This I believe -

[mmerrill99]

This I believe

 

High-end audio defines any audio component that performs with errors in distortion, noise and frequency response which are inaudible.

 

For this purpose, as follows:

 

• Distortions (individual harmonic, alias, modulation, & crosstalk) all below –90 dBFS with their total sum below –80 dBFS (0.01%)

• All noises below –110 dB with total sum below –100 dBFS

• All jitters below –110 dB with total sum below -100 dBFS

• All over a linear fr (20Hz – 19 kHz within +/- 0.1 dB)

 

Obviously, I am presumptuous and believe that current measurement processes and instruments can measure all things that determine sound quality (for audio electronics; not transducers).

 

I freely acknowledge the possibility that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of) may well alter & impact hearing in ways that the above criteria can’t explain but, in the absence of science, or even 1 measly controlled listening proof, that refutes the limits, I am certainly not in a position to question it. Not when the overwhelming evidence supports that there is no demonstrated audible difference that isn’t measurable.

 

Could there come a time when this could change? Sure, but that's more a philosophical question which could be debated till the cows come home.

 

I can give you evidence of 1 "measly controlled listening proof" from this thread.

This shows a number of positive ABX results which differentiate between a recording done by Arny Kreuger (he of ABX fame) of jangling keys done in high-res & down-converted to red book. These files when compared < 20KHz, nulled to a level that esldude considered would be inaudible (-100dB I believe). esldude had a problem with the original resampler ArnyK used Cooledit & felt that resampling artefacts were what was being heard so a modern resampler was used (resample in Audition CC with TPDF dither from 24/96 6o 16/44.) & these positive ABX results also resulted

 

This post & a few previous posts will give you a read into this along with the results below:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report

foobar2000 v1.3.2

2014/07/24 20:27:41

 

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling amir-converted 4416 2496.wav

File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

 

20:27:41 : Test started.

20:28:07 : 00/01 100.0%

20:28:25 : 00/02 100.0%

20:28:55 : 01/03 87.5%

20:29:02 : 02/04 68.8%

20:29:12 : 03/05 50.0%

20:29:20 : 04/06 34.4%

20:29:27 : 05/07 22.7%

20:29:36 : 06/08 14.5%

20:29:44 : 07/09 9.0%

20:29:55 : 08/10 5.5%

20:30:00 : 09/11 3.3%

20:30:07 : 10/12 1.9%

20:30:16 : 11/13 1.1%

20:30:22 : 12/14 0.6%

20:30:29 : 13/15 0.4%

20:30:36 : 14/16 0.2%

20:30:41 : 15/17 0.1%

20:30:53 : 16/18 0.1%

20:31:03 : 17/19 0.0%

20:31:07 : Test finished.

 

----------

Total: 17/19 (0.0%)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

You mean, like when my wife gets home? Talk about a governing body…

 

Almost enough to convince a person that Astrology is effective - with heavenly bodies ruling our destiny...

 

Very funny Paul, I cant take the smile off my face !

Since what you said about heavenly bodies is undeniable I must be an astrologist at heart...or at least some part of my anatomy ;-)

[Pneumonic]

Thanks, mmerrill99. When I have some extended time I will delve into that.

 

EDIT. I started reading but it's rather lengthy. Can you tell me in advance of reading it, does it provide proofs that counter my previously listed specs for inaudibility? If so, can you direct me to that specific page please and thanks.

[mmerrill99]

Thanks, mmerrill99. When I have some extended time I will delve into that.

 

EDIT. I started reading but it's rather lengthy. Can you tell me in advance of reading it, does it provide proofs that counter my previously listed specs for inaudibility? If so, can you direct me to that specific page please and thanks.

 

I already gave the specific link to the post in my last reply to save you having to read through the whole thread & also tried to fill in the background of the test so you could pick up what was being talked about in that linked post. That post showed positive ABX results which are considered the GOLD STANDARD by many for proving audible differences. Do you dispute or otherwise reject positive ABX results?

 

I'm not sure that your EXACT figures are met -110dB THD, noise & jitter - you would have to ask esldude - he did the null test between the files. This is what he said here:

Also the Arny Jangling Keys seem not to have used a very good SRC process. Using his original full bandwidth file and the doing the conversion in Audacity resulted in a much nicer null between the files. Everything lines up, no gain change needed, just invert and null out with much better results.

