Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Scott" wrote in message
On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, KH wrote: On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence, that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged in and reported. Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior experiences are the basis for any extant biases. How do you know the controls were inadequate? I've never seen any evidence of scientfic rigor in Mr. Hoffman's writings. People who actually read the scientific literature and understand it understand what this is and notice it when it goes missing. And how would one get a false negative from that? The purpose of bias controls is to eliminate or vastly reduce errors due to experimental bias. Errors can be composed of either false positives or false negatives. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Audio Empire" wrote in message ... I think it is pointless to use information reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances. ?????????? Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? That doesn't sound logical to me at all. To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible. And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality right at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest of the audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be perfect, the sound never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start with. On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can, it is very useful to continue to improve the audio systems. It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled data source. Edmund |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On 10/3/2010 10:41 AM, Edmund wrote:
"Arny wrote in message ... "Audio wrote in message ... snip Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? That doesn't sound logical to me at all. Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency". To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible. Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive quantities of data. And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality right at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest of the audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be perfect, the sound never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start with. No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. Past that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes, you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the *listener*. Now one can, and some obviously do, argue endlessly about which reduction scheme(s) is sufficient, but the fact remains that once the limit of human perception is reached, additional data is irrelevant - by definition. On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can, it is very useful to continue to improve the audio systems. It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled data source. Again, as long as the source is sufficient to encompass all data required to meet or exceed the range of human perception, continued improvement is source independent. Keith |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:41:49 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ): On 10/3/2010 10:41 AM, Edmund wrote: "Arny wrote in message ... "Audio wrote in message ... snip Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? That doesn't sound logical to me at all. Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency". To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible. Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive quantities of data. And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality right at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest of the audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be perfect, the sound never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start with. No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. But that's not the case. The information excised, when played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. Perceptual coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. Assumptions which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners. It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing with video. However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often, especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern on the screen. While lasting only a few seconds at most, it can be easily noticed by anyone. The problem is so bad, that movies transfered to DVD or HD Blue-Ray are coded by hand. IOW, a "craftsman" known as a video compressor actually manually chooses the amount of compression used for each scene based on watching the movie, literally frame-by-frame and reduces the amount of compression or increases it depending on content. Done this way, perceptual video coding works and works well, but left to a fixed or "automatic variable" compression algorithm, the the results are not without artifacts. The same is true with music. Past that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes, you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the *listener*. Now one can, and some obviously do, argue endlessly about which reduction scheme(s) is sufficient, but the fact remains that once the limit of human perception is reached, additional data is irrelevant - by definition. That is true and I agree. But what we are using these days is not the ideal perceptual compression scheme that you describe, above. On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can, it is very useful to continue to improve the audio systems. It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled data source. Again, as long as the source is sufficient to encompass all data required to meet or exceed the range of human perception, continued improvement is source independent. But since higher resolution (than CD) recording schemes continue to improve the quality of perceived sound. it looks as if this "sufficient source" sets the bar very high indeed. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
Audio Empire wrote:
[...] But that's not the case. The information excised, when played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. You're making an error here. It simply does not matter if information excised is by itself a music, since that music is determined (by perceptual encoder designers) to be inaudible when played together with information not removed. Wether an encoder removed right information is another story, though. Perceptual coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. Assumptions which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners. That's a possibility. It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing with video. However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often, especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern on the screen. While lasting only a few seconds at most, it can be easily noticed by anyone. The problem is so bad, that movies transfered to DVD or HD Blue-Ray are coded by hand. IOW, a "craftsman" known as a video compressor actually manually chooses the amount of compression used for each scene based on watching the movie, literally frame-by-frame and reduces the amount of compression or increases it depending on content. Done this way, perceptual video coding works and works well, but left to a fixed or "automatic variable" compression algorithm, the the results are not without artifacts. The same is true with music. Well, our (human) visual band is much wider and significantly more precise (total dynamic of human sight is about 170dB vs 130~120dB for audio) and more complex. Then video compression is much more severe tha audio -- 256kbps is just about 1 to 3 compression (don't forget that losless compression brings about 1:2, so you're copmparing vs ~750kbps losless; 1:2 lossless times 1:3 loss bring 1:6 total compression of audio data stream) while video is compressed about 1:10 (1:5 lossless compression times that 1:10 loss brings 1:50 compression of video data stream). IOW typical video compression is on the level of compression of 96kbps stereo audio stream -- and here artifacts are rather obvious [...] rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"KH" wrote in message
... On 10/3/2010 10:41 AM, Edmund wrote: "Arny wrote in message ... "Audio wrote in message ... snip Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? That doesn't sound logical to me at all. Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency". To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible. Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive quantities of data. Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones. And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality right at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest of the audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be perfect, the sound never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start with. No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. Yes, but that is clearly not the case, at least you cannot know that. Past that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes, you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the *listener*. No it is not, I can clearly tell the difference between live performances and reproduced sound from a multi billion dollar audio set. ( if that exists ) As long as people can tell that difference, one cannot say that a certain resolution is enough, the most you can say is the difference is inaudible on a certain audio system and the poorer the audio system used, the more music information you can throw away before it become distinguisable with the better storage formats. You must not compare the storage formats on limited audio systems ( at the moment even the best and most expensive system is limited! ) You reference must be real live unampified music. Edmund Keith |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:41:49 -0700, KH wrote (in article ): Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive quantities of data. This is very true. My Sansa Clip+ with 2 GB of onboard memory can hold well over 600 songs when perceptually coded with reasonable amounts of lossy compression, but only about 120 songs with the best available lossless file formats. And even more important, if "we' decide to throw away quality right at the recording/storage stage, it is useless to improve the rest of the audio link since even if the rest of the audio system will be perfect, the sound never will be because we have thrown away the quality to start with. Furthremore, some of the resolution and bandwidth that we throw away is things we can't even properly play in a real world room or pick up with the best available microphones in a real world recording situation. Audio Empire demands 96 KHz bandwidth and 144 dB or better dynamic