Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[Orb]

Arny if you did not boost the recording for it to be -2dbfs at ultrasonic (well think Amir and JA may have a fair bit to say on that subject so leaving it to them); then please explain why Boyk and also Griesinger jangling keys peak signals at most are -18dbfs (was used for hirez audibility test)?
I thought JA measured -10dbfs on the ones he has but could be very mistaken.

Anyway both of their tests/measurements (Boyk and separately Griesinger) have near or very near equal peak dbfs at points sub 15khz as the peak ultrasonic.

Cheers
Orb

 

[jkeny]

Exactly, good enough to remove all non-audible stimuli so as it is only the sound that is being evaluated.

I know I said let's leave it but I can't let this misinformation stand. This bold text is what you are failing to comprehend - it's not only the sound that's being evaluated, Max - the results include all the biasing factors still left. Why do you think there are standards & controls?

This routinely demonstrates that the sighted perceptions are proved to be influenced by bias as unsighted, the differences reported vanish - the controls have done their job and it is these controls that make such testing several orders of magnitude better/more reliable/valid than sighted testing can ever be!

You're trying to compare two wrongs but you just don't even bother to examine what level of erroneous results the typical blind test is returning. Therefore you have no comparison to judge the relative wrongness of these tests & which returns more accurate results.

John, I said - aren't the absolute best way to allow differentiation between very, very similar sounding products/files etc.

Following procedure such as outlined by Arnie, JJ etc is better if you're looking to identify these minute and, likely irrelevant differences (should they even exist).

But that's what you claim is the level of differences between DACs, amplifiers, Max so then why are these controls of no importance? I suppose the whole test if of no importance based on your claims from the past so why are you even bothering with such tests & claiming the validity of their results?

Having said that, several of us did not require mirroring such guidelines, prior training or expert listener status to differentiate Ethan's or Arny's files using ABX which, during normal sighted listening none of us could differentiate, so small were the differences.

Max, can you now differentiate these files sighted? If so then what the blind testing did was train your listening & possibly remove some biases?

So I'm not really sure just how small (infinitesimally?) differences would need to be before requiring prior training and the most strictest protocols to be followed in order to unearth them, or what point there would be in doing so, however I certainly don't see anything wrong with what could be termed 'best practice', in principle.

Don't understand your point?

 

[maxflinn]

Max - the results include all the biasing factors still left.

Such as? Please try to answer without asking a question or referring me to a list. I'd like you to list each biasing factor that you feel is not accounted for, and explain how they could have influenced both the sighted and unsighted perceptions.

 

[arnyk]

Arny if you did not boost the recording for it to be -2dbfs at ultrasonic (well think Amir and JA may have a fair bit to say on that subject so leaving it to them); then please explain why Boyk and also Griesinger jangling keys peak signals at most are -18dbfs (was used for hirez audibility test)?
I thought JA measured -10dbfs on the ones he has but could be very mistaken.

Anyway both of their tests/measurements (Boyk and separately Griesinger) have near or very near equal peak dbfs at points sub 15khz as the peak ultrasonic.

This question suggests to me a lack of understanding of the basic mechanics of recording. When one makes a recording one generally uses a microphone preamp that has gain controls. The recorded level of the recording can be adjusted to suit using these gain controls. The obvious explanation of the differences is that every recordist sets his mic preamp gain controls to suit himself.

In this case there were two major goals - wide dynamic range and bandpass. I used a good mic preamp (Benchmark Media) whose bandpass was independent of gain over a wide range. I adjusted the gain controls of the mic preamp for this recording by analyzing the recordings that I made and adjusting the controls at my disposal for a recording with optimal dynamic range.

I don't know how Boyk and Greisinger did their work, and frankly I don't care because I believe that my methodology was blameless. The levels they obtained suggest a far more casual methodology.

AFAIK everybody used different keys and different microphones so the recordings are bound to vary.

