you some advice: quit posting under this alias.  Register under a new alias.  I suggest "IamNotMe."  Unlikely folks would figure out what it means. Then you can go back to fulfilling the mission of ridiculing the customers for your speakers.  Let's see if you take good advice or instead, listen to yourself.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #10 –
Quote from: amirm on
Sorry, you are beyond help Ammar.

Don't make it so personal Amir, you keep losing sight that this is a technical discussion of the BS paper and you are answering to a wider audience than just AJ.
Now, above, you said that you trust Stereophile measurements.
Here are some HF measurements of a $50,000 amp you peddle along with Hi-Rez products at your store.

You say you want the 24bit master due to your "worry" about the audibility of the HF filters for 16/44, but when you "listen" to the ML, it's all this?
I thought you wanted 100% transparency? You can't hear any lack of transparency with the $50,000+ ML you peddle?
Do you have any ABX file logs for the listening tests you ran for the ML, where you heard that "harshness" in the Lo-Rez (Class D) amps vs the ML and the super duper bass, etc?
Or was this some other form of test/listening you practiced prior to the discovering passable ABX online Windows files in 2014?

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #11 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
Sorry, you are beyond help Ammar.

Don't make it so personal Amir, you keep losing sight that this is a technical discussion of the BS paper and you are answering to a wider audience than just AJ.

Boy, you are quite emboldened in violating the forum rules Ammar.  But I won't take the bait and disrespect forum moderator and charter.

Create a new thread and we can talk about amplifiers. I have a LOT that I would like to post there.  It would make this one look like child's play. 

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Amir, Amir, Amir,...

That's my name.  Don't wear it out! 

Quote
...dynamics compression and potential losses due to lossy compression are orthogonal with (do you know what that means?) with the audible properties of the digital filters in a typical Hi Fi system.

Does it mean this?

Arny Krüger wrote:

> "Tushar" wrote in message
> news:803qsp$2uj$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Could someone explain in laymans terms how the dsd technology used
> in
> > the SACD format is different from the PCM used in the CD and if it
> is
> > superior what are the reasons.
>
> I would like to do that, but the technical literature that I've
> been able to pull together from various sources so far lacks the
> detail I feel I need to reliably do so.
>
> Reading between the lines and speculating wildly, SACD seems to me
> to be a bit stream-oriented digital data coding technique, one that
> effectively uses data words of various lengths for different parts
> of the audio spectrum and/or sound levels. There seem to be claims
> that such data that is transmitted is not subject to lossy
> compression, but if, as I may erroneously or correctly infer,
> different parts of the frequency and/or amplitude domains are coded
> with different length data words, then it SACD is in fact a form of
> perceptual (lossy) coding. FWIW, HDCD seems to have implemented a
> subset of these benefits.

SACD is in fact a form of perceptual (lossy) coding?  If so, then no, they are not orthogonal. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #13 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Amir, Amir, Amir,...

That's my name.  Don't wear it out! 

Quote
...dynamics compression and potential losses due to lossy compression are orthogonal with (do you know what that means?) with the audible properties of the digital filters in a typical Hi Fi system.

Does it mean this?

Arny Krüger wrote:

> "Tushar" wrote in message
> news:803qsp$2uj$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Could someone explain in laymans terms how the dsd technology used
> in
> > the SACD format is different from the PCM used in the CD and if it
> is
> > superior what are the reasons.
>
> I would like to do that, but the technical literature that I've
> been able to pull together from various sources so far lacks the
> detail I feel I need to reliably do so.
>
> Reading between the lines and speculating wildly, SACD seems to me
> to be a bit stream-oriented digital data coding technique, one that
> effectively uses data words of various lengths for different parts
> of the audio spectrum and/or sound levels. There seem to be claims
> that such data that is transmitted is not subject to lossy
> compression, but if, as I may erroneously or correctly infer,
> different parts of the frequency and/or amplitude domains are coded
> with different length data words, then it SACD is in fact a form of
> perceptual (lossy) coding. FWIW, HDCD seems to have implemented a
> subset of these benefits.

SACD is in fact a form of perceptual (lossy) coding?  If so, then no, they are not orthogonal. 


Way off topic. This discussion is based on PCM.  SACD is not PCM.

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #14 –
Quote from: amirm on
It would make this one look like child's play.

The child part I get, but a game? Didn't you say this is war? 
"I hear it when I see it."

[TROLLING] Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback S

Reply #15 –
Quote from: amirm on
it is yet another person writing about a field that is not his specialty.  He doesn't understand the business side of this field, nor does he have electrical engineering experience to understand the hardware side.
But sure.  I will be leaving shortly as I have never seen so many unprofessional posters in any audio forum.



For an outstanding example of a person working outside a field that is his specialty, read this:

http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Mark...3Amplifier.html

"This is more of a problem in the US with our home electrical voltage being 120 as compared to other countries which use 240 volt power. This means the maximum amount of power we have is half as much." 

Obviously, the author is unaware of several facts that are well known to people working in their field, which the author clearly is not.

(1) 230 volt AC is available in every code-compliant house in the US.
(2) In Europe where the line voltages are higher, the house wiring often has far smaller conductors, so the net power levels are often comparable.
(3) Audio involves signals with very high crest factors and it is common to successfully operate very high powered amplifiers or arrays of them on ordinary house circuits.

"There is only so much power that can be stored inside the power supply of the amplifier after which, the output power must reduce and with it, additional distortion created."

The author is clearly unaware of the virtually unlimited power storage capabilities of inductors and capacitors and other forms of energy storage. Engineering 101: E - 1/2* C * V**2  The size and cost of capacitors has been steadily improving. Other compact and efficient forms of energy storage exist and are proliferating.

"The solution in the professional sound reinforcement industry (e.g.  audio for live concert concerts) has been to use a newer class of amplifier with far more efficient design called switching or class D amplifier."

The article contradicts itself shortly:

http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Mark...rComparison.gif



As you can see the actual power difference between a Class AB amplifier and the class D amplifier that the poorly-informed author is touting is actually only 25% or less than one dB. Obviously the kind of rookie mistake that is pardonable from a rank amateur, but obviously not from someone who claims superior knowledge of electrical engineering, and/or a relevant college degree.

"In comparison testing I have done, switching amplifiers using the classic class D configuration always sport incredible low frequency control and power. They beat out linear class AB amplifiers almost regardless of price."

As has been discerned by the means of stripping away weeks of obfuscation and silence on the part of this report's author, it has become clear that the author has done nothing but sighted casual testing of this amplifier, befitting only the status of  rank amateur.  Interestingly enough the author has repeatedly quoted proper DBTs that were done over 30 years ago, but it does not seem that he has yet learned anything from the articles he has quoted.

"While this provides improved efficiency it aggravates a weakness of switching amplifiers which is their very high sensitivity (compared to linear amplifiers) to power supply voltage variations and noise which unfortunately get worse with switching supplies"

Because of my professional experience with computers particularly mainframe computers going back to 1965 I have long been intimately familiar with SMPS. I've also built thousands of PCs and every one had a SMPS.

In addition I have some background with after market car audio, whose power amplifiers have long made heavy use of SMPS.

The following statement is denied by facts accessible to everybody who has enough electrical engineering talent to read the required plain English labeling of the SMPS wall warts that are endemic today: "... power supply voltage variations and noise which unfortunately get worse with switching supplies. "

Just read the label! For example the SMPS for this (and virtually every other) laptop is rated for input voltages from 100 to 240 volts (or an even wider range). This one has a rated output voltage of 20 volts and were one to be technical enough to measure it, one would find that it has good regulation with respect to input voltages and changes in load. It also has low output and radiatednoise - legally mandated by FCC Part 15.

Modern SMPS power supplies are vast improvements over their linear predecessors. A typical linear iron transformer-and-diode wall wart rated at say 9 volts had such poor regulation that it would put out more like 12 volts with no load and might barely make 9 volts with rated load, or not. This presumes a predictable and stable power line which may not be the case. It also produced massive amounts of noise in its output because unlike the SMPS this was not a federally-mandated parameter (FCC Part 15). The simple brute force single capacitor filter if present allows volts of ripple noise when the current drain goes up.

Virtually every switchmode power amplifier on the market today has a SMPS power supply. They sacrifice no sound quality because of it.

I speculate that the Levinson 53 has a linear power supply because some marketing person decided that they needed to pander to audiophile hysterical fear of modern technology, particularly SMPS.

Please notice that this official document from Levinson seems to fail to make the above false claims:

http://www.marklevinson.com/tl_files/catal...010_5.17.10.pdf

The false claims in the Madronna article are likely the sole invention of its author.