range. The normal resolution and bandwidth of performance spaces and the microphones that are generally used, or even the best availble are dwarfed by those numbers. To actually have overtones at 96 KHz fall on your body in your listening room only happens in a miniscule sweet spot, and is well beyond the capability of more than 95% of all high end and quality high monitoring grade speakers currently in use. No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. But that's not the case. The information excised, when played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. Saying this unfortunately does not make it true. Thousands of people of all ages, equipment ownership, and musical preferences have tried and failed to support this claim. Our correspondent has failed to provide compelling evidence supporting this claim due to obvious failings in his own personal work. Perceptual coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. These assumptions are well-known, the underlying work has been duplicated by others, and they are generally accepted in the scientific community. Saying that perceptual coding does not work is based on ignorance of this fundamental scientific work, or perhaps a total disrespect for science as we know it today. Assumptions which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners. Science tells us that the range of frequencies that we can hear is limited by the structure of the inner ear. Basically, if there are no sensory apparatus in the ear that is stimulated by very high frequencies, then there is no way that they can be heard. Enough work has been done with animal and human cadavers and live experiments to ascertain what these limits are for all members of our species. We generally recognize that bats and dogs have different ranges of hearing than humans. The difference is in the structure of our ears. There are no known instances of humans with the ears of bats. Yet bat ears would be required to hear the benefits of 192 KHz sampling. It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. This has been sucessfully done for the better part of a decade, if not longer. Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing with video. The amount of compression that is used for quality video vastly transcends the amount of compression that is usually used for quality audio. Conflating the two casts serious doubts on the technical knowlege and crediblity of a person who would do such a thing. For example, the equivalent of 720x480 DVD-video when uncompressed runs on the order of a quarter of a 250 million bytes per second or more. MPEG-4 video for the same resolution runs about 3 million bytes per second (usually less) for a compression ratio of over 80:1. 320K MP3 represents a compression ratio of about 4.4 . What reasonble person would knowingly conflate the two? However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often, especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern on the screen. Perceptual coders for audio do not necessarily involve fixed algorithms. There are coders that vary their parameters dynamically based on the needs of the music being compressed. There's no need to spread fear and doubt about audio based on misapprehensions. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Scott" wrote in message
On Oct 2, 10:47 am, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote: Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence, No the question is relevant since you chose to make an issue out of it. One need not have any "evidence" of anything other than what is already presented to answer the question. Do you or do you not think Steve Hoffman's comparisons http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ht=master+tape were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic treatments of a dubious nature under sighted conditions. Given that Mr. Hoffman seems to *not* be suffering from Alzheimer's, mini strokes, or other serious problems with his memory, I would have to say that a normal understanding of human perceptions supports the contention that any perceptions he has are at least residually affected by his prior experiences. This is a key point - one of the purposes of well-run blind listening tests is changing the source of the results from perceptions to sensations. Every time we see an optical illusion or hear an audible illusion we show that our perceptions and even some of our sensations can be highly unreliable. The essence of scientific knowlege is reliability. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 4, 8:04=A0am, "Edmund" wrote:
Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones. There is no reason why a mobile phone which can play back stored files or the much-maligned portable audio players should be incapable of producing high-quality audio. Even some posters here have commented on the excellent quality that ipods and similar gear provide when using good-quality headphones. Sweeping statements like this are one reason why there is so much skepticism about high-end audio claims. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 06:50:39 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message [ Excessive quotation deleted. --dsr ] Perceptual coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. These assumptions are well-known, the underlying work has been duplicated by others, and they are generally accepted in the scientific community. Saying that perceptual coding does not work is based on ignorance of this fundamental scientific work, or perhaps a total disrespect for science as we know it today. Assumptions which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners. Science tells us that the range of frequencies that we can hear is limited by the structure of the inner ear. Basically, if there are no sensory apparatus in the ear that is stimulated by very high frequencies, then there is no way that they can be heard. Enough work has been done with animal and human cadavers and live experiments to ascertain what these limits are for all members of our species. Who is talking about supersonic frequencies, here? Not me. We generally recognize that bats and dogs have different ranges of hearing than humans. The difference is in the structure of our ears. There are no known instances of humans with the ears of bats. Yet bat ears would be required to hear the benefits of 192 KHz sampling. Again, you are obfuscating the argument with irrelevancies. Your premise that the only advantage of high sampling rates is extended high frequency response is simply not the advantage of high sample rates. What the advantage is that by moving that anti-aliasing to high above the range of human hearing, one avoids the phase shift inherent in the brick-wall cutoff at 22.05 KHz required for a sample rate of 44,1 KHz. It also eliminates the effects of pre-ringing that most digital-to-analog conversion schemes have inherent to them. There may be other advantages as well, I don't know. But 24-bit certainly has very practical advantages. It gives the recording engineer a lot more headroom and deals better with low level material. That's one reason why many have reported that high-resolution formats like DSD and 24/96 or 24/192 handle hall ambience and triple pianissimo sounds better than does 16/44.1. It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. This has been sucessfully done for the better part of a decade, if not longer. I would say NOT. I can hear the MP3 artifacts. I know others who can hear the artifacts as well, many of them are professionals working in the audio recording business every day. Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing with video. The amount of compression that is used for quality video vastly transcends the amount of compression that is usually used for quality audio. Conflating the two casts serious doubts on the technical knowlege and crediblity of a person who would do such a thing. For example, the equivalent of 720x480 DVD-video when uncompressed runs on the order of a quarter of a 250 million bytes per second or more. MPEG-4 video for the same resolution runs about 3 million bytes per second (usually less) for a compression ratio of over 80:1. 320K MP3 represents a compression ratio of about 4.4 . What reasonble person would knowingly conflate the two? It's called an analogy, Mr. Kruger. It is used to illustrate a point, not to conflate the two technologies. The point is whether audio or video, lossy compression has to be applied judiciously and intelligently to avoid audible or visible artifacts. I can't help it if you can't see the analogy for the purpose it was intended. However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often, especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern on the screen. Perceptual coders for audio do not necessarily involve fixed algorithms. There are coders that vary their parameters dynamically based on the needs of the music being compressed. There's no need to spread fear and doubt about audio based on misapprehensions. I agree. But lossy audio compression such as MP3 is audible to many. To say that it is not, is. IMHO, going to far in the other direction. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 05:04:25 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ): "KH" wrote in message ... On 10/3/2010 10:41 AM, Edmund wrote: "Arny wrote in message ... "Audio wrote in message ... snip Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake? That doesn't sound logical to me at all. Really? I think you are ignoring the concept of "sufficiency". To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible. Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive quantities of data. Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones. He's not talking about mobile phones, he's talking about portable, battery-powered MP3 players (which these days are included in many mobile phones like iPhones and Blackberrys et al). snip |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 05:03:57 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: [...] But that's not the case. The information excised, when played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. You're making an error here. It simply does not matter if information excised is by itself a music, since that music is determined (by perceptual encoder designers) to be inaudible when played together with information not removed. Wether an encoder removed right information is another story, though. Perceptual coding works on assumptions made about the way humans hear. Assumptions which may or may not be valid at all, or may not be valid for some listeners. That's a possibility. It would also have to remove this "superfluous" information in a way that that is wholly transparent to the listener under all conditions. Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing with video. However, a fixed algorithm applied to video is fraught with artifacts, as anyone who has watched broadcast HDTV can attest. Often, especially during fast-moving scenes or things like a running stream, or fast action sequences, the scene "pixelates" or breaks up into a visible tile-like pattern on the screen. While lasting only a few seconds at most, it can be easily noticed by anyone. The problem is so bad, that movies transfered to DVD or HD Blue-Ray are coded by hand. IOW, a "craftsman" known as a video compressor actually manually chooses the amount of compression used for each scene based on watching the movie, literally frame-by-frame and reduces the amount of compression or increases it depending on content. Done this way, perceptual video coding works and works well, but left to a fixed or "automatic variable" compression algorithm, the the results are not without artifacts. The same is true with music. Well, our (human) visual band is much wider and significantly more precise (total dynamic of human sight is about 170dB vs 130~120dB for audio) and more complex. Then video compression is much more severe tha audio -- 256kbps is just about 1 to 3 compression (don't forget that losless compression brings about 1:2, so you're copmparing vs ~750kbps losless; 1:2 lossless times 1:3 loss bring 1:6 total compression of audio data stream) while video is compressed about 1:10 (1:5 lossless compression times that 1:10 loss brings 1:50 compression of video data stream). IOW typical video compression is on the level of compression of 96kbps stereo audio stream -- and here artifacts are rather obvious While I agree that comparing video compression with audio compression is a rather gross analogy, the point made is still valid. Coding must be done judiciously in order to avoid audible (or visible) artifacts. In my humble experience, I find that I can hear so-called "lossy" compression artifacts (MP3) with bit rates as high as 320 kbps. By the way, I don't think one can compare lossy compression schemes like MP# ATRAC, AAL, etc with "lossless" schemes like FLAC or ALC because the latter are reconstructed to a bit-perfect copy |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
What the advantage is that by moving that anti-aliasing to high above the range of human hearing, one avoids the phase shift inherent in the brick-wall cutoff at 22.05 KHz required for a sample rate of 44,1 KHz. It turns out that the phase shifts in question can be audible at significantly lower frequencies, but 22.05 KHz is just too high for them to be heard. It also eliminates the effects of pre-ringing that most digital-to-analog conversion schemes have inherent to them. You're double dipping - the phase shift and the ringing are two symptoms of the same basic problem. But 24-bit certainly has very practical advantages. It gives the recording engineer a lot more headroom and deals better with low level material. Asked and answered in a previous post. Video perceptual coding such as MPEG3, H.264/MPEG-4 etc. does an equivalent thing with video. The amount of compression that is used for quality video vastly transcends the amount of compression that is usually used for quality audio. Conflating the two casts serious doubts on the technical knowlege and crediblity of a person who would do such a thing. For example, the equivalent of 720x480 DVD-video when uncompressed runs on the order of a quarter of a 250 million bytes per second or more. MPEG-4 video for the same resolution runs about 3 million bytes per second (usually less) for a compression ratio of over 80:1. 320K MP3 represents a compression ratio of about 4.4 . What reasonable person would knowingly conflate the two? It's called an analogy, Mr. Kruger. As you apparently cannot deny, it is a false analogy for the stated reasons. Besides, analogies can't be used to prove anything. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On 10/3/2010 5:00 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:41:49 -0700, KH wrote (in ): snip No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. But that's not the case. It absolutely is the case. *You* are arguing about particular codecs, and their acceptability, not whether using compression is illogical, as was claimed, irrespective of whether the method used is sufficient or not. The information excised, when played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. The information excised is irrelevant, and what I was referring to, vis a vis perception, is perceiving its *absence* when listening to the compressed file, not whether the information removed can, itself, be perceived as coherent. snip Past that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes, you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the *listener*. Now one can, and some obviously do, argue endlessly about which reduction scheme(s) is sufficient, but the fact remains that once the limit of human perception is reached, additional data is irrelevant - by definition. That is true and I agree. But what we are using these days is not the ideal perceptual compression scheme that you describe, above. I'm not describing any scheme, merely the contention that compression is counter to logic, irrespective of the algorithms used. *If* you can't discriminate between compressed and non-compressed versions of a file, then it's illogical, or wasteful at least, to Not use compression. On the other hand, if we record and store music the best we can, it is very useful to continue to improve the audio systems. It will never be possible to reproduce accurate with a crippled data source. Again, as long as the source is sufficient to encompass all data required to meet or exceed the range of human perception, continued improvement is source independent. But since higher resolution (than CD) recording schemes continue to improve the quality of perceived sound. it looks as if this "sufficient source" sets the bar very high indeed. That's an opinion that is not, IME, commonly held. The virtual death of SACD, DVD-A, etc. seem to support the opposite conclusion. And no, that isn't the "McDonalds" argument, its simply the corollary to the claims of vinyl being resurgent due to its perceived sonic superiority by the audiophile community. That community should be equally supportive of these higher bit-rate format as well, no? But whether true or not, it doesn't alter the basic premise - transparent compression is the logical thing to do. Keith |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On 10/4/2010 5:04 AM, Edmund wrote:
wrote in message snip To start with, what convenience?? as I said the storage capacity now days is hardly a problem to store the best quality possible. Sorry, but for mobile devices, that is simply not accurate. Where mobility and power consumption are not issues, you are closer to correct, but there is still a lot of overhead associated with archiving, moving, and backing up massive quantities of data. Don't be silly, there are no high end audio mobile phones. Uhm, no one mentioned phones. Take look at, for e.g., Head-Direct.com and tell me there are no high end mobile devices. snip No, while this may seem intuitive, it simply isn't accurate. If perceptual coding is used such that the information excised is outside of human perception, then the information stored is sufficient. Yes, but that is clearly not the case, at least you cannot know that. Past that point, no amount of additional information or resolution will improve the result. And no matter how good the playback chain becomes, you still cannot perceive a deficit, because the limiting factor is the *listener*. No it is not, I can clearly tell the difference between live performances and reproduced sound from a multi billion dollar audio set. ( if that exists ) So what? How is that relevant? As long as people can tell that difference, one cannot say that a certain resolution is enough, This presumes that ONLY the storage medium impacts the whether you can discern live vs. recording. You can sample at gigahertz frequencies with kilobit resolution, and you'll always be able to tell the difference - stereo and multichannel recordings will always be imperfect illusions. You do realize that microphones are designed to "throw away" data right? Everything in the chain is bandwidth and/or response limited. the most you can say is the difference is inaudible on a certain audio system and the poorer the audio system used, the more music information you can throw away before it become distinguisable with the better storage formats. You must not compare the storage formats on limited audio systems ( at the moment even the best and most expensive system is limited! ) You reference must be real live unampified music. No, you're conflating several different concepts in this argument. A live music reference is completely irrelevant to whether use of a sufficiently transparent compression method is illogical. The live event is done and gone. All you have is the recording, and if the listener is incapable of perceiving any difference between compressed and non-compressed, then the compression used is sufficient. Keith |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
Audio Empire wrote:
[...] By the way, I don't think one can compare lossy compression schemes like MP# ATRAC, AAL, etc with "lossless" schemes like FLAC or ALC because the latter are reconstructed to a bit-perfect copy But when determinig loss in lossy compression one should count loss not against uncompressed data, as lossy compression scheme consists of two separate (and highly independant) parts: 1. information removal (according to perceptual schemes) 2. losless compression of not removed information rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
