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: Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback  (Read 326282 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #475 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: xnor on
No, you are confused. I'm not talking about ripple but ringing. I never even mentioned ripple.

Oh?  Did you not immediately follow up with this post?

Yes, and for the nth time, #364 shows only the time domain. x-axis shows time, y-axis the amplitude of the sine wave that increases in frequency over time.
I am not talking about ripple, never was. The filters visualized in #364 have flat passband, otherwise the subtraction in the 2nd plot would show some remaining signal in the passband (below 20.5, 21.5, 22 kHz for each filter respectively).

You still seem mightily confused about all of this, especially how basic filtering works.


Quote from: amirm on
Where would I see "ringing" in those?  You clearly say they are frequency sweeps from 20 to 23 Khz.  Is that how we show the Impulse response and ringing?  With a spectrum display from 20 to 23 Khz?  You are telling us that those visualizations are the same as these I post?

I posted these sweeps to show you what a linear phase lowpass filter does.

These filters operate linearly. It doesn't add to the signal, it doesn't remove anything either, and since it is linear phase it doesn't change the timing either. All it does is attenuate above 20 or 21 kHz.

A minimum phase filter, that only has post-ringing and no pre-ringing, works similarly except for that fact that it delays parts of the signal, reaching the highest delay at the cutoff frequency (again above 20 or 21 kHz). This delay increases smoothly with frequency however, so it has an effect on frequencies far below 20 kHz as well.


Quote from: amirm on
[img showing impulse response]

My graph shows ringing in time domain.  Exactly the topic David and I were discussion.  You clearly confused passband ripple in frequency domain with time domain ringing.  It doesn't get any simpler than this.

Yes, ringing of a filter like any other filter has, but at 21+ kHz. Again, for the 100th time, I am not talking about passband ripple.
Yes, it couldn't be any simpler than this but you're still confused which is why I will post another example...


First we generate a test signal:

This is a random signal that contains mostly high-frequency energy up to 21500 Hz, critically sampled at 44.1 kHz. (Excuse the visualization with matlab plot function..)

Then we generate a filter:

(y-axis shows time in seconds)
This is an absolutely terrible filter, very long with 122ms total pre-ringing. Transition band is only 50 Hz wide, so extremely steep. Again, lots of filter ringing.

Now we filter the above signal with this terrible, bad ringing filter:

(different visualization #1, #2)
Oh noes, the filtered signal matches the original signal perfectly (also see #1, #2). Why? Because .. see the explanations above that I tediously had to repeat many times.

And for the curious, here's what happens if the filter does not have any pre-ringing but is: min phase.
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #476 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
On the topic of filters, can someone explain to me the use of impulse response energy as displayed in Fig.2 ? I know how to interpret amplitude response, but have never seen an energy plot like that.

What figure 2?
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #477 –
Quote from: Chu Gai on
Amir's, position as I understand it in all of this is as follows.

When he wants to buy music, he wants to buy the masters of the recording. If they only exist in 44.1, then fine. If it's 96 or 112 then fine. He doesn't want anything that's been up or down converted. If you think about it, that's his preference and as far as preferences go, it's whatever floats your boat.

How we each justify our preferences is an individual matter. There are rational, irrational, and any number of reasons why we choose things. A problem generally arises when we vocalize our reasonings to others. After all, not everything we say is going to make sense to the other person or there may even be errors in our thinking.

Amir has demonstrated to his satisfaction that he can key in on certain aspects of the conversion process with great success. That may well play apart in his internal justification process. He's aware that hi-res, even compressed, takes up more room and it costs more. Significantly in my opinion but to him that's irrelevant so long as what he bought is the master. It may well be that the master still suffers from loudness issues or even poor recording or mastering. But if it's the original then that's what matters.

Well said but let me clarify a bit the last part.  I do not go and buy high resolution content.  Most of my purchases are CDs.  But I like to see a thriving market for high resolution downloads.  I want to have the option to get the high resolution version should it not suffer from loudness compression of CD.  And importantly, in the final eventuality where CD distribution diminishes.  I routinely run into albums I want to buy that are only available in MP3/AAC.  CD distribution is antiquated and over time this trend will continue to decline.  I foresee a world where there is compressed MP3/AAC for the general public and high resolution for distribution to audiophiles.

So unless you are a fan of capping your fidelity to 256 kbps MP3/AAC (in which case we won't be on speaking terms ), you ought to support this development.  No harm will come to any of you due to expansion of high resolution content.  None whatsoever.  But if you keep pouring negative vibes it, and should it have a material effect, you are doing the rest of us disservice who care about fidelity.

Quote
The rest of what transpires are matters of verbal jousting. For me, the pity is that the complaints the public has had with the recordings are not going to go away. Look at those links I posted earlier and IMO, it's not about doing a better job with recording. Studios are going to put out what sells and in whatever format, moving the sliders around until they get something the customer approves. A crappy picture at 800x600 is still going to be crappy at mega resolutions.

