[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif I post evidence that contradicts those papers, but you decide they aren't good enough for you anyway.

Which evidence did you post that contradicts my papers?

Also, just because I am not a scientist does not mean my experience is not valid in evaluating these audio phenomena.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which evidence did you post that contradicts my papers?

The paper by David Moran and Brad Meyer, but that wasn't good enough for you. You claim random people have disproved it (which I have yet to see), and went on like nothing changed.

Quote:

Also, just because I am not a scientist does not mean my experience is not valid in evaluating these audio phenomena.

You don't have to be a scientist to test this, but you have to be willing. Something you obviously are not at this point. No controls means you're speaking from opinion and not a place of fact.

 

[DayoftheGreek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which evidence did you post that contradicts my papers? Also, just because I am not a scientist does not mean my experience is not valid in evaluating these audio phenomena.

Actually, it does mean that. You just said you don't have enough time to really test your cables, so you are again perpetuating the exact problems that everyone is trying to eliminate.

I don't care if you are the single most experienced audio recording, hi-fi listening, poster on this forum. Experienced doctors just years ago thought smoking was healthy and would've sworn their practices on it. Experience doesn't always cut it Especially the sound science forum.

That video you posted with the oscilloscope and power cables shows just how little your experience matters. That video could not have been more vague and almost misleading. The only people who will take anything away from that might as well just buy into all the same ridiculous misleading "technologies" that companies like Bose advertise in those infomercials.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the benefits of higher sampling rates: http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf

Bob Stuart definitely has an agenda and is strongly PCM and anti-DSD. That aside his requirements are based an a whole lot of supposition, where does this 120db dynamic range come from. None of his assertions have been supported by empirical and more to the point blind listening tests the ARA have a particular world view and they are entitled to that but he cannot back up the more speculative claims with any real evidence.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Meyer Moran paper has been widely discredited. Most audio researchers I have met do agree with Bob Stuart that 44.1 khz is not sufficient a sampling rate. You can see much of the criticism of this paper at Audio Asylum. The problem with most of these listening tests is that they really ultimately just test the critical listening skills of the audience, not the audible differences of two phenomena.

Part of my working life is to review academic research papers. So I have read the m and m paper and all the counter-arguments, I used to be an AES member. Most of the criticisms are not valid as criticisms of an experimental design. many fall into the "kit not good enough" this is not an valid criticism.

The one valid and very specific criticism levelled is that the sources do not start as 144db dynamic range or 120db dynamic range so the downsampling to 96db does not have the same effect as slicing off 48db.

However, until somebody releases commercial recordings with either 120db or 144db dynamic range this is a moot point, as far as I am aware nobody has ever released a recoring with such ranges, also while you might just get a DVD-A or SACD player to hit perhaps 120db SNR in real world terms the rest of your kit simply will not manage this and unless you live in an anechoic chamber the background noise is so high that even acheiving this 120db dynamic range above noise will require peak volumes of about 150 - 165 db.

Also the same folks that say that the m and m sources were not good enough gloss over the fact that differences in noise level were heard between the high-res and the 16/44.1 versions , albeit at extreme volumes, if the original source was that poor this would not be true.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

When I first started on this forum I thought wow, these guys really know their stuff and I have lots to learn. Wrong.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif A few things caught my eye while reading that. The fourth citation on that page refers to a study called "High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Electric Activity and Sound Perception". Bold claim, except it isn't, since the study's original name, when submitted to the Journal of Neurophysiology, is "Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect". The change in name is significant since the original study separates the classical understanding of "sound perception" and the hypothesized "hypersonic effect". It is nonetheless interesting that although the hypersonic frequencies are not perceived as sound, they correlate with greater subjective enjoyment among the study's participants. I wonder whether the effect persists with hypersonic noise that's disharmonic or not the product of musical performance. Good news for supertweeter manufacturers! Looking forward to future studies.

The Oohashi paper is almost as hotly debated as Meyer and Moran. However, the Oohashi paper used a very small sample and later attempts to replicate it found contrary findings. One attempt found that there was audible IMD using ultrasonic components when all the sound came from a single speaker such as in Oohashi's expt , when however there were 6 different speakers this effect was lost and discrimination of the supersonic components became impossible (Kiryu and Ashihara, 2001).

So the ultrasonics gave rise to distortion not a better audio experience as such.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, it does mean that. You just said you don't have enough time to really test your cables, so you are again perpetuating the exact problems that everyone is trying to eliminate.

I guess this depends on whether you think the world of audio can be measured as an objectivist or if you like me believe that subjective evaluation is also important.

Look at the THD wars in the 70s and the lack of understanding about the audibility of jitter in the 90s. Subjectivists figured it out long before objectivists did. Jitter was known for a while but experimentation with a variety of CD transports help outline how low (picosecond) it was audible to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Part of my working life is to review academic research papers. So I have read the m and m paper and all the counter-arguments, I used to be an AES member. Most of the criticisms are not valid as criticisms of an experimental design. many fall into the "kit not good enough" this is not an valid criticism.

Odd. I think playback gear quality is paramount for these reasons:

1. The better the quality of SACD player, the more highlighted the differences over redbook are.

2. These Meyer-Moran listening sessions involved an audience of varying critical listening skills. If you have poor listening skills, a better player highlighting bigger differences will be important in that listener noting a difference.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bob Stuart definitely has an agenda and is strongly PCM and anti-DSD. That aside his requirements are based an a whole lot of supposition, where does this 120db dynamic range come from. None of his assertions have been supported by empirical and more to the point blind listening tests the ARA have a particular world view and they are entitled to that but he cannot back up the more speculative claims with any real evidence.