Audio Empire wrote: What the advantage is that by moving that anti-aliasing to high above the range of human hearing, one avoids the phase shift inherent in the brick-wall cutoff at 22.05 KHz required for a sample rate of 44,1 KHz. Wrong. When's the last time you actually MEASURED the phase shift of the typical anti-aliasing or anti-imaging filter at high frequencies? Your assertion leads me to believe that you never did. Good point. About 5-8 years back it became extremely common for quality convetrers, both DACs and ADCs to have what is known as a linear phase characteristic. This means that the phase shift of the converter is the same as an ideal delay line. Since playback of pre-recorded media by consumers inherently involves days, monhts and years of delay, the few milliseconds of delay in the converters is totally moot. Modern anti-aliasing filters have phase shifts across the entire band that are well within a very small tolerance of 0, very often less than +-5 degrees to within 1/3 octave of the band limits. I have measured this in real-world products and can confirm that this is common with modern real-world products, both consumer and professional. And I'm talking about 44.1 kHz sample rate systems. Exactly. The above dust-up is just another example of the kind of out-of-date information that is being posted here as if it was revealed truth. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 05:55:47 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): KH wrote: On 10/3/2010 5:00 PM, Audio Empire wrote: The information excised, when played back, can be easily perceived and, apparently, is even recognizable as music. So what? The information excised is irrelevant, and what I was referring to, vis a vis perception, is perceiving its *absence* when listening to the compressed file, not whether the information removed can, itself, be perceived as coherent. Audio Empire is invited to try the following experiment. Take two of the best microphones available. Put them in what is considered the best conert hall avaliable. Place them in what are considered two of the best listening positions in the hall, only make sure they're some distance apart from one another. While a conert is being played, record from both. Then, take these two recordings, time sync and level match them, and subtract one from the other. Play back the resulting difference. What you will get will be a very recognizable facsimile of the musical performance. Using Audio Empire's premise, one or othe other of these recordings MUST be seriously compromised. One or the other MUST have a lot of information missing or left out if the difference is a recognizable facsimile of the original musical performance. That compromised recording must be clearly audible as such. Question is, which one is the compromised recording? (hint: it's something of a trick question) If the premise is that "compression" (as defined, in this discussion, as discarding information which may or may not be vital to the integrity of the recording) is bad, then the mere act of making a stereo recording is itself a process with inherently huge amounts of such compression to the point of it being a crime against audiophilia. So what? This is bogus. Not because what Dick proposes, above, is not true and won't happen (it will) but because the two microphones will be picking-up the concert from a slightly different perspective,... like stereo. One recording will represent the right-most mike and the other recording will represent the left-most mike, I.E. the right and left channels of a stereo recording. They will be different enough that when subtracted there will be a difference signal. This proves nothing except that the two channels in a stereo recording are different (Duh!). In fact, depending on the types of microphones used, and their placement, it is even possible, to sum the two channels (to mono) and lose information due to phase cancellations. This has nothing to do with subtracting an MP3 rip of of a LPCM file from the CD from which the rip was made and hearing the difference as that material removed by the compression process. Try this: take two copies of the same commercial CD. Invert the absolute phase of one and time sync and level match both. Now sum the outputs of the two CDs. What will you hear? If the two are exactly time sync'd (difficult) and level matched, you should hear nothing. How successful you are will depend on how well the two are matched. This also proves nothing except that you can't do the same thing with a LPCM CD and an MP3 conversion of that LPCM CD and get the same null result because unlike two identical CDs, the rip is NO LONGER the same. So what, indeed. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
Why recording and playback systems don't sound like the real thing
You: audio scientists whose work I have read about in mag subscriptions for many years. Thank you for that; I have set-up my system and listening environment better because of you. Me: not an audio scientist yet interested in maximizing what I have, but realize there is a limit to attaining realness. I don't understand the way this group keeps track of who started the communication ("thread"?) and where the latest post is. I'm breaking in on one here I'm sure, but it seems you are talking about why recording and playback systems don't sound like the real thing... To me everything in the recording and playback chain is a filter. Everything we do to capture and playback a sound imparts a change to the original sound. I suppose the best recording mic for our purpose is the human ear brain interpreter. All the different capturing devices we currently have change the sound in their own way. Decide upon a receptor that best replicates the ear/brain and call it our best effort. The audio scientists could collaborate with the human hearing specialists to create a pickup device that emulates the ear/ brain receptor. Since we're not perfect, that device would have a "character" of its own, but if set as a standard that all receptor devices must adhere to, the character would be known. If the capture device's change to the original sound were constant, you could address difference(s). I do not believe that if we apply the same correction to the current situation of non-standardized receptors (recording devices), there is going to be one solution to every situation. I understand there are countless microphone types, brands, models and signal capture devices in use. However, if the filter were constant, the opposite of the filtered information could be applied to return the captured sound back to its original state. Ok, so now my simplistic solution for capturing an audio signal has been adopted globally, we can store a sound that matches the original. The only thing I can think of for playing back this "near perfect" duplicated sound is to have a constant playback device too. I suppose I'm suggesting something similar to, but more precise than, the THX concept. That way, we are all on the same page up to the playback environment. Would this require that every device for recording through playback be identical? To do this as close to perfect as possible; I'd say yes. But since there would be so much resistance from manufacturers, we could allow variety as long as the established standard is met. At least from the signal manipulation point of view, it should be consistent. I presume the players in this forum can have an impact on how audio is copied and played back for us all. I can only guess what anti- aliasing and phase shift have to do with an audio signal, but I know it's a real dilemma; I=92ve read these words since I started my subscriptions. For predictable and repeatable compensation to applied filters (conversion to digital domain, etc), is it a good time to re- ask for an industry standard that would neutralize these persistent issues? Since record albums sound to me closer in some ways to original (natural bloom and space) and digital sounds more real in other ways (dynamic range I think), we're not gaining forward improving momentum by not using, or being able to use, all that we know. I think it's time for an overhaul. Since I don't and won't often interject my comments on this stage, I'll add something else now... My desire is to have a stereo that sounds like the real thing. So far, to include sitting in some high- end salons and theatres, nothing sounds like live. I have been fooled and picked up the phone and answered the door to know one, but the audio playback magic happens infrequently. It could be that the shape of my speaker's sound wave is not the same size and shape as the source it's trying to represent, and that kills realness. It's most evident when my stereo tries to replicate huge and tiny. Throw more speakers at the problem! Surround-sound adds interest and helps at low volume but I concur that it's at the expense of clarity; blasting two speakers so it strongly bounces off walls sounds less odd. I can hear it when I swap a cable or whatever; these are just changes. The sound maybe different, ie: more or less tubby, more or less squawky, but it's not giving me the sensation of more real. Others I live with apparently suspend their perception less than I do; they hear electronics and I understand their disinterest. The current condition hasn't changed much in a lotta years. At this rate, I'm not expecting to ever hear it as anything but a stereo system unless there is at least a major revision. I hope your imagination and wisdom can implement a change soon. Let me know if I can help ; ) |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:42:14 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: This is bogus. Not because what Dick proposes, above, is not true and won't happen (it will) but because the two microphones will be picking-up the concert from a slightly different perspective,... like stereo. One recording .. This also proves nothing except that you can't do the same thing with a LPCM CD and an MP3 conversion of that LPCM CD and get the same null result because unlike two identical CDs, the rip is NO LONGER the same. Yes, it is bogus, your premise, that is. The gedanken I proposed is in direct response to your repeated focus on the fact that the difference between a PCM stream and the same in MP3, because it is recognizable, is somehow a proof that the MP3 stream is broken. I didn't say that. I quoted engineer/producer George Massenburg saying that (and demonstrating it at an AES convention keynote in London). I merely said that if the difference signal could be recognized not just as music, but also the tune and the singer could be recognized from the difference signal, then an awful lot of music must be being thrown away. If the assertion is that if the difference between two versions of the same is a recognizable image of the signal, therefore one of those SIGNALS must be deficient in some way (your have stated so, as I recall, quite explicitly, and have proferred your interpretation of the report of Massenburg's presentation as the basis for your claim), then the gedanken and its conclusions hold. What is missing from all your claims in this subthread is NO mention of how far below the signals these artifacts live. That's because I don't know how far below the signal these artifacts live. The article I read by technology writer Barry Fox in the October 2010 edition of Hi-Fi News and Record Review didn't specify. You may, in fact, find MP3 objectionable for any number of reasons which are perfectly valid, for you. And, as such, I have no interest in challenging that position. Thank you for allowing me my opinion. However, you have made several technical justifications for your position, and those justifications are, simply bogus. Like I said, I was quoting George Massenburg by way of Barry Fox. As another example, your claims about such things as phase shift of brickwall filters and "preringing", addressed elsewhere, are technically bogus which, I generously assume, are merely the result of not being fully up to speed on the basic principles involved, an easily soluble situation, I would hope. Well, there has got to be some reason for high-resolution 24/96 or 24/192 recordings sounding so much closer to the direct mike feed than does 16-bit/44.1Khz, so I took a stab at it. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Kele" wrote in message
