Appreciate that no one in the world is asking your permission

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-13 14:36:42

Appreciate that no one in the world is asking your permission

No one needs anyone's permission to waste their own money, but if they claim a double-blind test has confirmed the results of a sighted test, when it hasn't, it's hardly a waste of forum bandwidth to call them to account.

Purchasing unnecessarily "high resolution" formats may not harm your listening enjoyment of those tracks. Yet if the benefits are just placebo, it's stopping you (and only true believers like yourself) from fully enjoying the genuine and sometimes equal sonic delights of music not available in "high resolution".

So, ironically, your belief in hi-res is damaging your enjoyment of most of the music ever recorded. Assuming you want to listen to music, rather than inaudible bits, that's a pretty serious problem - and, if it's all placebo, a problem created by your own delusions. What music lover would wish that on themselves?

The industry obsession with hi-res to the detriment of other things is the real problem. Hi-res is insatiable. You can always add more bits. This is a substitute for real progress. 40 years ago who would have thought the vast majority of music production today would still be 2-channel stereo?

Test after test.  I just ran yours.  Twice: once with old ABX and once with new.  I have run Krab's test.  I have run Arny's test.  I have run Arny's IM test.  I have run Archmiago's test.  At some point you either have to consider your method of getting data that you believe to be faulty, or the fact that we don't all hear the same.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-13 17:49:18

Test after test.  I just ran yours.  Twice: once with old ABX and once with new.  I have run Krab's test.  I have run Arny's test.  I have run Arny's IM test.  I have run Archmiago's test.  At some point you either have to consider your method of getting data that you believe to be faulty, or the fact that we don't all hear the same.

All unsupervised. Now let's see you pass a JJ administered test, where you don't touch your computer and use only your ears.

Everyone: I have my doubts about everything. I do not intend to participate extensively in this rolling in the mud. Yes, rigorous training is required to do well in a difficult listening test. Yes, people who claim "day and night different" should not expect rigorous training to be necessary. Yes, tests need to be Double Blind, or computer administered for the same purpose. Yes, SACD is still a form of Delta-Sigma, and therefore PCM, no matter what Sony calls it.

Y'all have a nice day, now. Be nice to 807, be nice to Amir, and be nice to Arny.

Fare well.

For now, he had this to say on these tests:

I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.

So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.

I laughed at "get with the times" and "degraded bits."

You talk as if there is an obvious difference that is soon to embraced by everyone.

Quote from: Satellite_6 on 2014-11-13 15:03:08

I laughed at "get with the times" and "degraded bits."

You talk as if there is an obvious difference that is soon to embraced by everyone.

Yes, this  ^^^^^^^.

Again, differences *can* be audible between hi rez and Redbook, e.g., due to difference in noise floors.

This has never been under dispute.  Meyer and Moran themselves reported one such scenario in their trials.*

But these are not *obviously* audible differences, as in *typically audible under normal listening conditions* (even to 'audiophiles').  They require careful listening to carefully selected segments, often using elevated playback levels.

Which renders highly suspect the multitude of audiophile gushings and ravings over hi rez releases since at least 2001, when 'hi rez' consumer formats began to appear.

So the elephant in the room is the question: How likely is it, really, that such reports -- which drive virtually  the 'hi rez'  hype, including Neil Young's high-profile crusade -- are at all credible?

None of the dancing and shucking and jiving and torrential rainbow-colored reposting from Amir  (or Atkinson or the rest of the high rez cheerleading corps for that matter) shifts that elephant one centimeter out of the room.  Neither does the new Meridian conference paper nor the half-baked Oohashi et al.  corpus, all of which rely on highly specified conditions (some of which are controversial at best, like Meridian's choices of dither) to make their points.**

(**NB that M&M trials included some where the listeners chose their own material...presumably what they use for 'normal listening'.  M&M also used a list of hi rez releases,  drawn from 'pure' hi rez and analog-sourced.....just as normal listeners  tend to have.  That has *hardly ever* stopped the hi rez cheering section from praising the hi rez releases...until it became a 'fatal flaw' in M&M's test!)

You want to have degraded bits AJ?

But these are not *obviously* audible differences, as in *typically audible under normal listening conditions* (even to 'audiophiles').  They require careful listening to carefully selected segments, often using elevated playback levels.  Which renders highly suspect the multitude of audiophile gushings and ravings over hi rez releases since at least 2001, when 'hi rez' consumer formats began to appear.  Said gushings were typically 'sighted' of course, crippling them even further as evidence, and based on just  'using your ears'  in a hodgepodge of listening rooms and loudspeaker setups.  The hi-rez  releases themselves were often sourced  from analog...or sometimes even from  Redbook.  Nevertheless, the 'improvement' is often reported as immediate and obvious -- veils are lifted, musicians are suddenly 'in the room', tulips bloom in the garden.  Night and day!

