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: two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress (Read 91333 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #25 –
I've thrown in a video of a high frequency spectrum analyzer, in the results thread, so everyone is on a more level playing field yet I've prevented it from being used as a cheating method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOeCt8EL-9E

I think this will help some people there, I know when I bought my very first RTA, an Audio Control unit back in the day, it was such a revelation as to what frequencies are made by what instruments.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Arny has to pilgrimage to armirm and do some live testing.

That won't happen in my lifetime. Con artists like Amir don't operate that way. I have absolutely no doubt he cheated on the file test (he invented Blue screen at Microsoft and this is a computerized test) and will endlessly tout his "win" to the  believers on his WTF??? shill haven forum.
This thread http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-...ml#post16386099 is all you need to slog to understand his "methods".
None of his ilk would ever dare take an independently administered blind test.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #27 –
where is the files and the discussion of the jangling keys

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #28 –
Something related to the Tread. Seems like the HiRes marketing machinery is working well. Everywhere i read some linking to the lately proven superiority of Hires and other things http://www.audiostream.com/content/avsaix-...tion-audio-test. Creating own facts still works well it seems.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Something related to the Tread. Seems like the HiRes marketing machinery is working well. Everywhere i read some linking to the lately proven superiority of Hires and other things http://www.audiostream.com/content/avsaix-...tion-audio-test. Creating own facts still works well it seems.




Surprisingly to no one at all who 'knows' him, here's the title Amir gave to the thread about these tests, on *his* forum


Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different


And these development, btw, are why I call this mismash of files, SRCs, tests, results and 'conclusions' a 'train wreck'.  HA will be dealing with the litter for who knows how long, every time someone comes here with a link to say 'you guys think you know so much but what about..."? 

I can hardly wait for the Stereophile news item.   



two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #30 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Surprisingly to no one at all who 'knows' him, here's the title Amir gave to the thread about these tests, on *his* forum


Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different
I like the comment at the top of page 59 though:

Quote
I am not a "trained listener", nor do I have anything close to good ears. In fact my wife constantly complains that I'm going deaf and on those "test how high you can hear" tests my kids are complaining all the way up to 20khz whereas I'm lost after about 16.

As much as I'd love to have golden ears, it ain't so. That's why I suspect there's a fault in the files.
That and the fact that I got 100% on my laptop speakers


Quote
And these development, btw, are why I call this mismash of files, SRCs, tests, results and 'conclusions' a 'train wreck'.  HA will be dealing with the litter for who knows how long, every time someone comes here with a link to say 'you guys think you know so much but what about..."?
Sadly true.

Cheers,
David.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #31 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I like the comment at the top of page 59 though:

Quote
I am not a "trained listener", nor do I have anything close to good ears. In fact my wife constantly complains that I'm going deaf and on those "test how high you can hear" tests my kids are complaining all the way up to 20khz whereas I'm lost after about 16.

As much as I'd love to have golden ears, it ain't so. That's why I suspect there's a fault in the files.
That and the fact that I got 100% on my laptop speakers


That simply means if you don't hear the benefits of HiRes music you must be absolutely deaf. Everyone with normal hearing should benefit from HiRes. Nice marketing strategy.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #32 –
Quote from: mzil on
@krabapple  search for: "What artifacts?

My usual rule is that artifacts can only be ignored if they are either identical for all kinds of switchovers or truely random, and don't disturb one's concentration."

Search for that, and by the way, I don't see how teaching crooks and con artists, who frequent other forums, how to take advantage of the system is in anyone's best interest. So I don't.

Showing people not how, but that I can ace the test too I hope gets them thinking about other posters showing bogus test results, though.



I'm not sure what post of mine this is in reply to....

Nor am I sure what you are asking me to do here.



And yes can we PLEASE have the silly side-debate about room noise split off into a new thread?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #33 –
Sorry krabapple, I wasn't clear and if people aren't following the threads over there it certainly would be confusing. I was saying search this forum, HA, for the sentence I quoted or simply click here and read Arny's post, the second one in that thread.
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...&pid=697607

In a nutshell that's how I am able to hear a difference between button A and B, listening to switching artifacts, yet I don't hear a difference between music files A and B. And was then able to post my ABX logs in that thread showing that anyone can post a winning score yet it doesn't prove they actually heard any difference in the music at all.

P.S. I tried to A/B the exact same file against itself in foobar ABX, as you suggested there, and it won't let you, even if the song title appears twice in your playlist. Try it.

So I renamed a copy of the song file and tried to A/B that against itself. I was unable to achieve any statistical significance so that would imply there has to be something, I don't know what, which makes my B selection a tiny bit different than my A selection, in order to key off the sound of the switching artifacts.

These switching artifacts aren't truly random, nor are they consistent. I would however describe them as having a "tendency". Listening for what the tendency was is how I could ID A vs B, with strong statistical significance, but boy was it hard and fatiguing to accomplish.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #34 –
Quote from: mzil on
Sorry krabapple, I wasn't clear and if people aren't following the threads over there it certainly would be confusing. I was saying search this forum, HA, for the sentence I quoted or simply click here and read Arny's post, the second one in that thread.
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...&pid=697607

In a nutshell that's how I am able to hear a difference between button A and B, listening to switching artifacts, yet I don't hear a difference between music files A and B. And was then able to post my ABX logs in that thread showing that anyone can post a winning score yet it doesn't prove they actually heard any difference in the music at all.