To me everything in the recording and playback chain is a filter. Hold that thought. Everything we do to capture and playback a sound imparts a change to the original sound. Not necessarily. Many things have filtering effects that are audibly benign, even when the signal is routed through many of them. I suppose the best recording mic for our purpose is the human ear brain interpreter. I think not. I don't listen to recordings to get someone else's brain's interpretation of the music. If I wanted that, I would probably want to interview them. All the different capturing devices we currently have change the sound in their own way. Again, many of the changes, even many of those whose effects are relatively easy to measure, are benign. Decide upon a receptor that best replicates the ear/brain and call it our best effort. The audio scientists could collaborate with the human hearing specialists to create a pickup device that emulates the ear/ brain receptor. This has been done many times in many ways, sometimes fairly sucessfully, As I explained above, its not what a lot of people want. I often want to listen for myself. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
This is bogus. Typical of the overly judgemental and negative comments we've been subjected to here lately. What happened to less authoritarian words like diasgree? Not because what Dick proposes, above, is not true and won't happen (it will) but because the two microphones will be picking-up the concert from a slightly different perspective,... like stereo. That my friend is his point, and its not bogus. Just because two signals are different is not proof that one has been trashed. One recording will represent the right-most mike and the other recording will represent the left-most mike, I.E. the right and left channels of a stereo recording. Right, and from a coincident pair, the difference between these two signals is not all that much. They will be different enough that when subtracted there will be a difference signal. Proving among other things that just because there's a difference, it does not mean that the difference signifies the end of the world. This proves nothing except that the two channels in a stereo recording are different (Duh!). Moving down the road a piece, consider subtracting two time-synched signals, one from before mastering, one from after. Hopefully they are different. The presence of the difference does not necessarily impugn either signal. In fact, depending on the types of microphones used, and their placement, it is even possible, to sum the two channels (to mono) and lose information due to phase cancellations. This has nothing to do with subtracting an MP3 rip of of a LPCM file from the CD from which the rip was made and hearing the difference as that material removed by the compression process. The fact that there is a difference does not prove that any information was removed at all. All we have to do is move some of the information around in the time domain, and voila we have a difference with no information being removed. Or we can slightly emphasize or reduce some of the information at some points in the spectrum. Again, voila a big difference with a fairly trivial cause. Try this: take two copies of the same commercial CD. Invert the absolute phase of one and time sync and level match both. Now sum the outputs of the two CDs. What will you hear? If the two are exactly time sync'd (difficult) and level matched, you should hear nothing. How successful you are will depend on how well the two are matched. If one does this experiment, one knows that the stated outcome is not always as has been claimed. If you do this in the analog domain, you will not be able to get perfect time synchronization and there will always be some difference. This also proves nothing except that you can't do the same thing with a LPCM CD and an MP3 conversion of that LPCM CD and get the same null result because unlike two identical CDs, the rip is NO LONGER the same. Just because two signals are different does not mean that one has been irrevocably trashed, or even that one is necessarily more preferable than the other. The difference could be relatively slight, and perhaps so slight as to even be moot. So what, indeed. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 07:51:21 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message snip If one does this experiment, one knows that the stated outcome is not always as has been claimed. If you do this in the analog domain, you will not be able to get perfect time synchronization and there will always be some difference. I said it was difficult to sync two different signals in the time domain, didn't I? snip |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 5, 11:08 pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Well, there has got to be some reason for high-resolution 24/96 or 24/192 recordings sounding so much closer to the direct mike feed than does 16-bit/44.1Khz, so I took a stab at it. In one recent post in this group (RCA to TRS Cable), you seem to have no problem criticizing people who believe that cables have sounds yet you make similar claims about high-resolution audio being vastly better than standard CD audio. Published unbiased comparisons between CD and high-resolution audio have not demonstrated a statistically significant difference just as has been shown in unbiased cable tests. Why would you expect that your high-resolution claims to have much validity with audio professionals like Dick Pierce without unbiased evidence? |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:50:23 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Oct 5, 11:08 pm, Audio Empire wrote: Well, there has got to be some reason for high-resolution 24/96 or 24/192 recordings sounding so much closer to the direct mike feed than does 16-bit/44.1Khz, so I took a stab at it. In one recent post in this group (RCA to TRS Cable), you seem to have no problem criticizing people who believe that cables have sounds yet you make similar claims about high-resolution audio being vastly better than standard CD audio. I was wondering when someone was going to bring-up that very point. It might seem like a contradiction but believe me, it isn't. Like I have mentioned before. Wire is pretty simple at audio frequencies. The measurements are relatively simple and math involved is rudimentary and understandable to any first year algebra student. Wire is very well characterized and the math for the cable loss at audio frequencies predicts, very preceisly, what the effect of the wire's characteristics on the sound will be. That effect turns out to be totally negligible in the lengths commonly used for domestic audio systems. A length of cable is either a conductor, or a filter. and at Audio frequencies, it simply cannot be a filter of any consequence without outside components hung on it. The results of this built-in resistance, inductance and capacitance is simply too small to be heard and too small to even be measured, except with some very specialized equipment. If this is not the case, then the wire being used is simply not suited for ANYTHING because it is no longer a conductor. The DBT results merely confirm what the numbers tell us will be true Published unbiased comparisons between CD and high-resolution audio have not demonstrated a statistically significant difference just as has been shown in unbiased cable tests. Why would you expect that your high-resolution claims to have much validity with audio professionals like Dick Pierce without unbiased evidence? Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. Sure, the theory predicts that 44.1 KHz will yield an absolute bandwidth of 22.5 Khz and that 16-bit will produce a dynamic range of 96dB, but it doesn't predict the effects of other factors such as low-level distortion, or the effects of out-of passband noise and distortion effects (I know, for instance, that ultrasonic performance in an amplifier makes a difference to those frequencies that we do hear, that's why modern amps have such wide bandwidth, usually to 40 Khz or better). It is certainly reasonable to assume that there are advantages to increased bandwidth and dynamic range as well, and I certainly don't pretend to know where the point of diminishing, even vanishing, returns actually lies . It may be that after 20-bits there is no advantage and that after 88.2 Khz, there is no further improvement in sound, I don't know THAT as I've never tested an ADC with 20-bit resolution vs 24-bit and have never made a recording at 88.2 KHz. But getting back to these DBTs pitting high-res against standard res recordings. I have read a number of these and unfortunately, I have never read one explained in enough detail (not saying that such tests haven't been performed and published, just saying that I haven't found any) for me to ascertain several aspects of the tests that bother me. For instance, could it be that only certain types of music such as those kinds with dense instrumentation and wide dynamic range would show a significant enough improvement to be detected by a DBT listening panel in a statistically meaningful way, or would it be noticed on any type of program material, even the human voice? Are the participants in these tests the type of people who pick-up on things such as low-level resolution, ambience retrieval, or imaging cues? Or are they just normal people who don't care about such things and wouldn't necessarily notice them, even if they were there? I don't know, but I guess that, until I am invited to a rigorously set-up DBT of this type, I'll never know. I'll reiterate, I can hear the difference. This difference might seem subtle to many, but to me that difference "fleshes out" the performance in a way that CD quality never could. For instance, I've never thought that CD, in spite of having, for all practical purposes, almost infinite channel separation, could ever approach a well recorded LP when it comes to imaging (of course, the info has to be there before it can be reproduced). Even CDs of analog classics such as the Mercury Living Presence LPs simply don't image as well as the records do. But it's easy to show that the SACDs of these same masters DO image like the LPs. Another area where high-resolution digital beats CD in my experience, is in the area of ambience retrieval. It's there on LP, It's not there on CDs made from either that LP or CDs made from the same master. However I can transfer that same LP to 24/96 or 24/192 and there is no difference in ambience retrieval between the recording and the LP from which it was made. Finally, professional recording engineers and producers who I number among my acquaintances, people whose ears I trust, all tend to agree with me. To me this is compelling evidence that I am right about the worth of high-resolution audio. But my mind is open on this. If I were to participate in a non-biased test that was, in my opinion, correctly