And our best hope, and one that we have influence over, is support high resolution downloads.  We have zero, absolutely zero power to influence how music is created for the mass market.  They want loudness equalization in their playlists and labels/talent want to develop on that and then some.  High resolution downloads however, are going under the radar.  In many cases we have a direct link to people who master them (see Bruce Brown who masters a lot of content for HD Tracks: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/forumdisplay...By-Bruce-Brown).  Not doing so will cause us to eventually face the "crappy 800x600" in the form of loudness compressed and lossy compressed MP3/AAC.

Rest of this is all emotional chatter.  Thanks for bringing voice of reason to this forum Chu.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #478 –
Quote from: xnor on
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
On the topic of filters, can someone explain to me the use of impulse response energy as displayed in Fig.2 ? I know how to interpret amplitude response, but have never seen an energy plot like that.

What figure 2?


Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #479 –
Quote from: xnor on
This is a random signal that contains mostly high-frequency energy up to 21500 Hz, critically sampled at 44.1 kHz. (Excuse the visualization with matlab plot function..)

Looks like the plot is lost.  We are not talking about re-filtering a 44.1 Khz track.  We are talking about original that is at 192 Khz and has content past 22.05 Khz.  Go ahead and simulate a transient with full bandwidth of 96 Khz and demonstrate how your filter did nothing.  You won't be able to of course as that would be audio alchemy.  The result would be my matlab graph that shows clear pre-ringing.  That pre-ringing will step on what came prior to that transient.  Music has full spectrum of content, not just the ultrasonics.

I don't want to keep going and lose everyone else.  So I refer you to my ex-architect and friend, JJ's presentation to AES since everyone accepts him as the authority: http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/adc.ppt




Exactly what I said and statement from Stuart.


Same simulation I showed.  Then this:



And the same thing I said and Stuart did.  This is the plot.  There may be audible problems here but hard to test.

That's it.  I am not here to prove it is audible.  I said it may be the cause since we know the testers like me could not hear the ultrasonics.  You can stick to your theory of people cheating.  I will stick to potential technical explanations like JJ.

AJ, I hope you didn't have a heart attack reading that JJ speculates about audibility based on signal processing concepts and that of psychoacoustics.  It is how we do things in real life.  We don't ignore problems that we can demonstrate on paper absence of listening tests.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #480 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
[figure 2]


Looks like 20*log10(abs(imp)) ... where imp is the filters impulse response.
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #481 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: xnor on
This is a random signal that contains mostly high-frequency energy up to 21500 Hz, critically sampled at 44.1 kHz. (Excuse the visualization with matlab plot function..)

Looks like the plot is lost.  We are not talking about re-filtering a 44.1 Khz track.  We are talking about original that is at 192 Khz and has content past 22.05 Khz.  Go ahead and simulate a transient with full bandwidth of 96 Khz and demonstrate how your filter did nothing.  You won't be able to of course as that would be audio alchemy.  The result would be my matlab graph that shows clear pre-ringing.  That pre-ringing will step on what came prior to that transient.  Music has full spectrum of content, not just the ultrasonics.

I don't want to keep going and lose everyone else


As if that would happen.

Quote
So I refer you to my ex-architect and friend, JJ's presentation to AES since everyone accepts him as the authority:

http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/adc.ppt




Exactly what I said and statement from Stuart.


Same simulation I showed.  Then this:



And the same thing I said and Stuart did.  This is the plot.  There may be audible problems here but hard to test.



JJ says the following:

"This suggests that for higher sampling rates, we do not want the ‘fastest’ filter, rather a filter with a wider transition band, and narrower time response."

and then note who is using filters whose transition band is something like 4x+ narrower than commercial DACs.

IME when JJ says stuff like this:

How would I do that?
Get a DAC with a SLOW rolloff running at 4x (192K).
Make a DC to 20 K Gaussian pulse at 192kHz.
Downsample by zeroing 3 of every 4 samples and multiplying the others by 4.
Generate a third signal with a TIGHT filter.
Compare the three signals in a listening test

It is more like a rhetorical question. He knows what the answer should be if you do the experiment properly.

The other thing is that tests like the above are violently unrealistic. People listen to music, not worst case highly abstract test signals like unit impulses. 

Note that not even the recent Meridian paper is  based on listening to pink noise, white noise, or unit impulses. That would be too obvious.  If you tried to present such a thing at a real professional conference, you'd be laughed out of the room. You might even get your paper rejected based on its abstract.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #482 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Note that not even the recent Meridian paper is  based on listening to pink noise, white noise, or unit impulses. That would be too obvious.  If you tried to present such a thing at a real professional conference, you'd be laughed out of the room. You might even get your paper rejected based on its abstract.

The goal of any distribution channel/format is transparency.  That transparency better be there for all signals.  Who is to say some music does not have noise like characteristics?  The famous Chris Jones No Sanctuary track starts with a pure tone.  Are you going to say that is not "music" because it appears to have a test tone in it?

Now, if this were an impossible thing to accomplish, we could listen to the argument.  But if all we have to do is go to >= 48 Khz sampling rate why would we want to settle for anything but full transparency?  We wouldn't.

