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 367683 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #925
Actually Monty (and Jean-Marc Valin of xiph.org) rebutted you over and over on your forum; you simply refused to accept it (an admitted at one point that you tend not to acknowledge error because 'it's two males') and performed your usual dance steps.

Monty nailed the fallacy in your overall thesis re: the 'need' for hi rez,  *back in 2012*:


What, are you documenting yet another example of Amir being proven wrong and then he just wrapped himself into a tight little ball of denial?

Just goes to show that he's tried that trick with far better persons than I! ;-)



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

Reply #926
I also  loved this anecdote of Monty's, about Neil Young's Pono initiative

Quote
When Neil's group contacted me, the first thing they wanted to talk about was 24/192. I replied I probably wasn't the person they wanted to talk to, because I'm a skeptic on the subject. They replied that they didn't believe in high-res either, but they couldn't sell to audiophiles unless their product was high res. So then they wanted to know what other hooks could serve the same marketing purpose. We went back and forth on that a bit, also discussed FLAC, and the conversation eventually petered out.


It's  also around this time that Monty appears to start losing patience with Amir's shucking and jiving and shilling and threats-made-with-smileys and 'endless baiting via logical fallacy".  I notice he hasn't posted to WhatsBest since 2013...

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

Reply #927
Hell of a story. Maybe now we know why Young ducked the question posed at SXSW as to what his cut would be.

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

Reply #928
The bad news for the Meridian boys is if the mastering people put ringing into the masters, what takes it out?  As I read their materials, their Apodizing filters span of correction is the ringing in the filters in their own equipment.
No, if the ringing is at the Nyquist frequency of the delivered digital audio, the Apodizing filter will remove it. As would any low pass filter that cuts below the original Nyquist frequency when upsampling. However, the point of the Apodizing filter is that it doesn't pre-ring itself. Most upsampling filters would.

I don't claim it's audible. I'm just explaining how it works.



I did a little research and was surprised to find how sharp and severe their Apodizing filter actually is - approx 100 dB attenuation at Nyquist.  Now you and I would probably call 100 dB attenuation removing it, but I know from past experience that Amir believes that  artifacts that are 100 dB down can be serious audible problems.

As it stands, there doesn't seem to be much magic - the Apodizing filter seems to be very much like the minimum phase reconstruction filters that we have done listening tests with and found to contain no magic.

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

Reply #929
It's  also around this time that Monty appears to start losing patience with Amir's shucking and jiving and shilling and threats-made-with-smileys and 'endless baiting via logical fallacy".  I notice he hasn't posted to WhatsBest since 2013...


The list of well  known people who have abandoned Amir's conference site for similar reasons has to be very long and impressive by now.

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

Reply #930
Actually Monty (and Jean-Marc Valin of xiph.org) rebutted you (and patiently rebutted all manner of tendentious nonsense from your acolytes) over and over on your forum; you simply refused to accept it (an admitted at one point that you tend not to acknowledge error because 'it's two males') and performed your usual dance steps.

Monty nailed the fallacy in your overall thesis re: the 'need' for hi rez,  *back in 2012*:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post108311

You mean like this? 

Quote from: xiphmont(monty) on WBF Forum link=msg=0 date=
M&M [Meyer and Moran] were using fantastically expensive equipment.  There was no audible IMD.  That's not a big surprise.

M&M system was fantastically expensive? Stuart's system was more expensive yet.  We take that as his system not producing IM either?

You proved so clearly what I said before: that this is not his domain of expertise.  That you think he actually was winning some argument means you must be confused just the same.

My message to him and here have been the same: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post108430

Quote
Quote
What you are advocating is being unable to sell better masters to an audiophile without the added expense of senseless recording overkill, because said audiophiles have been 'educated' that they need a gold plated Hummer with artillery mount to drive to the corner store.

Is this a benefit to the industry? to anybody?


