Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[Phelonious Ponk]

Of course you realise that this ideal is not achievable? The playback electronics are not linear & the very design of devices like S-D DACs precludes linearity.
It then becomes a matter of deciding how much non-linearity is acceptable & we are back to the debate between those that claim they know what is inaudible & those that claim they hear such elements.

Yes. The world, it seems, is full of middle-aged and senior men who've been listening to their stereo systems at 80-90db for decades, with remarkable hearing that picks up frequencies and decibels that have broadly been considered out of the range of human hearing for many years. And that ends the discussion.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Audiophiles are obsessed with minutiae (e.g. the difference between cables) without ever establishing what the basic system is supposed to do. I strongly suspect (my "hypothesis") that the perfect audio system should simply be 'linear' i.e. flat frequency response, perfect time domain behaviour, no noise, no distortion, and that the final speaker/room interface is where it gets interesting - but not necessarily mysterious.

Like Tim I agree. My acoustic upgrades the last 3 years have been as important, if not more important, than my electronic upgrades. Getting the speaker/room interface right is much more fundamentally important than cables, even though to a reasonable extent they should not be neglected either. My relatively cheap upgrade (4 k total) of massive external power supplies for my two monoblock amps addressed the distortion/noise issue to a great extent. Compared to that hugely beneficial and substantial upgrade, I could care less about the latest prestigious top-of-the-line cable upgrade for a similar amount of money. By the way, I haven't changed my speaker cables and interconnects in 21 years.

The acoustic room treatments have also addressed the flatness of the in-room frequency response, by the way, especially in the (mid-)bass.

 

[jkeny]

Yes. The world, it seems, is full of middle-aged and senior men who've been listening to their stereo systems at 80-90db for decades, with remarkable hearing that picks up frequencies and decibels that have broadly been considered out of the range of human hearing for many years. And that ends the discussion.

Tim

And.....we're back in the same well-worn rut

 

[jkeny]

Let's go back to Amir's article on the "Audibility of small Distortions"

I have linked to research that shows the Fletcher-Munson threshold curve is not applicable to the perception of noise or clicks. Let me repeat the graph - we all love a good graph, don't we?

My reading of this graph is that we apply about +12dB of gain to noise around the 6Khz frequency & eyeballing the graph we apply about 5dB of gain to tones around the 2KHz frequency

Now, maybe Amir, Tony or someone can help with reconciling the two graphs into the same Y-axis - the above graph shows GAIN on the Y-axis whereas the Fletcher-Munson graph uses a Y-axis "sound pressure level" On the F-M graph the threshold at around 2KHz appears to be just about -10dB(sound pressure) & <5dB(gain) on 1st graph so how would the threshold for noise plot onto the F-M graph? Is it a multiplier 5dB gain becomes -10dB sound pressure - in which case we are talking about noise @ -24dB below the noise floor, a very significant sensitivity?


In Amir's article he quotes Dunn & Hawksford as having calculated that, based on the "Thresholds of audibility for tones" a level below 20 picoseconds of jitter is needed to guarantee it is below audibility - let's see another graph, hehe

The blue bar shows the level of jitter (20 picoseconds) below audibility.

Now given the above, it seems logical to revisit this jitter calc for noise as jitter & noise are interchangeable - jitter generates nosie & nosie, jitter.
Secondly, there is no masking concept for noise as there is with the sidebar distortion tones that are one of the distortions generated by jitter.
This was assumed in the article - "The distortion could very well become audible in the right circumstances. Put another way, just like our resonance situation, whether these distortions are audible is a matter of statistics."