 

esldude says just a couple of posts above & there's some mention of another null test of ArnyK's files's giving -110dB or so "When I said Arny's file nulled better it was the -100db or so null I was referring to"

 

Edit: So what we see in those posts are the two conditions met that you required for " 1 measly listening proof"

- repeated controlled, blind test that shows differences are audible

- a null test between the files that nulls down to -100 or possibly -110dB

 

Another EDIT: I see that the figures you now quote have changed since an almost identical earlier post of yours that gave figures which defined the limits of audibility - with these earlier figures the null is certainly within these limits & according to you therefore inaudible

There are numerous references to the finite hearing ability of humans insofar as hearing limits. Conservatively, the consensus being:

 

• Frequency response 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.1dB

• Total harmonic distortion below – 85dB (0.01%) with all of the individual (crosstalk, modulation, alias, IMD) component spectra’s below -90dB.

• Total noise/jitter below -100dB with all of the individual noise/jitter components below -105dB.

 

Obviously I am presumptuous and believe that current measurement processes and instruments can measure all things that determine sound quality (in electronics anyhow).

 

I freely acknowledge the "possibility" that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of) may well alter & impact hearing in ways that the above criteria can’t yet explain however, in the absence of science that refutes the limits noted above, I am certainly not in a position to question it. Besides, my personal subjective, including proper ABX testing *, experiences, dating back to yesteryear, correlate precisely with the above hearing limits as does exhaustive objective null and measurement testing that I have done.

[Allan F]

Indeed. Very presumptuous.

 

+ 1

 

One might even say consummately presumptuous, especially in view of the following.

 

I freely acknowledge the possibility that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of)...

[mmerrill99]

I'm sure most here understand the ABX results I posted but just in case - what the results show is a that the audible differentiation between a 24/96 file & it's down-sampled 16/44 version is statistically, not chance (17/19 correct). This was just the last test in a series of such positive ABX results for these files.

 

At the same time esldude & others did null tests on these files that showed about -100dB null for all frequencies below 20KHz - a figure well below Pneumonic's stated consensus limits of hearing ability.

 

These are the two conditions that Pneumonic states he needs:

- measured levels below the limits of audibility &

- a number of controlled listening tests that show audibility

 

Is this where he "freely acknowledge the possibility that components and elements of psychoacoustics (a study of science I have only cursory knowledge of) may well alter & impact hearing in ways that the above criteria can’t explain"

 

[Paul R]

Gang - in this thread, please discuss the ideas, not the people.

 

Not that anyone is crossing any lines or anything, just a gentle reminder!

[livelistenlearn]

It wasn't in a CA meeting but AA meeting.....

 

 

no helmet ^.

so, missed that meeting as well.

always wear a helmet*. JIC one falls off mtb and/or high hobby horse.

 

nvm.

consulted crystal balls.

one is showing a possible future…

 

…looks suspiciously like someplace we have been before.

apparently, comp audiophilia is much into déjà vu and/or nostalgia.

 

cheers.

 

* alternatively: bring squirrel.

[Pneumonic]

mmerrill99. To better grasp the testing methodology I have started reading the thread you linked. I am some 30 or so pages in and I have some concerns about the implementation of the test which I doubt would pass a peer review.

 

The primary tester admits he has issues with the software being used yet still takes the test using it, the test files used seem many and of uncertain provenance. I also wonder how the nulling results were attained not to mention if results in what is an online experiment can be trusted.

 

Perhaps those ?'s will be answered in an upcoming chapter(s) but, right now, I am not thinking it wise to change any of my listed hearing limit specs.

[mmerrill99]

mmerrill99. To better grasp the testing methodology I have started reading the thread you linked. I am some 30 or so pages in and I have some concerns about the implementation of the test which I doubt would pass a peer review.

 

The primary tester admits he has issues with the software being used yet still takes the test using it, the test files used seem many and of uncertain provenance. I also wonder how the nulling results were attained not to mention if results in what is an online experiment can be trusted.

 

Perhaps those ?'s will be answered in an upcoming chapter(s) but, right now, I am not thinking it wise to change any of my listed hearing limit specs.