I found your dance steps about wanting to hear the *ultrasonics-induced intermodulation distortion that was heard and approved in the studio* (!)  particularly amusing.


This is my exact answer to that quote per above link:

I am not advocating anything. The recording world has already decided to use high sample rate and resolution. Your beef therefore needs to be with them. Go and see if the Mix magazine will take your article and "educate" that crew. Folks here have nothing to do with that. What they want is what the talent and engineer heard when the final mix was created. Nothing less, nothing more. You pushing for 16/44.1 means getting the CD masters which is post crazy loudness wars as the Meyer and Moran paper clearly articulated with listening tests.

Nothing about loudness wars is about gold plated hammers. It is about a hammer that has a head that is metal vs one that is plastic. Folks are so wrapped around the axle on the bits and bytes that they forget the reality of how music is produced. Or worse yet, don't know how the music is produced.


Please don't put such spins on my answers when they can be refuted so easily. 
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #931
I did a little research and was surprised to find how sharp and severe their Apodizing filter actually is - approx 100 dB attenuation at Nyquist.  Now you and I would probably call 100 dB attenuation removing it, but I know from past experience that Amir believes that  artifacts that are 100 dB down can be serious audible problems.

100 db?  I wish.  No, here is sample distortions from my measurements which I am sure you recall:

.


Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #932
It's  also around this time that Monty appears to start losing patience with Amir's shucking and jiving and shilling and threats-made-with-smileys and 'endless baiting via logical fallacy".  I notice he hasn't posted to WhatsBest since 2013...


Ditto for Dr Earl Geddes: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...s-forum-closing in 2011.
Sean Olive has bailed since 2013 also. Real scientists wouldn't want to be associated with Shyster Con Central, so no surprise.
Here is what passes as "Expert" advice on "listening" to DACs under the watchful eyes of the WTF?? moderators.
Quote
This may sound silly..... but try putting the DAC1 upside down and have a listen.


Needless to say, would love to see how this BS paper is spun to those who outright reject blind, level matched testing as valid for discerning audible differences.
I guess even false positives are ok when they help peddle "Hi-Re$".

cheers,

AJ


Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #933
Amir,

I don't understand how you can see someone demonstrating IMD and say (truthfully) these are exceptional circumstances so I will reject this but see someone else demonstrating bad filters and wrong dither and say this result is really important.

it's true that the former is more exceptional than the latter, but the audible result is dramatically clearer too.

these are almost like two sides of the same coin.

Cheers,
David.

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

Reply #934
You proved so clearly what I said before: that this is not his domain of expertise.  That you think he actually was winning some argument means you must be confused just the same.



that's what so likable about you Amir: your humbleness.


Really, anyone can read the thread and decide for themselves what *substantive* points were made by whom.  And who has 'domain expertise' in digital audio/signal processing


Quote
My message to him and here have been the same: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post108430

Quote
Quote
What you are advocating is being unable to sell better masters to an audiophile without the added expense of senseless recording overkill, because said audiophiles have been 'educated' that they need a gold plated Hummer with artillery mount to drive to the corner store.

Is this a benefit to the industry? to anybody?


I found your dance steps about wanting to hear the *ultrasonics-induced intermodulation distortion that was heard and approved in the studio* (!)  particularly amusing.


This is my exact answer to that quote per above link:

I am not advocating anything. The recording world has already decided to use high sample rate and resolution. Your beef therefore needs to be with them. Go and see if the Mix magazine will take your article and "educate" that crew. Folks here have nothing to do with that. What they want is what the talent and engineer heard when the final mix was created. Nothing less, nothing more. You pushing for 16/44.1 means getting the CD masters which is post crazy loudness wars as the Meyer and Moran paper clearly articulated with listening tests.

Nothing about loudness wars is about gold plated hammers. It is about a hammer that has a head that is metal vs one that is plastic. Folks are so wrapped around the axle on the bits and bytes that they forget the reality of how music is produced. Or worse yet, don't know how the music is produced.


