Two new articles on High Resolution Audio and ABX Test Statistics

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Last year has been a watershed year for discussions online about merits of high fidelity audio. Through a confluence of events, a number of previously thought "impossible" events happened. Ad-hoc double blind tests created by different sources were passed and importantly, peer reviewed published listening tests demonstrated that differences between CD's spec and higher resolution audio can be audible. The former had a long chapter here and on other forums. You can read all about it here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...that-higher-resolution-audio-sounds-different

The latter, the AES published results has had a decent run elsewhere but not as much on AVS Forum. The paper by Stuart et al, unlike the previous work by Meyer and Moran, is highly technical written for other audio experts. As such, much confusion abounds about its results and what they mean. Late last year I wrote an article to explain its findings in plain language. It was published in the Widescreen Review Magazine's January issue. I explain also why in my view high resolution must succeed and that has little to do with said blind test or its specs! Read the slightly edited version of it here: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/High Resolution Audio/High Resolution Audio Matters.html

I also wrote a brief post here and elsewhere talking about ABX testing statistics. I was surprised to see the dearth of information anywhere on how the results can be interpreted. To make sure the topic is well understood, I expanded it and turned it into a full article. See that here: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/High Resolution Audio/Statistics of ABX Testing.html

I think these are some of the most important articles I have written. I hope you enjoy reading them and as always, look forward to any comments and questions you might have.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Thanks Amir! This is a great resource. Of course, the ultimate test is getting folks to listen for themselves. The rest will be easy to predict with 95% confidence. :)
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Excellent, Amir, a great read - much appreciate the work you put into these articles.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Two interesting comments on the AES paper:
[h=2]The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System[/h]Authors: Jackson, Helen M.; Capp, Michael D.; Stuart, J. Robert

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?ID=416
What is stated is the latest defensive talking points against the paper. They themselves are quite faulty and the motivation for writing my articles.

Anyone who says there is no cognitive load has not taken any blind listening tests. Of course you have to remember "A" or "B" and then listen to X and determine if X is the same as either. This requires effort and lots of it when differences get smaller. Again, if you disagree take the tests that I took in the link I provided on this forum.

Of note, the AB test used in Stuart's can also be considered an ABX test. Instead of listening to A and B and determining whether X matches either, just listen to A and X and decide if they match or don't and you have Stuart's test.

His assertion of "The quantization to 16 bit was accompanied by either no dither, or RPDF dither. As the authors rightly state, neither is satisfactory, a well-known fact." is also wrong. Up to this point, if anyone said such small distortions are audible folks would demand public hanging! :D All of a sudden such distortions are stated as "non satisfactory." If quantization noise modulation of this sort is this audible, it opens the door wide for other distortions to be audible.

Same with sharp filters being audible in converters. Since when this is accepted fact by objectivists? To the extent it is now, we have made significant progress in getting people to appreciate that you can't waive your hand on distortions and have it go away.

Granted, the language of the paper gives cause to some of these criticisms. Bob said a much more extended version of the paper/study is being prepared for the Journal of AES. Hopefully they will streamline the messaging so that we don't have to deal with these debating points.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing