Vinyl and seperates

[MacManNM]

The threshold of audibility is traditionally determined by a test group of trained listening subjects, as is common in the established perceptual research. In a statistically significant sample group of highly trained listeners, a baseline of what is audible is able to be accurately established. It might be that a genetic anomoly could cause some isolated individual to hear 30kHz, for example, but that is so far off the mark of known human samples that is not important.

So how many db is that? Not quantified. Listening tests are just that, they can give you an average, but no hard data.



I already specified the device used for comparitive analysis(Audio Precison Analyzer) by the software author. If you want to ask or critisize the RMAA software and it's reliability -- go to the forum for RMAA found at www.rightmark.org

Made by whom? Model#? There are 1000's of them


You certainly seem accusatory, for a person that has so far substantiated his factually made audibility claims with exactly 0 references as of this point. If you can not, then it is pointless to continue this conversation, as you will only be speculating.

Everything I've said a first year engineering student can grasp. Again, I'm talking science, your speaking of audibility, a subjective term with no scientific data to back it up. Everything I have stated can be backed up by Physics and science.

Your right about one thing, it is pointless to continue to converse with someone who obviously has no scientific background, no basic grasp of physics, nor the ability to understand the meaning of subjective, quantifiable, or in this case the real meaning of audibility.

 

[WmAx]

So how many db is that? Not quantified. Listening tests are just that, they can give you an average, but no hard data.

Then you apparently fail to understand as to why or what a scientific protocol perceptual study establishes. Do you think that RBCD's sample rate was picked out of thin air? In that case(as in most), a sample group was chosen, that had far greater skill/training in listening than the average listener. In addition, the test signals created based on the spectrual analysis of music were used in this research (also adding boosted high frequency content, as to make it subject to greater chance of high frequency detection to further increase value of the results in finding a safe cutoff). The research was published, peer reviewed and eventually accepted as a standard as to what is probably the limits of audibility. If, say, 0.0001% of listeners have the ability to hear slightly higher bandwidth than the test demonsrated, it would be 1.) a very subtle difference 2.) unimportant for practical consideration of design - you don't design a standard to account for the unpredictable anomoly. In the end, the RBCD sample rate was increased over what was found to be required during research, as a safe-guard.(16kHz bandwidth was found to be transparent for musical program according to the research, but a 22 kHz bandwidth was used as the final standard).

Made by whom? Model#? There are 1000's of them

Audio Precision 1. It is a brand/model. It is a standard network analyzer used for analysis of audio equipment.

Again, I'm talking science, your speaking of audibility, a subjective term with no scientific data to back it up. Everything I have stated can be backed up by Physics and science.

In the context I have used audibility, it is a determination, based on the thresholds of very sensative, trained listeners in tests using a scientific method of test submission. Science, itself, is the establishment of statistical probalities through methdological organized tests in controlled scenario(s). Subjective listening is valid in scientific applications where such is controlled, follows a scientific methdology and elimination of bias(blind testing) is reasonably achieved. Do not confuse this with the commonly touted subjective listening methods commonly talked about in audiophile rings -- there is a world of difference between the two.

Your right about one thing, it is pointless to continue to converse with someone who obviously has no scientific background, no basic grasp of physics, nor the ability to understand the meaning of subjective, quantifiable, or in this case the real meaning of audibility.

I am a bit confused as to why you seem so sure of what is audible and why you think you can dictate what is audible without qualifying your statments. So far you seem oblivious to the existance of international JAES standard accepted research projects of audibility thresholds. This seems significant, considering that they publish some of the most important research projects on issues of audibility in coorelation with audio reproduction. You acted as if you have never heard of what is probably the most popular/widely used audio analyzer system(Audio Precision Analyzer). Do you basicly make up what you think is audible on-the-fly, based upon non-controlled listening sessions?

I approach these issues with a great deal of objectivity. I value scientifically valid research far above the audiophile type of subjective opinion based on non-controlled listening scenarios. So far you have not demonstrated the same perspective. Are you the typical engineer-audiophile type who never substantiates claims and does not respect the scientific process, but instead fills his posts with in-depth technical issues without EVER coorelating them with audibility research or performing valid perceptual tests of his own?