staged, with all the eyes dotted and all tees crossed, and I found that I could not tell my own high-resolution masters from CDs made from those masters, then I would be prepared to make a full retraction of my assertion on this point. Does that answer your question? |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. Speaks to what you don't know, and not to what is known and unknown. First off, there is no pure math that predicts human perception. The relevant math has to intersect with softer science than math or physics, namely physiology and biology. Sure, the theory predicts that 44.1 KHz will yield an absolute bandwidth of 22.5 Khz and that 16-bit will produce a dynamic range of 96dB, but it doesn't predict the effects of other factors such as low-level distortion, or the effects of out-of passband noise and distortion effects (I know, for instance, that ultrasonic performance in an amplifier makes a difference to those frequencies that we do hear, that's why modern amps have such wide bandwidth, usually to 40 Khz or better). If by effects you mean the math and physics of noise and distortion, then you are wrong. If by effects you mean the physiology and biology (some findings of which are relatively recent) that I mentioned above, then you are walking right into my parlor. Three words: Zwicker and Fastl. It is certainly reasonable to assume that there are advantages to increased bandwidth and dynamic range as well, Only if you ignore the math and physics of sound in the real world, and only if you ignore the math and physics that we lump together into "The law of diminishing returns" which of course is not just one law but a bunch of things that show up as consequences of other things that are scattered about. For example, the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head in a way that can be expressed mathematically. Consider what happens when you send a naturally and inherently degraded signal such as that from a recording of music that is made in the real world through various channels. Some of us know from practical experience (you seem to have avoided detecting this fact) that musical recordings have dynamic range that *always* seem to fall into the range of 65 to 85 dB for carefully made recordings in quiet spaces. If you do the math ( I have a spread sheet that does the legwork for me), you find that pushing a signal with a 85 dB dynamic range (about as good as it gets) through a channel with 96 dB dynamic range (16 bits) only degrades the signal by about 0.4dB or so as compared to pushing it through a channel with 144 dB dynamic range. Obviously, a 0.4 dB variation in a noise floor that is already 85 dB down will not be noticed. Thus, the law of diminishing returns explains why there is no audible advantage to the use of more than 16 bits in a distribution medium. AFAIK, I'm the only person in the world who has ever presented this information in an audio forum, even though it is simple math based on what is known about sums of uncorrelated signals from no later than the 1960s. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:41:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. Speaks to what you don't know, and not to what is known and unknown. I notice that you don't address any of my main points, but rather go off on tangents about the audibility of wide amplifier bandwidth, diminishing returns, and dynamic range. While you make some good points, you don't address any of the points I brought up about imaging, ambience retrieval, etc. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:56:21 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. First off, there is no pure math that predicts human perception. The relevant math has to intersect with softer science than math or physics, namely physiology and biology. There is, in fact, an entire field of study devoted to this, a field called "psychophysics," and it's been around for 150 years as an academic and scientific field of endeavor. A substantial field of study over that century and a half has been the extensive study of perceptual thresholds, both absolute and discriminatory. Skipping the vast amount of knowledge gained in this field (little of which, it sometimes seems, has seeped into the high-end audio realm), the simple fact is that both the absolute and discriminatory thresholds determinedare pretty solidly established and quite consistent from researcher to researcher and across large segments of the population. Yes, Dick, this is all well known in the audio community. Much of the claims made in high-end audio so radically contradict an enormous body of carefully and throughly researched data that these claim really do constitute "extraordinary claims." Some of it does, anyway. If your point is that there is, unfortunately, a lot of mythology (and the charlatanism that seems to invariably prey upon mythological belief systems) in high-end audio (cable sound, myrtle-wood blocks, speaker cable elevators, magic noise-sucking clocks, green pens for CDs, cable burn-in CDs, etc., etc., etc.) you are right. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Statements like: "I know, for instance, that ultrasonic performance in an amplifier makes a difference to those frequencies that we do hear, ..." Many successful, high-end amp designers certainly believe that. I know they do, because I've asked many them. (I'll see a lot of them at "Burning Amp" later this month). or the utterly unsubstantiated descriptions of alledgedly blind tests by even highly regarded recording engineers do NOT constitute "extraordinary evidence." Gee, I never said that any of these "highly regarded recording engineers" had participated in any blind tests, alleged or not. I merely said that their experience with high-resolution audio agreed with mine. If someone want to argu that these established bodies of knowledge are are wrong, I suggest starting with three tools: a shovel, a flashlight and a map of Gustav Theodor Fechner's grave: he started it all in 1860 with the publication of Elemente der Psychophysik. Dig 'im up and tell him he's wrong. Keep the shovel handy and the batteries fresh, because you're going to be digging many more holes to overturn an entire discipline. Nobody is trying to overturn an entire discipline, Dick, your melodramatics notwithstanding. People are certainly welcome to report back to us about how well that works out them And yet, again, I see that you, as well as Mr. Kruger have cherry-picked my argument for things to which you want to respond while neatly ignoring both the substance and tenor or my main points. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:41:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. Speaks to what you don't know, and not to what is known and unknown. I notice that you don't address any of my main points, but rather go off on tangents about the audibility of wide amplifier bandwidth, Never happened. diminishing returns, Like it or not, its the essence of the discussion. and dynamic range. So you are unaware of the relationship between dynamic range and resolution? Never read Shannon, I take it,. While you make some good points, you don't address any of the points I brought up about imaging, ambience retrieval, etc. I thought that everybody knows that if the channels are well matched and have adequate bandwidth and dynamic range, then imaging and ambience retrieval fall into place very nicely, thank you. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:28:01 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:41:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. Speaks to what you don't know, and not to what is known and unknown. I notice that you don't address any of my main points, but rather go off on tangents about the audibility of wide amplifier bandwidth, Never happened. diminishing returns, Like it or not, its the essence of the discussion. and dynamic range. So you are unaware of the relationship between dynamic range and resolution? Never read Shannon, I take it,. While you make some good points, you don't address any of the points I brought up about imaging, ambience retrieval, etc. I thought that everybody knows that if the channels are well matched and have adequate bandwidth and dynamic range, then imaging and ambience retrieval fall into place very nicely, thank you. I already explained the shortcomings I've noticed over the decades with CDs in those respects and the differences I've found between CD and high-resolution audio with regard to those things |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 7, 9:53=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
snip I already explained the shortcomings I've noticed over the decades with C= Ds in those respects and the differences I've found between CD and high-resolution audio with regard to those things So why haven't your observations been demonstrated using proper DBT techniques if the disadvantages and limitations are so glaring with CDs? |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:34:53 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:56:21 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote (in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message Tests which show little correlation between the claims of high-resolution audio supporters and the statistical results when compared to regular CD resolution is suspect in my mind because as far as I know, there is no math that PREDICTS such an outcome. First off, there is no pure math that predicts human perception. The relevant math has to intersect with softer science than math or physics, namely physiology and biology. There is, in fact, an entire field of study devoted to this, a field called "psychophysics," and it's been around for 150 years as an academic and scientific field of endeavor. A substantial field of study over that century and a half has been the extensive study of perceptual thresholds, both absolute and discriminatory. Skipping the vast amount of knowledge gained in this field (little of which, it sometimes seems, has seeped into the high-end audio realm), the simple fact is that both the absolute and discriminatory thresholds determinedare pretty solidly established and quite consistent from researcher to researcher and across large segments of the population. Yes, Dick, this is all well known in the audio community. Really? REALLY? Then explain the proliferation of expensive cables, magic bricks, wavey wood stands conrolling EMI, magic audio fluid, green CD pens. Well, it's because of the existence of "Psychoacoustics" that psychoacoustic bibble-babble can exist, I guess. Nobody said that there aren't crackpots and charlatans who take advantage of crackpots in this hobby. Much of the claims made in high-end audio so radically contradict an enormous body of carefully and throughly researched data that these claim really do constitute "extraordinary claims." Some of it does, anyway. If your point is that there is, unfortunately, a lot of mythology (and the charlatanism that seems to invariably prey upon mythological belief systems) in high-end audio (cable sound, myrtle-wood blocks, speaker cable elevators, magic noise-sucking clocks, green pens for CDs, cable burn-in CDs, etc., etc., etc.) you are right. Hold it! didn't you JUST say, in regards to the field of psychophysis: "this is all well known in the audio community." It is well known. I refer you to the above paragraph: Well, it's because of the existence of "Psychoacoustics" that psychoacoustic bibble-babble can exist, I guess. Nobody said that there aren't crackpots and charlatans who take advantage of crackpots in this hobby. Doesn't mean that everybody believes this stuff, though. