Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback  (Read 320174 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #975 –
Quote from: krabapple on
LOL!  The other penny drops!

Meridian's new proprietary hi rez delivery format

http://musicischanging.com/


HA thread about it here:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107666


Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it PSR? No, it's super Hi-Re$ man to the rescue, with.....compressed Hi-Re$?????
WTH? CD sized file streaming of 10% 2ch studio constructs. Wow. I wonder what this will cost vs say, Tidal?

Where have I seen this before? Oh yes


Looks like there is some BS appreciation of the business side of this industry. I can hardly wait to hear Neil Young in "studio quality" MQA.....

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #976 –
Quote from: amirm on
There are no processed files.  The transforms were inside Matlab.

Ok, where does one acquire these exact MATLAB "transforms" used, to repeat the experiment?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #977 –
Quote from: Wombat on
You realize that the ringing that this paper in the end is all about occurs exactly at that low level where these filtered frequencies begin?

Perhaps easier seen than heard?
They did crank those 1" DR dome beryllium tweeter speakers up to 108db, near breaking point. Plus there is no info on the switching software transparency. Makes one wonder exactly what it is they thought they heard?

"Look, I know the supernatural is something that isn't supposed to happen, but it does happen"

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #978 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Where have I seen this before?

Perhaps you are experiencing deja vu from when Oohashi released his second paper on the "benefits" of the hypersonic effect just in the nick of time to promote the release of the only movie soundtrack ever to be released on Blu-ray which had an actual hypersonic musical score, recorded by none other than [...drum roll please] Oohashi himself!

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=873474

What a startling coincidence *this* paper, the topic of our thread, also just happens to support a questionable hi-re$ audio technology  which similarly financially benefits the very authors of the paper, just in the nick of time, in the promotional release of THEIR new audio format! *CHA-CHING*

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #980 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Where have I seen this before?

Perhaps you are experiencing deja vu from when Oohashi released his second paper on the "benefits" of the hypersonic effect just in the nick of time to promote the release of the only movie soundtrack ever to be released on Blu-ray which had an actual hypersonic musical score, recorded by none other than [...drum roll please] Oohashi himself!

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=873474

What a startling coincidence *this* paper, the topic of our thread, also just happens to support a questionable hi-re$ audio technology  which similarly financially benefits the very authors of the paper, just in the nick of time, in the promotional release of THEIR new audio format! *CHA-CHING*


Right... I am sure in their PR packet forCES they will include a copy of this paper.  "Reporter: so how do we know high-resolution audio sounds good?"  "Meridian: here.  Just read the paper and see."

You guys are this out of touch with reality or just say these things for effect?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #982 –
Quote from: Chu Gai on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Chu Gai on
And without access to the actual files used there are avenues that can never be explored.

The files are readily available.

The actual snippets they used? Links if you would.

Appendix A in the paper.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #983 –
So, this thread falls under ToS #14 now?
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #984 –
Quote from: krabapple on
LOL!  The other penny drops!

Meridian's new proprietary hi rez delivery format

http://musicischanging.com/


HA thread about it here:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107666


Well, if you guys had taken my hint and gone and read the other paper  ...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...mp;#entry882550
...you would have seen this coming.

Cheers,
David.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #985 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Interesting that you think technical facts "pollute" a technical discussion.

Even more interesting is you thinking this statement is technical:
I wasn't implying anything about what anyone else said.

I was commenting on what you said...
Quote from: amirm on
Every TV manufacturer sells "LED TVs" yet there is no such animal.  It is an LCD TV that its backlight has been replaced with LED.  They pretend the rest of is also changed as to entice you to buy a new TV.  They talk about 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio where the reality is 1,000:1 due to the obvious way they cheat there.  Do we go and pollute every technical video discussion by ranting about this?


Maybe stating facts multiple times is what you count as ranting. I don't know. I think most of us, certainly including you , have made the same points over and over in this thread. I shall try to avoid repeating myself in future.

Cheers,
David.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #986 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Chu Gai on
And without access to the actual files used there are avenues that can never be explored.

The files are readily available.



False claim.

What is alleged to the original source files appear to be available from its commercial source.

The processed files that they were compared to in the test are exactly where?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #987 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I think most of us, certainly including you , have made the same points over and over in this thread. I shall try to avoid repeating myself in future.


The only reason why I have repeated anything in this thread is because a certain person makes numerous ludicrous false claims, irrefutable counter evidence is provided, and he ignores the irrefutable evidence and makes the same ludicrous claims over and over again.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #988 –
Quote from: amirm on
Who here wants to represent that such distortion product driven by that low level of energy in orange would be audible?


If the stronger signals at lower frequencies are pushing the tweeter into non-linear operation it is possible that some of the ultrasonic signal is being mixed down to the audible range. You cannot consider only the ultrasonic signal in isolation. (I'm a microwave engineer...is the term "mixed/mixer" used by audio engineers.?)