So you see the problem with your position.  This is why I said I like to get the high resolution bits and be done with it.  The moment you go down to 16/441. you get cornered having to exclude test cases like you are doing.  Get the high res bits and no issues like this.  We can user a super gentle filter at 88.2 Khz.  Keep the bits at 24 so we don't have to worry about what dither is or is not applied and we are golden.  All doable.  All feasible.  And all free with respect to hardware to play it.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #483 –
Quote from: amirm on
Looks like the plot is lost.  We are not talking about re-filtering a 44.1 Khz track.

I used this to explain to you, for the 100th time, that the ringing and the frequency the filters operate are at over 21 kHz. #255?
This was in response to #468, because up until now it didn't seem you understood how the filters work.


Quote from: amirm on
We are talking about original that is at 192 Khz and has content past 22.05 Khz.  Go ahead and simulate a transient with full bandwidth of 96 Khz and demonstrate how your filter did nothing.  You won't be able to of course as that would be audio alchemy.  The result would be my matlab graph that shows clear pre-ringing.  That pre-ringing will step on what came prior to that transient.

What you claim is the "original" is actually not the original either. It is also filtered (had to be, greetings from Shannon), just with a different filter that rings at a higher frequency.
Also, the content up there has considerably less energy than the content at lower, audible frequencies. And you have to consider hearing loss and also the attenuation of high frequencies through air ...

And no, the pre-ringing would not "step on what came prior to that transient". You are again confusing this with echo. The filter would build up output at an extremely low level and rapidly rise in energy at the transient (since that is where the energy is concentrated in such a filter) and would only act on the energy that is left up there.
In short, again, ringing at 21+ kHz.


Quote from: amirm on
Music has full spectrum of content, not just the ultrasonics.

What? Ultrasound is only the stuff above 20 kHz. In music most energy is located far below that, in the acoustic range.


Quote from: amirm on
I don't want to keep going and lose everyone else.  So I refer you to my ex-architect and friend, JJ's presentation to AES since everyone accepts him as the authority: http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/adc.ppt

So, have you done the suggested test with a 20 kHz gaussian pulse and a steep filter at 21+ kHz? It looks like once again you have no idea what you're even quoting. (jj also makes a reference to this being a problem with lossy codecs, which I also explained why it's an audible problem there, see the last lines of #446.)
You think you're pulling a rabbit out of your magic hat, but its actually a gun shooting into your own foot.


Quote from: amirm on
That's it.  I am not here to prove it is audible.  I said it may be the cause since we know the testers like me could not hear the ultrasonics.  You can stick to your theory of people cheating.  I will stick to potential technical explanations like JJ.

Now you are contradicting yourself.

Not only did you claim to hear clear audible problems, but run around showing off ABX logs. You say all it comes down to, to hear this 21+ kHz ringing, is training. But you still haven't even given a hint at what specifically you hear.

You claim to be able to hear steep filters at 21+ kHz. Okay, if I sent you some files could you identify such filters? (I, of course, wouldn't send you files that allowed you to cheat using a spectrum analyzer, for example.)
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #484 –
Quote from: amirm on
I am not here to prove it is audible.

You are, have been trying and failing, because you can't.
That's what the relentless posting of useless gameable computer files ABX logs are about, desperately trying to prove audibility.

Quote from: amirm on
AJ, I hope you didn't have a heart attack reading that JJ speculates about audibility based on signal processing concepts and that of psychoacoustics.

It's precisely because I've been well versed with his writings for a while now, that I've been encouraging you to seek treatment from him. Have him set up the proper test, switching, timing, levels, etc, pick the best room in your house, bring over his speakers, use the 2L "Hi Rez" Haydn track to compare against his 16/44 downsampled TPDF "CD" version (since none exists on the website).
Post on Youtube. 

Quote from: amirm on
It is how we do things in real life.  We don't ignore problems that we can demonstrate on paper absence of listening tests.

Great, so get on with your Amir Bolt audible demonstration Youtube video and quit wasting your time posting nonsense on forums.
In the meanwhile, remember to regenerate your power, use high end USB and SPDIF cables, Bryston amps, Clarity MR caps and lift your speaker cables off the floor, etc, etc.
Just in case. Oh and make sure it all costs a nice profit premium. Just in case.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #485 –
Was my pic misleading or wrong?
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=881802
Above is a gentle filter with very low ringing, the mid shows the ringing going well down to audible frequencuies with a gentle non-linear filter but as post-ringing.
Below is a typical steep linear filter showing its ringing around the filters frequency.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #486 –
Quote from: amirm on
The goal of any distribution channel/format is transparency.

Wrong. It's sales, just like you learned at Sony and  MS.

Quote from: amirm on
That transparency better be there for all signals.

It is:

No listener has ever used available distribution channel/format to demonstrate otherwise. Quite the opposite, as M&M showed.

Quote from: amirm on
Keep the bits at 24 so we don't have to worry about what dither is or is not applied and we are golden.

Sure, at higher co$t and greater profit, with about 10% fidelity to the original soundfield....but in "higher resolution" stereo. I bet Neil Young will sound so much better in 24bits.
Sounds like a plan. What do you intend to call this 10% fidelity cottage industry, the 2ch "Worry free High End"?
When do the listener training sessions begin? Installation of the iso-ward rooms and new loudspeaker standards? When do Berkley DACs start featuring "loop" buttons, to "zone in" on segments during listener enjoyment sessions in the easy chair?
Inquiring minds want to know Amir, please enlighten us.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #487 –
Quote from: xnor on
Not only did you claim to hear clear audible problems, but run around showing off ABX logs. You say all it comes down to, to hear this 21+ kHz ringing, is training.