 

[Orb]

Wow,
so you do not see the issue with deliberately setting jangling keys to -2dbfs and also that involved many multiple peaks from 15khz all way to roughly 35khz?
Anyway,I do understand thanks how recordings are done and difference between DB analogue levels and recording levels pertaining to dbfs; I appreciate my use of the word "boost" did not help though and agree I do not know as much as many others including JA but I can use their own references.

Well Boyke and Griesinger used either B&K 4133 or B&K 4135 microphones; however one did his recording while teaching at a Caltech lab, Griesinger can be pretty much trusted as well IMO due to his exceptional scientific and audio background.
Both of their recordings are more similar, albeit as a "loose" comparison, and both managed to cope with the very large crest factor.

Thanks
Orb

 

[jkeny]

Such as? Please try to answer without asking a question or referring me to a list. I'd like you to list each biasing factor that you feel is not accounted for, and explain how they could have influenced both the sighted and unsighted perceptions.

Ah, Max, your very question shows that you don't care enough to read all that's been posted on this already or you don't understand it. You have also refused to read the documents or inform yourself about the matter & you want me to give you an answer?

Maybe someone else will answer you but I don't have the time or energy for this & I'm typing this from my phone.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That statement is typical of a common self-deceit among subjectivists. It is basically: my ears uber alles, technology and science be $amned.



Why should all of science and technology be slaves to one man's ears and why should that one man be you?



The BS 1116 recommendation does that, it is online and you can read it for free: https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

I'll save you the pain of reading ideas that may be too difficult for dyed in the wool subjectivists such as: " The double blind ... method has been found to be especially sensitive, stable and to permit accurate detection of small impairments." and suggest that you page forward to section 7: "Reproduction Devices".



Except that science has this nasty tendency to mock overblown egos...




A statement that is belied by listening to high end subjectivist audiophiles brag about their massive equipment expenditures and esoteric choices.

ignoring all your snide comments, the link you reference does not specify any real world music reproduction system I can actually listen to.

where is this system I can listen to that will show me what I get for my BS1116 money????

ya got anything besides a bunch of name calling??? is it real world or not?

and btw, if it's not meant to be actually used in the real world then no problem, but please then stop pushing it as an actual tool to be used.

 

[maxflinn]

Ah, Max, your very question shows that you don't care enough to read all that's been posted on this already or you don't understand it. You have also refused to read the documents or inform yourself about the matter & you want me to give you an answer?

John, you state I was posting misinformation and that I'm not comprehending, but refrain from explaining why using a hypothetical scenario, simply referring to standards and controls.

The fact is, IMO, that you will not answer my question because doing so will leave your answer open to analysis, and you don't want to get into the possible real-world effects or otherwise of these mysterious biases that you keep alluding to. You just want the status quo to be - 'any test that does not use the protocols that I deem absolutely necessary is invalid, and on a par with sighted listening'.

Sorry, but that is simply your illogical opinion. We've been told it many times, but it's still just your illogical opinion.

 

[microstrip]

I (....)

Once I start seeing blind listening reports that have positive & negative controls embedded in them, I will then begin to believe that people are indeed interested in ensuring that their test is capable of evaluating what they claim it is capable of i.e small differences.

So far all we have seen is a lot of hand waving about this & arguing about these controls & arguing about sighted listening - most of which is a deflection from this primary point - demonstrate/show/prove that the tests are capable of doing what you are claiming they are doing - differentiating small differences. So come on guys, the solution is in your hands - prove that you really are interested in getting at the truth of the matter.

You will be waiting for a long time. No one in this forum has the interest, free time, resources and expertise (all of them are needed) to carry such tests in a typical highend environement.

The thread is evolving in an anti audiophile discourse, No one seems really interested in the practical implementation of controls, or debating the use of different types of listening tests by highend designers and manufacturers, that are supposed to know a lot more about this subject than the people who just post in foruns.

IMHO, this thread became a babel type confusion -perhaps splitting it in several sub threads would improve communication.

 

[arnyk]

Wow,
so you do not see the issue with deliberately setting jangling keys to -2dbfs and also that involved many multiple peaks from 15khz all way to roughly 35khz?

