AES: High Resolution Audio Is Now Audible?

[The Computer Audiophile]

What do you guys think? Does this paper state that high resolution audio is now deemed audible by the AES?

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

 

http://files.computeraudiophile.com/2016/0629/AES-Paper-18296.pdf

[mansr]

Without taking a side, I'd like to point out that this is a meta-analysis. There's nothing new here.

[alfe]

Without taking a side, I'd like to point out that this is a meta-analysis. There's nothing new here.

 

What is new is that they don't know:)

[firedog]

Without taking a side, I'd like to point out that this is a meta-analysis. There's nothing new here.

 

No new data. New analysis. Meta-analyis is used in many fields to discover "new" things that weren't apparent in individual studies.

[firedog]

What do you guys think? Does this paper state that high resolution audio is now deemed audible by the AES?

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

 

It means this meta analysis of 80 studies says that the meta-data analysis indicates hi-res is audible. It won't solve the argument. It will be a comeback on forums when someone says that it's never been shown that humans can hear a difference between hi-res and Redbook.

[firedog]

paper can be found at

 

AES E-Library » A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

 

free download

 

Eighteen published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis that combined over 400 participants in more than 12,500 trials. Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches.

 

and: http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/research_finds_audible_differences_with_high-resolution_audio

 

“Our study finds high-resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content. Trained listeners could distinguish between the two formats around sixty percent of the time.”

[The Computer Audiophile]

Without taking a side, I'd like to point out that this is a meta-analysis. There's nothing new here.

The conclusions are new and shouldn't be brushed aside.

[The Computer Audiophile]

paper can be found at

 

AES E-Library » A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

 

free download

That's the same paper linked to in my post correct?

[mansr]

The conclusions are new and shouldn't be brushed aside.

With no new data any new conclusions can only be reinterpretations of old data. If they differ from the original conclusions, one of them must be wrong. It is not news that studies on this topic have gone both ways.

 

The matter is far from settled, and nobody's beliefs will be swayed by this. As such, it's not terribly interesting.

[esldude]

What do you guys think? Does this paper state that high resolution audio is now deemed audible by the AES?

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

 

First sentence of first paragraph in the conclusion:

The meta-analysis herein was focused on discrimination

studies concerning high resolution audio. Overall, there

was a small but statistically significant ability to discrimi-

nate between standard quality audio (44.1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit)

and high resolution audio (beyond standard quality).

 

First sentence of the second paragraph in the conclusion:

Several important practical aspects of high resolution

audio perception could neither be confirmed nor denied.

 

So saying the AES accepts high res as audible is over-reach (or click bait?).

 

Some of the tests used in the meta-analysis I would have kicked out (both those saying high res is audible and those saying it is not). I find it especially egregious they used Kunchur's tests. Same for Meyer-Moran. I also believe using bone conduction misguided for the purpose of this meta-analysis.

 

Summary of their conclusion:

 

In summary, these results imply that, though the effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect, the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain is affected by operating beyond conventional consumer oriented levels. Furthermore, though the causes are still unknown, this perceived effect can be confirmed with a variety of statistical approaches and it can be greatly improved through training.

 

This summary doesn't support the idea high res is highly audible, night and day better or other hyperbole heaped upon it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

With no new data any new conclusions can only be reinterpretations of old data. If they differ from the original conclusions, one of them must be wrong. It is not news that studies on this topic have gone both ways.

 

The matter is far from settled, and nobody's beliefs will be swayed by this. As such, it's not terribly interesting.

Said like only a true hard core objectivist with his position firmly dug in the sand.

 

i suggest you read it and help us out. I asked the question because I'd like people to comment rather than blow it off.

[Jud]

With no new data any new conclusions can only be reinterpretations of old data. If they differ from the original conclusions, one of them must be wrong.

 

I don't know a tremendous amount about statistics, but it's my impression that multiple smaller studies showing an effect close to statistical significance may be combined in a meta-analysis that does show a small statistically significant effect. If this occurs it is also my impression that it doesn't mean the smaller studies were wrong.