Oh?  Again, the plot is lost.  Here is my comment that you objected to and caused the 12-part replies:

Quote from: amirm on
Having read the Stuart paper and prior citations, I am starting to think this may be due to time domain impact.  It certainly is not frequency domain since I can't hear the ultrasonics. Just as pre-echo is a very audible time domain artifact (although created in frequency domain), maybe these filters act the same way.

You say I have claimed to hear audible problems.  I have not.  I have shown that I can tell files apart.  That is what is required of me: detect lack of transparency.

You say I am running around with ABX logs.  That is what people like to see as evidence of passing such tests.  So I have provided them.  I ran a tool that I don't like because people asked and asked for me to run them that way.  So I did.  Now there is something wrong with that?  Maybe I should have just declared things audible and left it at that just like you are doing in reverse.

You say it all comes to hear 21 Khz ringing.  How on earth can you read that in my post?  I was thinking out loud with someone who I respect to know the topic, David. I provided no proof or that it is that specific to 21 Khz ringing or whatever.  I said the paper and its references put out a theory in that regard.  That is, why the 48 Khz sampling results were superior to 44.1 Khz.  Both filter out ultrasonics that we can't hear and the only difference left was their filter lengths.  The paper doesn't make more out of it than I just did.

I asked you to read Stuart's reference to earlier work.  You didn't, did you?  Here it is the excerpt:
Dispersive Models for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems
Roger Lagadec and Thomas G. Stockham, Jr.

Roger Lagadec is an AES Fellow: http://www.aes.org/technical/heyser/aes107.cfm

Known for his pioneering work in digital audio, Roger Lagadec now focuses on Internet commerce. He received his Ph.D. in digital signal processing for telecommunications. He has served as an AES governor.

The late Thomas Stockham has no less credentials:

His awards and professional accomplishments are numerous.  A few among them are: After receiving his Sc.D. degree at MIT he was appointed Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering in 1959. In 1968 he left MIT and joined the faculty at the University of Utah to help create their Computer Science Department. In 1974 he served on the panel of experts assembled to examine the 18 minute gap in the Watergate Tapes....He received a 1988 Emmy, the first ever technical Grammy Award in 1994, and a 1999 Scientific /Engineering Academy Award (Oscar) for his contributions to the creation of digital sound. He is internationally recognized as the father of digital recording....

In 1998 he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering for his contributions in the field of digital audio recording. He also won a technical Oscar. The AES awarded him a fellowship in 1978, and the prestigious Gold Medal in 1987. He was president of the society from 1982-83 and served on the Board of Governors in
1988.

This is work that you read first before posting and posting:

9. Some Conclusions
Using admittedly exaggerated filter designs in order to make
effects evident, it has been possible to show that the dispersive
character of filters must be taken into account. Such concepts as
ripple, bandwidth and phase response do not describe exhaustively
the acoustical behavior behavior of analog or digital filters,
especially when the criteria is not (or should not be) the audibility
for untrained listeners, but the perceptibility by professionals
and people used to the quality of digital audio.

See?  I stand on shoulders of giants when I talk about this topic.  This is not some idle speculation.

Quote
But you still haven't even given a hint at what specifically you hear.

And I am not going to.  Seems like you are unaware of what an ABX test means.  It means differentiating two samples.  That is it.  It doesn't tell you what was different.  It doesn't tell you which version was better.  It just says I can differentiate the two files.  Indeed, in no case did I attempt to identify which file is which.  I put them in Foobar playlist and instantly ran the plug-in.  Neither before or after the test did I attempt to see which file was which.  I ran the ABX test, found the difference and reported it.  To keep asking qualitative questions is wrong.  It just is.

Now, I gave you a method for you to discover the same.  You asked me to PM you with test files to run.  I mentioned an example here and you were flippant about it.  Here it is again: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=68524.  You see foobar logs there of people who say they have passed them.  I put in my results in one of these two threads.

Run the test and report back the log file.  We won't accuse you of doctoring them.  Let's see if you can hear a difference.  If you can, then you answer your own question.  If you cannot then it answers my question that you are not a critical listener. 

Quote
You claim to be able to hear steep filters at 21+ kHz. Okay, if I sent you some files could you identify such filters? (I, of course, wouldn't send you files that allowed you to cheat using a spectrum analyzer, for example.)

See above.  Let's see how many more back and forths it takes for you to run a double blind ABX test.  The very test we keep asking others to run.  But somehow, we are gun shy about running it ourselves. 

And please state if you think the others who passed David's test are cheating.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #488 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Wrong. It's sales, just like you learned at Sony and  MS.

Seeing how you are in the business of selling audio gear, I am unclear why you are so critical of your own selected profession Ammar.  I read in all places, the Stereophile that this was your demo gear at AXPONA 2012 show:

Source was a laptop running Windows Media Player, feeding a NuForce uDAC-2, VT 01 preamp, and MB 200 monoblocks. (I can't find the last two on NuForce's website, but it's what company founder Ammar Jadusingh, shown in the photo, scribbled in my notepad.

