Audiophile objections to blind testing - an attempt from a layman

Jan 3, 2025 at 1:22 PM Post #77 of 158
I believe the 2.8 million samples are required to capture the wave accurately in DSD, as the next sample cannot immediately move across the range as in PCM, but a linear fashion, so the millions of samples are needed not just for noise purposes.
What you believe is irrelevant, this is the sound science forum, not the “what eq1849 believes” forum. And, it is even more irrelevant/ridiculous when your belief is based on ignorance and is contradicted by the facts/science!
Show me a proof please that dither under the constraints of binary code is perfectly recovering the signal.
You’ve already be shown proof and have ignored it! From @VNandor :
I will link this one last time although you always ignored it in the past. Maybe read and digest it this time:
"In an analog system, the signal is continuous, but in a PCM digital system, the amplitude of the signal out of the digital system is limited to one of a set of fixed values or numbers. This process is called quantization. Each coded value is a discrete step... if a signal is quantized without using dither, there will be quantization distortion related to the original input signal... In order to prevent this, the signal is "dithered", a process that mathematically removes the harmonics or other highly undesirable distortions entirely, and that replaces it with a constant, fixed noise level."
The actual proof can be found in the referenced papers (by Vanderkooy & Lipshitz) and pretty much any text book on digital audio!
The paper you cite doesn’t even compare DBT with long term casual listening, it ONLY uses DBT and ONLY demonstrates a SUBCONCIOUS difference in certain types of brain wave activity. So by definition it does NOT even support a claim of any (conscious) discrimination, let alone more accurate and reliable discrimination than DBT/ABX. And incidentally Nittono’s follow up papers prove no discrimination ability!:
Auditory brainstem responses to high-resolution audio sounds: Effects of anti-alias filters
High-frequency sound components of high-resolution audio are not detected in auditory sensory memory
These papers also do NOT investigate if long term casual listening provides more accurate and reliable results than DBT/ABX tests but they do demonstrate that the high frequency components of hi-res audio do not even register in the auditory cortex.

So AGAIN, please provide peer reviewed evidence that long term casual listening provides more accurate and reliable results than DBT/ABX tests. Not another unrelated paper!

Just more false assertions, ignorance and deliberately ignoring the facts/science, only this time you’ve presented some actual scientific evidence of your own but it also contradicts your claims. It’s so ridiculous it’s funny! Therefore it’s still unclear whether you’re just trolling or have a serious lack of intellectual ability.

G
 
Jan 3, 2025 at 2:43 PM Post #78 of 158
What you believe is irrelevant, this is the sound science forum, not the “what eq1849 believes” forum. And, it is even more irrelevant/ridiculous when your belief is based on ignorance and is contradicted by the facts/science!
you are claiming the only reason for DSD’s high sample rate is to push noise up, yes?

You’ve already be shown proof and have ignored it! From @VNandor :
I will link this one last time although you always ignored it in the past. Maybe read and digest it this time:

The actual proof can be found in the referenced papers (by Vanderkooy & Lipshitz) and pretty much any text book on digital audio!

The paper you cite doesn’t even compare DBT with long term casual listening, it ONLY uses DBT and ONLY demonstrates a SUBCONCIOUS difference in certain types of brain wave activity. So by definition it does NOT even support a claim of any (conscious) discrimination, let alone more accurate and reliable discrimination than DBT/ABX. And incidentally Nittono’s follow up papers prove no discrimination ability!:
Auditory brainstem responses to high-resolution audio sounds: Effects of anti-alias filters
High-frequency sound components of high-resolution audio are not detected in auditory sensory memory
It seems the papers you cite are using 0.1 ms short term clicks and short noise bursts, while the paper I cited was about listening to music in 400 second segments, and monitoring the brain while listening to actual music(not clicks and bursts), i’m afraid you are comparing apples to oranges.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2025 at 3:08 PM Post #79 of 158
“The participants did not distinguish between these excerpts in terms of sound quality. Only a subjective rating of inactive pleasantness after listening was higher for the excerpt with high-frequency components than for the other excerpt. The present study shows that high-resolution audio that retains high-frequency components has an advantage over similar and indistinguishable digital sound sources in which such components are artificially cut off, suggesting that high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components induces a relaxed attentional state without conscious awareness.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5285336/
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2025 at 3:48 PM Post #81 of 158
I perceive added clarity and depth, as well.