So, my question is - what level of jitter is needed to fall below the audible threshold for noise shown in the first graph above?
What other sources of this low level noise will intrude on our auditory perception of music playback?
Have we really taken these aspects into consideration? Amir's article hasn't as he is only considering non-linear distortions resulting from jitter as spurious tones & analyses these in relation to F-M threshold of audibility & in relation to masking

And remember we don't perceive this noise as "audible noise" when it underlies music - it psychoacoustically affects the music in other perceptible ways

I'm trying to avoid the rut that some people steer this towards by opening up some discussion points which might be common ground

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"Unknown unknowns" isn't a hip buzz-word I pulled out of the air. Rumsfeld may have (mis)popularised it, but it's a crucial part of understanding uncertainty in complex systems related to risk and contingency management that's wide-spread amongst industries not limited to finance, insurance, health care, engineering, oil and gas, and space exploration (see below):

"(This graph) shows a tradespace for an orbital transfer vehicle, with cost on the vertical axis and utility (mostly determined by the ability to impart delta-V on other vehicles) on the horizontal.22 Each point is an evaluated architecture. At a glance, one can see that architectures in group A are probably robust and have potential for further value creation. If, for example, the user’s requirements change unexpectedly, there are “nearby” architectures of similar cost that can accommodate the user. A system using the architectures at B, on the other hand, would get in severe cost trouble if the user’s demands increased; the only advantage to these architectures is the potential for savings if the users needs decreased."

View attachment 21933

If you don't think taking components measured with steady-state signals only, putting them together and playing the always changing signals of music through them is not a complex system - let alone introducing a speaker to an amplifier - introducing variables that cause changes to the latter signal which we only have limited scope of currently measuring (taking the waveform of a digitally-encoded music signal and comparing it to the same musical signal played back though a system and measured at the speaker/room interface tells us...?), then I hope you'll allow those of us who have listened and owned a wide range of gear to continue to explore the significance of those changes in our own systems without derision, as much as you think said derision may be warranted relative to your own experience with yours.

P.S. If you need more graphs from the ongoing research being done on unknown unknowns in any of the related fields above I'll be more than happy to post them.

I didn't say unknown unknowns is fiction; I said it is used here as a false wild card to dismiss existing science in the face of data that doesn't agree with perception. I...well Amir would do better...could bring all the data in the world and someone could still answer that while their pet product doesn't test well, not everything can be tested/measured, and it sounds better than the products that do test well because of unknown unknown sonic attributes that cannot yet be measured. OK. In a world where all things are possible, that's one of them. And it could be that their favorite manufacturers are even making stuff that only uses these unknown unknowns for the better, even though they don't know what they are, can't measure them, can't engineer for them, can't identify them and repeat them. Their favorite manufacturers could just have incredible luck.

And we could all be living in the Matrix.

Tim

 

[Tony Lauck]

I don't now what you mean about counter examples, but I wonder who on this forum could understand your arguments?

You made my point. Thanks. If you are going to invoke the name of Science as part of an argument, it would be best to understand something about the fundamental principles involved, i.e. the limitations as to where the argument does not apply.

 

[Orb]

....
Even without the psychological aspects, the objectivists are trying to unravel the multi-dimensional contents of a black box by observing its inputs and outputs. But with no definition of what it is supposed to be doing they cannot say whether it works or not.

Audiophiles are obsessed with minutiae (e.g. the difference between cables) without ever establishing what the basic system is supposed to do. I strongly suspect (my "hypothesis") that the perfect audio system should simply be 'linear' i.e. flat frequency response, perfect time domain behaviour, no noise, no distortion, and that the final speaker/room interface is where it gets interesting - but not necessarily mysterious.

Ironically though lets take the recent-ish ABX test that involved Amir and a few others passing the CD vs hirez comparison.
We are talking about objectivists not audiophiles arguing with the minutiae here, of course this is also in the interest of audiophiles as it pertains to a scenario many vocal neigh-sayers said cannot happen; that there is in reality an audible difference (not necessarily to do with native SQ difference but also 'processing' the hirez with bit depth and sampling rate change to CD) when using a scientific listening test with real sounds-music.
Everyone who has been a member here for awhile knows the details of that test and history-background, and yet the several times I have raised this test it has been ignored because it raises an uncomfortable situation as I outlined several times before.
Part of it did come down to knowing to use ones listening behaviour, and critical listening-methodology-training/practice, but the other aspect is that a few passed a final test where the measurements were minutiae in terms of measurements and possible differences.
I am still curious what variable-factor people think Amir and a few others identified to pass the ABX and what their measurement was and also differences, but as I mentioned before some other objectivists were dismissive of the test because to them there could be no differences between the two files that was audible (when they analysed them) and put forward other factors outside of the music-system and put the onus on the listeners for causing IMD (same way one could argue using clipping to differentiate between amps) even when others including myself went to great lengths to look at that with other data-measurements-modelling-trends (those who were dismissive did not bother with any of that themselves even though they put the idea forward in the first place).

