 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: RE: Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more? posted by Axon on September 11, 2007 at 21:49:26
Good try, no cigar. While I can't name everyonehere who might be a member, try:
Charles Hanson
John Atkinson
John Curl
and
clark, Life Member, AES
Follow Ups:
how hard everybody is focusing on the DBT itself, and not on the significant apology for SACD/DVD-A tacked on at the end of the article. That would only make sense to me if few people had actually read the paper.
I've listened to a few SACDs myself and found them mostly lacking in superiority to CD, but this paper is making me reevaluate that.
For Meyer to appear to be so focused on obtaining a null result - as JA and Todd allege - and then for him to backtrack and say that high rez *still* sounds better than CD, means to me that the BAS was not clearly on some sort of anti-audiophile or anti-high-res vendetta. Despite the shouting on this thread, they *were* trusting their ears on this one.
That said, the lack of detail on equipment used and test results is a damn shame.
If the conclusion of the DBT is:
"The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels."
yet
...then for him to backtrack and say that high rez *still* sounds better than CD...
What then does that tell you of the relevance of the DBT? It would appear that Meyer doesn't agree with the findings of his own test.
rw
The latter statement simply means that a high res release generally sounds better than the Redbook release of the same album, but that the difference is *entirely* explained by improved mastering practices for high res releases.The former statement means that the higher digital resolution has nothing to do with the improved audio quality of high res releases.
This is really nothing new, Chris Tam did articles on this a few years ago for Audioholics if I remember correctly.
d.b.
Tham most certainly did not do DBTs of SACD vs Redbook in her Audioholics articles. CD vs SACD DBTs, carried out to this extent, and published, is new.
Tham's dynamic range comparisons of CD, SACD, and LP, while methodologically problematic, do clearly illustrate that significantly different mastering of CD and SACD can occur in commercial releases. She wasn't the first to notice this, either. The most famous instance was probably the th etwo layers of the Dark Side of the Moon SACD hybrid, as revealed in Stereophile.
Without very good evidence that the SACD and CD versions were mastered identically except for format, any claims about the sound of SACD vs CD made from such comparisons, is suspect at best and useless at worst.
"Tham most certainly did not do DBTs of SACD vs Redbook in her Audioholics articles. CD vs SACD DBTs, carried out to this extent, and published, is new.:
Is anyone claiming that she did?
"Without very good evidence that the SACD and CD versions were mastered identically except for format, any claims about the sound of SACD vs CD made from such comparisons, is suspect at best and useless at worst."
I would agree.
d.b.
...but that the difference is *entirely* explained by improved mastering practices for high res releases.
Explained...how?
rw
1. SACD/DVD-A releases generally sound much better than their CD counterparts.
2. Assuming that the releases come from the same "master tapes", the difference can occur for only two reasons:
a) the mastering of the high res release is changed compared to the CD
b) the high res releases inherently capture more detail (when the mastering is modified to handle the additional detail but is otherwise held constant).
3. *If* you believe that the BAS DBT yielded an obviously meaningful result, then b) is not possible - the effect of higher resolution, when studied in isolation, cannot explain the large difference in sound quality. And even if you don't believe it, the fact that so many supposed audiophiles couldn't tell a difference still casts b) into question. Such an apparantly subtle effect, if it managed to be missed in a DBT, still cannot explain the large quality difference.
4. Therefore, the difference in sound quality between SACD/DVD-A is due to improved mastering, because it cannot be due to increased resolution.
Furthermore, changes in mastering have been known to yield considerable improvements in sound quality, in the same format.
you must first validate the ability of the test to answer the intended question. Since one of the persons who designed the test disagrees with the DBT outcome, that certainly calls into doubt whether or not that job was accomplished. The reasons why are numerous and may not have to do with the DBT itself, but rather in the way in which the test was performed along with the choice of equipment, familiarity of the musical selections, etc. Since it seems none of that information was given, I question the outcome because there are so many ways in which to cripple the test. This guy has a track record of doing just that.
Furthermore, changes in mastering have been known to yield considerable improvements in sound quality, in the same format.
That has been the case for vinyl as well stretching back fifty years. No news there.
rw
You seem to be really having difficulty understanding this. It's NOT that he disagrees with the results of the DBT, which demonstrated that FOR THE SAME RECORDING reducing the resolution did not have an audible effect. However that fact obviously does not preclude the possibility that two DIFFERENT recordings, e.g. the CD and SACD releases, might sound different due to different mastering/processing.
I suggest you go back and re-read the abstract and the quote axon gave before posting again.
Or at any rate, not exactly. What they did was run a hi-rez recording through some sort of digital "bottleneck" -- totally unspecified -- and then infer conclusions about CD. Whether the bottleneck produced anything like CD sound is left for fertile imaginations to suppose, but that's a vital link and it's missing from their argument.
clark
"What they did was run a hi-rez recording through some sort of digital "bottleneck" -- totally unspecified -- and then infer conclusions about CD."
We reached conclusions about the CD because, as the paper says, the codec through which we ran the analog signal was a CD codec -- the A/D/A cycle of an HHB CDR-850 recorder. We didn't record the bits to a disc; we just encoded them and decoded them. As those who refereed the paper understood, a CD would have sounded the same but would have been hard to synchronize, while the 11-ms delay of the codec alone allowed us to do quick and easy comparisons.