you’ll fail another test and “prove” it isn’t so?
You don't perceive that, as it's not physically possible. I would bet every last penny I have that in a level-matched DBT you would never tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit. That doesn't even go far enough though. In a theoretical situation where me losing this bet would result in the destruction of the planet and all my loved ones I would still take the bet. It is a bet I cannot lose under any circumstances. The science that proves me absolutely correct is over 40-50 years old (in some cases far older, such as the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem) at this point and has withstood the test of time. There's a VERY good reason why modern lossless material is always 16 bit/44.1kHz.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2025 at 4:10 PM Post #82 of 158
you are claiming the only reason for DSD’s high sample rate is to push noise up, yes?
I’m not claiming anything, I’m just reciting the facts/science. Why don’t you try looking it up and reading the evidence you requested, rather than completely ignoring it and argue on a science discussion forum anyway?
It seems the papers you cite are using 0.1 ms short term clicks and short noise bursts, while the paper I cited was about listening to music in 400 second segments, and monitoring the brain while listening to actual music(not clicks and bursts), i’m afraid you are comparing apples to oranges
The cited paper uses a test signal (a click with a “simple acoustic structure”) to enhance the effects they were testing for, thereby making it more discernible and yet it was still inaudible. So, your analogy is false, it is actually like comparing apples to a bigger apple and still not discerning a difference!
“The participants did not distinguish between these excerpts in terms of sound quality. …
That’s just classic! Your claim was: “In the long term, for me, 16 is flatter and less clear. 24 has more weight and clarity. Since buying 24 bit since 2014 or so this effect has never gone away and is extremely consistent to me.” And more recently: “I perceive added clarity and depth, as well.”. But you’re supporting those claims with a paper that states: “The present investigation used physiological, behavioral, and subjective measures to provide evidence that high-resolution audio affects human psychophysiological state without conscious awareness.” And that the participants could NOT distinguish “in terms of sound quality”.

We don’t need to refute your claims, you’re doing it all on your own, the paper you yourself are repeatedly citing contradicts your claims! It’s ridiculous, why are you disproving your own claims but continuing to argue anyway, are you alright?

G
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2025 at 5:03 PM Post #83 of 158
I’m not claiming anything, I’m just reciting the facts/science. Why don’t you try looking it up and reading the evidence you requested, rather than completely ignoring it and argue on a science discussion forum anyway?

Is the high sampling rate of DSD simply to push noise up?

You seem to have an issue answering this question.

The cited paper uses a test signal (a click with a “simple acoustic structure”) to enhance the effects they were testing for, thereby making it more discernible and yet it was still inaudible. So, your analogy is false, it is actually like comparing apples to a bigger apple and still not discerning a difference!

You seem to be stuck in and doubling down on a False Equivalence that millisecond clicks and short white noise micro bursts equate to actual music(where brain alpha band differences are noted, via EEG).

That’s just classic! Your claim was: “In the long term, for me, 16 is flatter and less clear. 24 has more weight and clarity. Since buying 24 bit since 2014 or so this effect has never gone away and is extremely consistent to me.” And more recently: “I perceive added clarity and depth, as well.”. But you’re supporting those claims with a paper that states: “The present investigation used physiological, behavioral, and subjective measures to provide evidence that high-resolution audio affects human psychophysiological state without conscious awareness.” And that the participants could NOT distinguish “in terms of sound quality”.

We don’t need to refute your claims, you’re doing it all on your own, the paper you yourself are repeatedly citing contradicts your claims! It’s ridiculous, why are you disproving your own claims but continuing to argue anyway, are you alright?

G
Do you notice when I give impressions of sound quality I always qualify them In some way as my opinion.

But if you fail yet another listening test with your subjective senses we are to take it as scientific fact without question.

You failing a negatively statistically biased test means how much again?

The paper I cited shows differences in 24/192 with high inaudible frequencies and 24/192 with them filtered out over 400 second pieces.

The point being there may be benefits that are subconscience annd improve the listening experience annd mood of the listener and which are being overlooked if a listening test is the only criteria.

As far as my impressions of 16 versus 24 bit, where in my opinion 24 bit is superior, that does not contradict the paper at all as you are, yet again, comparing apples to oranges, this time with my impressions of 16 v 24 bit versus 24/192 with or without inaudible high frequencies.

Perhaps brain science 16 versus 24 bit is in order.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2025 at 5:20 PM Post #84 of 158
You seem to have an issue answering this question.
Coming from someone who does not answer the questions. I’ve already answered your question but you just ignore facts/evidence and continue on blindly. And I’m still waiting for peer reviewed science demonstrating long term casual listening is more accurate and reliable than DBTs. Not providing it just further demonstrates your hypocrisy!
You seem to be stuck in and doubling down on a False Equivalence..
So you can’t read, I did not claim equivalence, even in my analogy! Don’t you know what a test signal is either?
The paper I cited shows differences in 24/192 with high inaudible frequencies and 24/192 with them filtered out over 400 second pieces. …
As far as my impressions of 16 versus 24 bit, where in my opinion 24 bit is superior, that does not contradict the paper at all
The paper you cited shows differences in certain brainwave patterns but NO conscious/discernible differences, which is what you are claiming and therefore completely contradicts your claims. Clearly you are not alright!

G
 
Jan 3, 2025 at 5:54 PM Post #85 of 158
Coming from someone who does not answer the questions. I’ve already answered your question but you just ignore facts/evidence and continue on blindly.