Why do you seem to get upset(not answering, but instead accusing) when I ask you to substantiate your claims of audibility in conjunction with a measurable artifact? Do you believe yourself above having to substantiate your claims?

-Chris

 

[MasterChief]

I was reading an artical i Dl about audio lies this is what it said on this topic. "Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and never can be. The 0’s and 1’s are inherently incapable of being distorted in the signal path, unlike an analog waveform.Even a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, the lowest used in today’s high-fidelity applications, more than adequately resolves all audio frequencies.It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota,not a scintilla. The “how can two sampling points resolve 20 kHz?” argument is an untutored misinterpretation of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.(Doubters are advised to take an elementary course in digital systems.)The reason why certain analog recordings sound better than certain
digital recordings is that the engineers did a better job with microphone placement, levels, balance, and equalization,or that the recording venue was acoustically superior. Some early digital recordings were indeed hard and edgy, not because they were digital but because the engineers were still
thinking analog, compensating for anticipated losses that did not exist. Today’s best digital recordings are the best recordings ever made. To be fair, it must be admitted that a state-of the-art analog recording and a state-of-the-art digital recording, at this stage of their respective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, the number of Tree-Worshiping Analog Druids is rapidly dwindling in the professional recording world. The digital way is simply the better way."

 

[MacManNM]

Then you apparently fail to understand as to why or what a scientific protocol perceptual study establishes. Do you think that RBCD's sample rate was picked out of thin air? In that case(as in most), a sample group was chosen, that had far greater skill/training in listening than the average listener. In addition, the test music used in this research used boosted high frequency content, as to make it subject to greater chance of high frequency detection to further increase value of the results in finding a safe cutoff. The research used music along with various purpose-specific test signals in conjunction with the audibility testing. The research was published, peer reviewed and eventually accepted as a standard as to what is probably the limits of audibility. If, say, 0.0001% of listeners have the ability to hear slightly higher bandwidth than the test demonsrated, it would be 1.) a very subtle difference 2.) unimportant for practical consideration of design - you don't design a standard to account for the unpredictable anomoly. In the end, the RBCD sample rate was increased over what was found to be required during research, as a safe-guard.(16kHz bandwidth was found to be transparent for musical program according to the research, but a 22 kHz bandwidth was used as the final standard).


Every scientific term is quantified.
Examples:
Light- Lumens, Ke, #photons
Camera- Spectral response (in wave number), Quantum efficiency
RF- dbi, db, dbm, power density
Antenna- Gain in dbi, bandwidth in frequency
Speakers- Frequency response, efficiency
Microphone- Frequency response, efficiency

As you say, a select group of listeners has been tested to define audibility. All I am asking for is the DATA from those tests. You can throw around terms all day long, with no way to quantify it in a meaningful measurable way, it is worthless. A curve showing the freq response and levels associated with human hearing ability is all that is needed to define audibility. So again I ask, please define the term.




Audio Precision 1. It is a brand/model. It is a standard network analyzer used for analysis of audio equipment.


Audio precision makes several models, is the model: Portable One ?

In the context I have used audibility, it is a determination, based on the thresholds of very sensative, trained listeners in tests using a scientific method of test submission. Science, itself, is the establishment of statistical probalities through methdological organized tests in controlled scenario(s). Subjective listening is valid in scientific applications where such is controlled, follows a scientific methdology and elimination of bias(blind testing) is reasonably achieved. Do not confuse this with the commonly touted subjective listening methods commonly talked about in audiophile rings -- there is a world of difference between the two.



I am a bit confused as to why you seem so sure of what is audible and why you think you can dictate what is audible without qualifying your statments. So far you seem oblivious to the existance of international JAES standard accepted research projects of audibility thresholds. This seems significant, considering that they publish some of the most important research projects on issues of audibility in coorelation with audio reproduction. You acted as if you have never heard of what is probably the most popular/widely used audio analyzer system(Audio Precision Analyzer). Do you basicly make up what you think is audible on-the-fly, based upon non-controlled listening sessions?

