Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback
Reply #608 – 2014-11-25 03:30:23
You're also not interested in intellectual honesty or scientific rigor. So not interested in what you want at all. Sorry. Thanks for sharing your sentiments but I didn't write that for you Xnor. Remember, I don't write my posts for the few of you with such extreme prejudice that you would question the Pope on his Christianity should he say something unthwarted about audio. This is about the claim that digital filtering is audible and the evidence to support that claim. That evidence is in Stuart's paper. Other than jumping up and down, you have put forward nothing else to dispute it. Thanks to mzil, I get to remind you that the paper has won an award for best peer-reviewed paper. So you excuse me if I don't take opinion of it from anonymous posters seriously.Really, there is no there there. You guys have no argument whatsoever why we should stay with old standards pulled out of thin air to make a piece of plastic hold X minutes of content. There were no listening tests. No psychoacoustics analysis. Nothing. Oh amirm, I actually feel pity. After 25 pages and countless pointers you still are completely lost. Your lack of emotional maturity is apparent in every post. Instead of being focused on the technical discussion every sentence oozes with anger, emotional outburst, frustration, etc. You have no self-awareness of what these forums do to you. And importantly how you have been recruited as yet another martyr in this war. Folks are sitting back enjoying you spending all of your free time writing this stuff and fighting the good fight. I am happy that you are doing it because you show how unprofessional and unscientific we are about our approach to audio. So don’t stop on my account. But remember, there are folks who are egging you on and you are blindingly do so.You just need to stop laundering the stale SACD/DVD-A arguments when everything about the situation is different now. What is different regarding the audibility? For one thing we can test them a hell of a lot better. We can test the files instead of two real-time audio streams that make it extremely difficult to focus on the critical segments. For another, it is very easy to perform mechanical analysis as everyone seems to be doing these days. The truth may have always been there. But we now have better tools to get it out. Difficulty of running such tests with real-time sources resulted in sharply raised probability of negative outcome in double blind tests. This is why you are seeing a new chapter in this book. Don’t dwell on the first as if that is the entire book.You know, armirm, telling yourself something really really often still doesn't make it true. At least not in reality. I worked in this field professionally. We are discussing a paper whose core author I know personally. I have cited critical reference from JJ who used to work for me and is a friend. You can declare what I say however you want but can’t change the facts I have stipulated:1.High resolution master will completely, completely eliminate the risk of downgrading to 16/44.1 being audible. The entire argument becomes moot. Mess with the bits and you buy yourself a world of grief trying to prove transparency. 2.High resolution masters are become available in volume and no one is waiting for Mr. Xnor or any other forum to give them the OK to do so. 3.High resolution masters can and do come with better mastering than their counterpart CDs. Their business rules are sharply different where the content owner and distributor know that the customer is audio conscious as opposed to mass market. You can spit in the wind but the mass market products will not optimize for fidelity at the expense of other goals. 4.CDs will be on their way out. If not a couple of years, five or six years from now. On that day, we could face the highest fidelity being MP3/AAC or better than the CD in the form of high resolution stereo masters. Anyone who argues now, is by design in favor of the former and earns zero respect from me. Let me know when you become an audiophile and we can talk. 5.We hear differently. Some of us are able to be critical listeners and outperform others in detecting small differences. This is supported by considerable amount of research beyond personal data I have shared. These are the facts and you can take them to the bank. Everything else is forum bickering substituting for the same.