So can anyone please share what Amir and a couple of others was picking up in terms of a variable (type of distortion/time smear-phase/noise/they skewed the system performance-behaviour by their listening approach,etc) that other ABX objectivists said is not possible due to the data they analysed
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

I don't believe anyone here is discrediting the value and relevance of scientific results where these are used in context. However, it is entirely appropriate to discredit "scientific results" which consist of crazy extrapolations of known results. And especially remarks that everything is known or measurable, something that no real scientist would ever say. (...)

Tony,
Great sentence. It summarizes the whole thread. Congratulations.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I have linked to research that shows the Fletcher-Munson threshold curve is not applicable to the perception of noise or clicks. Let me repeat the graph - we all love a good graph, don't we?
View attachment 21937

I'm trying to avoid the rut that some people steer this towards by opening up some discussion points which might be common ground

Unfortunately John, you can't avoid your own rut:

As it is similarly illogical to ignore the ADDITIONAL influences/biases introduced by blind listening So we have some biases removed & other new ones introduced & the final result is .....................?

You can't use any of all those quick switch blind tests results, aka, audio science, to argue from, because you reject their validity. IOW, you've fallen into your own rut and you can't get out, nor deny what you said as I have quoted you verbatim.
Sorry.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

If you are going to invoke the name of Science as part of an argument, it would be best to understand something about the fundamental principles involved

Like engineering isn't science?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So can anyone please share what Amir and a couple of others was picking up in terms of a variable (type of distortion/time smear-phase/noise/they skewed the system performance-behaviour by their listening approach,etc) that other ABX objectivists said is not possible due to the data they analysed

Cheers

Orb

I've been waiting for that answer for months. I don't doubt that there is a difference between hi-rez and Redbook. What I doubt is that it is something outside of the audible range that some audiophiles are hearing. Someone did mention IMD in the conversation, but my recollection is that they were talking about noise in the supersonic range creating IMD within the sonic range. Has that been ruled out? Has the difference Amir and others are hearing been isolated? I'd love to know what it is myself.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

The classical and widespread definition of engineering:

Engineering is the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature to the benefit of mankind.

 

[Orb]

I've been waiting for that answer for months. I don't doubt that there is a difference between hi-rez and Redbook. What I doubt is that it is something outside of the audible range that some audiophiles are hearing. Someone did mention IMD in the conversation, but my recollection is that they were talking about noise in the supersonic range creating IMD within the sonic range. Has that been ruled out? Has the difference Amir and others are hearing been isolated? I'd love to know what it is myself.

Tim

I spent a lot of pages with data (with a lot of help from JA) showing why it would not be IMD, surprised you forgot that.
Your first point, that is also not plausible because the measurements are very small and one aspect objectevists arguing with the results said would be inaudible, so therefore you are concluding Amir skewed his listening to cause a flawed test
I did not see you argue that one back in the day Tim
And before you say I am putting words in your mouth, look at your context; you say you doubt is is something outside of the audible range and yet measurements-analysis done by other objectivists as I keep saying showed this is inaudible due to being very small, hence the controversial nature and continued arguing between objectivists on that matter, which never was concluded.
However going by scientific logic; we had a few listener pass a DBT ABX test where traditional measurements-analysis suggest there is no meaningful measurement difference between the files.
Those who initially said it was impossible to pass and no-one had in the past went on to say Amir and others (excluding those that deliberately did this with the earlier files that had additional ultrasonic info) skewed it listening too loud and causing IMD (although this was not an issue strangely enough in the past) where several of us spent a lot of time going through various data and logic-correlation-trend points and other measurements to put that one to bed, including and importantly finally the test using real music...
But again you come back to IMD like they did and with no data-correlation, which is kinda disappointing considering how much effort a few of us put into looking into that hypothesis...
Cheers
Orb

 

[amirm]

2. In what areas is the research continuing and what do the researchers hope to learn?

I don't follow all of audio science research so I can't give you the full picture. What I can do is give you a strong barometer of it by showing you the titles of papers submitted for the upcoming AES presentation in September. That should give you an excellent idea of what people think is novel enough to come and talk about at this yearly conference.