I'm a big DSD fan so I disagree with Stuart on that and I've told him so. However, his "coding" paper is very well respected so I think his conclusions are valid.

Again, the best test is to listen to recordings like the Reference ones I listed above and playback them on a good CD and DVD-Audio player and determine for yourself. It's pretty obvious to me on the better acoustical recordings.

It's also obvious on the Dark Side of the Moon SACD over the CD layer.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Odd. I think playback gear quality is paramount for these reasons: 1. The better the quality of SACD player, the more highlighted the differences over redbook are. 2. These Meyer-Moran listening sessions involved an audience of varying critical listening skills. If you have poor listening skills, a better player highlighting bigger differences will be important in that listener noting a difference.

Meyer and Moran used members of the BAS, i.e supposed audiophiles, so while a range of abilities is present nobody was able to pass the test. Also M & M used 3 different players only 1 was the Philips, the two others had rather better technical specs. Also you cite "sound quality" of the cheap philips as if is has been in some way scientifically validated, it has not, one way or another.

But more broadly you suppose that differences are necessarily audible, however 1980s and earlier research suggests that our hearing discrimination is actually not all that good on several parameters such as noise detection, low pass fileters and so on. That something (a format) has a 24 or even 48 db superiority in technical terms does not mean that humans can detect the difference that easily, that is where emprical testing is needed.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Meyer and Moran used members of the BAS, i.e supposed audiophiles, so while a range of abilities is present nobody was able to pass the test. Also M & M used 3 different players only 1 was the Philips, the two others had rather better technical specs. Also you cite "sound quality" of the cheap philips as if is has been in some way scientifically validated, it has not, one way or another. But more broadly you suppose that differences are necessarily audible, however 1980s and earlier research suggests that our hearing discrimination is actually not all that good on several parameters such as noise detection, low pass fileters and so on. That something (a format) has a 24 or even 48 db superiority in technical terms does not mean that humans can detect the difference that easily, that is where emprical testing is needed.

I'm fairly familiar with the Philips and it is one of the poorest sounding units out there. What were the other two players?

There's more to sound quality differences than bandwidth. You are trying to tie everything to scientifically measurable things but science does not measure audio well, only parts of it. How does one measure the timbre of a Guarneri violin? There are no good measures of that. How does soundstage depth and width get measured? How does one measure the level of detail one hears on an acoustic guitar recording?

If you listen to either a good LP, a good SACD, or a good DVD-audio disc and compare with its equivalent CD with the same mastering, then its clear that higher resolution sources are improving the sound in terms of detail, timbre, and soundstage.

 

[nealric]

Two track-

I believe you are sincere, but I also believe you are losing this argument badly. Valid critiques are met with unsupported assertions and/or bluster. I think most people who frequent the sound science forum would agree.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's more to sound quality differences than bandwidth. You are trying to tie everything to scientifically measurable things but science does not measure audio well, only parts of it. How does one measure the timbre of a Guarneri violin?

With a spectrum analyzer.

Quote:

There are no good measures of that. How does soundstage depth and width get measured? How does one measure the level of detail one hears on an acoustic guitar recording?

Look, here's the deal.

All that occurs at the electronic level is changes in voltage and current versus time. At the acoustic level, changes in pressure over time. Any differences one might actually hear are the result of changes in the above. And they can be measured to vanishingly low levels.

If any two audio components, loudspeakers, or cables alter the signal in such a way as to produce an actual audible difference between them, trust me, it can be measured.

se

 

[tuoppi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif All that occurs at the electronic level is changes in voltage and current versus time. At the acoustic level, changes in pressure over time. Any differences one might actually hear are the result of changes in the above. And they can be measured to vanishingly low levels.

Yeah. There really isn't any magical unmeasurable properties in audio.
Besides even there was, how would you develop for example cables that have differences in these magical properties if you can't measure them? Would you just randomly throw stuff together and hope for the best?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm fairly familiar with the Philips and it is one of the poorest sounding units out there. What were the other two players? There's more to sound quality differences than bandwidth. You are trying to tie everything to scientifically measurable things but science does not measure audio well, only parts of it. How does one measure the timbre of a Guarneri violin? There are no good measures of that. How does soundstage depth and width get measured? How does one measure the level of detail one hears on an acoustic guitar recording? If you listen to either a good LP, a good SACD, or a good DVD-audio disc and compare with its equivalent CD with the same mastering, then its clear that higher resolution sources are improving the sound in terms of detail, timbre, and soundstage.

This is the sound science forum

The playback equipment in this system consisted of an Adcom GTP-450 preamp and a Carver M1.5t power amplifier. Speaker cables were 8 feet of generic 12-gauge stranded wire; the line-level connecting cables were garden-variety. Three different players were used: a Pioneer DV-563A universal player, a Sony XA777ES SACD model, and a Yamaha DVD-S1500. The loudspeakers were a pair of Snell C5s. The CD-standard A/D/A loop was an HHB CDR-850 professional CD recorder.

I don't get into arguments about timbre and so on a priori, for me the argument is simple, first can a difference be detected, if not then all else is meaningless, if a difference can be detected then worry about what it is. For some cases if a difference is detected it is just volume which is something we are very sensitive to.

I can measure the outputs from my 4 CD players and at a sufficient level of zoom they look very different indeed, and they do sound different too even in a DBT, yet when adjusted for volume they sound exactly the same in a DBT.

The acid test is in listening, but not just casual listening but listening where our natural human biases to appearance, price and so on are taken out of the equation.

The "'I know it is better because......" starts us off on the wrong foot. We should (at least in this subforum) start with "is it really better ?"