High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter?

[rickmurphy]

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).

Thanks for the heads up DonH56.

I hope you experienced some of the exotic travel, food and refreshments on someone else's nickel like I and others had the pleasure of enjoying.

My technical work was in advanced programming language architecture using type theory, category theory and proof theory.

I met some good folks and gained deep insights into the standards development process. While standards development lacks the rigor of computer science, Federal agencies rely on standards in procurement, architecture and modernization.

 

[SIY]

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

I am famously not a software expert, so no apologies needed.

 

[Doodski]

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

I wish @j_j linked me to this web page the other day when I asked about his work past and present. This is some intriguing stuff for sure.

 

[j_j]

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

Just asking questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: ""[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously...

rationalwiki.org

False dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[j_j]

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

No kidding. Not just you.

 

[j_j]

I wish @j_j linked me to this web page the other day when I asked about his work past and present. This is some intriguing stuff for sure.

Sorry, never occurred to me. (blush)

 

[j_j]

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.

Please, don't burn out my sarcasm meter. Give me some warning.

 

[j_j]

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.

So, let me ask you a question similar to what you demand of others:

HAVE YOU SOLVED THE HALTING PROBLEM YET? Well? HAVE YOU? HUH? HUH? HAVE YOU?

Seriously, fella, you're insulting some serious talent here, and relevant talent to auditory evaluations. The fact you cited the meta-analysis really clued me in there, I have to say. Have you figured that out yet?

 

[j_j]

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>

Perhaps he never saw comments from "reviewer number 2" as well. I've been on both sides of that.

 

[DonH56]

Perhaps he never saw comments from "reviewer number 2" as well. I've been on both sides of that.

Back when I was reviewing IEEE JSSC papers a number never saw the light of day, and a few got through that really shouldn't have... Too often "peer review" is by some guy working 60-80 hours/week scanning a paper through bleary eyes at midnight to meet the pub deadline. And no, it wasn't always (just) me!

 

[j_j]

Back when I was reviewing IEEE JSSC papers a number never saw the light of day, and a few got through that really shouldn't have... Too often "peer review" is by some guy working 60-80 hours/week scanning a paper through bleary eyes at midnight to meet the pub deadline. And no, it wasn't always (just) me!

Oh yeah. Retired AE here nods emphatically.

 

[Galliardist]

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.

It might help you to think of standards in the wider context.

There are many examples of non-adherence to standards in your industry and they are very expensive. Take for example the OpenSSL farce. All those large companies listing multiple standard compliance, but had a huge security issue from open source code. If any of them had applied testing of that code according to their supposed standards rather than just trusting it and importing the library, that issue would have been caught earlier, would it not?

And IT is way ahead of audio in this regard. In the consumer audio industry, entire product lines get "tested" and "developed" using nothing more than applying some process to a cable, or switching brands and even types of components and listening sighted with no control to see if it is somehow better. Standards? Why don't you go and ask Samsung about audio standards in practice for consumer products? Sounds United? IAG? And that's before we start on the small and small-medium business suppliers.
Where a standard is available, it may well not be properly applied as well, of course. You may want to go and check on the implementation issues with AVRs and HDMI 2.1.

Finally, may I turn your question back on you. Is ITU-R BS.116 actually a suitable standard for the tests you want to disparage? Is it even a suitable standard for the consumer audio industry to follow? Have you read it carefully? Is it fit for purpose? Should large manufacturers have to stick to it for product development? Should it form the basis for magazine reviews claiming difference in sighted comparisons? How do you suggest "this group" use it?

If you want to critique the audio industry on standards, this forum and those seeking to improve standards and expose the issues in the consumer audio industry is not the place to start. You're welcome to take a serious standards based fight to the likes of Synergistic Research, Quantum Audio Science, Nordost, ISOL-8 Technologies, for starters. Go ask them if they use standards based testing from the broadcast industry. Go ask Stereophile to test all products according to the full suite of ITU standards and print the full results for each product.

You see, standards 101 - you can't standardise if you can't measure. You know that, of course.

Welcome to consumer audio, where the loudest voices don't even believe that the basic measurements used for the last 70 years have any relationship to the sonic behaviour of their (or their favourite) products, but don't believe that they should play any part in finding out why, or what measurements should be used instead. If you are interested in changing things in consumer audio, you don't start by riding into town and shooting the concerned citizens, which are the bulk of the group here. Maybe go after the highwaymen and the evil ranchers first?

 

[Galliardist]

@rickmurphy
Sorry for the tone (but not, I'm afraid, the content) of my last response. The other thing you need to know about ASR is that a lot of the "ordinary" members are angry, confused people, who have seen through the worst that this industry (and the wider "audiophile community") has to offer. That includes me.

We aren't generally against standards, despite the response you are getting here. We may question the appropriateness of some of them. I'm sure you don't feel that all of the standards you have worked on are flawless, either.

And I will answer your repeated question: no, I don't believe that the studies you question are, for the most part, compliant with ITU-R BS.116. I'm not sure that, for the broadly investigative purpose that @Archimago is following, he needs to use an industry standard. Many independent researchers in this field, including some that are not popular here right now, are working in the absence of standards that they can easily follow or test against, and can only point towards the issues and things that are wrong in consumer audio.
It would normally be for the industry players, the providers of equipment and national standards agencies, to agree proper standards for consumer audio and to follow them.

It doesn't seem to work that way. One standard that is in US law, the Amplifier Rule, which specifies how amplifier output should be measured, is a key defence for consumers and is being reviewed by the FTC with an apparent proposal to drop it coming from parts of the industry.

Also, we are perpetually confused as to what, if any, standards apply anywhere round here. In fact, the nearest thing to a standard for the measurement of headphones and IEMs is now in flux because an "improved" measuring device is being adopted by testers while there are real questions about its efficacy.

When it comes down to it, there isn't even a "standard" for what strength of signal should come out of an RCA plug on a source device and what should go into a preamplifier. This is truly the wild west.

And we've all forgotten, Welcome to ASR.

 

[BDWoody]

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

You can move along to other threads now.

 

[SIY]

Serious error: do NOT conflate "standards" with "validity." One does not require or even imply the other.

 

[SIY]

Please, don't burn out my sarcasm meter. Give me some warning.

If we want to be entertaining, let's you and I have a fight about positive controls (hint: I think they are not always universally applicable).

 

[Galliardist]

If we want to be entertaining, let's you and I have a fight about positive controls (hint: I think they are not always universally applicable).

Debate, please. There are too many fights going on around here at the moment, without you two starting another.

 

[SIY]

Debate, please. There are too many fights going on around here at the moment, without you two starting another.

Worry not, JJ knows what I mean, we’re buds.

 

[DonH56]

Gentlemen's debate

 

[j_j]

If we want to be entertaining, let's you and I have a fight about positive controls (hint: I think they are not always universally applicable).

I would argue they are always necessary, but that levels and choice of controls can (and should be) debated according to a whole lot of things.

I am, however, curious as to when positive controls are not a good thing.