Monoblocks?  Over $6,000 in amplification alone?  A near $5,000 tube pre-amp?  Seems like you are exercising sales tactics there my friend.  And contradicting your posts here.

At least you did well with respect to your player as WMP was developed in my team! 

Quote
Sounds like a plan. What do you intend to call this 10% fidelity cottage industry, the 2ch "Worry free High End"? When do the listener training sessions begin? Installation of the iso-ward rooms and new loudspeaker standards?

Nah.  I passed the tests on my laptop using stock DAC.  No tube pre-amp.  No monoblocks.  You just have to not be a good listener.

Quote
When do Berkley DACs start featuring "loop" buttons, to "zone in" on segments during listener enjoyment sessions in the easy chair?

That is not what a DAC does Ammar.  It has no control over the source.  You want to send me your Nuforce DAC to compare to it?

Quote
Inquiring minds want to know Amir, please enlighten us.

That is inconsistent with what you said intentions were in these threads: turning the tables on the elitists, bullies, illogical condescending snobs and highly self deluded "audiophiles" that permeate my audio hobby?   No mention of enlightenment. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #489 –
Quote from: amirm on
You say I have claimed to hear audible problems.  I have not.

Thank goodness for this admission. The BS paper sure made it sound like there were audio problems with 16/44, not "transparency" problems, which would contradict the 518 user guide.
So 16/44 doesn't have audible problems.
It "lacks transparency", when "listening". So we don't need 24 bits because of audible issues, we need it for "worry free transparency when listening".
Thanks amir. Have you contacted JJ yet to begin the therapy?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #490 –
Quote from: amirm on
Seeing how you are in the business of selling audio gear, I am unclear why you are so critical of your own selected profession Ammar

How is it being "critical" to point out the obvious? "Hi-Rez" distribution is about sales, as any other commercial, non-charity venture. Meridian is also in the business of selling audio gear, yes?

Quote from: amirm on
Monoblocks?  Over $6,000 in amplification alone?  A near $5,000 tube pre-amp?  Seems like you are exercising sales tactics there my friend.

Absolutely. Demoing my speakers at the shows is a sales tactic. I'm not the one in denial about the reality of commercial endeavors, like "Hi-Rez".
Sharing room costs with other manufacturers also makes sense, when one doesn't manufacture upstream components, just speakers. Why create fear, prejudice and worry unnecessarily? I want folks like you to hear my speakers, not peek in the room and start worrying.

Quote from: amirm on
Nah.  I passed the tests on my laptop using stock DAC.  No tube pre-amp.  No monoblocks.

No witnesses either.
Sorry, the dog doesn't count. 
xnor passed the test without hearing audible differences also. Did I mention the uselessness of online ABX tests and subsequent logs with regards to the BS paper?

Quote from: amirm on
That is not what a DAC does Ammar.  It has no control over the source.

Ok, so when do the listener training sessions, etc, etc. begin for "Hi-Rez" buyers?
How is the person purchasing an SACD, "Hi-Rez" from the 2L store, or your store Madrona, suppose to get the benefits of this "transparency", when "listening" if it isn't audible vs 16/44? If there is no training classes, no loop functions on Berkleys etc, no requirements for iso-ward rooms?
The sole benefit is lack of "worry"?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #491 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Thank goodness for this admission. The BS paper sure made it sound like there were audio problems with 16/44, not "transparency" problems, which would contradict the 518 user guide.

They did find audible problems because in their case, they outline them:

It was reported that filtering gave "softer edges" to
the instruments, and "softer leading edges" to musi-
cal features with abrupt onsets or changes. Echoes,
when audible, were identi ed as being affected the
most clearly by the ltering. It was felt that some
of the louder passages of the recording were less ag-
gressive after filtering, and that the inner voices (sec-
ond violin and viola) had "a nasal quality". Over-
all, the filtered recording gave a "smaller and
flatter auditory image", and speci cally the physical space
around the quartet seemed smaller.

So definite problems and nothing to do with dither.  Transparency was not achieved.

Quote
So 16/44 doesn't have audible problems.

So you are from Mars.

Quote
It "lacks transparency", when "listening". So we don't need 24 bits because of audible issues, we need it for "worry free transparency when listening".
Thanks amir.

Yeh, the problem goes away when I stop listening and just read the lyrics.  But yes, ignorance is really bliss here.  Trust me, you don't want to be in my shoes and that of others who are sensitive to these artifacts.  It takes away from the enjoyment.  Just like a musician hearing a wrong note and ruining the performance for him, while I may not even notice it not being a musician, we are different in that regard.  Just be careful to not foist your understanding of audio devoid of critical listening skills onto others.

Quote
Have you contacted JJ yet to begin the therapy?

Nah.  If you need therapy and you think he can provide it, please contact him yourself.

Edit: fixed OCR problems in the cut and past again .
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #492 –
Quote from: amirm on
They did find audible problems because in their case, they outline them:

Bingo! Yes!
So what the heck does your ABX logs have anything to do with the BS Paper, if you just admitted you heard no audible problems with them?
That your issue with 16/44 stems from some sort of "worry" when "listening" malady.
The title of the paper is  "Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System."
Please let's concentrate on that, not your non-audible ABX logs.