Since the list is rather long , here is my quick attempt at summarizing most of the buckets:

1. Loudspeakers, loudspeakers, loudspeakers. Whether it is drivers or whole loudspeakers, this area always gets attention as you see from a bunch of papers presented.
2. 3-D sound in all manners from recording, to virtualization (i.e. converting multi-channel to 2-channel), understanding of related science (HRTF, IAD), etc.
3. Sound equalization/room interactions.
4. Speech optimizations/intelligibility.
5. Improving performance of low-bit rate audio codecs (driven by cell/mobile phone application where bandwidth still matters).
6. General signal processing algorithms/improvements (filtering approaches, etc.)
7. Revamping of cinema sound. The current standard, the so called x-curve, needs to be shot in the head and new system of equalization/measurement put in place. Mostly discussed at SMPTE but some also bleeds into AES.
8. Headphones.

Probably a few more areas I am missing but you can look for them in the list:
----------------------
AES New York 2015
Paper Sessions
PRELIMINARY TOPICS (subject to change)
Paper and Poster Sessions
• Perception and Automated Assessment of Audio Quality
• Constructing Directivity-Customizable Loudspeaker Arrays by Using Multiple Constant-Beamwidth Transducer (CBT) Arrays
• Robust Audio Fingerprinting for Digital Television Service
• Analysis and Experiment on Summing Localization of Two Loudspeakers in the Median Plane
• Listener Discrimination of High-Speed Digitization from Analog Tape Masters with Spectral Matching
• On the Use of a Lebedev Grid for Ambisonics
• A Model for International and Industry-Engaged Collaboration and Learning
• New Method to Detect Rub and Buzz of Loudspeakers Based on Psychoacoustic Sharpness
• From Creativity to Science and Back Again: Supporting Audio Students Through Active Teaching Approaches
• Environments for Evaluation: The Development of Two New Rooms for Subjective Evaluation
• A Method of Loudness Correction for Uncalibrated Listening Systems
• The Influence of Dumping Bias on Timbral Clarity Ratings
• Method for Objective Evaluation of Nonlinear Distortion
• Time-Frequency Analysis of Loudspeaker Sound Power Impulse Response
• Recalibration of Virtual Sound Localization Using Audiovisual Interactive Training
• Virtual Design of Loudspeakers: From Transducers and Enclosure to System Level
• Wideband Compression Driver Design. Part 1, A Theoretical Approach to Designing Compression Drivers with Non-Rigid Diaphragms
• ISO/MPEG-H 3D Audio: SAOC 3D Decoding and Rendering
• A Model for the Impulse Response of Distributed-Mode Loudspeakers and Multi-Actuator Panels
• Binaural Navigation of Ambisonically-Encoded Soundfields
• From Studio to Stage
• Subjective and Objective Measurements of Speech Loudness in Hands-Free Telephony—Toward a New Loudness Model for Telephonometry
• Headphone Response: Target Equalization Trade-offs and Limitations
• Stacked Modulation in a Hall Reverberation Algorithm
• Effect of Reverberation on Overtone Correlations in Speech and Music
• Root Cause Analysis of Rocking Modes in Loudspeaker Diaphragms
• Validation of Experimental Methods to Record Stimuli for Microphone Comparisons
• Loudness Matching Multichannel Audio Program Material with Listeners and Predictive Models
• Hybrid Channel-Object Approach for Cinema Post-Production Using Particle Systems
• Low-Delay Transform Coding Using the MPEG-H 3D Audio Codec
• LabVIEW as a Music Synthesizer Laboratory Learning Environment
• In-Vehicle Audio System Sound Quality Preference Study
• Plane-Wave Decomposition with Aliasing Cancellation for Binaural Sound Reproduction
• The Vertical Precedence Effect: Utilizing Delay Panning for Height Channel Mixing in 3D Audio
• Real-Time Morphing of Impact Sounds
• Wind Noise Measurements and Characterization Around Small Microphone Ports
• Estimation of Individual HRIRs Based on SPCA from Impulse Responses Acquired in Ordinary Sound Fields