Of course I realize you may still believe that the disc itself changes the sound, on the basis of your own unsupported perception. I'd love to see you demonstrate that, but you always refuse such requests (skepticism is so unbecoming in one's acolytes, isn't it?), so there seems no point in discussing it. -- Brad
...there's an immense body of uncontradicted evidence -- just read the hundreds of posts on Prophead and other AA boards -- that CD-Rs made from Redbook CDs sound quite a lot better. That raises the vexing issue, Which is the real CD?
Also, if one reads the literature, it appears that various CD players produce vastly different sounds. Which one is real?
Then we have the Memory Player (or equivalent, if any), which reinterprets the data off a Redbook CD and produces a sonic result (according to all reviewers thus far) superior to any other, even to the CD-R remakes.
So, again, which of those is the CD that "would have sounded the same"?
Even more to the point, which of the above does the aforesaid "bottleneck" sound like? Isn't that worth our knowing?
Had you not yielded to the temptation of "quick and easy comparisons", the above questions might have been addressed.
And then: "I realize you may still believe that the disc itself changes the sound, on the basis of your own unsupported perception." Again, even a casual perusal of these boards, or almost any audio forum, will show that I am hardly alone in my "perception", rather I have been joined by thousands.
"Anecdotal", you say? But what's the plural of "anecdote"? Data!
The rest -- "You always refuse such requests (skepticism is so unbecoming in one's acolytes, isn't it?), so there seems no point in discussing it." -- is beneath you, so I won't touch it except to explain to other readers that no "such requests" have been received at my place.
clark
Proof positive of illiteracy: you've misunderstood even what Uncle Charlie said. He said it's a ripoff.
TL
“…there's an immense body of uncontradicted evidence… that CD-Rs made from Redbook CDs sound quite a lot better. That raises the vexing issue, Which is the real CD?... "Anecdotal", you say? But what's the plural of "anecdote"? Data!”
I you really think thousands of people can’t be wrong, I give you The Church of the Latter Day Saints, the fastest-growing organization on the planet. We’re talking tens of millions here.
So no, the fact that many people seem to hear something doesn’t mean it exists. And if CD players sounded “vastly different” the people writing about those differences in such florid detail would be able to tell one from another without peeking. They can’t.
None of this affects the outcome of our experiment either way, though. What we did was prove that, if high-bit audio sounds better, it isn’t the extra bits that are doing it. It doesn’t matter what particular player we used. I say that’s because it sounds the same as all the others, while you say no, they all sound different. If whatever we used had a characteristic sound, our subjects would have heard it. Over the course of about 550 trials, they didn’t.
As for the Memory Player, whatever that is, if it sounds different from our codec, it’s making a euphonic error, since ours is indistinguishable from the source. You asked what our bottleneck sounds like, and we’ve proven the answer quite well: It sounds like the signal that went into it.
You say you’ve never been asked to test your perceptions, but that’s not true. I asked you to take a blind test to demonstrate that you can hear absolute polarity years ago, but you never responded. So let me propose one again: I’ll make a bit-for-bit copy of a CD – your choice – on a CD-R. I’ll stand in your control room and on the basis of a coin flip I’ll decide which disc to put in the player, ten times. You tell me which disc is playing, ten times. You should get 10/10 with no trouble. Maybe while we’re there I can switch my polarity inverter box in and out of the circuit, and you’ll tell me when it’s active. How about it?
As you may know, I did the polarity test with a local recording engineer who insisted he could hear the effect every time, even through a car radio. His results were random. He then decided that changing the polarity at the preamp level somehow didn’t sound the same as switching the speaker wires. I decided that he couldn't hear the effect as well as he thought. – E. Brad
"If you really think thousands of people can’t be wrong", *I* give you -- the vile Compact Disc. Thousands, millions, *tens* of millions love it!
"The fact that many people seem to" like it "doesn’t mean it" is any damn good!
"And if CD players sounded 'vastly different' the people writing about those differences in such florid detail would be able to tell one from another without peeking. They can’t." You got proof for that assertion? Preferably, DBTs published in a (this time) reputable journal? Put 'em up! Or...
"...while you say no, they all sound different." A common, albeit useful to you, and blatant exaggeration. No one ever has said they "all" sound different. Myself, I simply drew attention to the *fact* that a wide variety of sonic results is available off any given CD depending on the player, and I asked for enlightenment on where the "bottleneck" stood within this range. No reply was forthcoming, save for, "You asked what our bottleneck sounds like, and we’ve proven the answer quite well: It sounds like the signal that went into it." What *that* sounds like, is circular reasoning... or worse, begging the question.
"As for the Memory Player, whatever that is..." I see three monkeys...
"You say you’ve never been asked to test your perceptions, but that’s not true. I asked you to take a blind test to demonstrate that you can hear absolute polarity years ago, but you never responded." Oh geez Luiz, that was *decades* ago. But numerous DBTs (or better) have proven polarity's undeniable audibility -- why don't you believe the DBTs?
You don't have to answer that!
clark
Oh, yeah. I almost forgot:
RCJ: "I simply drew attention to the *fact* that a wide variety of sonic results is available off any given CD depending on the player, and I asked for enlightenment on where the "bottleneck" stood within this range. No reply was forthcoming, save for, "You asked what our bottleneck sounds like, and we’ve proven the answer quite well: It sounds like the signal that went into it." What *that* sounds like, is circular reasoning... or worse, begging the question."