Well, that thread takes many twists & turns (as would be expected in such a positive ABX result)

Just to answer some of your questions:

- The provenance of the files are not in question - the recording of jangling keys was done by Arny Kreuger @24/96 & this then downsampled to 16/44 - these are the two files used in the ABX test. These two files stood for 14 years as a challenge to people who maintained that high-res was audibly different to red-book

 

- Unfortunately, in that thread, mention is also made of Scott's files which are music files & different to ArnyK's files but does confuse matters

 

- "I also wonder how the nulling results were attained..." Null testing & how it was done is detailed in the links I gave. ArnyK seems to have deleted the files from the dropbox link he provided to these files but esldude probably still has them if you want to run your own null tests

- "not to mention if results in what is an online experiment can be trusted." I'm not sure what you are getting at here but I presume you trust in ABX results & are not saying that these positive ABX results were achieved by gaming the system, as esldude maintained?

[Pneumonic]

mmerrill99. I am another 10 pages in and I see that other sets of test files are also being used. I gotta wonder though, for the purposes of differentiating redbook from hi-res, I wonder why those who did the test don't simply make 2 parallel/simultaneous recordings (one done at 16/44 the other 24/XX) that differ only in their bit depths/sampling rates and do the comparison without having to involve uncontrolled variables (ie dithering/SRC, etc) such as they have done? I'd also like to see a real ABX switchbox used instead of this suspect software plugin. Furthermore, I haven't the foggiest idea about the validity of the person(s) doing the test or if their posted numbers can be trusted. Perhaps these issues have ironed themselves later on in the thread but, for now ......

[mmerrill99]

mmerrill99. I am another 10 pages in and I see that other sets of test files are also being used. I gotta wonder though, for the purposes of differentiating redbook from hi-res, I wonder why those who did the test don't simply make 2 parallel/simultaneous recordings (one done at 16/44 the other 24/XX) that differ only in their bit depths/sampling rates and do the comparison without having to involve uncontrolled variables (ie dithering/SRC, etc) such as they have done?

You mean split one mic feed into two data lines for recording at different sample rates? Yes, I guess this may work - I haven't thought much about that approach but one of the downsides is addressed in this method - by having a native 24/96 audio file & an equivalent down-sampled 16/44 in a 24/96 container file does two things - it keeps the file sample rates relatively blind during playback & it ensures that the DAC uses the same filters, etc for both sample rates.

I'd also like to see a real ABX switchbox used instead of this suspect software plugin.

I don;t know what you think is suspect about Foobar's ABX plugin - many at Hydrogen Audio would vehemently disagree with you about this

Furthermore, I haven't the foggiest idea about the validity of the person(s) doing the test or if their posted numbers can be trusted. Perhaps these issues have ironed themselves later on in the thread but, for now ......

Well. regarding the posted numbers - these are produced by the ABX plugin itself so it requires a bit of effort to cheat. Furthermore, Amir, the poster of the positive ABX results is Amir Majidimehr once corporate Vice President in Microsoft who "Ran the digital media division (~1000 employees) which included software development, marketing and business development for the entire suite of audio, video and digital imaging for Microsoft and consumer electronic devices."

[Pneumonic]

mmerrill99. I got through another 20 or so pages and don't see anyway this is a controlled enough proof to convince me to alter my spec limit criteria.

 

As far as the redbook/hi res differentiation .... that thread really seems more like a battle of egos than a proof of anything.

 

Amri should arrange for a similar test with full documentation and independent review.

 

Cheers

[mmerrill99]

mmerrill99. I got through another 20 or so pages and don't see anyway this is a controlled enough proof to convince me to alter my spec limit criteria.

In your opinion, what exactly is not controlled enough that would make you doubt the positive ABX results returned?

 

As far as the redbook/hi res differentiation .... that thread really seems more like a battle of egos than a proof of anything.

 

Amri should arrange for a similar test with full documentation and independent review.

 

Cheers

Aren't those threads always a battle of egos? Just mention DBTs, CD VS Hig-res, bits are bits, cable sound, etc - they all end up the same way but that particular thread has has positive ABX results which raises it above the usual dross debates.

I'm interested in what exactly your problem is with those positive ABX results.

