Skip to main content

Topic: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (Read 19711 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #25
Well you can at least find some humor his posts on hi-res, so they aren't completely without value.

At least you are polite today ;-)

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #26
it is up to the people if they will use 24 or 16 bit for listening - in either case they won't be wrong.
...and this is all your countless pages on the topic boil down to.  This forum concerns itself with the validity of facts.  The reasons people give for listening to 24 bits or greater should be what is of interest.  Aside from apples and oranges comparisons, I've seen very few, if any, that were based on something that could be objectively demonstrated.  So, yeah, I'd say people can be quite wrong in their decision to choose 24 over 16.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #27
it is up to the people if they will use 24 or 16 bit for listening - in either case they won't be wrong.
...and this is all your countless pages on the topic boil down to.  This forum concerns itself with the validity of facts.  The reasons people give for listening to 24 bits or greater should be what is of interest.  Aside from apples and oranges comparisons, I've seen very few, if any, that were based on something that could be objectively demonstrated.  So, yeah, I'd say people can be quite wrong in their decision to choose 24 over 16.

Yes, I understand your statement and I know from what position you are arguing - that is completely OK and in the sense of validity of facts you cannot do otherwise, since we today do not have any reliable facts that show the neccessity of  24 bit usage for listening purposes.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #28
Exactly.  Therefore any additional squirming you do will only be seen by me as pining for the ability to hear unicorns.
  • Last Edit: 28 June, 2016, 02:16:10 PM by greynol
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #29
At least on this level we have achieved understanding :)

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #30
on this level
With this I surely hope you aren't still digging in your heels with more of this type of nonsense.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #31
on this level
With this I surely hope you aren't still digging in your heels with more of this type of nonsense.

Now I am slightly  more experienced than in February :)

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #32
Considering that you continued your contortions for another 20+ pages after that we can only hope so.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #33
More fuel for the fire:

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160628/18296.pdf

"Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content,
and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training."

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #34
Some hours ago:
Ok, Dr Reiss was kind enough to notify me this morning, it's here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #35
"Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content,
and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training."
That is the contention which originated from Meridian, perhaps even a verbatim talking point.  Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Anyway, like the hypersonic mumbo jumbo, there has been zero 3rd party verification.

Seriously, the discussion could just end now, but I don't think that would make krab happy.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #36
increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training."
The question I have, is training at hearing what exactly?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #37
You know, the difference between a <cough> "typical" filter and a Meridian filter.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #38
More fuel for the fire:
A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation:
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160628/18296.pdf
"Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content,
and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training."

When large numbers of  trials are performed, the percentages correct that are required for statistical significance can be for practical purposes vanishingly small.  For example  according to Table 2, there were a total of 12,645 trials with 6,736 or 53.27% correct responses. While there were enough trials to provide  a fairly minimal confidence level, the percentage correct is pretty dauntingly small.

Compare the actual facts based on reliable listening tests with the claims that the leading high end audio pundits  make:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-move-to-make-hi-res-mainstream/
Quote from: TAS
"After the panel discussion we separated into groups and listened to Sony’s latest hi-res players, the Sony/Whitledge Design car system, and then to various transfers of the same recording. In the Capitol Records’ control room we heard four different versions of an old mono Sinatra track, each taken from a different era (vinyl, CD, remastered CD with noise removal, and a 192/24 hi-res file). The CD and remastered CD were the worst, with the hi-res file sounding infinitely better than any of the others. The difference in sound quality was stark."

Is there anything in the quote from TAS that would be warranted by a difference that can only be heard reliably a shade over half of the time?

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #39
While there were enough trials to provide  a fairly minimal confidence level, the percentage correct is pretty dauntingly small.

Compare [this to typical] claims that [...] high end audio pundits make:
Quote from: TAS
"[...]The difference in sound quality was stark."
Its a wonder how hi-res pundits might manage to rationalize the dichotomy, especially when Meridian enlisted trained listeners.
Were any of these "trained listeners" also hi-res pundits?
What tune are they singing, that they got statistically significant results with just ~20 trials?
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #40
192 kHz PCM is absolute overkill. Still they are mixing bit rate and sample rate. Of course 24/192 could sound differently from CD/LP but that is not the point. On the other hand more research is needed if delivery e.g. in 24/48 could provide benefit to listening of end users - up to now we do not have any reliable evidence.
  • Last Edit: 29 June, 2016, 04:34:19 AM by jumpingjackflash5

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #41
192 kHz PCM is absolute overkill. Still they are mixing bit rate and sample rate. Of course 24/192 could sound differently from CD/LP but that is not the point. On the other hand more research is needed if delivery e.g. in 24/48 could provide benefit to listening of end users - up to now we do not have any reliable evidence.

