IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

AES conference London: High Resolution perception, paper about listening test
Kees de Visser
post Jul 5 2007, 11:25
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 737
Joined: 22-May 05
From: France
Member No.: 22220



Unfortunately I wasn't able to visit the june 2007 AES Conference in London about High Resolution Audio.
The paper/presentation about a high-res audio listening test seems interesting. I'm wondering if anyone on HA happens to have been there and can share some information.

preview of the paper session:
QUOTE
Monday, June 25 11:00 – 12:30
Paper Session 2 — Perception

2-1 Which of the Two Digital Audio Systems Meets Best with the Analog System?— Wieslaw Woszczyk,1 Jan Engel,2 John Usher,1 Ronald Aarts,3 Derk Reefman3
1McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2Centre for Quantitative Methods CQM BV
3Philips Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

In this listening test, two digital audio systems (B and C), and one analog system (A) were tested by 10 test persons who listened to a surround sound scene “live” (without recording). The main question to be answered was: “Which of the two digital systems meets best with the analog system?” Both digital versions had 24-bit dynamic resolution but differed in sampling rate with which the analog signal was sampled. One version © was sampled with a CD rate of 44.1 kHz, the other (B) 8 times faster. There were also two test conditions, where in one condition there was a bandwidth cut off at 20 kHz instead of the 100 kHz that was possible with special 100 kHz microphones and added super-tweeters. For each subject, the experiment was replicated six times, in each of the two conditions. The outcome of each experiment was a 0 or 1, where the 1 means that the, technically best, digital system B has been chosen as meeting the analog quality. The paper describes the test and the outcome.

Without having read the paper, it's not clear to me whether the test was double-blind or not. Apparently it was not possible to replay sources, since the audio source was "live". How reliable would a test like this be ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Pio2001
post Dec 11 2007, 16:45
Post #2


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Thank you for the link, Kees de Visser !

All I can see is that the probabilities that the listeners heard differences are 40 % and 60 %.

This is inferior to the minimum 95 % of statistic relevance. Thus in both conditions, listeners failed to demonstrate that any difference was audible between the tested stimuli.

I don't understand the point in discussing the fact that 40 % can be said to be inferior to 60 % with 95 % certainty, since both are below the required threshold for statistical significance anyway.

This post has been edited by Pio2001: Dec 11 2007, 16:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th December 2014 - 09:58