[JSWolf]

This I believe - DSD is the best format for future recordings and playback.

 

While hi-res PCM at 24/192K is currently considered the best format for recording by many, the DSD recordings I have heard are literally breathtaking. Even transcoded Redbook PCM, played back as dual rate DSD sounds so much better to me that I simply revel in listening to it. One of my favorite all-time albums, "Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of the War of the Worlds" is so much better in DSD that it is hard to describe. Like listening to vinyl back in the 70s.

 

I agree that War of the Words" is that much better than the 16-bit CD version. There is just more to the music. You get lost in it. It just had more feeling to it.

[tmtomh]

The fact that Answer #1 is dominating this poll gives me faith in these forums!

[wgscott]

The fact that Answer #1 is dominating this poll gives me faith in these forums!

 

Until you realize that "not expensive" < $50,000 for many here.

[tmtomh]

Until you realize that "not expensive" < $50,000 for many here.

Fine, be that way. :-)

[Teresa]

Until you realize that "not expensive" < $50,000 for many here.

 

I didn't know we had that many filthy rich people here, I suspected there were a few but not enough to skew the results.

 

Since I also voted "Great audiophile sound does not have to be expensive" I guess I must now clarify what I mean. IMHO a complete great sounding audiophile system can be had for as little as 2K if one shops around and buys used, demo, clearance, on sale, etc. I consider a budget audiophile component to be priced between say $200 and $1,000. I prefer to purchase components for $500 or less. Maybe others will chime in on what they mean by great inexpensive audiophile sound.

[Sam Lord]

This I believe, you can build an inexpensive system that *anyone* should consider "high-end" for around $1100. It won't have great bass, but deep enough and accurate enough to satisfy. How about an Auralic Mini with Audioengine A5s?

 

Paul, this is a great poll, coherent and complete. I agreed with 3 of the statements: cables make a big difference, $1500 systems sounding very good, and live sound being the gold standard.

 

I would have checked the one about "great sound" expense, but I separate "very good" from "great." The are a several reasons, but the biggest is that great sound requires great bass, and nobody has yet made great bass inexpensively. Great inexpensive amplification came with Hypex, and I think the rest is in generally in place. Great cables cost a lot of money, but you can have a great *system* with merely *good* cables like Mogami, Belden, or Canare. Or a great system can be had with merely good preamplification, as another example.

 

I assume "live sound" meant acoustic recording without overdubs or effects processing.

 

Another important thing: I assumed that the price didn't include a player. Since most people have computers or smartphones or tablets, 16/44 or perhaps hi-res music in digital form can be easily delivered to a modern playback system today.

 

Oh, I should have mentioned headphones. Those systems can be great for <$2k. But speakers are so much more social and do provide a more immersive experience.

[Paul R]

This I believe, you can build an inexpensive system that *anyone* should consider "high-end" for around $1100. It won't have great bass, but deep enough and accurate enough to satisfy. How about an Auralic Mini with Audioengine A5s?

 

Paul, this is a great poll, coherent and complete. I agreed with 3 of the statements: cables make a big difference, $1500 systems sounding very good, and live sound being the gold standard.

 

I would have checked the one about "great sound" expense, but I separate "very good" from "great." The are a several reasons, but the biggest is that great sound requires great bass, and nobody has yet made great bass inexpensively. Great inexpensive amplification came with Hypex, and I think the rest is in generally in place. Great cables cost a lot of money, but you can have a great *system* with merely *good* cables like Mogami, Belden, or Canare. Or a great system can be had with merely good preamplification, as another example.

 

I assume "live sound" meant acoustic recording without overdubs or effects processing.

 

Another important thing: I assumed that the price didn't include a player. Since most people have computers or smartphones or tablets, 16/44 or perhaps hi-res music in digital form can be easily delivered to a modern playback system today.

 

Oh, I should have mentioned headphones. Those systems can be great for <$2k. But speakers are so much more social and do provide a more immersive experience.

 

Thanks for the kind words Sam - I certainly agree with most of your thinking here. I am afraid I had not thought through "live recordings" quite as well as you did. I was thinking of the Mercury Living Presence recordings of some of my favorite works when I wrote that, but your way of defining it makes much more sense.

 

-Paul