Please don't put such spins on my answers when they can be refuted so easily.


Shill, baby, shill.

Monty said, as I have, that he doesn't particularly care if you or anyone offers 'hi rez'  releases.  I've bought 'em, he probably  has too.  He doesn't think they make a difference in themselves, he thinks they're wasteful container formats, but he's not calling for a ban on them.  Same here.  What he *is* against is the following , AS I AM:

1) absurd hype about hi rez sound-- that is, the sonic differences *due necessarily to hi rez* -- all out of proportion to its actual benefits.  The industry , and you, *are* engaging in this, -- you with your incessant claims that it's all about 'consumer choice', the industry with the sort of shenanigans that Monty noted in his anecdote about Neil Young's project.  About which you maintained a notable silence. 

2) diverting the conversation from the *sources of truly significant audible defects* , in either Redbook OR hi rez releases: poor mastering, and poor playback setups.  Consumers should be alerted to how their 'choice' is being restricted THERE.  We should not *have to * buy hi rez releases in order to get good mastering.  And we aren't even guaranteed good mastering with hi rez releases!

Hi rez is a sideshow. For which you are a shill.

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

Reply #935
Kurosawa said: "Once you listen to high-res audio, you won't go back to CDs." – Rappler.com

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

Reply #936
Monty said, as I have, that he doesn't particularly care if you or anyone offers 'hi rez'  releases.  I've bought 'em, he probably  has too.  He doesn't think they make a difference in themselves, he thinks they're wasteful container formats, but he's not calling for a ban on them.  Same here.  What he *is* against is the following , AS I AM:

As I mentioned Steven, your opinion doesn't matter.  Neither does Monty's.  But since you want to continue to appeal to authority with Monty (yeh baby! ), here are two out of three introductory paragraphs in his blog:

"Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space.

There are a few real problems with the audio quality and 'experience' of digitally distributed music today. 24/192 solves none of them. While everyone fixates on 24/192 as a magic bullet, we're not going to see any actual improvement.


If you have been saying these things, then you are both dabbling in voodoo audio science/industry.  Declaring 24/192 Khz to have slightly inferior playback fidelity?  I suppose both of you have double blind tests that demonstrate that?  Or do we run with that with a fictitious IM distortion caused by near clipping ultrasonic tones?

Also incorrect is the implication that all high resolution releases are at 24/192 Khz.  I believe Arny would call this "excluded middle."  Or that anyone would care whatsoever how much more space it takes.  The cost to store the bits in either case is a fraction of the cost of acquiring the content itself.

As to his next paragraph, he is mistaken because he doesn't have any experience or knowledge of the business dynamics in music industry.  He doesn't know that by having three paths to release of digital audio: MP3/AAC, CD and High-res, we get to have different treatments applied to them as far as mastering.  No longer do recording engineers have to convince the labels/talent to not apply loudness compression to CD/MP3s.  They can do that for them as much as they like.  And opt to give the people who care about fidelity better quality music in the form of "high resolution" downloads.

The people he is criticizing, the "Young Group," are proving exactly that.  By having a distribution channel for 24/192 Khz for Pono, they can do whatever they want as far as mastering.  How he can say he met with them and not appreciate this fact is unfathomable.

Quote
1) absurd hype about hi rez sound-- that is, the sonic differences *due necessarily to hi rez* -- all out of proportion to its actual benefits.  The industry , and you, *are* engaging in this, -- you with your incessant claims that it's all about 'consumer choice', the industry with the sort of shenanigans that Monty noted in his anecdote about Neil Young's project.  About which you maintained a notable silence. 

2) diverting the conversation from the *sources of truly significant audible defects* , in either Redbook OR hi rez releases: poor mastering, and poor playback setups.  Consumers should be alerted to how their 'choice' is being restricted THERE.  We should not *have to * buy hi rez releases in order to get good mastering.  And we aren't even guaranteed good mastering with hi rez releases!

Hi rez is a sideshow. For which you are a shill.

I hear you Steven.  Here is the problem and there is no getting around it.  You wouldn't accept my opinion of a hot topic in your professional field.  Likewise as a person with no educational or professional experience in this topic, I can't accept your position because it is not an informed one.  Monty knows a lot more than you but likewise is operating outside of his expertise.  He has one meeting with the "Young Group" and thinks all of a sudden he is qualified to give us state of union for audio market?  I don't think so.  That is why he is making such obvious mistakes per above.

Your arguments as his, are wrong.  There is no reason to take any action against development of high resolution audio distribution.  There is goodness to every aspect of it.  No harm comes to any of you happy with MP3 or the CD.  The CD may decline but that decline will come from MP3, not from high-resolution.  This is why the market is moving forward over your and Monty's strenuous objections.  The dynamics are not as you envision as a person standing outside of it

Edit: typos again.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #937
Kurosawa said: "Once you listen to high-res audio, you won't go back to CDs." – Rappler.com


That's Taku Kurosawa, who works at a hi-re$ music download site. What would you expect him to say? "I don't think there any audible consequences, but I feel it is important to maintain my site so people have access to the tracks for experimentation"?!

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

Reply #938
The people he is criticizing, the "Young Group," are proving exactly that.  By having a distribution channel for 24/192 Khz for Pono, they can do whatever they want as far as mastering.  How he can say he met with them and not appreciate this fact is unfathomable. ]


The  'Young Group' proved that they are willing to shuck and jive the consumer to sell a new product, as the industry is wont to do.

Quote
Quote
1) absurd hype about hi rez sound-- that is, the sonic differences *due necessarily to hi rez* -- all out of proportion to its actual benefits.  The industry , and you, *are* engaging in this, -- you with your incessant claims that it's all about 'consumer choice', the industry with the sort of shenanigans that Monty noted in his anecdote about Neil Young's project.  About which you maintained a notable silence. 

2) diverting the conversation from the *sources of truly significant audible defects* , in either Redbook OR hi rez releases: poor mastering, and poor playback setups.  Consumers should be alerted to how their 'choice' is being restricted THERE.  We should not *have to * buy hi rez releases in order to get good mastering.  And we aren't even guaranteed good mastering with hi rez releases!

Hi rez is a sideshow. For which you are a shill.

I hear you Steven. 


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

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

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

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


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

Reply #940
There is no reason to take any action against development of high resolution audio $10k ML DACs and $50k ML amplifier distribution.  There is goodne$$ to every aspect of it.  No harm comes to any of you happy with MP3 an audibly indistinguishable $150 ODAC or the CD $3k NAD M22 Hypex NCore amp.
FIFY
Yes Amir, it's clear that Krab doesn't understand the busine$$ side of this field, does he?
Of course, only your overheated imagination strawman "takes action" against $cams. Rational folks simply don't buy into the $cam and of course object to the B$ claims.
No rational, objective person "takes action" against the guy buying the Rolex over the Casio watch. But if the audiomoron Rolex buyer or $cam peddler claims the Rolex "tells better time" than the Casio, well, here we are. 

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #941
I hear you Steven.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Moot per above.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #942
No rational, objective person "takes action" against the guy buying the Rolex over the Casio watch. But if the audiomoron Rolex buyer or $cam peddler claims the Rolex "tells better time" than the Casio, well, here we are.

The only moron is the one thinking your analogy is correct.  We are not dealing with Casio.  We are dealing with a Chinese knock-off that instead of a quartz oscillator, has an RC resonator because they think the customer wanted clocks that look like clock but don't keep accurate time.  Perhaps you have heard of loudness compression of CD/MP3s? 

The Rolex as it turns out in this situation, is indeed the more accurate clock.  And it hardly costs the same premium over the Casio.  It is the master that was used to make the cheap knock off above.



Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #943
We are not dealing with Casio.

Yep, 16/44 playback is the Casio of music distribution. Tells time just as audibly-to-human-ears-accurate (but maybe not fabricated online logs) as the Rolex, for a lot less money. It's just that $50k $cam amp buyers would rather have a Rolex version of the music for bragging rights and less "worry" about losing street cred about their 12KHz "listening" skills.

Perhaps you have heard of loudness compression of CD/MP3s?

Perhaps you'll never know what a Red Herring is? Wait, never mind...

The Rolex as it turns out in this situation, is indeed the more accurate clock.

Nope. Just the more expensive version of that same 2ch 10% soundfield, or worse, Neil Young and GAGA studio electronic music, that audiomoron suckers and $cam peddlers think, needs "more resolution".

But as you said Amir, few understand this $cam busine$$ field.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer


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

Reply #945
No rational, objective person "takes action" against the guy buying the Rolex over the Casio watch. But if the audiomoron Rolex buyer or $cam peddler claims the Rolex "tells better time" than the Casio, well, here we are.

The only moron is the one thinking your analogy is correct.


I am totally  amazed by the utter respect that you show for people who disagree with you Amir. ;-)

Quote
We are not dealing with Casio.


Another example of the well known lack of reading comprehension. We're not talking about action with respect to the Casio side of the argument, we're talking about the Rolex side.

Quote
We are dealing with a Chinese knock-off that instead of a quartz oscillator, has an RC resonator because they think the customer wanted clocks that look like clock but don't keep accurate time.


So says someone who wants us to believe that switchmode power supplies always have poorer regulation and more noise than legacy iron transformer based power supplies.

Reality is that MEMS (non-quartz) resonators outperform quartz for time keeping:

http://electronicdesign.com/analog/look-in...ems-clock-chips

Quote
Perhaps you have heard of loudness compression of CD/MP3s?


And that has what to do with the Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback Systems?  Loudness compression is a common production procedure that can be applied to any recording regardless of its digital format. How ignorant does one have to be to claim that all CDs and MP3s are loudness compressed?  Seems like an idea that a rank amateur that had no idea of modern audio technology might use in an argument and give every knowlegeable reader a big laugh at their expense.

Quote
The Rolex as it turns out in this situation, is indeed the more accurate clock.  And it hardly costs the same premium over the Casio.  It is the master that was used to make the cheap knock off above.


Please demonstrate this claim with real world examples.

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

Reply #946
Please demonstrate this claim with real world examples.

Recording done at 24/96 Khz.  Converted to 16/44.1.  There is no way on earth the 24/96 is less accurate than the 16/44.1 as the analogy of Rolex vs Casio would tell you.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #947
But as you said Amir, few understand this $cam busine$$ field.

Ammar, you went to a high-end audio show and wired up your speaker this way:


Multi-thousand dollar flat ribbon cable used in parallel with yet another cable?  You have discovered something about audio science there Ammar?  Or was it a scam of sorts?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

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

Reply #948
Please demonstrate this claim with real world examples.

Recording done at 24/96 Khz.  Converted to 16/44.1.  There is no way on earth the 24/96 is less accurate than the 16/44.1 as the analogy of Rolex vs Casio would tell you.


Obviously the scrobblings of a poorly educated subjectivist amateur audiophile who believes high end audio hype that bitrate is everything. Professionals with relevant industry experience and training know that producing recordings is a multi step process and resolution and accuracy can be lost at any step along the way.


Thus it is easy for a 24/96 recording to be less accurate than a 16/44 recording, and is even probably true in many cases.

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

Reply #949
But as you said Amir, few understand this $cam busine$$ field.

Ammar, you went to a high-end audio show and wired up your speaker this way:


Multi-thousand dollar flat ribbon cable used in parallel with yet another cable?  You have discovered something about audio science there Ammar?  Or was it a scam of sorts?

Heavens no, that's called synergy!