Quote from: amirm on
Trust me, you don't want to be in my shoes and that of others who are sensitive to these artifacts.  It takes away from the enjoyment.

You're absolutely right I wouldn't want to be an audiophile....and stricken with all these "worry" maladies. I actually enjoy listening to music, live and reproduced. Even if reproduced by a clock or XM radio. If I remotely became cognizant of having these "worries", I'd seek treatment or have myself committed.

Quote from: amirm on
If you need therapy and you think he can provide it, please contact him yourself.

I get all the therapy I need at the Concert Halls like these (check out those "Hi-Rez" prices Amir), or listening to standard "Low-Rez" FM over factory speakers or streaming, even on a laptop. I'm not the one with the digital disorders. I certainly wouldn't mind hearing JJs system if it's set up for PSR. Which I'm sure even at 320Kbps, would blow away any "Hi-Rez" 2ch reproduction of the same event, including the 2L Hadyn type stuff.
You really do need to take a Logic 101 class Amir. Figure out why the burden of proof rest squarely on your side/camp, even with this BS paper, which is preliminary at best and leaves many unanswered questions.

cheers,

AJ


Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #493 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
How is it being "critical" to point out the obvious? "Hi-Rez" distribution is about sales, as any other commercial, non-charity venture.

So low-res audio is not about sales?  Why would you pay more for the CD vs MP3 Ammar?  Did you play MP3s at the show?

Quote
Meridian is also in the business of selling audio gear, yes?

Yes, you are both in the business of selling audio gear.  Big difference otherwise though. In the case of Bob Stuart, he comes with proper education and prestigious award of AES Fellow whose work is referenced and published.  He has published a listening test/paper that garnered an award from his peers at Audion Engineering Society in the form of "Best Peer-Reviewed Paper."

You are a hobbyist who says one thing here, and then shows up at an audiophile show and does another.  No educational experience.  No professional experience.  No record of taking any of these tests. 
Quote
Quote from: amirm on
Monoblocks?  Over $6,000 in amplification alone?  A near $5,000 tube pre-amp?  Seems like you are exercising sales tactics there my friend.

Absolutely. Demoing my speakers at the shows is a sales tactic. I'm not the one in denial about the reality of commercial endeavors, like "Hi-Rez".

Well you must be or you would post under your real name Ammar.  Be proud of your position and let your customers see who you really are.  Ditto for members here.  Don't tell us you are a vegetarian and advocate the same, only to go home and have steak one night, and bacon the next morning.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #494 –
Quote from: amirm on
Oh?  Again, the plot is lost.  Here is my comment that you objected to and caused the 12-part replies:

Quote from: amirm on
Having read the Stuart paper and prior citations, I am starting to think this may be due to time domain impact.  It certainly is not frequency domain since I can't hear the ultrasonics. Just as pre-echo is a very audible time domain artifact (although created in frequency domain), maybe these filters act the same way.

You say I have claimed to hear audible problems.  I have not.  I have shown that I can tell files apart.

So you say you cannot hear audible problems but can tell the files apart (with a spectrum analyzer?), and show off with ABX logs. And you wonder why I said it's more likely that you cheated than hearing genuine differences? Some may even see this as admission to exactly that.


Quote from: amirm on
You say I am running around with ABX logs.  That is what people like to see as evidence of passing such tests.  So I have provided them.  I ran a tool that I don't like because people asked and asked for me to run them that way.  So I did.  Now there is something wrong with that?

You are contradicting yourself again:
Quote from: amirm on
Our shtick in these discussions has always been a challenge for the other camp to run an ABX test to prove their subjective impressions of audio.  Since I am not in the opposing camp, and see value in blind tests, I ran the tests.  Not one but many.  Not the first version but the follow ups.  Not just on AVS but also here and on WBF Forum.
[...]
If our real intentions are to encourage others to believe and run such tests, we have failed and failed badly in that mission.

In the process of making excuses you're shooting yourself in the foot. Again.


Quote from: amirm on
Maybe I should have just declared things audible and left it at that just like you are doing in reverse.

Oh my ... I guess you will never learn.
Please finally read wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof carefully. Additional links will also teach you about the many fallacies that you still keep making happily after 10 pages.


Quote from: amirm on
You say it all comes to hear 21 Khz ringing.  How on earth can you read that in my post?

I don't, but keep on making those straw man arguments.
In fact, I asked you countless times what you hear. You evaded, and evaded, and evaded until above you say you don't hear but I guess magically tell the files apart (hence my exhaustive remarks regarding false positives, cheating).


Quote from: amirm on
9. Some Conclusions
Using admittedly exaggerated filter designs

Just stop there amirm. You don't see a problem here?
Also, the cited paper is largely outdated. Over 30 years ago the filters in A/D/A converters looked very different. You know that but you cherry-pick (another fallacy btw).

But please show us where it demonstrates the audibility of a linear-phase lowpass with a transition band of roughly 2 kHz (that's what we find in modern devices), with a cutoff frequency above ~21 kHz.