So the elephant in the room is the question: How likely is it, really, that such reports -- which drive virtually  the 'hi rez'  hype, including Neil Young's high-profile crusade -- are at all credible?

This is data for you.

None of this matters.  Look in ITU Rec BS-1116. Do you see any of this as recommended practices?

When Dr. Olive performs listening tests, does he include people who created their own music?  Or does he use trained listeners who easily outperform normal listeners?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-13 18:38:10

For now, he had this to say on these tests:

Yes, your cherry picked quote. But you ummm, "missed" this one a bit further down the line, so thanks for leading me to it  :

Quote

I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.

So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.

Btw, do you include listener training when selling Berkley DACs?

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-11-13 19:07:23

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-13 18:38:10

For now, he had this to say on these tests:

Yes, your cherry picked quote. But you ummm, "missed" this one a bit further down the line, so thanks for leading me to it  :

Quote

I have my doubts that SACD or DVDA are much, if any, of an improvement, but the test is just blisteringly hard to run, and more likely to respond to artifacts, either positively or negatively, than it is to actual differences. Time alignment, level alignment, frequency response in-band can all throw it positive, lack of training, bad test environment, bad time alignment, etc, can also cause false negatives. Subject verification, likewise, is an important issue.

So, I remain undecided, but I note that I own a lot of CD's and not a single SACD or DVDA, except for some people have sent me.

Not mentioned there but if you ever make it to JJ's house, you see that he has a collection of LPs.  Go ahead and hang yourself now AJ. 

Quote

Btw, do you include listener training when selling Berkley DACs?

You are asking me to violate TOS #5 of this forum so I am not going to follow you there.  Create a new thread and I will be happy to respond.

For now, this is the train wreck thread.  And here is another train to add to the list, this time in the form of Ethan Winer's generational loss:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:34:21

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass5.wav

06:34:21 : Test started.
06:35:00 : 01/01  50.0%
06:35:10 : 01/02  75.0%
06:35:21 : 01/03  87.5%
06:35:46 : 02/04  68.8%
06:35:58 : 03/05  50.0%
06:36:19 : 03/06  65.6%  <----- Difference found
06:36:28 : 04/07  50.0%
06:36:40 : 05/08  36.3%
06:36:51 : 06/09  25.4%
06:37:02 : 07/10  17.2%
06:37:11 : 08/11  11.3%
06:37:25 : 09/12  7.3%
06:37:36 : 10/13  4.6%
06:37:47 : 11/14  2.9%
06:37:58 : 12/15  1.8%
06:38:10 : 13/16  1.1%
06:38:24 : 14/17  0.6%
06:38:34 : 15/18  0.4%
06:38:50 : 16/19  0.2%
06:38:58 : 17/20  0.1%
06:39:12 : 18/21  0.1%
06:39:21 : 19/22  0.0%
06:39:38 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 19/22 (0.0%)

Above I am showing my search for critical section.  So when I tested the single generational loss (i.e. "most difficult") I knew what to listen for:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:40:07

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass1.wav

06:40:07 : Test started.
06:41:03 : 01/01  50.0%
06:41:16 : 02/02  25.0%
06:41:24 : 03/03  12.5%
06:41:33 : 04/04  6.3%
06:41:53 : 05/05  3.1%
06:42:02 : 06/06  1.6%
06:42:22 : 07/07  0.8%
06:42:34 : 08/08  0.4%
06:42:43 : 09/09  0.2%
06:42:56 : 10/10  0.1%
06:43:08 : 11/11  0.0%
06:43:16 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

I think he post a newer one in WBF Forum and I passed that too.  If I find it, and see you still posting random stuff AJ, I will post it. 

Amir, he uses trained listeners because it makes Harmans job easier/more efficient. However: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loud...of-trained.html
And because I know you love multi-colored sciency looking graphs:

Quote

Amir, could you please supply your data, showing the untrained Hi-Rez buying audiophile capable of detecting 16/44 artifacts on par with trained listeners....or anything whatsoever.

Sure.  When Arny post his tests, imagic (Mark) who writes articles for AVS Forum was so sure that no one could pass it.  He kept posting his results showing totally random outcomes.  See this as an example: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post25756721

Quote

Total: 13/30 (81.9%)
Total: 11/30 (95.1%)

Then I post my results and explained how I was able to find the right segments and pass the double blind ABX test.  Remarkable thing happened next.  I let you read it in entirety: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...io-test-71.html

Quote

Laptop? Practice?
Well, I decided to give my laptop a try since Amir did so well using his. Lo and behold, I had little difficulty with the 16/32 key jangling test. Not quite perfect, but I suspect a bit more practice would get me up to perfect.