• Implementing the Radiation Characteristics of Musical Instruments in a Psychoacoustic Sound Field Synthesis System
• Audio Effects Data on the Semantic Web
• A Connection Management System to Enable the Wireless Transmission of MIDI Messages
• Robust MPEG-4 High-Efficiency AAC With Fixed- and Variable-Length Soft-Decision Decoding
• Global versus Local: The UAE and Creative Music Output
• Extension of Monaural to Stereophonic Sound Based on Deep Neural Networks
• The Impact of Subgrouping Practices on the Perception of Multitrack Music Mixes
• A Headphone Measurement System Covers both Audible Frequency and beyond 20 kHz
• Quantifying Consistency in Loudspeaker System Production
• Multi-Criteria Decision Aid Analysis of a Musification Approach to the Auditory Display of Micro-Organism Movement
• Affective Potential in Vocal Production
• Developing a Timbrometer: Perceptually-Motivated Audio Signal Metering
• Comparison of Loudness Features for Automatic Level Adjustment in Mixing
• Low Frequency Behavior of Small Rooms
• Parallelization of a Finite-Difference Acoustic Diffusion Equation Model Implementation Using Graphics Processing Units
• Compensating for Tonal Balance Effects Due to Acoustic Cross Talk Removal while Listening with Headphones
• Estimating the Total Sound Power of Loudspeakers
• Some Observations on Vinegar Syndrome
• Process Improvement in Audio Production from a Sociotechnical Systems Perspective
• A Microphone Array for Recording Music in Surround-Sound with Height Channels
• Exploring 3D: A Subjective Evaluation of Surround Microphone Arrays Catered for Auro-3D Reproduction Systems
• Adapting Audio Quality Assessment Procedures for Engineering Practice
• Vocal Clarity in the Mix: Techniques to Improve the Intelligibility of Vocals
• Nonnegative Tensor Factorization-Based Wind Noise Reduction
• Echo Canceler for Real-Time Audio Communication with Wave Field Reconstruction
• The Use of Microphone Level Balance in Blending the Timbre of Horn and Bassoon Players
• Loudness: A Function of Peak, RMS, and Average Values of a Sound Signal
• Measurements of Acoustical Speaker Loading Impedance in Headphones and Commercial Audio Devices
• Detection and Removal of the Birdies Artifact in Low Bit-Rate Audio
• Measurement of Low Frequencies in Rooms
• Detection of High-Frequency Harmonics in a Complex Tone
• Horns Near Reflecting Boundaries
• Speech Music Discrimination Using an Ensemble of Biased Classifiers
• Modal Impedances and the Boundary Element Method: An Application to Horn Loudspeakers
• Active Loudspeaker Protection against Mechanical and Thermal Overload
• Low Impedance Voice Coils for Improved Loudspeaker Efficiency
• Efficiency Investigation of Switch-Mode Power Audio Amplifiers Driving Low Impedance Transducers
• Dynamic Range and Loudness Control in MPEG-H 3D Audio
• Towards a Perceptual Model of “Punch” in Musical Signals
• Personal Adaptive Tuning of Mobile Computer Audio
• Audibility Threshold of Auditory-Adapted Exponential Transfer-Function Smoothing (AAS) Applied to Loudspeaker Impulse Responses
• Some Effects of Speech Signal Characteristics on PA System Performance and Design
• New Techniques for Sound Motion and Display in a 52.1 Surround Sound Hall
• Intensity-Based Sound Source Localization Using an Icosahedral Open Spherical Microphone Array
• The Use of Digital Reverberation Projects to Teach Audio Signal Processing
• 101 Mixes: A Statistical Analysis of Mix-Variation in a Dataset of Multi-Track Music Mixes
• Progressive Degenerate Ellipsoidal Phase Plug
• Clock Rate Variance across Digital Recorders
• Efficient Multi-Band Digital Audio Graphic Equalizer with Accurate Frequency Response Control
• Effectiveness of Exotic Vapor-Deposited Coatings on Improving the Performance of Hard Dome Tweeters
• Self-Oscillating 150 W Switch-Mode Amplifier Equipped with eGaN-FETs
• State Space Modeling of Loudspeakers Using Fractional Derivatives
• Advancing Forensic Analysis of Gunshot Acoustics
• Spatial Sound Attributes—Development of Common Terminology