…. And the answer is?

And I’m still waiting for peer reviewed science demonstrating long term casual listening is more accurate and reliable than DBTs. Not providing it just further demonstrates your hypocrisy!

So you can’t read, I did not claim equivalence, even in my analogy! Don’t you know what a test signal is either?

The paper you cited shows differences in certain brainwave patterns but NO conscious/discernible differences, which is what you are claiming and therefore completely contradicts your claims. Clearly you are not alright!

G
My two cents..


A
The paper I cited was:

24/192 with high frequencies, 400 seconds of music.

24/192 without high frequencies, 400 seconds of music.

B
Your papers were:
1. Short white noise bursts
2. 0.1 ms clicks

C
My opinion was:
24>16

D
My second opinion was:
I think long term sighted listening, for me, is the way to go.

Your Logical fallacies:

False Equivalencies:
B with A.
C with A, then attempting to discredit my opinion(C)with an Argument from Fallacy.

Strawman:
that I claimed something as fact(D)when I did not, then demanding proof of a fact, which I never claimed( Appeal to Ignorance).
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2025 at 6:04 PM Post #86 of 158
…. And the answer is?
The answer is ignored and then repeatedly asked for again. Demonstrating you’re obviously not alright.
False Equivalencies
I didn’t make an equivalence and therefore it cannot be a false equivalence. Is that too complex for you to grasp?
Claiming that I claimed something as fact(D)when I did not
So someone broke into your account and posted what I quoted in your name.
Your papers were:
1. Short white noise bursts
2. 0.1 ms clicks
So, that’s a “no” then, you don’t know what a test signal is either. The list of what you don’t know just keeps getting longer and longer, but don’t let that stop you from arguing about it! lol

G
 
Jan 4, 2025 at 3:42 AM Post #87 of 158
You don't perceive that, as it's not physically possible. I would bet every last penny I have that in a level-matched DBT you would never tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit.
I think, he may perceive whatever, who's to tell? The question is if this perception is correlated (and ideally caused) by an audio stimuli or not. And that's what DBT is for (for those curious enough to want to know :-) ).

Like with McGurk effect. Would you say that the change in perception of baa/waa is not real? I think it is, at least it feels real to me. Only it is not correlated to changes in the audio stimuli, because the stimuli is the same in both cases. DBT would easily showed that... and then some would start arguing that DBT must be flawed ;-) .
 
Jan 4, 2025 at 4:12 AM Post #88 of 158
I think, he may perceive whatever, who's to tell? The question is if this perception is correlated (and ideally caused) by an audio stimuli or not. And that's what DBT is for (for those curious enough to want to know :) ).

Like with McGurk effect. Would you say that the change in perception of baa/waa is not real? I think it is, at least it feels real to me. Only it is not correlated to changes in the audio stimuli, because the stimuli is the same in both cases. DBT would easily showed that... and then some would start arguing that DBT must be flawed :wink: .
McGurk effect? I don't see any reason to go that far.....the guy keeps proving he misunderstands all reasoning. An audio stimuli has to first start with something that's level matched.
 
Jan 4, 2025 at 10:36 AM Post #89 of 158
I think, he may perceive whatever, who's to tell? The question is if this perception is correlated (and ideally caused) by an audio stimuli or not. And that's what DBT is for (for those curious enough to want to know :) ).

Like with McGurk effect. Would you say that the change in perception of baa/waa is not real? I think it is, at least it feels real to me. Only it is not correlated to changes in the audio stimuli, because the stimuli is the same in both cases. DBT would easily showed that... and then some would start arguing that DBT must be flawed :wink: .
That’s why my bet is predicated on a DBT :)
 
Jan 4, 2025 at 3:33 PM Post #90 of 158
The paper I cited shows differences in 24/192 with high inaudible frequencies and 24/192 with them filtered out over 400 second pieces.

The point being there may be benefits that are subconscience annd improve the listening experience annd mood of the listener and which are being overlooked if a listening test is the only criteria.
You are right. The paper demonstrates that there are indeed subconscious benefits from high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components, as seen in increased eeg alpha and beta power and improved "inactive pleasantness" ratings.
The paper you cited shows differences in certain brainwave patterns but NO conscious/discernible differences, which is what you are claiming and therefore completely contradicts your claims.
Gregorio's claim that the study contradicts your point is wrong. The paper shows that although participants couldn't consciously distinguish the audio versions, their brain activity and relaxation scores demonstrated clear, measurable differences. The increase in alpha and beta eeg power, combined with heightened "inactive pleasantness" ratings, demonstrates that high-frequency components in highh resolution audio subtly affect listeners in ways that go beyond conscious awareness. Just because the difference isn't consciously detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist—it’s reflected in both physiological responses and subjective mood shifts.

I'm sure he'll apologize and retract his insults.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top