My laptop is a Sony Vaio PCG-41412L with the HD upgraded to a SSD. All audio enhancements are off. I used a pair of Sony MDR-1R headphones.

The results speak for themselves; I found a critical segment that revealed an audible difference. I've had some practice, which helped—just as Amir suggested. Now, I can pass an ABX test I previously failed. I'll tackle the 16/44 test next. Oh, and it was a piece of cake to pick out the differences in the 16/16 and 22/16 tests.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.3
2014/07/19 11:26:49

File A: C:\Users\mark_000\Downloads\keys jangling band resolution limited 3216 2496.wav
File B: C:\Users\mark_000\Downloads\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

11:26:49 : Test started.
11:27:29 : 00/01 100.0%
11:28:58 : 00/02 100.0%
11:29:46 : 00/03 100.0%
11:29:59 : 01/04 93.8%
11:30:06 : 01/05 96.9%
11:30:16 : 02/06 89.1%
11:30:26 : 03/07 77.3%
11:30:34 : 04/08 63.7%
11:30:45 : 05/09 50.0%
11:31:00 : 06/10 37.7%
11:31:10 : 07/11 27.4%
11:31:29 : 08/12 19.4%
11:31:41 : 09/13 13.3%
11:32:05 : 10/14 9.0%
11:32:20 : 10/15 15.1%
11:32:30 : 11/16 10.5%
11:32:41 : 12/17 7.2%
11:32:52 : 13/18 4.8%
11:33:07 : 13/19 8.4%
11:33:16 : 14/20 5.8%
11:33:28 : 15/21 3.9%
11:33:40 : 16/22 2.6%
11:33:58 : 17/23 1.7%
11:34:12 : 18/24 1.1%
11:34:25 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 18/24 (1.1%)

ABX/blind testing is not something you throw at people and expect them to know what to do with it.  But with just a couple of hints online this  untrained member quickly managed to pass the test.  Imagine how far Meyer and Moran testers would have gotten if they a) had a control like Arny's test did and b) they were shown how to detect the same in double blind tests.

Note that Bob Stuart's AES test includes exactly the above scheme.  And we see how it creates a positive outcome. 

Just another friendly reminder that since the results above do not use the new Fobar2000 ABX code, they may contain hidden errors that it would expose.

Arny, would you please try using the new ABX comparator with your own test and report whether you can still pass it?  I have a feeling that the new comparator has taken a big step backward and want to confirm my theory with you trying it as the master of all things ABX.

ABX/blind testing is not something you throw at people and expect them to know what to do with it.  But with just a couple of hints online this  untrained member quickly managed to pass the test.  Imagine how far Meyer and Moran testers would have gotten if they a) had a control like Arny's test did and b) they were shown how to detect the same in double blind tests.

Note that Bob Stuart's AES test includes exactly the above scheme.  And we see how it creates a positive outcome.

Note that Bob Stuart's AES test includes exactly the above scheme.  And we see how it creates a positive outcome.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-14 02:46:28

Arny, would you please try using the new ABX comparator with your own test and report whether you can still pass it?  I have a feeling that the new comparator has taken a big step backward and want to confirm my theory with you trying it as the master of all things ABX.

Asked and answered many times on this forum and to you specifically Amir on other forums. Please stop being mean by making a point out of my age-induced hearing problems, which I've made no secret of on many occasions.

My apologies for not having read this entire thread, but if you're going to try and ABX high frequency content, I'm curious how you control for nonlinear distortion ?  Is there an appropriate control sample being used in those tests to ensure that the system is linear enough for that ABX test to work?

So they are relying on in situ measurements to make sure the system has clean ultrasonic response.

Quote from: saratoga on 2014-11-14 02:55:11

My apologies for not having read this entire thread, but if you're going to try and ABX high frequency content, I'm curious how you control for nonlinear distortion ?  Is there an appropriate control sample being used in those tests to ensure that the system is linear enough for that ABX test to work?

Arny added ultrasonic tones to his tests to see if it causes problems by itself.  It did not on my system and others.  See my copy of response from AVS Forum here: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=880492

The Stuart AES listening test paper says this about their setup:

The playback system had a wide
frequency response (up to 40 kHz determined by the
tweeter), had very low dierential group delay, and
showed a compact impulse response with insigni-
cant ringing.

So they are relying on in situ measurements to make sure the system has clean ultrasonic response.