What issue?

Note, I've probably made more professional recordings in the past 12 years than the two others put together.

The name of the game was to make a recording that was as challenging as possible within the context of basing it on a natural sound and not using artificial anything.

Note that my recording is presented in a completely transparent way. Where can I download the Boyk and Greisinger recordings? I looked.

I didn't have the limitations of analog recording on my mind because they were irrelevant.

I probably put in more effort and have a recording that shows it.

The mic used was a B&K 4007 omni meassurement mic that is specd for response up to 40Khz.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think for all concerned, this should now be dropped as we have all aired our views & it's getting nowhere & getting personal

We agree again, though I expect it's far too much to hope that this is your last word on the subject.

Tim

 

[arnyk]

the link you reference does not specify any real world music reproduction system I can actually listen to.

I suggest that you write the ITU and complain that they have failed to provide a Stereophile-style Recommended Components List to go with their recommendations.

BS 1116 recommends real world music reproduction systems that can be easily obtained by any competent audio professional who knows how to turn technical specifications into a Bill Of Materials.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I suggest that you write the ITU and complain that they have failed to provide a Stereophile-style Recommended Components List to go with their recommendations.

BS 1116 recommends real world music reproduction systems that can be easily obtained by any competent audio professional who knows how to turn technical specifications into a Bill Of Materials.

so your answer to my question is......NO, a real world system does not exist to actually listen to that has been assembled using the BS1116 process.

ok, can you cite one high end audio product comparison where this process was used? (trying to give this a chance).

and i do appreciate the absence of name calling in this last post.

 

[arnyk]

so your answer to my question is......NO, a real world system does not exist to actually listen to that has been assembled using the BS1116 process.

Mike, I guess you need to tell yourself stuff like that in order to maintain your belief in subjectivism. Please do whatever it takes to make you feel comfortable!

However, it is just another lie. Or are you trying to bully me into doing your homework for you?

OK, I get it. Maybe subjectivism implies an inability to do even a trivial Google search. After all, the only thing that subjectivists seem to understand is what they hear. Reading and studying, not so much?

Just for grins I did a bit of your homework for you and in 10 seconds came up with this:

http://web.arch.usyd.edu.au/~wmar01...ning Test Workshop_ITU-R BS.1116 (Sporer).pdf

This guy must be delusional - he seems to think that he has a BS 1116 grade listening environment. ;-)

So are these people:

http://www.madebydelta.com/delta/Bu...-business/senselab/Facilities+front+page.page

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I guess you need to tell yourself stuff like that in order to maintain your belief in subjectivism. Please do whatever it takes to make you feel comfortable!

However, it is just another lie. Or are you trying to bully me into doing your homework for you?

OK, I get it. Maybe subjectivism implies an inability to do even a trivial Google search. After all, the only thing that subjectivists seem to understand is what they hear. Reading and studying, not so much?

Just for grins I did a bit of your homework for you and in 10 seconds came up with this:

http://web.arch.usyd.edu.au/~wmar01...ning Test Workshop_ITU-R BS.1116 (Sporer).pdf

This guy must be delusional - he seems to think that he has a BS 1116 grade listening environment. ;-)

So are these people:

http://www.madebydelta.com/delta/Bu...-business/senselab/Facilities+front+page.page

i looked thru the linked websites looking for an actual product named that was involved in the studies. i was not able to identify any.

you seem to be very familiar with this stuff. can you tell us a specific product where you used this BS1116?

do you need to have a professional laboratory to execute BS1116? if so, what practical value does that have to audiophiles?

i'm not the one bringing this stuff to an audiophile website.....you are. show me where these ideas relate to home audio reproduction.

'bullying'???....there you go name calling again. do we need to go there?

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Mike

Take a look at the Harman site for the PDF on their Multichannel Listening room. The room was designed using the referenced standard as a guideline and is used by Harman to develop and test Infinity, JBL and Revel speaker systems. That's where the blind testing is done and that determines how they voice them against different versions as they are refined through the listening process and against competitors offerings.