One of the funnier aspects of the article can be found en by checking the footnotes. There are papers describing approaches to this problem going back to 1931, and still all the high res advocates like this author can come up with is a call for more experiments!

Even with some pretty obvious cherry picking of results, the best the author could come up with is according to Table 2, a total of 12,645 trials with 6,736 or 53.27% correct responses.  This is 3.27 % better than placebo.

In most areas of human  endeavor, people would call this sort of weak performance  a lost cause.  The call for more testing looks to me like a lame attempt to obfuscate the absence of compelling results after over a century of trying and over 10,000 trials, even after fairly obvious cherry-picking.


  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #42
How I would love to do a 192/24 blind test trial using a pono and Neil Young's own material...Where better to run the test? a hi-end audio show.

  • KozmoNaut
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #43
How I would love to do a 192/24 blind test trial using a pono and Neil Young's own material...Where better to run the test? a hi-end audio show.

Using a Pono may actually give an edge to the hi-res pundits, as it seems to have some pretty severe high-frequency rolloff due to the filters chosen, -0.5dB at 10kHz and -5dB at 20kHz: http://archimago.blogspot.dk/2015/08/measurements-ponoplayer-another-mans.html

Using a higher sample rate on the Pono moves that rolloff outside of the audible range, so there may actually be an audible difference due to the hardware design.

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #44
192 kHz PCM is absolute overkill. Still they are mixing bit rate and sample rate. Of course 24/192 could sound differently from CD/LP but that is not the point. On the other hand more research is needed if delivery e.g. in 24/48 could provide benefit to listening of end users - up to now we do not have any reliable evidence.

One of the funnier aspects of the article can be found en by checking the footnotes. There are papers describing approaches to this problem going back to 1931, and still all the high res advocates like this author can come up with is a call for more experiments!

Even with some pretty obvious cherry picking of results, the best the author could come up with is according to Table 2, a total of 12,645 trials with 6,736 or 53.27% correct responses.  This is 3.27 % better than placebo.

In most areas of human  endeavor, people would call this sort of weak performance  a lost cause.  The call for more testing looks to me like a lame attempt to obfuscate the absence of compelling results after over a century of trying and over 10,000 trials, even after fairly obvious cherry-picking.



I do not want to strive for Hi-Res at all costs, but those arguments are weak. Only last cca 20 years  we have real technology that can do 24 bit and/or 48/96 kHz sample rates reasonably well. So no century wide research ....

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #45
Using a Pono may actually give an edge to the hi-res pundits, as it seems to have some pretty severe high-frequency rolloff due to the filters chosen, -0.5dB at 10kHz and -5dB at 20kHz: http://archimago.blogspot.dk/2015/08/measurements-ponoplayer-another-mans.html

Using a higher sample rate on the Pono moves that rolloff outside of the audible range, so there may actually be an audible difference due to the hardware design.

A white paper on the filter in question:

https://www.ayre.com/white_papers/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
  • Last Edit: 29 June, 2016, 09:15:52 AM by spoon

Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #46

I do not want to strive for Hi-Res at all costs, but those arguments are weak.

I don't expect to convert any true believers in high resolution audio with logical arguments.

Quote
Only last ca 20 years  we have real technology that can do 24 bit and/or 48/96 kHz sample rates reasonably well. So no century wide research ....

I guess you haven't noticed that we still can't do 24 bits.

More to the point, there is no practical purpose that would be satisfied by being able to do so.  In fact 16/44 is an overkill format as compared to the limitations of human hearing and musical events.

If you want to see an example of a weak argument, consider the argument that after having 24/96 gear with high performance at our disposal for 20-ish years, the best that high resolution advocates can come up with seems to be results that are less than 4% better than Placebo.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #47
those arguments are weak. Only last cca 20 years  we have real technology that can do 24 bit and/or 48/96 kHz sample rates reasonably well. So no century wide research ....
Believers believe we've only been able to generate >20khz signals for 20yrs??
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #48
I fully agree with the point of 24 vs 16 bit, but I think 44KHz vs 192KHz is less clear cut, and is highlighted perfectly by the pono player (though its digital filters). Playing back 192KHz the filters are less-likely to screw up the actual stuff you can hear, so in many respects 192KHz has the advantage.

  • KozmoNaut
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation
Reply #49
I fully agree with the point of 24 vs 16 bit, but I think 44KHz vs 192KHz is less clear cut, and is highlighted perfectly by the pono player (though its digital filters). Playing back 192KHz the filters are less-likely to screw up the actual stuff you can hear, so in many respects 192KHz has the advantage.

But that's only really because the filters on the Pono have excessively soft rolloff. Any other even half-way competently designed DAC will only roll off maybe -0.5dB at 20kHz, compared to the -5dB on the Pono.