[mansr]

I don't know a tremendous amount about statistics, but it's my impression that multiple smaller studies showing an effect close to statistical significance may be combined in a meta-analysis that does show a small statistically significant effect. If this occurs it is also my impression that it doesn't mean the smaller studies were wrong.

The smaller studies would have to be done with similar methods. It would also be wrong to pool a bunch of studies slightly favouring one outcome to magically get a more significant result. Statistics is harder than it seems, and I'm no expert, so I'll leave it at that.

[firedog]

This summary doesn't support the idea high res is highly audible, night and day better or other hyperbole heaped upon it.

 

Red herring. The point is that the study indicates hi-res is audible-can be differentiated from Redbook. For years we've been told that "science proves" that hi-res isn't audible. "highly audible" and "night and day" aren't a claim being made and aren't relevant to the discussion.

[mansr]

Red herring. The point is that the study indicates hi-res is audible-can be differentiated from Redbook. For years we've been told that "science proves" that hi-res isn't audible.

 

All those old studies are still as valid as ever. To invalidate them, you'd need at the very least an actual new study, assuming they are not fundamentally flawed somehow (yes, I know some here regard any study not confirming their belief as flawed).

 

The most you can infer from this meta-study is that maybe, possibly, there are slight audible differences in some circumstances. We already knew as much.

 

FWIW, I usually buy music in 96/24 unless the markup over CD quality is outrageous.

[alfe]

Red herring. The point is that the study indicates hi-res is audible-can be differentiated from Redbook. For years we've been told that "science proves" that hi-res isn't audible. "highly audible" and "night and day" aren't a claim being made and aren't relevant to the discussion.

 

If you consider the average age of AES members 12 KHz is already high resolution.

Being serious this not a study.

[The Computer Audiophile]

All those old studies are still as valid as ever. To invalidate them, you'd need at the very least an actual new study, assuming they are not fundamentally flawed somehow (yes, I know some here regard any study not confirming their belief as flawed).

 

The most you can infer from this meta-study is that maybe, possibly, there are slight audible differences in some circumstances. We already knew as much.

 

FWIW, I usually buy music in 96/24 unless the markup over CD quality is outrageous.

Not sure a new study is needed when M&M admit their study wasn't scientific etc...

 

you should read it.

[mansr]

Not sure a new study is needed when M&M admit their study wasn't scientific etc...

 

you should read it.

And that's the only study ever that came out negative?

[esldude]

Red herring. The point is that the study indicates hi-res is audible-can be differentiated from Redbook. For years we've been told that "science proves" that hi-res isn't audible. "highly audible" and "night and day" aren't a claim being made and aren't relevant to the discussion.

Now that's an example of over reach.

[kennyb123]

The conclusions are new and shouldn't be brushed aside.

 

Those with an agenda are compelled to brush them off.

[esldude]

Not sure a new study is needed when M&M admit their study wasn't scientific etc...

 

you should read it.

Well what about including Oohashi, but not those replications that were negative using his methods?

 

And one of the better organized studies with trained music students where concurrent 44 and 88 samples were picked at chance levels while down sampled 88 khz was distinguished from 44 khz? Do those count as hearing hirez or hearing resampling? They did have this among their data, but not how it was tallied up.

 

And I do mean these as questions. How do they come to decisions on how those would be handled? And did they statistically use the M&M results or did they not? Some should have been thrown out but we don't know which.

[alfe]

Those with an agenda are compelled to brush them off.

 

Seriously which agenda?

[kennyb123]

l

And one of the better organized studies with trained music students where concurrent 44 and 88 samples were picked at chance levels while down sampled 88 khz was distinguished from 44 khz? Do those count as hearing hirez or hearing resampling?

 

Why not just use common sense and say there are some who can hear a difference under certain circumstances?

[esldude]

Why not just use common sense and say there are some who can hear a difference under certain circumstances?

Because that is not a description of the results nor common sense.

[The Computer Audiophile]

And that's the only study ever that came out negative?

 

It's one published by AES and one on which many people hang their hats.