And the cognitive load is obvious to anyone who has taken the ABX blind tests.

You have some evidence that this is not true?

There is rather some research on discrimination with time lapse, and it is quite true that a break between A/X or B/X (or even A/B) will disrupt the subject, so time proximity WITHOUT glitches is absolutely requisite.  This is because partial loudnesses, rather than time domain waveforms, is what must be recalled, and the first level of memory for such is under 200 milliseconds. So proximate IN TIME presentation is the relevant, germane thing to do.

Since people do perform with such testing down to physical limits, I don't think there is a great deal of room left there for problems.

If you want to do an audio test, how else would you do this? By the way, sequential tests with proper windowing are documented as the best way to extract the most reliable answers from subjects.

Only a person devoid of logic would try to prove a negative, so no surprised you asked.

And the cognitive load is obvious to anyone who has taken the ABX blind tests.
You have some evidence that this is not true?

There is rather some research on discrimination with time lapse, and it is quite true that a break between A/X or B/X (or even A/B) will disrupt the subject, so time proximity WITHOUT glitches is absolutely requisite.  This is because partial loudnesses, rather than time domain waveforms, is what must be recalled, and the first level of memory for such is under 200 milliseconds. So proximate IN TIME presentation is the relevant, germane thing to do.

Since people do perform with such testing down to physical limits, I don't think there is a great deal of room left there for problems.

If you want to do an audio test, how else would you do this? By the way, sequential tests with proper windowing are documented as the best way to extract the most reliable answers from subjects.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-12-02 01:38:52

Only a person devoid of logic would try to prove a negative, so no surprised you asked.

There is no such thing as "you can't prove a negative."  It is a mad up debating phrase/talking point and no more.  Just because Randi James says it, doesn't mean it has any proper basis in logic..

So?  The stated a fact: that in ABX tests the listener is instructed to listen to A and X and B and X and vote which association is closer.  That creates three stimulus that must be kept in mind:

An ABX test requires that a listener retains all three sounds
in working memory, and that they perform a min-
imum of two pair-wise comparisons (A with X and
B with X), after which the correct response must be
given; this results in the cognitive load for an ABX
test being high.

Explaining what ABX testing is doesn't require prior reference.  And the cognitive load is obvious to anyone who has taken the ABX blind tests.

You have some evidence that this is not true?

You are not in the audio field Steven so what is peculiar in your world is not here.

What is really at issue here is that folks/you don't want to hear any criticism of ABX testing.  That is supposed to be sacrilegious.  In real world it is not.  Facts can be stated about it and expert opinion expressed.

Here is Clark in his JAES paper, High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator

When scientific tests have been performed, listeners'
audibility thresholds have appeared to be poorer by
orders of magnitude compared to casual tests.

There is no reference provided in this second paragraph in the Introduction of the paper.  And it is vague at heck.  What on earth is "casual tests?"

The only proof of a universal negative is complete testing of everything, everwhere, under every condition.

So, practically speaking, no, you can not prove a universal negative, you can only offer evidence that the result is the same as the negative to some level of confidence. That is the only proof available in the real world for any universal negative.

So I don't think AJ's comment is so terribly wrong.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-01 23:36:04

And the cognitive load is obvious to anyone who has taken the ABX blind tests.
You have some evidence that this is not true?

Amir, please cite your valid, scientific evidence regarding cognitive loads of ABX tests.
The onus falls squarely on you.

Quote from: Woodinville on 2014-12-02 05:58:39

The only proof of a universal negative is complete testing of everything, everwhere, under every condition.

We don't live in idealistic world.  My toaster is not unsafe because it has been through a set of UL tests that give high confidence of it not catching on fire.  I certainly don't worry about it combusting when I put toast in it every morning.

All of these audio tests with negative outcomes are used exactly the same way.  We use them to inform us that there is no difference.  In other words, we rely on negative proof all the time in these discussions.  Yet for some reason are quick to state, "you can't prove the negative."  Why do we say that when we are considering negative outcomes sufficient to have created negative proof?

