IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
24/96 releases sometimes just upscaled 16/44?
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 6 2012, 02:38
Post #76





Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (pdq @ Jun 5 2012, 16:08) *
So, if someone came here claming that the world is flat, and we offered proof that it is not, does that make us closed-minded?


Our belief in a round earth would make us appear to be narrow minded in his eyes if he was closed-minded and wasn't interested in 2-way communication.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Jun 6 2012, 15:13
Post #77





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1050
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



You seem to still misunderstand. Redbook is not sufficient because we believe it is, but because it is yet unproven that it isn't. 24bits/96kHz is pointless as a consumer delivery format, since it has not been shown that it offers audible benefits. Take a look at xiphmont's musings about releasing music as high-res audio.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Jun 6 2012, 15:18


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Willakan
post Jun 6 2012, 20:32
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 19-May 12
Member No.: 99992



@OP: Coherent points to your *argument* or bugger off. Progressing from condescension to insults does not count as coherence.

Then again, you supposedly weren't interested in the whole argument...I suppose you're not interested in it as an argument, more as an opportunity to be mildly irritating. Please prove me wrong (I'm not holding out hope...)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jamie_P84
post Jun 6 2012, 22:37
Post #79





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 3-February 10
Member No.: 77832



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Jun 6 2012, 15:13) *
You seem to still misunderstand. Redbook is not sufficient because we believe it is, but because it is yet unproven that it isn't.

Circular reasoning. Here's another example:
"God does not exist because we believe He does, but because it is yet unproven that He doesn't."

I see the old biased moderation is now in full swing too.

This post has been edited by jamie_P84: Jun 6 2012, 22:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 6 2012, 23:16
Post #80





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3361
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



Hypothesis: High-res audio is audibly superior to CD audio.
Null hypothesis: High-res audio is not audibly superior to CD audio.

Note that many modern hypothesis tests do not actually prove a hypothesis, but rather disprove a null hypothesis.

Despite experimentation, we still fail to reject the null hypothesis.

This is not circular reasoning, this is fundamental science. There is no credible evidence with which to advance our hypothesis.

As you appear to not comprehend the mechanics of real science, here's a resource for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

QUOTE (Wikipedia)
It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).


This post has been edited by Canar: Jun 6 2012, 23:19


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Jun 6 2012, 23:49
Post #81





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1050
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



It's true, I am a believer. I believe in Science.

Science tells me objects which have mass attract each other, and can bounce off of each other. Science tells me that the movements of the bouncing particles which constitute air are caught by my ears and processed by my brain. Science tells me that neither of those human body parts are perfect, and that I can determine their limitations. Science tells me that I can record the air movements with an electric circuit, again with certain limitations. Science tells me I can build a circuit which performance exceeds those of my auditory system. Science tells me that I can build a machine which uses moving charges to process information. Science tells me that these machines can process the recorded air movements in such way that only the parts which I know my ears and brain can process are kept.

Clever people spent many years of their lives thinking about these things and providing falsifiable evidence that all of these ideas are very likely. This lead to the invention of digital audio, and to the definition of your loathed redbook standard. It is not something people made up out of thin air. It's all based on a method which the disciples of this religion developed over time, going back hundreds of years.

I cannot expect everyone to believe in my religion, and I'm not forcing you to believe in it. But I am a believer, as are probably many of the regulars here. We're stuck in this religion. So we have a real hard time to understand reasoning and arguments which are based on beliefs outside of our religion. So I beg you, please bear with us and try to formulate your ideas in a way we can understand. Enlighten us!


EDIT: Thank you, Canar, for bringing the point across in a more brief and coherent manner. smile.gif

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Jun 7 2012, 00:07


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 7 2012, 01:02
Post #82





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3361
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Jun 6 2012, 15:49) *
EDIT: Thank you, Canar, for bringing the point across in a more brief and coherent manner. smile.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_parsimony ph34r.gif


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Jones
post Jun 7 2012, 01:34
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 9-August 07
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 46048



Jamie: At this time, what is it that you're looking to get out of this thread? What is your desired conclusion? You originally asked for any known cases where high-res releases have been filtered or are otherwise not as advertised, and I believe you were provided a couple of cases which you either thanklessly accepted or thanklessly dismissed. You seemed interested in true, un-filtered samples, which I offered to provide, and you made no indication that you want those samples.

So...what is this? What is the purpose?

This post has been edited by Ron Jones: Jun 7 2012, 01:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 7 2012, 01:37
Post #84





Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 6 2012, 17:37) *
QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Jun 6 2012, 15:13) *
You seem to still misunderstand. Redbook is not sufficient because we believe it is, but because it is yet unproven that it isn't.