Ah, thanks,  that's a fascinating find.  But it's not what Amir is reporting as his 'tell'.    Amir claims to be homing in on sections of of the signal, as well as on 'spaciousness' or  somesuch.


Quote
P.S. I tried to A/B the exact same file against itself in foobar ABX, as you suggested there, and it won't let you, even if the song title appears twice in your playlist. Try it.


Yes, you have to rename one of them.


Quote
So I renamed a copy of the song file and tried to A/B that against itself. I was unable to achieve any statistical significance so that would imply there has to be something, I don't know what, which makes my B selection a tiny bit different than my A selection.


I don't understand how this could be so.  You say above that it's a switching noise, but here it doesn't seem to exist...you are *un*able to use it in this case?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #35 –
Answer: As best as I can tell, it would appear I am unable to distinguish A from B when they are literally the same song, just re-titled. My listening conditions here are poor though. I have just moved to a new home and further testing may show different results, but currently this is how it stands.

Regarding high end retailers, etc., it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some people there are posting ABX logs which are simply fakes. Take two Beatle songs, for example, "A hard day's night" and "Let it B" and rename them as "Mosaic A" and "Mosaic B". ABX the two under these new names. Bingo! You pass the test and post the actual test logs for all to see, claiming it was due to  "spaciousness", or "added clarity in the upper, lower midrange" etc. I don't believe anything I read there and some of them have a financial motivation to promote fraud to help sell people "hi-res ready" systems.

New topic:

In a foobar ABX test you can compare a lot more than just the sound of A versus the sound of B. Here is a list of 10 things you can compare, in this case I'm NOT selecting the box "Keep playback position when changing track" and using a short .9 second passage to keep my acoustical memory of the sound I am keying off of intact :

-the music in A vs. B, when you switch between them in that exact sequence.
-the music in B vs. A. when you switch between them in that exact sequence.

-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the start of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of A to B in that exact order.
-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the start of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of B to A in that exact order.
-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the start of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of A to A [restarts the looped section].
-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the start of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of B to B [restarts the looped section].

-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the end of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of A to B in that exact order.
-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the end of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of B to A in that exact order.
-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the end of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of A to A [restarts the looped section].
-The tiny little switching artifact noise you hear, usually a very minor "tick" or a "thump" noise, largely dependent on the exact song passage you have inserted into your phrase repeat section (loop), appearing at the end of its loop, when transitioning from the playback of B to B [restarts the looped section].

What's aggravating is this tick or thump noise artifact isn't 100% consistent, making it an easy tell to pick up on, but nor is it completely random either which would mean we don't have to worry about people keying off of it, either consciously in my case, or unconsciously (just maybe, but I strongly doubt it) in other tests.

One switching artifact, as an example, played over and over again 10 times, may sound like "thwump", "thwump, "thwump", "thwump", "thwump","thwump", "thweep", "thwump", "thwump", "thwump",  whereas another one sounds like "thwump", "thwump", "thwump", "thweep", "thwump", "thwump", "thwump", "thweep", "thwump", "thwump".  So you can deduce the identity of X because it shares a higher (or lower) ratio of the occasional "thweep" sound instead of the more common "thwump" sound. Sorry, I don't know what causes it.

Is this arguably "cheating"? Well if I placed a bet with a person that I could pass the test they had provided me and I used this method, I would contend I won and they owed me the money. I am truly keying off of an actual sound difference.

So in the end what causes there to be a difference? Not sure, but my current theory is the multiple SRC steps to make these cuts not only caused a minor fraction of a dB level change, which was said to have been manually corrected for in the "Take 2" version of the test, but maybe there was also a slight temporal change and one of the two cuts is slightly misaligned on the time axis, by a few samples. I'm not an expert on this but if someone with better skills than me could open them in Audacity, etc. and magnify it to look for that, it would be cool.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #36 –
Quote from: mzil on
So in the end what causes there to be a difference? Not sure, but my current theory is the multiple SRC steps to make these cuts not only caused a minor fraction of a dB level change, which was said to have been manually corrected for in the "Take 2" version of the test, but maybe there was also a slight temporal change and one of the two cuts is slightly misaligned on the time axis, by a few samples. I'm not an expert on this but if someone with better skills than me could open them in Audacity, etc. and magnify it to look for that, it would be cool.

I was right. I learned how to use Audacity and posted images in the AVSforums showing there is indeed a 10mS or so time discrepancy. There's nothing wrong with foobar ABX. The differences really exists because the two files aren't aligned properly, as I suspected.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #37 –
Quote from: krabapple on
But it's not what Amir is reporting as his 'tell'. Amir claims.....


Have JJ set up and run the tests...and Amir will run the other way.
The whole thing seems to be unraveling now with the exposed file corruption. I'm sure we'll see retractions on the WTF?? and Audiostream forums any minute...