No it is not.

If so, it would be interesting to know how much ringing is tolerable, if this is linked at all to sampling rate, and how cascading filters effects audibility. In a typical recording chain there are three filters: 1) ADC (hi-res), 2) mastering filter (AKA SRC to redbook), 3) DAC (anti-imaging filter).

Quote from: greynol on 2014-12-01 19:02:17

Maybe testees could have done better than ~60% had they used Proper protocol.

Or worse.

Really, instead of the weird conditions why didn't they just use
a) a filter that should be easily audible (e.g. <16 kHz cutoff)
b) a steep 44.1 kHz filter (like the one they used)
c) a more real-world like filter that is less steep (they could even use the one that they actually use in their products...)
d) a filter that even a super human shouldn't be able to hear (40+ kHz for example)

to demonstrate that their A-X test and methodology, filtering software, switching software ... works properly?

A simple test to check their tweeter without measurements could have been using b) with HF noise added that has a similar spectrum to the original track..

IMO the most interesting part of the paper is the audibility of time domain effects of filters. AFAIK the authors only give "potential" explanations. They try to explain why the 44.1 kHz filter was less audible than the 48 kHz filter with the difference in pre- and post-ringing. If that's true, doesn't that mean that a ringing filter in a very high resolution ADC (e.g. DXD) will have a deleterious effect that can't be undone ?
If so, it would be interesting to know how much ringing is tolerable, if this is linked at all to sampling rate, and how cascading filters effects audibility. In a typical recording chain there are three filters: 1) ADC (hi-res), 2) mastering filter (AKA SRC to redbook), 3) DAC (anti-imaging filter).
DSD seems to be immune to this "problem", but I suppose that can only be verified with non-pcm-speakers.

• the BS experimental study appears to have been executed in a passive way, not taking advantage of preliminary informal testing to pinpoint what was causing an apparent lack of transparency in the filter emulations (particularly the emulation for a sample rate reduction to 44.1kHz), and
• the two main conclusions offered are vaguely expressed and unhelpful, and in the case of the second conclusion (about the need for a hi-fidelity reproduction chain) not actually supported by experiment.

It was reported that filtering gave "softer edges" to the instruments, and "softer leading edges" to musical features with abrupt onsets or changes.

Listeners described that quantization gave a "roughness" or "edginess" to the tone of the instruments, ...

This could be an effect of quantization distortion; it is interesting that this was audible even in a 24-bit system,...".

... and is consistent with the hypothesis of Stuart [29] that 16 bits are not sufficient for inaudible quantization.

All of these audio tests with negative outcomes are used exactly the same way.

There is rather some research on discrimination with time lapse, and it is quite true that a break between A/X or B/X (or even A/B) will disrupt the subject, so time proximity WITHOUT glitches is absolutely requisite.  This is because partial loudnesses, rather than time domain waveforms, is what must be recalled, and the first level of memory for such is under 200 milliseconds. So proximate IN TIME presentation is the relevant, germane thing to do.

Since people do perform with such testing down to physical limits, I don't think there is a great deal of room left there for problems.

If you want to do an audio test, how else would you do this? By the way, sequential tests with proper windowing are documented as the best way to extract the most reliable answers from subjects.

If you look at the final results, fig. 4, it just doesn't make much sense.

If you focus on the arithmetic mean results with the 16-bit conditions, the 44.1 kHz filters were steeper, with longer and louder ringing and cutoff closer to the audible range, but they were harder to detect than the 48 kHz ones. So the filter seems to make little difference. 24-bit scored better for 44.1 kHz but worse for 48 kHz, so quantization doesn't seem to have a consistent effect either.

Did I mention that more information and data is needed?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-02 06:34:01

No it is not.

Yes, it is.

You defend that position and with your typical amir spiel tried to, once again, shift the burden of proof demanding from others to disprove your position.

