The paper is about simulating real-world anti-imaging filters, not resampling filters.

The psychoacoustics per slides I post from JJ (lack of pre-temporal masking) is there.

Please go back and re-read the paper's abstract.

You have discovered something about audio science there Ammar?

Or was it a scam of sorts?

Quote from: xnor on 2014-12-03 16:19:04

The paper is about simulating real-world anti-imaging filters, not resampling filters.

This beggars belief. Please go back and re-read the paper's abstract. Do you actually understand anything of this?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-03 18:56:09

The psychoacoustics per slides I post from JJ (lack of pre-temporal masking) is there.

That is only part of the story. There is more JJ to read on this topic (*).

It is an accepted fact that linear-phase filtering-type pre-ringing is readily audible, when the pertinent filter's cut-off falls within the audio band. Do the experiment. Learn what pre-ringing sounds like. Then slowly move up the transition point. You'll notice that the artefact disappears once you get high enough. This suggests that ultrasonic ringing is not audible.

But even when the ringing exists in-band there is a suggestion (or established practice? Ask JJ) to make it harmless. Make the filter's transition band somewhat wider than the ear's critical band width at the cut-off frequency. For CD mastering, and assuming the existence of bat-like people who detect - and rejoice in - 22kHz signals, this amounts to 2-3 kHz critical band, leading to a filter transition band of 4 kHz, give or take. Go out. Ensnare a bunch of teenagers. Do the test.

(* And not because JJ is infallible, but because he did us the enormous favour of compiling all of this widespread knowledge and making it available in one single place.)

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-12-04 01:37:21

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-04 00:53:45

I hear you Steven.

Oh, do you now? Ok, let's dance.  Do you agree with what you hear from me? Namely :

-that oft-claimed audible improvements due to hi rez are vastly inflated;

Yes.  The difference in specification alone has very small incremental fidelity difference.

Quote

-that a hi rez delivery format has not, does not , and without a change in industry practices, will not assure high-quality recordings for the consumer;

No.  "Excluded middle" again.  We don't need assurance.  It is like saying the government should have never mandated seatbelts because it could not assure zero fatalities in cars.  Availability of a new distribution branch whose sole reason for existence is improved fidelity above CD, has and will continue to drive production of better sounding masters for that channel.  It need not achieve 100% success for it to be hugely valuable for audiophiles.

Quote

-and that the actual bottlenecks for good sound for the modern audio consumer are, by far, the recording/production/mastering of the product, and their own home listening setups?

Moot per above.

-and that the actual bottlenecks for good sound for the modern audio consumer are, by far, the recording/production/mastering of the product, and their own home listening setups?

Now the next step in the dance:

Do you specifically agree that when the industry promotes hi rez to consumers,  it touts *quite notable* or even *obvious* 'improved fidelity' -- not a 'very small incremental' improvement?    This is 'inflation' from the industry side.

If your answer is 'yes', then 'hi rez' specification really is a sideshow to the main event, and your answer here is akin to carnival barking.....:

....because if we have no 'assurances' that the 'improved fidelity' *won't* just be just the 'very small, incremental' bump that the specification alone gives us, then why are we being promised otherwise? It has broken that promise before, with DVD-A and SACDs and HD tracks that were not notably better sourced or mastered than the CD version -- and sometimes were even 'worse'.

Can we at least agree that the vast majority of the listening public are justifiably quite happy with CD quality, or even lossy, and that only a small segment needs, or thinks that it needs, hi-rez?

Can we at least agree that the vast majority of the listening public are justifiably quite happy with CD quality, or even lossy, and that only a small segment needs, or thinks that it needs, hi-rez?

This is a very technical topic.  One that is outside of your area of expertise.  But you still want to be known as a mover and shaker so you have decided to make it cause célèbre.  Ah yes, let's cry over how high-res is marketed.  Every high-end hotel I go to has a bottle of Fiji water in the room now that it says is there for my "convenience."  Fine print says they will charge me $5 for that small bottle of water.  It is what they do to make money.  It is like expensive popcorn in theaters.  That is the way they make money.  Who asked you to pick up the cause to complain about equiv. in audio in every technical thread?

Interesting that you think technical facts "pollute" a technical discussion.

Do you specifically agree that when the industry promotes hi rez to consumers,  it touts *quite notable* or even *obvious* 'improved fidelity' -- not a 'very small incremental' improvement?    This is 'inflation' from the industry side.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-04 21:00:25

This is a very technical topic.  One that is outside of your area of expertise.  But you still want to be known as a mover and shaker so you have decided to make it cause célèbre.  Ah yes, let's cry over how high-res is marketed.  Every high-end hotel I go to has a bottle of Fiji water in the room now that it says is there for my "convenience."  Fine print says they will charge me $5 for that small bottle of water.  It is what they do to make money.  It is like expensive popcorn in theaters.  That is the way they make money.  Who asked you to pick up the cause to complain about equiv. in audio in every technical thread?