Quote from: amirm on
And I am not going to.  Seems like you are unaware of what an ABX test means.  It means differentiating two samples.  That is it.  It doesn't tell you what was different.  It doesn't tell you which version was better.  It just says I can differentiate the two files.  Indeed, in no case did I attempt to identify which file is which.  I put them in Foobar playlist and instantly ran the plug-in.  Neither before or after the test did I attempt to see which file was which.  I ran the ABX test, found the difference and reported it.  To keep asking qualitative questions is wrong.  It just is.

Honestly, I've never heard such lame excuse. Never.
Of the hundreds of people that posted ABX that I have seen, not one was unable to even hint at what differences they heard.

It seems that you are unaware of what "ABX test" means. It is a method to identify audible differences between two tracks.

This also makes the test, that I would have prepared for you, irrelevant since you weasel out of even having the ability to hear differences. Yet you magically produce positive ABX logs.


Quote from: amirm on
Now, I gave you a method for you to discover the same.  You asked me to PM you with test files to run.  I mentioned an example here and you were flippant about it.  Here it is again: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=68524.  You see foobar logs there of people who say they have passed them.  I put in my results in one of these two threads.

Run the test and report back the log file.  We won't accuse you of doctoring them.  Let's see if you can hear a difference.  If you can, then you answer your own question.  If you cannot then it answers my question that you are not a critical listener. 

Quote
You claim to be able to hear steep filters at 21+ kHz. Okay, if I sent you some files could you identify such filters? (I, of course, wouldn't send you files that allowed you to cheat using a spectrum analyzer, for example.)

See above.  Let's see how many more back and forths it takes for you to run a double blind ABX test.  The very test we keep asking others to run.  But somehow, we are gun shy about running it ourselves. 

And please state if you think the others who passed David's test are cheating.


I will simply ignore the lesser logical fallacies in this one. (see wiki link above for starters)

So, you set up a false dichotomy where either you win or you win (at least from what I can tell you seriously do think that?!) based on your flawed premises. Jesus help us all.
I've also explained to you, multiple times now, that non-linear-phase will cause a distortion of phase in the audible range even if the filter operates at 20 kHz. But the test you point me to is one with a maximum-phase filter?! So even if I posted a successful log and told you what differences I heard your flawed argument would still fail horribly.


Seriously ... I can take a lot, but this is getting much too painful. You are truly one of a kind, amirm.
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #495 –
Quote from: xnor on
So you say you cannot hear audible problems but can tell the files apart (with a spectrum analyzer?),

Plot is lost again.  I was very clear that I never analyzed the files, before or after the test.

Quote
...And you wonder why I said it's more likely that you cheated than hearing genuine differences?

That is a reflection on you.  That you think these online discussions are so important that one should resort to winning them by cheating.  I don't go there.  You can say or do whatever but I won't question your integrity.  That you do so in post after post, means that you and I have very different thresholds here.  You think winning an argument against a few Internet posters writing under an alias is justification for cheating.  You need to re-examine that logic.

Quote
Quote from: amir link=msg=0 date=
And please state if you think the others who passed David's test are cheating.


I will simply ignore the lesser logical fallacies in this one. (see wiki link above for starters)

So you will say in each test I cheated in my logs yet when I ask you about others in this very forum, taking a test from one of our members, and you won't go there.  What this means is that you have a personal beef with me.  In other words, we are not having a discussion of science.

Quote
but this is getting much too painful. You are truly one of a kind, amirm.

Yes, it does get painful when you demand evidence and turn around and accuse the other person after delivering it of a cheat.  Please allow me to post this forum's Terms of Service #8:

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

ABX double blind listening test results are provided.
Exact same content is provided per my last post to you.

But you refuse to take the same tests to back your claims of inaudibility.  This must be a one-way street, right?  We demand the tests but heaven forbid if someone asks us to run the same.  All of a sudden the request becomes "painful."  The person asking gets called names.  They committed a crime.  They asked for double blind tests.  How dare they?  We are beyond such requests.  When we declare something to be inaudible, it is.  We don't need to prove that against direct evidence that says otherwise.  A published study in a conference?  Means nothing.  They must have made simple mistakes that we can point out.  Except that we can't. 

So we resort to personal remarks.  That must be what "objective support" mean in the TOS #8.  If the few of us talk loud enough, and rude enough, maybe that becomes objective. 

You want to be so clearly on record as refusing to run double blind ABX test that I and a number of others on this and other forums have run, be my guest. The choice is yours.

Edit: fixed formatting.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #496 –
Quote from: amirm on
So low-res audio is not about sales?

Sure it is. But it's not a $cam, like inaudible benefit "Hi-Rez" for more $$. I've never seen it advertised as "worry free" Hi-Rez. Have you?

Quote from: amirm on
Why would you pay more for the CD vs MP3 Ammar?

It's audibly better, I'm into home audio not ipods, storage is cheap, unlike in the era of mp3's birth.....and it isn't a $cam. Unfortunately for your amirlogic, the thread is Hi-Rez vs CD, zero to do with mp3.

Quote from: amirm on
Yes, you are both in the business of selling audio gear.