Circular reasoning. Here's another example:
"God does not exist because we believe He does, but because it is yet unproven that He doesn't."


The logical error here is that we're not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Or maybe from Jamie's view point of view, HD Audio is like a deity to him. ;-)

As far as most of us are concerned, we hope that HD Audio makes music sound more lifelike. We hope that this benefit does not happen with just one recording out of 10,000, but happens most of the time. Trouble is, it doesn't. It doesn't happen even once out of 20 recordings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jamie_P84
post Jun 7 2012, 01:56
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 3-February 10
Member No.: 77832



So to summarise, Canar and Kohlrabi both undoubtedly speak for science, and according to them science says "yes I absolutely undoubtedly approve" to redbook. 16/44 sits atop a very tall mountain of centuries' worth of human knowledge and scientific enlightenment, its certificate of perfection backed by dozens of our greatest minds and stained with their blood, sweat and tears.
To attack redbook in any way, shape or form is akin to denying the existence of our sun, attacking Darwin's theory of evolution, or to endorsing the flat earth theory.

Up until now, I'd grown up believing in the idea that anyone who abandons doubt abandons the entire process of intellectual curiosity and progress to knowledge and wisdom. I'd always welcomed open-minded debate, remained humble in the face of opposing viewpoints, and refrained from becoming conceited, dogmatic and/or hostile toward those who harboured them. I'd even passed all of my exams.
But they've made the position clear, and so I've made two things - a dunce cap with "deaf and/or deluded" stamped on it, and a nice golden rosette which reads "Proper Scientific" - I'm ready put the dunce cap on my head, and to stick the golden rosette on my little redbook - so all they have to do now is convincingly prove it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 7 2012, 03:15
Post #86





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3361
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



You missed an important point that I explicitly made: proving that you cannot hear a difference between Redbook and high-res is impossible, as it is a null hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it. The latter option is and has always been the status quo.

You can, provided you actually hear a difference, reject the null hypothesis to a quantifiable probability. This has never been done in any way that is undeniable.

For comparison, it's rather easy to reject the null hypothesis that 8-bit and 16-bit audio cannot be distinguished.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 7 2012, 03:19
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 6 2012, 20:56) *
So to summarise, Canar and Kohlrabi both undoubtedly speak for science, and according to them science says "yes I absolutely undoubtedly approve" to redbook. 16/44 sits atop a very tall mountain of centuries' worth of human knowledge and scientific enlightenment, its certificate of perfection backed by dozens of our greatest minds and stained with their blood, sweat and tears.
To attack redbook in any way, shape or form is akin to denying the existence of our sun, attacking Darwin's theory of evolution, or to endorsing the flat earth theory.

Up until now, I'd grown up believing in the idea that anyone who abandons doubt abandons the entire process of intellectual curiosity and progress to knowledge and wisdom. I'd always welcomed open-minded debate, remained humble in the face of opposing viewpoints, and refrained from becoming conceited, dogmatic and/or hostile toward those who harboured them. I'd even passed all of my exams.
But they've made the position clear, and so I've made two things - a dunce cap with "deaf and/or deluded" stamped on it, and a nice golden rosette which reads "Proper Scientific" - I'm ready put the dunce cap on my head, and to stick the golden rosette on my little redbook - so all they have to do now is convincingly prove it.


The above is passive-aggressive BS.

Reality is the following: None of us owe Redbook anything. We'd all like to see something better.

So, here's the challenge for you Jamie my boy - tell us about something that reliably sounds better then Redbook.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jamie_P84
post Jun 7 2012, 03:35
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 3-February 10
Member No.: 77832



QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 7 2012, 03:15) *
You missed an important point that I explicitly made: proving that you cannot hear a difference between Redbook and high-res is impossible, as it is a null hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it. The latter option is and has always been the status quo.

You can, provided you actually hear a difference, reject the null hypothesis to a quantifiable probability. This has never been done in any way that is undeniable.

For comparison, it's rather easy to reject the null hypothesis that 8-bit and 16-bit audio cannot be distinguished.

You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 7 2012, 03:57
Post #89





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3361
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 6 2012, 19:35) *
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Um, what? I'm still unconvinced you understand what I'm saying.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jun 7 2012, 04:57
Post #90





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



I hate this thread so much.

QUOTE (Ron Jones @ Jun 7 2012, 01:34) *
Jamie: At this time, what is it that you're looking to get out of this thread? What is your desired conclusion? You originally asked for any known cases where high-res releases have been filtered or are otherwise not as advertised, and I believe you were provided a couple of cases which you either thanklessly accepted or thanklessly dismissed. You seemed interested in true, un-filtered samples, which I offered to provide, and you made no indication that you want those samples.