Do you really not get this? The device we were using is a recording system, which passes a signal *through* it. We were testing for whether it made any audible change to the input signal. Except for a broadband hiss at -92 dBA re full scale, it didn't; and it turns out this noise level was below that of virtually all the high-bit recordings we found. This means that on music at normal levels, and on most recordings at any playback level... careful now, this is heretical... it has no sound of its own.
Is it possible that someone out there can spot this device in the signal chain on normal high-bit recordings at normal gain settings? Could be. We tried with a lot of good people on several good systems* for over 500 trials, and didn't find any. That's all. If that's not enough for you, go in peace, or take the test yourself and teach us all how it's done. -- E. Brad
* Lurkers: An equipment list and musical selections should be ready this week; just email me if you want one. It has also been claimed that no Boston-area college offers a recording program; we went to UMass Lowell, where they've built a fine-sounding large listening room with a pair of the best SLS ribbon-tweeter monitors.
That's good to know. Very informative. Now, back to the question: Since the paper inferred results about CD from these experiments, how did said "bottleneck" make things sound compared to the rather wide variety of results available off CD players and DACs? Was it even like a CD at all? Enquiring minds etc.
"Go in peace, or take the test yourself and teach us all how it's done." What is it I detect a note of there? Could it be...??
As I've explained from the start, the objections everyone has to the paper ("a crock" / forum moderator) do not concern the test procedures themselves, particularly, rather 1) the sweeping conclusions drawn from an inadequate rig, and 2) the mysterious nature of the "CD sound" obtained from a still-unspecified apparatus.
clark
[Meyer claims reviewers can't hear CD player differences] "You got proof for that assertion? Preferably, DBTs published in a (this time) reputable journal? Put 'em up! Or..."
It's not up to me to prove reviewers can't hear the huge differences between CD players that they write about; it's up to them to take a blind test, at least once, and prove they can. For all these years, after all this argument, all they do is avoid the issue. Has my statement been proven? Nah. But wine experts comply with these requirements all the time -- it's how they get their street cred. If a subjective reviewer did this even once it would be big news (see below).
"But numerous DBTs (or better) have proven polarity's undeniable audibility -- why don't you believe the DBTs?"
Now you're changing the subject. Sure, there have been tests that prove to everyone's satisfaction that polarity can be audible under certain special circumstances. The signal has to have a fair amount of asymmetry; percussiveness helps; so does a large amount of asymmetrical distortion in the loudspeaker. On most material and systems, most of the time, there was no evidence of audibility. None of those tests prove anything like what you claim in "The Wood Effect", which is (feel free to fine-tune this but I believe it's essentially correct) that you can hear polarity most of the time on just about any material, even through lousy playback equipment, and almost all the time on your personal system. Those claims are entirely different from what's been accepted in the literature, and you would make big news if you could verify them. One positive result -- say, 15/15 or 20/20 correct in a well run test -- and everyone, including me, would credit your remarkable powers. I actually think that would be pretty cool, and I expect you'd enjoy it as well. I notice you didn't accept my invitation, though, and didn't address the stamped-vs-CD-R issue at all. -- EBM
...that they couldn't. Now it's up to *me*, to prove they can? Again, LOL!
"Wine experts comply with these requirements all the time." Very rarely, actually -- only in contests (of which there are few) and in the examination for MW (of whom there are few). Suggest you stick to your own expertise.
Clark: "But numerous DBTs (or better) have proven polarity's undeniable audibility -- why don't you believe the DBTs?"
EBM: "Now you're changing the subject."
Guy, you're the one brought it up! Geez Luiz. You only wanted me to do all over again, what has already been firmly established.
And on it goes:
"The signal has to have a fair amount of asymmetry." Yep. Not like test tones, rather like, oh, musical instruments!
"On most material and systems, most of the time, there was no evidence of audibility." A total mischaracterization! My own tests established a 99% confidence on musical examples alone, and John Atkinson's got IIRC 95%; both were published. And Stan Lipshitz reported 95% as well, on tests involving both tone bursts and music, not to mention that he was a fierce partisan of absolute polarity, as was Prof. Richard Heyser.
"None of those tests prove anything like what you claim in 'The Wood Effect'." I made few claims of my own in that book; it was a compendium of, and analysis of, other people's claims and tests. Interestingly, of the some eighty quotations I found in the literature pre-1988, only one disacknowledged polarity, and he was Sam Burwen, a stalwart BAS member!
"I notice you didn't accept my invitation, though, and didn't address the stamped-vs-CD-R issue at all." The invitation was for an experiment fraught with error, as was the one in the M&M paper, so no, thank you. I wasn't aware that you were also proposing some "stamped-vs-CD-R" sort of thing as well, and upon review I don't seem to see it.
clark
"John Atkinson's got IIRC 95%" :
Reference, please. (Right, there is none.)"Stan Lipshitz reported 95% as well" :
See link for the correct score. "The audibility of polarity on music was not confirmed whether the sound source was vinyl or a 1/4 inch 2-track master tape" says the report, which, if not obvious to you, refers to the 60/113 (53%) result obtained for the part of Lipshitz & co. So there's your "fierce partisan of absolute polarity.""...as was Prof. Richard Heyser" :
Reference, please. (Right, you've always refused to provide one in the past, and you will refuse to provide one now, too.) It's a dubious practice to ascribe claims to people who are no longer with us to deny the assertions.You're full of chicken litter, as usual.