• Subjective Diffuseness in Layer-Based Loudspeaker Systems with Height
• Temporal Reliability of Subjectively Selected Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs) in a Non-Eliminating Discrimination Task
• What Does This Sound Like? A MATLAB Toolbox for Imposing Speech Signal Impairments Following the P.TCA Schema
• A Comparison of Stimulus Presentation Methods for Listening Tests
• Using Cascaded Global Optimization for Filter Bank Design in Low Delay Audio Coding
• Auditory Distance Rendering Using a Standard 5.1 Loudspeaker Layout
• Dialog Protection: Ensure Dialog Intelligibility for Audio Content with Concurrent Dialog and Non-Dialog
• Investigations on the Phantom Image Elevation Effect
• Height Perception in Ambisonic Based Binaural Decoding
• Lossless Audio Checker: A Software for the Detection of Upscaling, Upsampling, and Transcoding in Lossless Musical Tracks
• Design and Construction of the Samsung 4pi Anechoic Chamber
• Modeling ITDs Based on Photographic Head Information
• MixViz: A Tool to Visualize Masking in Audio Mixes
• Oscillating Measurement Motion–Myth or Magic? Part 2
• Wideband Compression Driver Design. Part 2, Application to a High Power Compression Driver with a Novel Diaphragm Geometry
• Identifying and Validating Program Material: A Hyper-Compression Perspective
• Using Pure Data as a Game Audio Engine
• Predicting the Acoustic Power Radiation from Loudspeaker Cabinets: A Numerically Efficient Approach
• Time/Phase Behavior of Constant Beamwidth Transducer (CBT) Circular-Arc Loudspeaker Line Arrays
• Comparison of Audio Signals Obtained with Source Overlay and Other Conventional Recording Methods
• An Exact and General Diode Clipper Model for Wave Digital Filters
• Sound Capture Technical Parameters of Colombian Folk Music Instruments for Virtual Sound Banks Use
• Frequency-Domain Parametric Coding of Wideband Speech–A First Validation Model
• Listener Preference for Height Channel Microphone Polar Patterns in Three-Dimensional Music Recording
• A Comparative Perceptual Evaluation of Stereophonic Images’ Summing to Simulate a Full Musical Ensemble Recording
• An HRTF Database for Virtual Loudspeaker Rendering
• Mobile Device Control over an Ethernet AVB-Based Immersive Content Creation System
• Applying Auditory Modeling to Surround Program Assessment
• Application of Object-Based Audio for Automated Mixing of Live Football Broadcast
• Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
• Case Study: Expanding Audio Production Facilities at Ohio University to Accommodate Student Needs
• Three Dimensional Spatial Techniques in 22.2 Multichannel Surround Sound for Popular Music Mixing
• Anthropometry-Based Individualization of Interaural Time difference Estimated from Elevation-Dependent Spherical Head Models
• Influence of Spectral Energy Distribution on Elevation Judgments
• Influence of Spectral Cues on Subjective Judgments of Azimuth
• A Novel Approach to Large-Scale Sound Reinforcement Systems
• Physical Properties of Modal Beam-Forming in the Context of Data-Based Sound Reproduction
• Forensic Sound Analyses from Cellular Telephones
• Audio Recording and Production Education: Skills New Hires Have and Where They Reported Learning Them
• Comparative Static and Dynamic FEA Analysis of Single and Dual Voice Coil Midrange Transducers
• Recent Contributions of Women in Audio Research
• Large-Scale Loudspeaker Arrays: Past, Present and Future
• Large-Scale Loudspeaker Arrays: Past, Present and Future - Part Two
• Subjective Listening Tests for Preferred Room Response in Cinemas-Part 1: System and Test Descriptions
• An Overview of an Online Audio Electronics Curriculum Offered at the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music
• Parametric Proportional Equalizers and Application to Digital Reverberation and Environmental Audio Processing
• Dual Diaphragm Asymetric Compression Drivers
• Factors That Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Levels in Headphones

