High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter?

[SIY]

Standards have their uses, but they are not necessarily optimal for all questions and all phenomena. They’re merely a means to ensure that results from appropriate tests can be compared between laboratories.

 

[rickmurphy]

Read that paper carefully, please.

Thanks for the heads up.

I've been at this for a while so I should be okay and we can probably have some fun.

BTW - What was the outcome of Chueng and Mark's work on Ill Posed Sampling Theorems?

https://robertmarks.org/REPRINTS/1985_IllPosedSamplingTheorems.pdf

 

[krabapple]

The 'outcome' since that 1984 paper is that ADC works excellently for audio when it's done right.

But don't mind me. I'll get some popcorn, you go have 'fun'.

 

[rickmurphy]

The 'outcome' since that 1984 paper is that ADC works excellently for audio when it's done right.

But don't mind me. I'll get some popcorn, you go have 'fun'.

Don't waste my time with nonsense. I will give you one chance to avoid being placed on my ignore list. I already know the outcome.

Yes, quite familiar. Also familiar with the complaints about , e.g., his choice of data to include or exclude in the meta-analysis.

Complaints have no place in scientific literature. Are you publishing or have you published a rebuttal to Reiss's paper?
If so please provide a link to your paper, or pre-print at a peer reviewed journal.

(And also that even if we decide to take Reiss at face value -- we are still talking about a very, let's say 'subtle', effect. One hardly supporting the vast claims of audibility emitted frequently by the audiophile collective)

We are not deciding anything. And your purported reduction to 'face value' devalues the peer review process under which Reiss's and other papers are qualified in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society and other academic and professional publications.

Your vague and ambiguous claim about imagined 'subtle' effects lacks definition, evidence and sound argument. But maybe you have a paper on these subtle effects that you've published in a peer reviewed journal that you want to disclose. If so, please provide a link.

Not meeting the highest standards of rigor does not automatically invalidate results. Details of intention, how the test was done, and what claims were made from it -- special attention to phrasing of conclusions -- these matter. There are also prior probabilities to consider.

Thank you for your admission that the Archimago and Hydrogen Audio tests do not satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116.

The authors of those tests provide admissions which severely limit any inferences based on those tests.

You are of course free to test *yourself* as rigorously as you like. Please keep us informed of your protocol and results if you do.

What I am very likely to do is add you to my ignore list.

 

[krabapple]

Go ahead, cowboy. I know where you're headed. Like I said, I'm content to watch. <munches popcorn> <laughing at 'complaints have no place in scientific literature' as if letters to Nature don't exist>

 

[rickmurphy]

Standards have their uses, but they are not necessarily optimal for all questions and all phenomena. They’re merely a means to ensure that results from appropriate tests can be compared between laboratories.

Yes, or no. Do you claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?

 

[j_j]

The Unbeliever, gets labeled a troll, a trouble maker, lacking in hearing, just does not want to get along etc.

I was kicked off a few forums for the crime of "Making too much sense" or "Using logic".

No one can dare question some random guy on the internet making some huge unsubstantiated claim.....EVER!

You sound like you have experience!

 

[j_j]

Thanks for the heads up.

I've been at this for a while so I should be okay and we can probably have some fun.

BTW - What was the outcome of Chueng and Mark's work on Ill Posed Sampling Theorems?

https://robertmarks.org/REPRINTS/1985_IllPosedSamplingTheorems.pdf

The actual theorem says you can get AS CLOSE AS YOU WANT to fs/2, but only at FS/2 if you have infinite time.

So, in reality, this does not matter.

 

[SIY]

Yes, or no. Do you claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?

Did I say that?

 

[j_j]

Did I say that?

I didn't see that. It's almost like the question was along this vein: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leading_question

 

[Doodski]

I didn't see that. It's almost like the question was along this vein: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leading_question

"They allow the person asking the question to get across their viewpoint (making them popular when you're trying to impress an audience or jury) and often tie the answerer down into giving a simple yes-or-no answer without qualification."
They turn me off and make me question the intention of the person asking the question(s). An ultimatum of sorts it what it feels like to me.

 

[rickmurphy]

Did I say that?

No. You made vague statements about standards.

What standards organizations have you been a member of and what standards have you worked on?

And I asked you a direct question Yes, or no. Do you claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?

Is there a problem with that?

I didn't see that. It's almost like the question was along this vein: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leading_question

Wrong.

 

[rickmurphy]

"They allow the person asking the question to get across their viewpoint (making them popular when you're trying to impress an audience or jury) and often tie the answerer down into giving a simple yes-or-no answer without qualification."
They turn me off and make me question the intention of the person asking the question(s). An ultimatum of sorts it what it feels like to me.

What about you? Yes, or no. Do you claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?

 

[SIY]

No. You made vague statements about standards.

What standards organizations have you been a member of and what standards have you worked on?

And I asked you a direct question Yes, or no. Do you claim the Archimago or Hydrogen Audio tests satisfy the requirements of ITU-R BS.116?

Is there a problem with that?


Wrong.

ASTM, NACE, and SAS committees.

I think my statement was quite clear. If you can’t understand it, my sympathies.

 

[rickmurphy]

ASTM, NACE, and SAS committees.

I think my statement was quite clear. If you can’t understand it, my sympathies.

Are you going to answer my question? If not why?

Its Ok to admit that corrosion resistance vocabulary might not be the best domain to prepare you to assess information technology standards.

BTW - I am a retired software engineer with about 15 years working with standards and standards bodies.

 

[SIY]

Are you going to answer my question? If not why?

Its Ok to admit that corrosion resistance vocabulary might not be the best domain to prepare you to assess information technology standards.

BTW - I am a retired software engineer with about 15 years working with standards and standards bodies.

Possibly having several decades of experience in sensory evaluation doesn’t give me as much deep insight into experimental methods and interpretation as a software engineer.

 

[ahofer]

Yeesh.

 

[Sal1950]

The Unbeliever, gets labeled a troll, a trouble maker, lacking in hearing, just does not want to get al

You missed being told his gear wasn't good enough or have enough resolution.
I've heard that many times. LOL

 

[DonH56]

I helped with IEEE Standards 1057 (transient recorders), 1241 (ADCs), and 1658 (DACs) and was involved with several others (for analog circuits and high-speed serial links, IEEE and otherwise) but don't see how that is relevant to the debate or the paper. Not having much experience as a SW engineer I am content to sit this one out. I be a simple analog engineer (retired), not an IT expert. And I've learned decades of experience is irrelevant on the internet.

@j_j 's bio (one of them, anyway): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37302284200

Stuart's bio is also impressive but don't think he is a SW expert either (sorry if I'm wrong @SIY).

 

[rickmurphy]

Possibly having several decades of experience in sensory evaluation doesn’t give me as much deep insight into experimental methods and interpretation as a software engineer.

Understood. If you feel like you don't have the qualifications to answer the question, that's Ok. And better to make that judgement than to over extend yourself.

In my time working with standards bodies for the US Federal government I gained deep insights into a few organizations' standards development processes. My technical work was in advanced programming language architecture using type theory, category theory and proof theory.

I am a veteran of many, many discussion groups on a wide range of topics. I think I have a pretty good read on this group at this point.