Your own "listening sessions" don't count for the obvious reasons. Amazing that you still keep trying.
As for deluding others, that's a different matter, and so for the record, I have stated on numerous occasions the exact sources *and words* of those three gentlemen, all in print, and I'm not going to repeat myself for nasty twerps.
Do a search.
clark
...and all I've ever found is more instances of you squirming. The only reference you've given that has something to do with the subject matter is the one to your own self-published pamphlet that you keep liberally bringing up. Now that's not a lot, is it, considering your big claims: "Atkinson 95%, Lipshitz 95%, Heyser..."So where are those figures available? Nowhere.
I almost feel bad for you. You've lied so much you can't stop now.
The link gives a nice example of how you go about doing it. (Yes, I know it has that false claim by Atkinson included, thinking as he did that that would somehow help you get off the hook. Nice thought... too bad only his figures were a little bit "misinterpreted" so to speak so it could only make you look that much worse.)
TL
Clark;
Here is my original proposal to you, since you claim not to know about it, quoted from my message to you of last weekend:
"I’ll make a bit-for-bit copy of a CD – your choice – on a CD-R. I’ll stand in your control room and on the basis of a coin flip I’ll decide which disc to put in the player, ten times. You tell me which disc is playing, ten times. You should get 10/10 with no trouble. Maybe while we’re there I can switch my polarity inverter box in and out of the circuit, and you’ll tell me when it’s active. How about it?"
Those experiments might well be fraught with error, as you say, but not because they're invalid or hard to understand. They're too simple and way to risky for you. You claim to have already done the polarity experiment, though you never wrote it up or published any description of it at all that I know of. (If it is in print I'd be very interested to read it.)
So let's see -- you have ignored what I've proposed, ignored or deliberately misconstrued my explanations of what the experiment was about, gone off on irrelevant tangents about nearly everything, ignored my specifications of speakers and room for several of the systems we used, claimed I haven't identified our A/D/A link when I posted it here last week, and generally obfuscated and evaded issues right and left. I think this has been demonstrated adequately to everyone else here, so there's not much point in taking this any further.
-- E. Brad
> > You claim to have already done the polarity experiment, though you never wrote it up or published any description of it at all.
AES Preprint Number 3169, "Proofs of an Absolute Polarity" -- to have been the first of three sets of experiments, the rest abandoned as inconsequential.
> > So let's see -- you have ignored what I've proposed
Hmmm... that does not comport at all well with the above discussion.
> > ignored or deliberately misconstrued my explanations of what the [polarity] experiment was about
I know perfectly well what the experiment was "about" -- inter alia your refusal to mind previous reported experiments.
> > gone off on irrelevant tangents about nearly everything
"Nearly everything." OK... whatever...
> > ignored my specifications of speakers and room for several of the systems we used
I was unaware they had been given here. Nor does anyone else here seem clear on that, given the number of questions raised. Why single me out?
> > claimed I haven't identified our A/D/A link when I posted it here last week
I may have missed link, but to me you wrote, "The device we were using is a recording system, which passes a signal *through* it." Oh. Good to know. Not very specific, though. Elsewhere you wrote, "You asked what our bottleneck sounds like, and we’ve proven the answer quite well: It sounds like the signal that went into it." Equally helpful.
> > and generally obfuscated and evaded issues right and left.
"Right and left." OK... whatever...
Say! So far, you've not replied to repeated questioning on how the "bottleneck's" sonic results compare to an actual CD device, an important consideration as you drew several (abrupt) conclusions about CD -- not about the "bottleneck".
Nor have you replied to my demonstration that you had blatantly mischaracterized my book The Wood Effect.
Nor... nor...
Do those qualify as "right and left"?
> > I think this has been demonstrated adequately to everyone else here, so there's not much point in taking this any further.
"Everyone else here"? The moderator of this forum called the M&M paper "a crock". How d'ya like them apples? Someone else remarked, "They got exactly the results I would expect with the player they used." And: "I believe the authors were being disingenuous when they stated that they used 'very expensive electronics'." And: "Bottom line - The authors got the results they wanted. Neither is a scientist or an engineer and it shows."
Yikes!
Finally, one fellow said, "The player determines the quality of the test." Whereas Meyer said, "It doesn’t matter what particular player we used. I say that’s because it sounds the same as all the others."
I rest my case.
clark
.
...the moderator.
Nor would I advise you to be so sanguine about whom you're aligning yourself with. Don't let your longterm animus against me get the better of your mind. Read this, for a demonstration of who's trying to stick to the point, and who's going overboard:
TSP: Thanks. It's hard not to try, whatever the odds. An eon ago we lived in the same house, and at some well-chosen times, he was a true and good friend. -- E. Brad
I managed to score repeated positive results - 10/10, 19/24, 25/34, 7/8, 26/32, 23/32, etc - with an Etymotic ER-4S driven with a PC sound card, with a rock music sample. There were failed tests too, but even with those included, the overall proportion IIRC does point to a successful test. The effect was far too minor for me to care about for recreational music listening, but it definitely was there, in a realistic listening environment.
Besides the HydrogenAudio link below, also note the flamefest that was the commentary on Critic's Asylum: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=critics&n=31990
Yeah, by the time you got 10/10 your results were pretty solid, since the chances of that happening randomly are less than 1 in 1000. The advantage of using headphones like those, which seal in the ear canal, is that any very low-frequency stuff in the mix, which might tip you off if it's asymmetrical, will get through.
Did you really do 140 trials with the same source material, or did you use a variety of songs? I hope the latter, unless you enjoy, say, banging on your head with a board (or, as Jerry Lewis once said, "because it feels so good when I stop!"). -- E. Brad
I did everything with "Hamburger Train". Once I found that one sample I was too scared of failure to hunt down any other reproducible sample. I figured that just getting a positive result out of a single popular release was significant enough.
"I did everything with "Hamburger Train". Once I found that one sample I was too scared of failure to hunt down any other reproducible sample. I figured that just getting a positive result out of a single popular release was significant enough."
Aiee! cried Mowgli softly.
You deserve some kind of prize for that; I'm just not sure what it should be.
It's entirely reasonable to do a large number of trials when you discover a source that works for you, of course. That just means you're searching diligently for a way to quantify and establish what you claim to be hearing. We gave our subjects chances to do that when there were few enough in a trial, which was most of the time -- they got to pick the material they thought was best.
But still... after 25 trials, when you've already got good data... it's time to stop, for god's sake. Unless of course you *like* hearing it that many times, which is something I don't care to think about. -- E. Brad
The second test I attempted was at home instead of at work, and it failed miserably (7/16 or something like that). That bugged the hell out of me, so several of the tests following that were simply attempts to isolate the system change that triggered the change in result. That chase alone resulted in an extra five tests.
The chase was not for naught: I couldn't get a good statistical result at all with one pair of headphones, and getting good results for another sound card was a hell of a lot harder. That could be the start of an extremely interesting test: One might be able to correlate the difference in results to some objective THD criteria.
After that, people commented that I shouldn't have run the tests without fixing the number of trials beforehand, because I could have cherry-picked where the test stopped. That alone necessitated redoing the tests at N=32.
It's worth noting that I've done a lot fewer ABX tests since I did that. :)
Axon:
Well, you were following the evidence, like a good experimenter. Of course that way is often tiresome and annoying. If your blind test method gives you the answer after each trial, then there is a possibility that you could affect the overall result by deciding to stop at a certain point, but there's a relatively easy way around that: Decide beforehand how many trials you're going to do, and stick to it. There's a mathematical rescue of a sort if your results are positive too. A score of 10/10 is quite conclusive, and you can stop there.
Yes, you could get 8/10, be disappointed, and choose to go on to try for a better score, which is a bit slippery. But if you miss any at all, you know the effect is at least not obvious. If you do another ten, and again get 7 or 8, you're in that gray area, where effects probably make themselves heard, but not all the time. Remember too that in the case of polarity, asymmetrical distortion in your playback transducer aids audibility, so the device on which you can't hear it may be a better reproducer, not a less revealing one.
Finally, about that hypothetical 8/10 score: The usual confidence level that is asked for is 95%, and 8/10 is 94.5%, so that one is close enough unless you're writing it up for publication. After getting 8/10, I'd also call it fair to do another ten and total them -- but not to do another 10 and throw it out if you do less well. It's pretty easy to grasp what is cheating here and what isn't. -- E. Brad
"..there's an immense body of uncontradicted evidence -- just read the hundreds of posts on Prophead and other AA boards -- that CD-Rs made from Redbook CDs sound quite a lot better. That raises the vexing issue, Which is the real CD?"
LOL. 'hundreds of posts on Prophead and other AA boards' You call *that * an argument? You call that 'uncontradicted evidence'??? (Never read Dennis & Dunn's paper on numerically identical CDS? I'll cut to the chase: no one heard a difference)
Do you being to realize why you folks are considered something of a *joke*?
That's one fine idea of "scientific validation." Another brilliant idea is to have this guy as the spokesperson for the "alternative viewpoint," the "subjectivist camp," or "the new paradigm" or whatever it is that seems so significant about it.TL
The paper is not available to me, but I find the conclusions and the clarifying posts of interest. It seems to me that they have demonstrated that 16/44 is adequate if nothing goes astray. However as you point out, something usually does. I've found that CD's and players interact in unpredictable ways so perhaps a better way to express it would have been that a CD is capable of the same performance.
Reliable people report that higher resolution formats sound better. Now I wonder if part of that is that they may be more forgiving in some manner because they have data to spare. As far as I know, the CD format was originally a compromise of quality vs. recording time. As was the LP. Both good if everything works perfectly. And now we have MP-3...
Rick
Rather, I showed that a wide variety of sounds can be had off a single CD, depending on the player and/or on whether a numerically-exact CD-R copy had been made.
The authors' "bottleneck", lacking any descrip, fails to tell us where it stands, sonically, within the group.
Myself, while I find most Redbook CD reproduction to be edgy and awful, a hi-rez disc of any sort being preferable, I also allow that the Memory Player (Redbook only) produces an elegant, refined, entirely palatable and musical sound.
So: Where among those possibilities does the "bottleneck" stand?
It astonishes me -- or, not -- that the authors' "peers" who reviewed the paper overlooked that vital missing link, the sound of the "bottleneck" and how it would so decidedly affect the outcome. Without such an assessment the paper remains entirely useless.
clark
I think we are referring to the same thing Clark. By going astray I mean that even though they are recovering the data accurately from the disk that the sound quality of CD players is often dependent upon the media characteristics. That has certainly been my experience and is widely recognized (well, by most folks) and there are plenty of mechanisms to account for it.