-----

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Ironically though lets take the recent-ish ABX test that involved Amir and a few others passing the CD vs hirez comparison.

I don't recall that AES paper and I'm a member. Do you know what number the paper was? When was it submitted?

I'll have to assume no one who ignore/hate science (per the above poll), would use any form of blind/controlled test results, such as ABX, to bolster their beliefs.

 

[jkeny]

I've been waiting for that answer for months. I don't doubt that there is a difference between hi-rez and Redbook. What I doubt is that it is something outside of the audible range that some audiophiles are hearing. Someone did mention IMD in the conversation, but my recollection is that they were talking about noise in the supersonic range creating IMD within the sonic range. Has that been ruled out? Has the difference Amir and others are hearing been isolated? I'd love to know what it is myself.

Tim

There is no other explanation from the ABX mafia other than anybody who has provided a positive result was cheating!

I did give a recent example of mzil (one of the mafia) on HA reporting that he hears noise differences (it could only be dither) in new files supplied by ArnyK (the Don) which were a claimed to be new test files for ABX testing high-res Vs RB. He supplied other files to mazil, at mzil's request to specifically test this noise that mazil was picking up on - to rue out IMD - the files were of digital silence, so the only noise was shaped dither. The RMAA analysis of these specific files showed no noise above -130dB

Noise perception thresholds, anyone ?

 

[Orb]

I don't recall that AES paper and I'm a member. Do you know what number the paper was? When was it submitted?

I'll have to assume no one who ignore/hate science (per the above poll), would use any form of blind/controlled test results, such as ABX, to bolster their beliefs.

Take your criticism to Amir as it is to do with him
Orb

 

[AJ Soundfield]

There is no other explanation from the ABX mafia

What do you have against Sicilians and those three letters??

I did give a recent example of mzil (one of the mafia) on HA reporting that he hears noise differences (it could only be dither) in new files supplied by ArnyK (the Don) which were a claimed to be new test files for ABX testing high-res Vs RB. He supplied other files to mazil, at mzil's request to specifically test this noise that mazil was picking up on - to rue out IMD - the files were of digital silence, so the only noise was shaped dither. The RMAA analysis of these specific files showed no noise above -130dB

Noise perception thresholds, anyone ?

Quick switch blind test results??
John, is that you??

 

[jkeny]

I spent a lot of pages with data (with a lot of help from JA) showing why it would not be IMD, surprised you forgot that.
Your first point, that is also not plausible because the measurements are very small and one aspect objectevists arguing with the results said would be inaudible, so therefore you are concluding Amir skewed his listening to cause a flawed test
I did not see you argue that one back in the day Tim
And before you say I am putting words in your mouth, look at your context; you say you doubt is is something outside of the audible range and yet measurements-analysis done by other objectivists as I keep saying showed this is inaudible due to being very small, hence the controversial nature and continued arguing between objectivists on that matter, which never was concluded.
However going by scientific logic; we had a few listener pass a DBT ABX test where traditional measurements-analysis suggest there is no meaningful measurement difference between the files.
Those who initially said it was impossible to pass and no-one had in the past went on to say Amir and others (excluding those that deliberately did this with the earlier files that had additional ultrasonic info) skewed it listening too loud and causing IMD (although this was not an issue strangely enough in the past) where several of us spent a lot of time going through various data and logic-correlation-trend points and other measurements to put that one to bed, including and importantly finally the test using real music...
But again you come back to IMD like they did and with no data-correlation, which is kinda disappointing considering how much effort a few of us put into looking into that hypothesis...
Cheers
Orb

I agree, it's disappointing when the same ground is revisited as if the discussion & conclusions hadn't taken place already - hopefully, it's just forgetfulness? .
Also, there were test tones included quite quickly at the end of Arny's test files to rule out IMD being created by the playback equipment.
Apart from the "cheating" accusation, there was one other suggested mechanism - the sample rate converter was introducing artifacts but again I believe Amir resampled with a modern & agreed upon SRC but still identified differences

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Take your criticism to Amir as it is to do with him
Orb

You could just give me the paper number since you are referencing results. The number please?