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #989 –
Quote from: Ethyl's Fred on
(I'm a microwave engineer...is the term "mixed/mixer" used by audio engineers.?)
Not in the same way, no.
Mixing is weighted summing in audio land, not multiplication.  IM is the term they'll likely use for sum and difference products.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #990 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Ethyl's Fred on
(I'm a microwave engineer...is the term "mixed/mixer" used by audio engineers.?)
Not in the same way, no.
Mixing is weighted summing in audio land, not multiplication.  IM is the term they'll likely use for sum and difference products.


Thanks. In hindsight I should have known that.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #991 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Chu Gai on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Chu Gai on
And without access to the actual files used there are avenues that can never be explored.

The files are readily available.

The actual snippets they used? Links if you would.

Appendix A in the paper.



Since I have the paper:
Quote
7. APPENDIX A
Code: [Select]
segment start stop
1 0.5 13.5
2 13.5 25.5
3 25.5 35.4
4 35.4 44.8
5 44.8 58.3
6 58.3 67.7
7 67.7 78.1
8 78.1 92.3
9 92.3 106.6
10 106.6 119.2
11 119.2 129.9
12 129.9 144.93
13 144.7 154.2
14 154.2 165.02
15 165.1 176.68
16 176.68 188.45
17 188.6 202.0


Table 3: Details of how we split the recording into 17 sections.


Lets say that they wanted to actually document the processing that they did. They would give us the Matlab code?

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #992 –
Quote from: Ethyl's Fred on
Quote from: amirm on
Who here wants to represent that such distortion product driven by that low level of energy in orange would be audible?


If the stronger signals at lower frequencies are pushing the tweeter into non-linear operation it is possible that some of the ultrasonic signal is being mixed down to the audible range. You cannot consider only the ultrasonic signal in isolation. (I'm a microwave engineer...is the term "mixed/mixer" used by audio engineers.?)



The two main ways this happens with loudspeakers:

(1) The ordinary way - cross-modulation due to amplitude modulation.  All real world speakers are somewhat nonlinear (on the order of 0.1% to 10% or more),  due to inconsistencies in the electrodynamic motor (voice coil/field magnet) and mechanical nonlinearities in the diaphragm's suspension.  The former is often dominant.

(2) Doppler distortion due to the motion of the diaphragm.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #993 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Lets say that they wanted to actually document the processing that they did. They would give us the Matlab code?

There is no code.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #994 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Lets say that they wanted to actually document the processing that they did. They would give us the Matlab code?

There is no code.

There's no spoon either.
Guess repeatability wasn't one of the goals of the BS paper.
Just a farce to prime the pump for MQA eh?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #995 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Lets say that they wanted to actually document the processing that they did. They would give us the Matlab code?

There is no code.

There's no spoon either.
Guess repeatability wasn't one of the goals of the BS paper.

And your guess would be dead wrong.  Once again, the paper is not written for lay people who don't know a FIR filter from a Fir tree.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #996 –
Quote from: amirm on
Once again, the paper is not written for lay people

We know. It was written for shyster peddlers of the Hi-Re$ $cam, who have knowledge in the business field of selling Fiji water.
Repackage this:


In square $5 bottle per song, pitch via shysters to the audiomorons who crave $cams.
Got it.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #997 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: amirm on
Once again, the paper is not written for lay people

We know. It was written for shyster peddlers of the Hi-Re$ $cam, who have knowledge in the business field of selling Fiji water.
Repackage this:


In square $5 bottle per song, pitch via shysters to the audiomorons who crave $cams.
Got it.

David, do you approve of these posts?

Same question for our kind moderators: is this post which has been repeatedly posted compliant with forum terms of service and spirit of the same?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #998 –
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Lets say that they wanted to actually document the processing that they did. They would give us the Matlab code?

There is no code.

There would be. Even if you drive it through the GUI, it will generate an equivalent MATLAB command line which calls MATLAB functions which in turn generate filter coefficients.

The command line would be sufficient for anyone with MATLAB and the appropriate toolbox. Everyone else would need the coefficients. There are 1629 of them for one filter, and 1496 for the other. They will be symmetric, so you only strictly need half. You wouldn't write them in a paper but you might put them on a website. If you wanted to make sure something was proerly documented and repeatable you would do both (e.g. see penultimate section).

Cheers,
David.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #999 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: amirm on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Lets say that they wanted to actually document the processing that they did. They would give us the Matlab code?

There is no code.

There would be. Even if you drive it through the GUI, it will generate an equivalent MATLAB command line which calls MATLAB functions which in turn generate filter coefficients.

The command line would be sufficient for anyone with MATLAB and the appropriate toolbox. Everyone else would need the coefficients. There are 1629 of them for one filter, and 1496 for the other. They will be symmetric, so you only strictly need half. You wouldn't write them in a paper but you might put them on a website. If you wanted to make sure something was proerly documented and repeatable you would do both (e.g. see penultimate section).

Cheers,
David.



Ah but we wouldn't understand.  We don't know an IIR filter from an IRS audit.  ;>