I approach these issues with a great deal of objectivity. I value scientifically valid research far above the audiophile type of subjective opinion based on non-controlled listening scenarios. So far you have not demonstrated the same perspective. Are you the typical engineer-audiophile type who never substantiates claims and does not respect the scientific process, but instead fills his posts with in-depth technical issues without EVER coorelating them with audibility research or performing valid perceptual tests of his own?

I refer again to my above response. This international JAES standard, of which you speak, must have the numbers and recorded data that actually define audibility. If you are going to continue to rely so heavily on this term, please define it in a proper scientific manner.

 

[MacManNM]

I was reading an artical i Dl about audio lies this is what it said on this topic. "Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and never can be. The 0’s and 1’s are inherently incapable of being distorted in the signal path, unlike an analog waveform.Even a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, the lowest used in today’s high-fidelity applications, more than adequately resolves all audio frequencies.It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota,not a scintilla. The “how can two sampling points resolve 20 kHz?” argument is an untutored misinterpretation of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.(Doubters are advised to take an elementary course in digital systems.)The reason why certain analog recordings sound better than certain
digital recordings is that the engineers did a better job with microphone placement, levels, balance, and equalization,or that the recording venue was acoustically superior. Some early digital recordings were indeed hard and edgy, not because they were digital but because the engineers were still
thinking analog, compensating for anticipated losses that did not exist. Today’s best digital recordings are the best recordings ever made. To be fair, it must be admitted that a state-of the-art analog recording and a state-of-the-art digital recording, at this stage of their respective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, the number of Tree-Worshiping Analog Druids is rapidly dwindling in the professional recording world. The digital way is simply the better way."

I agree with everything you have said, however, my argument is that the analog bandwith filter on most units is not good enough to remove all of the analog information above 22.05 KHz. This creates false data in the lower than nyquist band, my point in quoting the 2.205 points, was to show that any higher freq content would not be reconstructed.

 

[MasterChief]

Oh OK i understand better now. There just to much writing to keep up.

 

[MacManNM]

Oh OK i understand better now. There just to much writing to keep up.

I know its stupid. It's a controversial issue. All I’m trying to point out is that there is no perfect way to record and playback audio. As a community, we should look into the facts scientifically and maybe tweak and improve things just a bit to try and continually improve our systems

 

[WmAx]

Every scientific term is quantified.
Examples:
Light- Lumens, Ke, #photons
Camera- Spectral response (in wave number), Quantum efficiency
RF- dbi, db, dbm, power density
Antenna- Gain in dbi, bandwidth in frequency
Speakers- Frequency response, efficiency
Microphone- Frequency response, efficiency

Audibility is a defined adjective, as I provided earlier in this thread. I speak of the scientific process determining in a significant statistical method, if something is in fact audible under those conditions.

As you say, a select group of listeners has been tested to define audibility. All I am asking for is the DATA from those tests. You can throw around terms all day long, with no way to quantify it in a meaningful measurable way, it is worthless. A curve showing the freq response and levels associated with human hearing ability is all that is needed to define audibility. So again I ask, please define the term.

I have defined the context/use of the term. If you are very inteterested in the specifics of the used test signal, how it was chosen, the filters used, and the resultant data on statistical discrimination of audibility of these filters, refer to the JAES paper(Optimal Bandwidth) I referended in a prior thread, you can aquire it at www.aes.org.

Audio precision makes several models, is the model: Portable One ?

If you are so interested in RMAA's development or other matters, I have provided you with a means to contact/inquire with the author of this software. This is not a focus of this discussion.

I refer again to my above response. This international JAES standard, of which you speak, must have the numbers and recorded data that actually define audibility. If you are going to continue to rely so heavily on this term, please define it in a proper scientific manner.

Apparently, you believe me to be using the word in a way which I have not used it.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I agree with everything you have said, however, my argument is that the analog bandwith filter on most units is not good enough to remove all of the analog information above 22.05 KHz. This creates false data in the lower than nyquist band, my point in quoting the 2.205 points, was to show that any higher freq content would not be reconstructed.

Not good enough to remove 'all' information. But what is the consequence so far in as audibility is concerned?

-Chris

 

[MasterChief]

Sounds more interesting, i dont know about perfect but there is atleast near perfect lol and thats cool with me.