Who asked you to be the official Fiji water audio salesman? For Fiji water audio distribution, aka "Hi Re$"? Or Fiji water amplification, DACs, etc?
Especially here, where folks aren't dumb enough to fall for same ol' tap water in a $5 bottle, unlike "Audiophiles", who will.
Great analogy btw, thanks. 
Maybe we do understand the busine$$ aspect of the Hi-Re$ $cam better than you think and have decided that 16/44 tap water is just fine for us, without the "worry free" $5 packaging.

cheers,

AJ

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-12-04 19:10:24

Now the next step in the dance:

Quote

Do you specifically agree that when the industry promotes hi rez to consumers,  it touts *quite notable* or even *obvious* 'improved fidelity' -- not a 'very small incremental' improvement?    This is 'inflation' from the industry side.

What "industry?"  Audio/Video?  If so, marketing is the name of the game.  This is a money losing, high-competitive business.  Every TV manufacturer sells "LED TVs" yet there is no such animal.  It is an LCD TV that its backlight has been replaced with LED.  They pretend the rest of is also changed as to entice you to buy a new TV.  They talk about 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio where the reality is 1,000:1 due to the obvious way they cheat there.  Do we go and pollute every technical video discussion by ranting about this?  I sure hope not.  I assume this is a technical form.  People come here to learn about how the technology works.  They don't come here for the millionth time to read about your angst with high-end marketing in general, and high-resolution marketing in the specific.

This is a very technical topic.  One that is outside of your area of expertise.  But you still want to be known as a mover and shaker so you have decided to make it cause célèbre.  Ah yes, let's cry over how high-res is marketed.  Every high-end hotel I go to has a bottle of Fiji water in the room now that it says is there for my "convenience."  Fine print says they will charge me $5 for that small bottle of water.  It is what they do to make money.  It is like expensive popcorn in theaters.  That is the way they make money.  Who asked you to pick up the cause to complain about equiv. in audio in every technical thread?

And why in the heck do you think by doing so with me you are scoring some point?  You think I have not heard this argument?  You think I don't know the argument?  I Know it.  And despite that, I hold the strong position that this development, availability of high-resolution audio download is good for us.  Your myopic, self-serving attitude of propping your position in audio forums is not material to me. 

Quote

If your answer is 'yes', then 'hi rez' specification really is a sideshow to the main event, and your answer here is akin to carnival barking.....:

How fast you prove my point above.  You go from a technical statement to a PR spin.  Said spin is wrong anyway Steven.  You have to listen for a moment what is being explained.  That by establishing a new distribution channel, and one whose sole reason for existence is satisfying high-fidelity customers, the requirement for loudness compression goes away.  No longer do we have to settle for what the mass consumer wants.  Toyota created the Lexus brand so that it can put luxury features in its cars.  And not care about absolute price elasticity. 

You want to highlight something with a magic marker, the above is it.  Everything else you say is in the service of trying to keep yourself and your arguments relevant. 

Quote

....because if we have no 'assurances' that the 'improved fidelity' *won't* just be just the 'very small, incremental' bump that the specification alone gives us, then why are we being promised otherwise? It has broken that promise before, with DVD-A and SACDs and HD tracks that were not notably better sourced or mastered than the CD version -- and sometimes were even 'worse'.

So because you don't have an assurance you want the new option to be foreclosed for all distributors and all listeners?  What illogical thinking. 

There are no assurances anywhere.  You have to a smart shopper.  Nissan makes an SUV that is very unreliable compared to the rest of their fleet.  Do we get to write-ff Nissan and Japanese car reliability because the "assurance" was broken?

Of course not.  You can get what you want.

Or I should say what I want.  THat is, instead of spending all of our time wasting it with your lay, self-serving arguments, we use it to discuss with each other the fidelity of new releases.  We can machine analyze them and compare them subjectively.  Then we can choose to spend our money or not.

And it is not like anyone gives a you know what, what is being discussed on this topic anyway.  The industry marketing is not exactly monitoring idiot rants on forums and go and change what they do.  So you are wasting everyone's time with tired lay arguments of no value.

Or do we run with that with a fictitious IM distortion caused by near clipping ultrasonic tones?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-04 00:53:45

Or do we run with that with a fictitious IM distortion caused by near clipping ultrasonic tones?

Unfortunately the paper made no attempt to determine what the cause of the audible difference actually was, so no plausible source can be dismissed as "fictitious." We simply do not know.

And without access to the actual files used there are avenues that can never be explored.

Quote from: Ethyl's Fred on 2014-12-04 23:29:33

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-04 00:53:45

Or do we run with that with a fictitious IM distortion caused by near clipping ultrasonic tones?

Unfortunately the paper made no attempt to determine what the cause of the audible difference actually was, so no plausible source can be dismissed as "fictitious." We simply do not know.

That is true but we are not totally in the dark due to measurement provided:



Who here wants to represent that such distortion product driven by that low level of energy in orange would be audible?

Quote from: Chu Gai on 2014-12-04 23:38:25

And without access to the actual files used there are avenues that can never be explored.

The files are readily available.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-04 23:46:58

Quote from: Chu Gai on 2014-12-04 23:38:25

And without access to the actual files used there are avenues that can never be explored.

The files are readily available.

Link to the high yield portions as they were processed by Meridian, please?