The problem here is not proving a negative, but assuming you are right because there is no strong evidence that your position is wrong. That's a pretty absurd and fallacious position to take, but hey, we're not surprised.

No it is not.    Or else you wouldn't feel the urge to keep posting and posting and get unprofessional to boot.

There is no overriding rule that says you can sit back and let me post and post as evidenced by the fact that you post more than I do on this topic.  You are acting as I say, but saying otherwise.  That is not logical and I won't accept it as being such.

You don't know what my position is anyway.

Once again you don't know my position so your foundation is wrong.  The position I take is very simple and cannot be denied:

You need to be 1000% in favor of more consumer choice.

You don't have to buy high-res but you better join me in supporting it as otherwise we will all be screwed with the first and biggest jump back in fidelity.

These are the facts.  [...] I just find it fun to turn the tables on people who keep demanding double blind tests exactly that and see them squirm.  [...]  The burden is on your shoulder and big time.

Don't go responding to this post because per above, you don't matter.  AJ doesn't matter.  Krab doesn't matter.  None of you do.  Get a sense of reality, [...]

1. High resolution audio is coming to market and no one cares how much anyone jumps up and down here.

2. This is not 2007 where we were discussing whether two new physical formats (DVD-A and SACD) had enough merit to force us all to buy all new players and deal with their strict copyright to allow us to make convenient copies.  High-resolution files today are 100% compatible with all of our music servers and many appliances.

3. Playing back high-resolution audio has zero, zero cost associated with it.  It does not enrich any major company with patents (Sony/Philips or DVD Forum contributors).  The notion then that anything good about high resolution audio is motivated by money is totally absurd.

The 16/44 is 99.99999% of time a down converted version of a 24-bit higher sampling rate file.  Per #3, I don't need anyone to screw around with my bits.  If  you or anyone else want 16/44, you can generate them from high resolutions stereo master using whatever dither, resampler, etc. you want.  I have no reason to follow your preference there, nor does anyone who wants the best quality.  I know the best quality will always be a generation up from 16/44.  Want the original bits thank you very much.

5. By a miracle, the music labels have decided to license their studio masters to us.  You don't see that in movies, do you?  This is a gift to be embraced.

6. CD as a format will decline and go away as an option for your music purchases in a few years. There is no longer any reason to stamp plastic and spin it with a motor to read and play digital bits.  You will as sure as sun comes out the east, face the situation of wanting your favorite music yet it will only be available in MP3 or AAC.

Wake up and smell the coffee please.  You need to be 1000% in favor of more consumer choice.  You don't have to buy high-res but you better join me in supporting it as otherwise we will all be screwed with the first and biggest jump back in fidelity.

Don't go responding to this post because per above, you don't matter. AJ doesn't matter. Krab doesn't matter. None of you do. Get a sense of reality, conduct yourself more professionally and join the audiophiles elsewhere in increases the choice of formats we have. Heaven knows I am getting bored interacting with you all.

Don't go responding to this post because per above, you don't matter.  AJ doesn't matter.  Krab doesn't matter.  None of you do.

Get a sense of reality, conduct yourself more professionally and join the audiophiles elsewhere in increases the choice of formats we have.

Heaven knows I am getting bored interacting with you all.

6. CD as a format will decline and go away as an option for your music purchases in a few years. There is no longer any reason to stamp plastic and spin it with a motor to read and play digital bits.  You will as sure as sun comes out the east, face the situation of wanting your favorite music yet it will only be available in MP3 or AAC.

Last night I went searching high and low to find the CD version of one of my favorite soundtrack composers, Max Richter's album: Perfect Sense: Original Film Soundtrack.  Yet Amazon only lists the stupid MP3 version.  This is the first time I have seen a movie soundtrack skip CD release.

Wake up and smell the coffee please.  You need to be 1000% in favor of more consumer choice.  You don't have to buy high-res but you better join me in supporting it as otherwise we will all be screwed with the first and biggest jump back in fidelity.