 

[WmAx]

As a community, we should look into the facts scientifically and maybe tweak and improve things just a bit to try and continually improve our systems

Quite a declaration, looking back at your earlier posts within this thread where you appear to be making factual claims of audible problems, with NO perceptual research to substantiate such.

-Chris

 

[MacManNM]

Quite a statement, looking back at your earlier posts within this thread where you appear to be making factual claims of audible problems, with NO perceptual research to substantiate such.

-Chris

Why dont you pay attention, and try to understand that this term you are loosly throwing around is subjective, until a measured number can be associated with it. You cant compare real measured data to audibility. I have no problem correlating data with the data associated with your term. You are the one who brought this term into the discussion, provide the data in a scientific manner and I will provide data from measurements, and lets see who is right. This is an example of what the data might look like:

 

[WmAx]

Why dont you pay attention, and try to understand that this term you are loosly throwing around is subjective, until a measured number can be associated with it.

I have thrown nothing around 'loosely'. I have used the word in question within a specific context. I have not used audibility in context with a specific quanficiation, which is a different matter. I have only used this term in relation to conclusive results of perceptual tests: I.E.; The Plenge paper concluded that within the testing scenario researched, that sonic information >16 Khz was not found or suspected to be audible amongst the overwhelming majority, and with execution of steep analog filters to consider phase distortion and accurately represent a digital cut off system.

You cant compare real measured data to audibility.

I never intended such. A miscommunication?

I have no problem correlating data with the data associated with your term. You are the one who brought this term into the discussion, provide the data in a scientific manner and I will provide data from measurements, and lets see who is right. This is an example of what the data might look like:

I brought the term within a specific context. If you wish to review the document and it's specific data -- I told where it can be found in a prior post. The document contains no summary graphical charts of results. It discusses the data, primarily, in text format with the only graphical represenations being representations of the signals used in the study. For your reference, the most extreme filter used were 2x 13th order cascaded filters at 15kHz cutoff in order to bring phase distortion into a band that has definite audible frequency content. No stastically signficant evidence of detection was found in the sound engineer group or non-sound engineer group compared to reference. A 20kHz cutoff at a 'gentle' 8th order was not found to be significantly different in scoring compared to the far steeper narrower band filter instance -- several other filters were used to, but this is the overall method(varying filters from higher bandwidth to lower bandwdith, varying slope rate down to the maximum one I specified) that they used to test both phase distortion and bandwidth audibility among subjects. In the other referenced document(Pries and Bloom-note that I referenced the Preis and Bloom preprint I.D., it was later published and peer reviwed in JAES vol 32, No. 11 in 1984), up to 4 cascaded pairs 7th order elliptical filters at 15kHz caused no perceptual difference among subjects.

-Chris

 

[MacManNM]

Please, go back and read your posts, you constantly referred to audibility, as if it was a scientific standard. If there is no data in any of the papers you refer to, then the term is a subjective one, and can not be used to support any argument. You should go into politics, the ability to evade answering questions and provide solid facts is an art form, and you are Picasso!

 

[WmAx]

You should go into politics, the ability to evade answering questions and provide solid facts is an art form, and you are Picasso!

It's unfortunate if that's the way you percieve the matter, and it's unfortunate that you apparently don't understand the value or meaning of scientifically valid subjective perceptual research. Such testing was designed, is executed and accepted by the scientific communities to draw statistically based(probable) conclusions.

-Chris

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

scientifically valid subjective perceptual research. Such testing was designed, is executed and accepted by the scientific communities to draw statistically based(probable) conclusions.

Not that I don't see value in this ongoing madness, but that statement above is pretty broad - don't you think? The first thing statistics classes teach you is not to trust statistics. They can be manipulated, and are many times flawed based on focus groups. I can find subjective perceptual research on snake charming. Statistically based probable conclusions say Gore won the previous election. I live in Ohio. Please.

 

[WmAx]

Not that I don't see value in this ongoing madness, but that statement above is pretty broad - don't you think?

It's pretty specific -- placed within the qualification of a scientific methodology in it's execution, which I was careful to qualify.

The first thing statistics classes teach you is not to trust statistics. They can be manipulated, and are many times flawed based on focus groups.