However since the test didn't use CD players, they have eliminated this as a variable, whether they believed in it or not. If I understand the test correctly they did a 16/44.1 A/D-D/A pass of the demodulated material from sources with higher sample rates and resolutions and compared the result with that analog input.
Since the outcome was that they were indistinguishable this says a lot to me about how good this process CAN be. If their test was accurate, the 16bit,44KS/s linear CODEC process itself is sufficient, at least for one trip.
As far as the sound of the translation outside of sample rate and resolution goes, as pointed out that would show up as an error term in the tests and since it wasn't recognized was apparently not of significance. This isn't too unlikely, especially a single master clock was probably running the whole shebang.
Perhaps the player problems are worse than we thought. Good job that they are obsolete...
Regards, Rick
...that hi-rez is no better than CD.
But they have eliminated CD from the equation!
So how can they know?
All they have proven is, that with an apparently crappy system and unqualified subjects, "hi-rez" sounds no better than an unspecified "bottleneck" -- a "bottleneck" that bears Lord-knows-what relation to actual CD, apart from the fact that it has the right "numbers".
But all CD players have the right numbers!
The reported experiments simply leave us hanging.
clark
I can see that I wasn't missing much.
The "CD standard" is good enough, at least under best-case conditions. No efforts were spent establishing margins however so the results are of no engineering value. I suspect that it is just barely "good enough". Clearly you are correct, they inappropriately infer that on all CD based system that mastering will be the limiting factor.
I do appreciate the work they've done especially since it vindicates some of the tentative conclusions that I'd drawn from experience. However the notion that all CD chains are blameless is absurd. Fortunately now that we have capable computers we can reduce or eliminate many of the medium and playback problems so their conclusions are actually far more applicable now than they were when we were stuck with "real time" CD players.
Thanks for letting me see it,
Rick
x
They do appear to be drawing a wider conclusion than their test data supports. Since I don't have access to the damned (at least in this forum) paper I'm forced to rely upon summaries and postings.
If I can summarize the summaries: 16/44 can be good enough. The test was essentially "best case" so indeed it doesn't say that a CD WILL sound good, especially on a given piece of equipment. Although they seem to think it does.
Since this fits my experience I'm not surprised. Even in my modest systems the quality of the mastering, well actually the whole production cycle, is really the biggest variable. The well made ones sound good. And then there are the other 95%. LP's used to have about the same ratio. Reel to reel tapes did better on average.
Again, I'm coming away with the conclusion that 16/44 is barely adequate. So is a 36 Hp Volkswagen, especially if you enjoy observing the fauna and flora while going uphill.
Rick
I don't know... the window may close... Let me know and I'll work around it.
clark
...and then for him [Meyer] to backtrack and say that high rez *still* sounds better than CD...
Axon's quote is clear to me.
rw
s
isn't your strong suit then, is it?
However that fact obviously does not preclude the possibility that two DIFFERENT recordings, e.g. the CD and SACD releases, might sound different due to different mastering/processing.
Is that your answer? Final answer?
rw
...with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market."
What, exactly, do you find hard to understand about this?
Anyway, I've wasted more than enough time here. Good luck.
I bought several Telarc SACD/CD hybrid recordings a few years ago and found the sound quality to be outstanding, and I don't have an SACD player. I chalked it up to extra care during the recording process.
Rick
the concept of backsliding has eluded you.
rw
It's not backsliding. The authors simply note that the MASTERING might be better on the SACD, because they're aimed at an audiophile market. The exact same mastering COULD be released as a CD, with no audible difference.
In other words, we could return to the early CD mastering practice of actually committing a faithful transfer of the spectral and dynamic range of the original recording, to CD. Crazy idea!
The author's bottom line is that the sonic 'superiority' of one version over the other, often attributed by 'audiophiles' to the formats themselves, is actually INDEPENDENT of the formats. It's a mastering choice.
is called speculation .
rw
Ever read a scientific paper, E-stat? You'll usually find that after presenting the data, the authors attempt to plausibly explain what it means.
Then again, I guess to you that's all just SPECULATIN'. I can only imagine you have a more parsimonious explanation for the results?
between that which a study proves and well that which generates speculation. Continue to speculate away.
rw
xc
Right.
TL
Howdy
How about the Redbook discs that were mastered in DSD? Ignoring the Redbook discs that are mastered in DSD and not released as SACDs by this logic all CD layers of SACDs should sound as good as the DSD layers...
-Ted
As JA already showed that the CD layer on an SACD has been mastered completely differently on at least one occasion (DSOTM). Look it up.
There is no guarantee that the mastering on the CD layer of an SACD is any good. Actually, there is no guarantee that the DSD layer is any good either, but apparently, it usually is.
I'm not saying it's ALWAYS going to be like this - there are going to be SACDs out there with poor mastering that matches the CD layer, just like there are CDs out there with great mastering that matches the DSD release.
The reality of this is completely socially defined and subjective. If all labels decide tomorrow that they're going to stop spending money on high res remasters and get all the "benefits" of high res with existing CD masters, the advantage of SACD/DVD-A disappears entirely. But for now, the advantages are there.