It is referenced in the documents section.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurComp...te Papers/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf

Rob

 

[amirm]

A statement that is belied by listening to high end subjectivist audiophiles brag about their massive equipment expenditures and esoteric choices.

Arny is right Mike. That is exactly how you proposal comes across to me. The only way your challenge would work is a) set a budget and b) have the test be blind. If you don't do either, then you are not going to convince the other camp. And I am confident you don't need this experiment to convince yourself as to what you believe .

 

[arnyk]

i looked thru the linked websites looking for an actual product named that was involved in the studies. i was not able to identify any.

I guess you are unaware that that's the nature of professional audio technical papers. They generally avoid mentioning specific products. To do so would be unprofessional.

You keep changing your accusations, Mike. You've repeatedly claimed that there was no evidence that anybody has ever built a BS 1116 compliant listening facility. This is of course ludicrous. In a few seconds I found proof of the existence of BS 1116 compliant listening facilities, and now you are complaining that the few sites I linked for you don't provide equipment lists. I only linked 2 websites because you bullied me into doing your homework for you. There are far more people with BS 1116 compliant listening facilities and it is up to you to do your own homework.

I see that Rob referenced a very large user of BS 1116 listening facilities (Harman), so they do exist.

This paper describes the construction and use of BS 1116 compliant facility in the middle 1990s:

http://archive.org/stream/bbc-rd-reports-1995-13/1995_13_djvu.txt

"The 1994 MPEG tests complied with all of these as-
pects of BS-1116, but it was noted that this led to a
very prolonged sequence of tests, both for the listener
and for the two test centres (BBC and Deutsche
Telekom AG)."

Here's a list of a few research facilities with BS 1116 compliant listening facilities:

https://www.spsc.tugraz.at/sites/default/files/PA_Sereinig_A_Standardized_Listening_Room.pdf

BBC R&D
University of Surrey
Nokia Research Centre
Helsinki University of Technology

Another research facility with a BS 1116 compliant listening facility is described here:

http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/...x.php?content=listening?&height=500&width=640

You may wish to contact them or Harman for more details about their BS 1116 compliant facilities.

I'm sure Harman would like to tell you which Harman products they use. ;-)

 

[esldude]

That you did Arny. Here is the spectrum of the file and test tones together:

If your key jingling has more ultrasonic content than any real world music, where does that leave the test tones?

I said this before on AVS Forum. If you insist on this being a useful test, its repercussions will go way past the borders of this discussion...

This really is a deceptive view here. I do believe you know quite well why that is.

The test tones are around a -.5db level. As the jangling keys have a peak of -1 db, several at -2 db and numerous at -3 db such a check for IMD isn't unreasonable. Your using an FFT to compare a dynamic signal level to a steady test tone is deceptive. Though the average level of those keys is fairly low the peak levels are plentiful high enough in level to cause IMD if the system is pushed too near its limit and susceptible to that. Really bush league move Amir.

Arny's files might sound not so loud yet cause some IMD which would be uncovered by his test tones. A very minor volume adjustment downward would eliminate them and then make the test of the keys valid so one wouldn't confuse IMD from ultrasonics with hearing a difference from hearing ultrasonics.

 

[thedudeabides]

You will be waiting for a long time. No one in this forum has the interest, free time, resources and expertise (all of them are needed) to carry such tests in a typical highend environement.

The thread is evolving in an anti audiophile discourse, No one seems really interested in the practical implementation of controls, or debating the use of different types of listening tests by highend designers and manufacturers, that are supposed to know a lot more about this subject than the people who just post in foruns.

IMHO, this thread became a babel type confusion -perhaps splitting it in several sub threads would improve communication.

Thank you for again stating the obvious.

Mike, why bother?

Remember we are talking about people that don't seem interested in listening to and enjoying music but want to turn that pleasure into some sort of science experiment.

Oh well.