Correct. The papers to which I refer specifically are published in the industry standard journal(after intensive review and approval) and then peer reviewed by the industry experts in order to find such faults if they exist(and managed to elude the initial analysis before publication).

I can find subjective perceptual research on snake charming.

Perhaps. But was this done within the strict standards of scientific methodology? Peer reviewed?

Statistically based probable conclusions say Gore won the previous election. I live in Ohio. Please.

Part of the reason for publication of important documents is to have the work reviewed for errors. In your case of Gore, it would be a gross eversight to ingore the factors involved with the electoral vs. popular votes. Just as I pointed out this out, the published and peer reveiewed papers in the standard journals are subject to the same thing by the entire industry.

-Chris

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

scientifically valid subjective perceptual research

This strikes me as an oxymoron. How can something that is subjective also be scientifically valid? That makes no sense. You can't possibly validate something that is subjective. Subjective means you're dealing with perceptions, not reality, not things that can be scienfically quantified and measured.

As it relates to this, my perception that vinyl sounds better than CDs cannot be measured scientifically. Nor can anyone else's perception.

 

[WmAx]

This strikes me as an oxymoron. How can something that is subjective also be scientifically valid?

First and foremost, I completely agree that it seems to be an oxymoron. But the confusion may arrise from the context of specifically which part of the test is subjective, and which specific definition of subjective may be used in the context(subjective has several definitions).

Perhaps some confusion arises from what is known as the age-old stereotype of what subjective is usually asociated with in audio: purely uncontrolled perceptions, probably the Forer effect in many cases. But a subjective evaluation can be performed with controls in place, to limit the extent of subjective response or what influences such. The use of this term could also be used in a capacity meaning to create a subjective experience, as in subjecting person to particular samples; subjected(submitted) to a certain stimulus.

That makes no sense. You can't possibly validate something that is subjective. Subjective means you're dealing with perceptions, not reality, not things that can be scienfically quantified and measured.

Not entirely true. You can quantify preferences, through statistical value, via a controlled test environment in order to find a pattern of (subjective) reactions to a controlled experience. The scientific component rests in the elimination of external factors/variables to create a properly structured experiment, that shall analyze only the intended factors.

For example: You could find out which two experimental soda formulas were preferred by submiting a randomized blind test to many subjects. The actual act of tasting and preference is subjective, but all external factors would be eliminated leaving only responses based only upon the taste of the product. The statistical score of the completed tests would demonstrate a percentile quantification of preference for each formula, within the narrowly defined conditions of the test scenario(s).

As it relates to this, my perception that vinyl sounds better than CDs cannot be measured scientifically. Nor can anyone else's perception.

The issue is not to measure perception, as a quantification. It is to find a preference in this case. There is no reason that this could not be accomplished, if the proper protocols were put into place. One could set up an experiment similar to the bandwidth test, but compare direct phonograph play to phonograph routed through a PCM 44.1kHz/16 bit ADC-->DAC convertor with very low latency. A standard random A B vs X experiment could be used to switch between the two for the blind testing. The ADC-->DAC convertor, of course, would be measured and ensured to be working under known human thresholds for the relevant parameters(THD, level matched, frequency response, etc.). If with statistically significant results, the subject or subjects could reliably identify analog from digital processed version, then it would demonstrate strong probability of difference(tenative, and dependant on peer review/critical review of the test procedures). The test could also be expanded to include a form/questionare component, that when applied under these blinded/controlled conditions, could be used to see if a reliable/consistant response could be achieved. The actual judgement/evaluation on the human interaction level would be considered subjective, but yet this would be a scientifically valid experiment due to the established controls/experimental structure/statistical power. In this experiment, the subjects would have no reasonable probability of cheating or being affected by unintended/external stimuli. Of course, if the test ended up with null results(this is probable, based on current research and knowledge of human auditory senses), then you could argue that it was not a subjective test since preference never entered the equation; i.e.; no audible difference was detected thus no valid subjective opinons would be present on the questionare portion of the blind trials.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

As long as you enjoy it - who cares.

As long as it is only about enjoyment, absolutely no one cares.

But, at times, people make testable claims of dubious merit and credibility. That needs to be challenged