Howdy
I never claimed ALL hybrids had their CD layers derived from their DSD stereo layer, but most hybrid SACDs have their CD layer derived from the DSD stereo layer with Sony's Super Bit Mapping.
Go look on Hi-Res where some of the masterers laugh at the idea that they don't take at least as much care on the CD layer as the DSD side: after all many people who get the hybrid SACDs (most for single inventory releases) just play the CD layers and the masterers sure don't want to release inferior material for every one to judge their work (of course the man paying the bills is still boss): e.g. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/63631.html and http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/164821.html or http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/155060.html and http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/153403.html and http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/129128.html
For that matter go compare some XRCD, XRCD2, XRCD24, or K2HD CDs, etc. to hi-res. They are among the best mastered CDs around (the mastering process for them is designed to preserve the most possible precision and to use the least jitter prone production), but they are still at the disadvantage of the Redbook format: too few bits and too small of a freq response compared to hires.
All I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support the tenuous hypothesis that the only advantage hi-res has over Redbook is the mastering process. Anyone who thinks that the given argument makes sense clearly has little experience with SACDs, DVD-As or the mastering process.
-Ted
Baloney. Assuming we can be 100% sure mastering engineers have followed Scarlet Book recommendation -- which is to make the CD layer a straight transcode from the DSD version -- and that's a huge assumption -- you still have two issues: 1) whether your playback chain does anything significantly 'different' to the two formats after D/A and 2) sighted bias.XRCD etc is a non-argument; they are almost certainly different masterings, with different levels and EQ and whatnot; XRCD vs K2HD probably won't sound the same, and that will be evidenced in a comparison of their waveform stats too. The interesting philosophical point you unwittingly bring up is, 'should all 'best' masterings sound alike'?
As for 'tenuous hypotheses', all *you* are making are the same technically dubious assertions that "SACDs sound better because CDs don't have enough [bits, samples]". The fact is you *haven't* ruled out the other factors in your comparisons --- different mastering, different playback, sighted bias. And I've noticed some mastering 'engineers' don't bother to, either.
Howdy
No you are making assumptions about my experience and tests. But I know better than to try to convince people that have already made up their minds.
I was just pointing out that the original claim that mastering is the big difference it a huge over generalization from very little presented info and it flies in the face of my and everyone I knows direct experience as well as the facts.
-Ted
Have you go the least inkling as to why 'direct experience' is no guarantee of correct diagnosis of cause and effect?
Howdy
I brought up some of the reasons that their conclusion (that mastering differences explain the perceived benefits of hi-res) was unwarranted or at least unsupported. You haven't really addressed them, instead you attack my (undisclosed) experience and avoid the real issues.
Bye.
-Ted
d
HowdyI basically agree with posts from yourself, other inmates and especially bjh in http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/3/37228.html
Also I think my posts in this subthread indicate that my belief is that they are more or less clueless if they think that mastering is the biggest difference in quality of hi-res. It shows an unbelievable degree of unsophistication for people that aspire to doing real research.
-Ted
The mindset behind such work is NSD, "no sonic difference". If "hi-rez" is no better than "reg-rez", the next step certainly must be to prove that "reg-rez" is no better than MP3.
NSD, QED!
clark
Or are just being crudely political and feeling like it's time to summon up the reactionary troops? I though you did have a rational Western-style education building on the enlightenment tradition, but maybe I read too much into your CV.TL
HowdyYes I read the paper and in fact I don't think it was materially misunderstood here (ignoring the expected knee-jerk responses of the fundamentalists on both ends of the spectrum.)
-Ted
Are you an AES member?
clark
Howdy
I'm a member of the ACM, IEEE, MAA and AES. Tho I have no idea where anyone would find my CV :)
-Ted
and I guess I should listen to it more. I've got the player. But in my opinion, the large quality gains experienced with hires release just cannot be explained by resolution differences that happen to magically disappear in ever blind test conducted so far. It just doesn't make any sense.
I have plenty of experience listening to SACDs, DVDA and CDs, Axon.
Rest assured that for the home listener, separating the intrinsic 'sound' of the formats, from other possible factors, is well-nigh impossible without the sorts of efforts Meyer et al took.
And I have certainly heard 'hi rez' releases that are dynamically compressed and processed like their CD counterparts. I;'ve also 'seen' them , too, as waveforms.
Howdy
Come visit sometime :)
It's obviously equipment specific, but I've listened to arguably the best Redbook reproduction on the planet get stomped by much less expensive SACD players over and over. I have thousands of SACDs (and thousands more CDs) and have been playing and listening to them for years. When people claim things that are obviously foreign to my, my friend's, my mastering friend's, people whom trust on Hi-Rez's, etc. experience I suspect that they don't have nearly as much experience or at least haven't listened with better than average players...
-Ted
Tequila.
...and "reasoning" that went into it. For a journal as forlorn as the JAES, this was an especially shallow effort. But then I've read the whole thing, have you yet?
clark
I do have to agree that the test description and analysis is surprisingly thin. No equipment readout, no results breakdown by listener or location or whatnot, no detailed description of listening venues, no musical selections. No null hypothesis, no description of type I/II error.
The impression I'm getting is that the paper provides just enough information to give people with anti-high-res bias enough justification to continue ignoring it, and not enough to ever convince anybody else one way or the other. So I can clearly understand what you and Todd are saying about the "token peers" thing. One needs to trust the Meyer/Moran's test setup and analysis on basically all counts, on faith, to believe the conclusion, and that's quite a leap of faith to make.