So...what is this? What is the purpose?
Utter attention-seeking and feeding of his own ego through people continuing to bother to respond to his infantile tantrums and insults. An exercise in how far one can not only continue to fail to provide evidence for one’s own position (or even a coherent summary thereof) but also compound one’s own logical failure by resorting to (1) clichéd imagery and disparagements and (2) a dissonant mixture of persecution complex and rampant egotism.

In short, a load of crap.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Jun 7 2012, 05:50
Post #91





Group: Members
Posts: 2274
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 6 2012, 22:57) *
QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 6 2012, 19:35) *
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Um, what? I'm still unconvinced you understand what I'm saying.


He doesn't, or he's trolling, or both. And add a nice thick layer of martyr complex on top of all that. He imagines himself the Galileo figure here, with us as the Church. Science depends on Galileo-like contrarians to make occasional leaps. But what he forgets is that the vast majority of contrarians aren't Galileos...they're just wrong. Or, if more persistently wrong, cranks. History usually forgets them too.







Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post Jun 7 2012, 06:44
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



Jamie seems to think that the scientific method is a matter of opinion. That's about the only thing I am getting out of his repeated insistence that Canar's posts are "theses."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Jun 7 2012, 09:22
Post #93





Group: Members
Posts: 1314
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 7 2012, 04:57) *
QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 6 2012, 19:35) *
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?
Um, what? I'm still unconvinced you understand what I'm saying.


I believe Jamie is trying to express a distaste for the idea that things can be known. I cannot speculate why one would rationally hold that position unless it is to troll the interwebs.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Jun 7 2012, 09:37
Post #94





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1050
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE (db1989 @ Jun 7 2012, 05:57) *
I hate this thread so much.

Well, seeing that this is just drifting offtopic into a direction of "science vs. ignorance", I'm all for ending or moving this discussion into the appropriate forum, soon. This is not general audio anymore. Jamie has never shown that he is interested to discuss his points (which are what exactly, anyway?) in a mature and appropriate manner.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Jun 7 2012, 09:38


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Willakan
post Jun 7 2012, 10:35
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 19-May 12
Member No.: 99992



QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 7 2012, 03:35) *
QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 7 2012, 03:15) *
You missed an important point that I explicitly made: proving that you cannot hear a difference between Redbook and high-res is impossible, as it is a null hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it. The latter option is and has always been the status quo.

You can, provided you actually hear a difference, reject the null hypothesis to a quantifiable probability. This has never been done in any way that is undeniable.

For comparison, it's rather easy to reject the null hypothesis that 8-bit and 16-bit audio cannot be distinguished.

You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?


Why don't you read some of the posted links? Take a gander at the Meyer and Moran study whilst you're at it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 7 2012, 12:25
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 3797
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (jamie_P84 @ Jun 6 2012, 22:35) *
You've put forward your thesis more than once now, so can you defend it? What evidence do you have to prove your case?


Back in 2000 or so I made a number of 24/96 recordings of music and other natural sounds using expensive professional microphones with >40 KHz bandpass, a highly regarded mic preamp (Benchmark Media) and a highly regarded 24/96 audio interface - the CardDeluxe (which has been highly reviewed by Stereophile). The recordings were made in situations where the actual dynamic range of the recordings was > 85 dB and as high or higher than any commercial SACD or DVD-A recording that I have been able to find. The recordings have significant natural content > 20 KHz.

I set up a number of ABX tests comparing these recordings to the same recording that had been downsampled to 16/44. My listeners were experienced audiophiles and engineers of all ages. 100's of trials were run.

I purchased at my own expense a Domain (www.pcabx.com), and web site with 600 megabytes of online space. I posted my files there, publiczed its existance including mention on a number of relevant audio and audio production forums, obtained favorable mention on other influential high-traffic professional audio and audiophile web sites, and provided all of the software and listed the hardware that would be required for people to do their own tests. I provided step by step instructions on how to do the tests for yourself.

Tens of thousands of copies of my files were downloaded over a period of maybe 4-5 years.

Nobody has ever reported reliable detection of any audible differences. Not any of my testers, not any of the people from the web.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Jun 7 2012, 12:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
julf
post Jun 15 2012, 20:24
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 14-January 12
Member No.: 96426



QUOTE (dhromed @ Jun 7 2012, 10:22) *
I cannot speculate why one would rationally hold that position unless it is to troll the interwebs.


88% of trolls are actually just morons
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: 20th September 2014 - 23:44