I sell speakers and you and Bob both sell audio gear, including "Hi-Rez" related products yes. The thread's about Hi-Rez and relates to the products you both promote and sell.

Quote from: amirm on
Big difference otherwise though. In the case of Bob Stuart, he comes with proper education and prestigious award of AES Fellow whose work is referenced and published.  He has published a listening test/paper that garnered an award from his peers at Audion Engineering Society in the form of "Best Peer-Reviewed Paper."
You are a hobbyist who says one thing here, and then shows up at an audiophile show and does another.  No educational experience.  No professional experience.  No record of taking any of these tests.

You're unraveling and letting me get in your head again as usual amir. The thread is about the BS paper, not our personalities. Please, "worry" about the BS paper, thanks. It's going to be judged on it's merit, not BS "credentials".

Quote from: amirm on
Well you must be or you would post under your real name Ammar.  Be proud of your position and let your customers see who you really are.

Ummm, Amir, that's me in the avatar, me at all those very public audio shows, where people refer to me by my real initials "AJ", much like "JJ" or Amir"M".
Or "BS". Remember, one of the authors of the paper "Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System"? The thing you should be worried about.
If you care to address some of the issues, the dither doctoring, zero system transparency data, possibility of switching artifacts, the fact that no "CD"16/44 TPDF downsampled version of the 2L Hadyn file exists, etc., etc, please do so.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #497 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
So low-res audio is not about sales?

Sure it is. But it's not a $cam, like inaudible benefit "Hi-Rez" for more $$.

Who says?  Can you prove you can hear the difference  between CD and MP3 Ammar?  This forum requires objective proofs as such.  Otherwise, we have to declare it as not having a differential in quality and the extra price difference a $scam.

Remember, this forum requires such proofs of audible difference.  See TOS #8 in my last post.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #498 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: xnor on
So you say you cannot hear audible problems but can tell the files apart (with a spectrum analyzer?),

Plot is lost again.  I was very clear that I never analyzed the files, before or after the test.

But you admit to not hearing actually a difference? Okay, thanks that's all.


Quote from: amirm on
That you think these online discussions are so important that one should resort to winning them by cheating.

Sigh, it's not about the online discussion. You cannot tell anyone with a straight face that you have no affiliation with anyone selling hi-res "scam" (as AJ put it) so there seems to be an agenda.
But nothing of this really matters. You are simply derailing again.
I care about truth, but as soon as anyone inquires details you weasel out by posting mountains of nonsense, fallacies and excuses. Yes, that is painful. Everyone can see that.


Quote from: amirm on
You need to re-examine that logic.

We've already established several pages back that you better shouldn't talk about logic, like at all.


Quote from: amirm on
So you will say in each test I cheated in my logs yet when I ask you about others in this very forum, taking a test from one of our members, and you won't go there.  What this means is that you have a personal beef with me.  In other words, we are not having a discussion of science.

No. Learn to read. #495
I'm not going to waste time explaining this AGAIN, like every other tiny thing I had to explain 10 times to you.


Quote from: amirm on
Yes, it does get painful when you demand evidence and turn around and accuse the other person after delivering it of a cheat.  Please allow me to post this forum's Terms of Service #8:

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Jeez.. learn to read!

"Subjective sound quality" ... means statements like "the bass with device X sounds boosted" or "the cymbal crash in this mp3 sounds fuzzy".
"To the best of their ability" ... no comment
"the member can discern a difference" ... you admitted yourself you can't hear differences, you just produce ABX logs
"reproduce their findings" ... so far I haven't seen members here reproducing most of your claims

... and everyone here knows that ABX logs can be botched or false positives. The new ABX component, for example, has known bugs that can lead to false positives. The person might not even realize that, hence my question what you hear several pages back, which you evaded and weaseled out of painfully.


Quote from: amirm on
But you refuse to take the same tests to back your claims of inaudibility.

I stop here and skip the following garbage. This sentence alone is just way too dumb.

It shall be my new forum signature.
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #499 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
I sell speakers...

You do more than that Ammar.  This is what "parttimeaudiophile" web site says you showed at this year's AXPONA show:

A rack full of ModWright Instruments gear was driving the VSFT-3, including a $5,250 KWA 100SE amp and $3,750 LS100 tube preamp. For sources, AJ had a Modwright modded Sony HAP-Z1ES and Oppo BDP-105. I didn’t get a chance to explore the HAP-Z1ES all that much, but I’m pretty sure that was driving the bus while I was in the room. The mods are pretty similar to what I have in my own Modwright-ed Oppo, but include an external PSU, a tube stage and a completely reworked output stage. $3k gets the mod on your own unit.

MG Audio Design cables were used throughout, including the giant flat ribbon Planus III speaker cables and the silver Planus AG1 interconnects.



You have to be kidding me Ammar.  MG AUdio Design Cables?  Flat ribbon speaker cable?  10 foot version of that cable retails for $2,300 or $230/foot!

Modded Sony and Oppo players?  Did you even get a measurement to see if these mods change the specs let alone have better sound?  I have yet to run into one of these modder who have any instruments to verify their changes.

Oh well.  Let me know when you actually believe in the stuff you are posting here.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com