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Statements like: "I know, for instance, that ultrasonic performance in an amplifier makes a difference to those frequencies that we do hear, ..." Many successful, high-end amp designers certainly believe that. I know they do, because I've asked many them. And they know this HOW? The answer THEY know it becasue someone else who "knew it" told them, and that someone else heard it from someone who "kenw it" and on and on and on. And yet, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM EVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLT TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT. And you know this, how? And if they DIDN'T know it, or realized they didn't know it, of course, they'd tell you that, too, right? (I'll see a lot of them at "Burning Amp" later this month). This is offered as a proof of what? Proof? Who said anything about proof? That was an aside. or the utterly unsubstantiated descriptions of alledgedly blind tests by even highly regarded recording engineers do NOT constitute "extraordinary evidence." Gee, I never said that any of these "highly regarded recording engineers" had participated in any blind tests, alleged or not. Never said you did, I was merely taking examples from the entire thread. I merely said that their experience with high-resolution audio agreed with mine. And did they conduct reliable test to the same degree of rigor you did? If so, then, I hate to say, the "experience" is merely anecdotal. It's good enough - at least for me and many others in the field. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:05:35 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:34:53 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: Many successful, high-end amp designers certainly believe that. I know they do, because I've asked many them. And they know this HOW? The answer THEY know it becasue someone else who "knew it" told them, and that someone else heard it from someone who "kenw it" and on and on and on. And yet, not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM EVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLT TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT. And you know this, how? How does one offer evidence of that which doesn't exist? The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather for an explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al, NEVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT? These "high-end amp designers and, in the current context, YOU have yet to bring ANY reliable data gained through any repeatable, falsifiable, valid experimentation. You have held forth opinions, "experience", what others "know," and and "tests" which a number of others have pointed out are seriously flawed. Saying "tests show" without ever once enumerating such tests, saying "they know" without ever once suggesting how they know says nothing other than the fact that you are unwilling to support your opinion with anything other than more opinion. As I pointed out before, your opinion , as such, is utterly sacrosanct to you, and I have no intention at all in stepping in that realm. But so far, it's only opinion, despite your repeated attempts to elevate to some broader universal applicability. And for that you need real data learned through experiment on falsifiable hypotheses that is repeatable by others. Until then your facts are nothing more than opinions stated as facts They are certainly opinions, and as far as I'm concerned they are "facts". The characteristics in high-resolution recordings are there and easily heard. What's more they are consistent and repeatable, and my experience with these characteristics, coupled with that of others who are in the commercial recording business, lend weight to those opinions because I believe in that old saying "If you want bread, see a baker". On the other side of the fence, we have people like you and Mr. Kruger who seem to be content to take the word of more-or-less anonymous, but published DBTs that support your assertion that there is no difference. Never once I have seen either of you assert that YOU have partaken of these tests (and if I have misread that, I humbly apologize), known that they were properly set-up and conducted, or that you have personal experience that tells you that there is no difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192. And that's fine. If you are content to take the word of others on this or any audio-related topic, it's certainly your privilege, But I choose not to do that. The reason? I'm not at all convinced that most people listen critically enough to hear subtleties such as those that have been mentioned in this thread - and it's not a question of people's hearing ability, it's their hearing acumen that concerns me. There is a such thing as a "golden ear". I know the term is thrown around rather gratuitously and has, in some quarters, lost much, if not all of its meaning, BUT, to me, it refers to people who have trained themselves, not just to hear music, but rather to listen to it, especially for those characteristics that differentiate live music from reproduced music. These people easily hear the difference between CD quality and high-resolution audio. A DBT test made of such people, people who's ears I know and respect, who told me that it was statistically impossible for THEM them to hear the difference between the various sample rates and bit depths, that would carry no small amount of weight with me. Also, like I said before, if I were ever privy to a correctly set-up and executed DBT of this type, and couldn't, in any statistically meaningful way, tell my own 24/192 recordings from 16/44.1 copies of those recordings, then I would be convinced, and you'd never hear me even mention high-resolution digital recording again. Like I also said in an earlier post, Every time that *I* have been influenced by a DBT, on any audio-related subject, it is because I had taken part in such a test. I have participated in, as a listener, numerous cable and interconnect DBTs, and I am convinced that there is no difference (just as the maths predict), regardless of price and configuration. I have participated in amplifier listening tests and I know that most modern amps sound much more alike than many audio types would like to believe, and that again, price is no longer necessarily the demarcation between good sounding and mediocre sounding amplifiers. I have also attended DBT tests with DACS and I know that they all sound different, and that the best ones (such as the DCS Puccini, or the MSB Platinum DAC IV) are possibly worth their seemingly exorbitant price tags (I say possibly because I'm not all that convinced that any assembled collection of commercially available parts can justify such price tags based on manufacturing costs alone). They sound that much better than lesser DACs. Perhaps like amplifiers, the differences between DACs vs cost will diminish over time, but right now there is a substantial gap between the audible performance of expensive DACs and more reasonably priced ones. I have digressed, slightly, but my main point is that any DBT that I quote as an authority or as evidence of any assertion that I make here, is one in which I have personally participated. Another point that I would like to make, is that many of the people who post here citing only "facts" like published DBT results as their evidence and never personal experience or opinion, are also quick to denigrate anyone else's DBT experience IF that experience contradicts their own preconceived conclusions on any subjects. This, of course, speaks volumes about their own objectivity in these matters and shows many of these people to be not as unbiased as they would like to have others believe that they are. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather for an explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al, NEVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT? None of these gentlemen are exactly what you'd call a shrinking violet, and given all the unreliable experiments of theirs that they have publicized, there's no doubt in my mind that they'd publicize any reliable experiment that they've done, if it had a positive outcome. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 11, 3:31=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Another point that I would like to make, is that many of the people who p= ost here citing only "facts" like published DBT results as their evidence and never personal experience or opinion, are also quick to denigrate anyone else's DBT experience IF that experience contradicts their own preconceiv= ed conclusions on any subjects. You haven't provided any "DBT results" to denigrate. You've only provided claims which, upon examination, turn out not to be double blind at all. In response, or so it seems to me, you are merely denigrating those who who point this rather obvious fact out to you. Provide the evidence, actual evidence, if you have any please. I've read this thread quite carefully and have found exactly none that comes from you. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:04:36 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ): On Oct 11, 3:31=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: Another point that I would like to make, is that many of the people who p= ost here citing only "facts" like published DBT results as their evidence and never personal experience or opinion, are also quick to denigrate anyone else's DBT experience IF that experience contradicts their own preconceiv= ed conclusions on any subjects. You haven't provided any "DBT results" to denigrate. Pay attention. I wasn't talking about this thread with that comment. I was talking about other threads on other subjects where some people's DBT results were scoffed at by the so-called "strict objectivists" on this forum simply because the results didn't jibe with their pre-conceived conclusions. My point was that any time I quote the results of a DBT, it's one in which I've participated, not something I've read in the AES Journal. You've only provided claims which, upon examination, turn out not to be double blind at all. I never said that they were. In fact, I've mentioned several times that I have not participated in any DBTs on this subject, and I don't put a lot of credence in the results of the ones that I have read about. In response, or so it seems to me, you are merely denigrating those who who point this rather obvious fact out to you. No one has "pointed out " anything. Again, you don't seem to understand the gist of this thread. Provide the evidence, actual evidence, if you have any please. I've read this thread quite carefully and have found exactly none that comes from you. If you don't know that I've not claimed any DBT experience wrt high-resolution audio vs 16/44.1, then obviously, you have NOT read this thread very carefully. And, what do you have from the other side of this argument other than claims about results of DBTs to which my main critics and antagonists were not personally privy? |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:04:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather for an explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al, NEVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT? None of these gentlemen are exactly what you'd call a shrinking violet, and given all the unreliable experiments of theirs that they have publicized, there's no doubt in my mind that they'd publicize any reliable experiment that they've done, if it had a positive outcome. Well, that's an opinion, certainly, but hardly proof of any assertion about what any of the aforementioned gentlemen have or have not done. IOW, you can't prove that they HAVEN'T tried this type of experimentation based on their silence. That's trying to prove a negative, like there was no Atlantis in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Not finding it is no proof that it was never there, but finding it WOULD prove that it was. Right? |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:04:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather for an explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al, NEVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT? None of these gentlemen are exactly what you'd call a shrinking violet, And that's a fact. and given all the unreliable experiments of theirs that they have publicized, And that's a fact. there's no doubt in my mind that they'd publicize any reliable experiment that they've done, if it had a positive outcome. That's my opinion based on at least two established relevant significant facts. I'd even bet a little money on that. ;-) Well, that's an opinion, certainly, but hardly proof of any assertion about what any of the aforementioned gentlemen have or have not done. IOW, you can't prove that they HAVEN'T tried this type of experimentation based on their silence. Well, what have we here but dueling speculations? I've even got a dog in this fight because I've been publicly belittled by name by some of the above. That's trying to prove a negative, like there was no Atlantis in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Not finding it is no proof that it was never there, but finding it WOULD prove that it was. Right? This highly specualtive and unecessarily contentious portion of the discussion is IMO a waste of bandwidth and moderator time. Of course I have no proof, just a long history (in some cases decades) of observing their behavior and state of mind. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:50:11 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:04:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather for an explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al, NEVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT? None of these gentlemen are exactly what you'd call a shrinking violet, And that's a fact. and given all the unreliable experiments of theirs that they have publicized, And that's a fact. there's no doubt in my mind that they'd publicize any reliable experiment that they've done, if it had a positive outcome. That's my opinion based on at least two established relevant significant facts. I'd even bet a little money on that. ;-) Well, that's an opinion, certainly, but hardly proof of any assertion about what any of the aforementioned gentlemen have or have not done. IOW, you can't prove that they HAVEN'T tried this type of experimentation based on their silence. Well, what have we here but dueling speculations? I've even got a dog in this fight because I've been publicly belittled by name by some of the above. That's trying to prove a negative, like there was no Atlantis in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Not finding it is no proof that it was never there, but finding it WOULD prove that it was. Right? This highly specualtive and unecessarily contentious portion of the discussion is IMO a waste of bandwidth and moderator time. Of course I have no proof, just a long history (in some cases decades) of observing their behavior and state of mind. It was mentioned merely as an example of how one cannot prove a negative (like your assertion that the aforementioned designers have never tried any valid experiments relating to ultrasonic bandwidth in amplifiers). You'd be surprised how many people don't understand that concept. The analogy about finding or not finding Atlantis usually makes that clear to most people. And I don't see how it's contentious, it certainly wasn't meant to be. It's just an analogy. OTOH, I have no way of knowing that you have a long and (according to you) contentious history with some of these "high-end design luminaries". And of course, personal history with somebody will give one an insight into how they think and what kind of person they are. So, I certainly understand where you are coming from. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Compression vs High-Res Audio
On Oct 11, 6:31=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather fo= r an explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al, = =A0NEVER SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT? Are we supposed to be impressed with this list of names? Building high- quality amplifiers these days is not very difficult. Again, of course, without proper unbiased evaluation, all sorts of claims are likely to be made about their designs. On the other side of the fence, we have people like you and Mr. Kruger wh= o seem to be content to take the word of more-or-less anonymous, but publis= hed DBTs that support your assertion that there is no difference. Never once = I have seen either of you assert that YOU have partaken of these tests (and= if I have misread that, I humbly apologize), known that they were properly set-up and conducted, or that you have personal experience that tells you that there is no difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192. You are misconstruing things here. Arnie et al are not claiming there is no perceptual difference. They are merely asking for properly documented evidence that what you claim has a basis in fact. And that's fine. If you are content to take the word of others on this or any audio-related topic, it's certainly your privilege, But I choose not to d= o that. The reason? I'm not at all convinced that most people listen critic= ally enough to hear subtleties such as those that have been mentioned in this thread - and it's not a question of people's hearing ability, it's their hearing acumen that concerns me. There is a such thing as a "golden ear". OK, provide evidence that such an individual exists who can reliably distinguish between CD and high-resolution audio. You seem unimpressed by publications from organizations like the AES that report carefully designed studies but such is the gold standard for credibility. I know the term is thrown around rather gratuitously and has, in some quart= ers, lost much, if not all of its meaning, BUT, to me, it refers to people who have trained themselves, not just to hear music, but rather to listen to = it, especially for those characteristics that differentiate live music from reproduced music. These people easily hear the difference between CD qual= ity and high-resolution audio. A DBT test made of such people, people who's e= ars I know and respect, who told me that it was statistically impossible for = THEM them to hear the difference between the various sample rates and bit dept= hs, that would carry no small amount of weight with me. What exactly are you trying to say here. If you can produce a group of golden ears that can demonstrate such abilities, please provide a suitable testing environment for them and submit the results to the AES. Arguing with skeptics in this news group will simply result in more demands for good evidence. Also, like I said before, if I were ever privy to a correctly set-up and executed DBT of this type,= and couldn't, in any statistically meaningful way, tell my own 24/192 recordi= ngs from 16/44.1 copies of those recordings, then I would be convinced, and y= ou'd never hear me even mention high-resolution digital recording again. Again, the onus is on you to do this. The reliable evidence so far indicates that HD audio does not provide any benefits over CD audio. Like I also said in an earlier post, Every time that *I* have been influe= nced by a DBT, on any audio-related subject, it is because I had taken part in such a test. I have participated in, as a listener, numerous cable and interconnect DBTs, and I am convinced that there is no difference (just a= s the maths predict), regardless of price and configuration. I have participated in amplifier listening tests and I know that most modern amp= s sound much more alike than many audio types would like to believe, and th= at again, price is no longer necessarily the demarcation between good soundi= ng and mediocre sounding amplifiers. I have also attended DBT tests with DAC= S and I know that they all sound different, and that the best ones (such as= the DCS Puccini, or the MSB Platinum DAC IV) are possibly worth their seeming= ly exorbitant price tags (I say possibly because I'm not all that convinced = that any assembled collection of commercially available parts can justify such price tags based on manufacturing costs alone). They sound that much bett= er than lesser DACs. Perhaps like amplifiers, the differences between DACs v= s cost will diminish over time, but right now there is a substantial gap between the audible performance of expensive DACs and more reasonably pri= ced ones. I have digressed, slightly, but my main point is that any DBT that = I quote as an authority or as evidence of any assertion that I make here, i= s one in which I have personally participated. Please cite a reputable publication that supports your claims. Again, these are claims without evidence. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
real time audio level compression for computer audio output | Tech | |||
fa yamaha high compression driver with horn $3 | Marketplace | |||
Multiband Compression for preserving high end frequencies? | Pro Audio | |||
Audio compression | Pro Audio | |||
Audio Compression | Tech |