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #38 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
The whole thing seems to be unraveling now with the exposed file corruption. I'm sure we'll see retractions on the WTF?? and Audiostream forums any minute...

The only change I've noticed in that WTF thread is it's now a sticky.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #41 –
So we have questionable resampling and/or noise shaping with more noise at the high end than original content, hundreds of samples delay leading to a clear audible differences ...

Man, if I had done such a test I'd wish the ground to open and swallow me up. Have they apologized yet? Invalidated the results?
"I hear it when I see it."

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #42 –
No apologies, no retractions, no test score resets, at least not up to now, only people insisting "Well, just don't listen to that part then when you compare the two files; I didn't after all!" and some continuing to insisting that the positive ABX scores prove there is a difference due to "hi res". It's pathetic.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #43 –
how are you or anyone keeping track of the claims made from comparing AIX files, versus claims made from comparing Arny's 'jangling keys' files?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #44 –
Not sure I get you.
[Plus I'm not a good one to keep track of those threads since I typically don't read amirm's posts.]

Psst..I strongly suspect he monitors this thread, BTW. The guy seems to have a lot of time on his hands. He participates in numerous forums and at just AVS alone I think he has like 12,000 posts in the course of just a few years. Yikes.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #45 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Wombat on
I'd happily donate some bucks if needed.
to a former Corporate Vice President at Microsoft? I'm sure he could pay Arnie's air fair if he thought it would help.

While I'm disappointed with the level of debate, I think some of the skepticism over there is justified.

See an article on why normal rooms are too quiet for 16-bit audio to be sufficient...
http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomDynamicRange.html

See also an article on why jitter needs to be much lower than you thought...
http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Audi...istortions.html

There's lots of science in those articles, but I find them misleading.

Cheers,
David.



I realise this is jumping back in the thread a bit, but the second article represents a patently ridiculous manipulation of the results of the Dunn paper it cites. He takes the thresholds for potential peak-to-peak sampling jitter audibility at 20 **kilohertz**, assuming 120dBSPL playback levels and audibility of any sideband at 0dbSPL or higher, then applies these numbers to the middle of the friggin audioband...all the while whilst representing them as a formal "proof" that any more jitter than that is audible (unless explicitly masked).

Forgive me if I've got my theory confused, but that strikes me as a little more than "misleading".

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #46 –
Pretty much. Your technical analysis is correct. He's shooting for a simplistic performance measure where you can always say something is inaudible even in absolute worst case "don't think" circumstances. This conveniently requires you to over engineer everything by a couple of orders of magnitude compared with the normal definition of "inaudible".

To be clear: there's nothing wrong with that "no compromise" approach to engineering (IMO).

What's wrong is to over state the possibility of hearing an audible difference by doing worse.

What's wrong is to obsess over any of these less important issues so much, when what really matters is:
  • who the musicians were
  • how well they played
  • where they played
  • where the microphones were
  • how it was mixed and mastered
  • what the listening room is like
  • where the speakers and listeners are in that room
  • how good the speakers are
  • who the listener is
  • what mood the listener is in

They're the important things. Then there are things of secondary importance, then tertiary, and then - goodness knows how far down the list - amazingly low levels of jitter.

Cheers,
David.

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #47 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Pretty much. Your technical analysis is correct. He's shooting for a simplistic performance measure where you can always say something is inaudible even in absolute worst case "don't think" circumstances. This conveniently requires you to over engineer everything by a couple of orders of magnitude compared with the normal definition of "inaudible".

To be clear: there's nothing wrong with that "no compromise" approach to engineering (IMO).

What's wrong is to over state the possibility of hearing an audible difference by doing worse.

What's wrong is to obsess over any of these less important issues so much, when what really matters is:
  • who the musicians were
  • how well they played
  • where they played
  • where the microphones were
  • how it was mixed and mastered
  • what the listening room is like
  • where the speakers and listeners are in that room
  • how good the speakers are
  • who the listener is
  • what mood the listener is in

They're the important things. Then there are things of secondary importance, then tertiary, and then - goodness knows how far down the list - amazingly low levels of jitter.

Cheers,
David.


I suppose it's all a matter of framing, and I'm just used to seeing the audiophile fraternity try to drive a truck through the eye of a needle whenever they spot an opening (God knows that 20ps figure has been abused beyond all reason beforehand).

Talking of driving trucks through needles, has this got any coverage in the audio press, the AudioStream article aside?

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Willakan on
Talking of driving trucks through needles, has this got any coverage in the audio press, the AudioStream article aside?

Probably won't. They've got most of the suckers sold on it, why rock the boat.
What's missing from 2ch soundfields? Why, more "resolution" of course. 

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

two hi rez vs redbook train wrecks in progress

Reply #49 –
Quote from: mzil on
Not sure I get you.
[Plus I'm not a good one to keep track of those threads since I typically don't read amirm's posts.]


I don't either, but:

There are *two* sets of claims on AVSF about being able to 'hear a difference between hirez and Redbook'.

One is based on music files provided by AIX/Scott Wilkinson

The other is based on a recording of keys jangling, provided by Arny Kruger.

hence the 'two' train wrecks referred to in the very subject line of this thread.