On the other hand... would it have ever mattered in this dicussion if all that information was provided? Most audiophiles, it seems, do not hold much stock in blind testing at all, no matter how well it's conducted, or the requirements placed on it are so large that they make the tests entirely unfeasible. (cf the whole argument about type II error and requiring thousands of listeners to keep it low.) I mean, I'm tempted to just email Meyer and ask him for full documentation on the tests. Asking for more information after a paper is published is entirely acceptable. His email is right on the top.
Clearly, there is a grey area between "a test that provides an unambiguous and comprehensive result" and "a meaningless test that doesn't show anything". Everybody agrees that the test isn't the former. I don't think there's enough evidence to state that it's also the latter. Especially when - in a lot of people's experience, including my own - high res just doesn't sound any better than Red Book, everything else being equal.
Look at two of their statements:
"The CD has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home reproduction task." Oh really? I’ll bet no attention whatsoever was devoted to low-level resolution and dynamics; whenever one hears talk about “dynamic range” it’s only about how loud something can go, never how well it can reveal the music at low, bit-strangulated levels. (Talking PCM here.)
Even worse:
"The burden of proof has now shifted." And now I’m mad as hell! Cleverly they have slipped this article into a forlorn albeit vaguely respected journal, from which a campaign can be mounted to shoot down any opposition. “See? Read the article the JAES if you don’t believe me.”
You say you might "email Meyer and ask him for full documentation on the tests". Good! Also ask him what the equipment was, esp. the speakers -- and if you would, please, pass the response along to me.
clark
"I’ll bet no attention whatsoever was devoted to low-level resolution and dynamics; whenever one hears talk about “dynamic range” it’s only about how loud something can go, never how well it can reveal the music at low, bit-strangulated levels."
We looked for music with low-level detail and gave our subjects lots of chances to hear it and use it for the tests. That was one of the things the extra bits was supposed to do better, so of course we tried to test for it.
""The burden of proof has now shifted." And now I’m mad as hell!"
Whoa, easy there. This statement was about whatever should or should not be written at this point in a particular refereed journal. Unless you're planning to write for it, which something tells me you aren't, it doesn't apply to you. -- E. Brad
clarkjohnsen,What equipment are you using, what speakers? You don't seem to list your system, neither do you disclose it when throwing out quality judgments about hardware and software all so knowingly and sharing your own personal "test results" concerning phenomena, gear, and gadgets.
Just occurred to me since you always speak of component quality and its consequences for the credibility of evaluations and evaluators.
You are not hiding that on purpose, are you? I thought you are a reviewer, given the profile you've given to yourself.
I have a feeling you'll prefer to stay mum on this one.
TL
I could speculate what kind of contest you might be involved in, but I'll await your response.
z
...see link.
We'll get back those misrepresentations on another day. Now it's the weekend.
TL
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if you have a point to make on a specific post, you are obviously free to articulate your comment just like everyone else if there is reason for that.TL
WGAF?
The subject is the the BAS's report, isn't in? On that topic, if you wouldn't mind terribly, what we're hearing reported bcak by readers of the full report is beyond dismal. Let's re-examine shall we?
"... the test description and analysis is surprisingly thin. No equipment readout, no results breakdown by listener or location or whatnot, no detailed description of listening venues, no musical selections. No null hypothesis, no description of type I/II error."
Holy Crapola, seems the requirements for doing "scientific" research are getting pretty lax these day.
Care to comment or would you prefer to stay num on this one?
We hope our perceptions ain't slippin
But we swear to God we seen Lou Reed
Cow tippin
Dahlin',
Maybe you are the visionary amongst us, but I don't see how there can possibly be a whole discussion thread going on to collectively criticize an article that apparently one (1) person has read. Look at the misinformation evident already.
You tell me, but that doesn't seem like living up to the exacting standards those same critics' expect of scientific rigor, does it. Many of these critics aren't even believers in science or show much of a scientific worldview in the first place, so why do they care. As such it would be quite comical, even, were it not for the fact that the attitude is so widespread.
My point above, too.
TL
In fact it would have been better than the foolishness you offered.
Perhaps your position is something like... Shoddy science is better than no science or something similar. I really don't know but for those that have any proper conception of science their motto would surely be... Shoddy science is worst than no science at all.
Anyway, you go back to sparring with CJ if that's what turns you on but please refrain from comments on science if you please.
Thanks in advance
ps. Sweetie allow me to give you a little hint, don't hit Clark with "I thought you are a reviewer" because he's certain to counter telling you that he *isn't* a reviewer and very likely point you to his Reasons I'm Not A Reviewer (or whatever it's actually called) article. Ever hear the expression "Know thine adversary"?
ta-ta
We hope our perceptions ain't slippin
But we swear to God we seen Lou Reed
Cow tippin
In fact I would have preferred to speak of things like "reason" and "rationality" instead, but I wasn't sure if the terms would be familiar enough. Point proven.But you can also think of these issues in terms of consistency or intellectual honesty, if you know what I'm talking about.
Does that help?
Are you saying that clarkjohnsen "*isn't* a reviewer" in the same way he "prefers not to" publish anything?
So many pieces of advise in one message - that's so sweet of you! But don't you fear it might seem a bit sissy to be so nice to others?
TL
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
