New paper on high resolution audio perception without music

[LTig]

I never understood the anti MP3 view audiophiles have, A lot stop replying when they can't even tell V3 Lame let alone 320k MP3 or ABX proof is asked.

Even this may not help. See this story.

 

[DDF]

There are several problems here:

• ......
• I could go on...

I saw this and felt too deflated to read further:
"A fast-roll-off linear-phase filter was employed to minimize aliasing distortion "

It didn't see it discussed whether audibility of filter type was accounted for, especially with their Gaussian impulse as a test signal:
https://www.audiomasterclass.com/ne...se-eq-on-transient-signals-such-as-snare-drum

 

[IndividualWay7]

Even this may not help. See this story.

True, A lot of audiophiles still think Vinyl >> digital. Even when told there listening to a 11 bit/32KHz lossless file with crap dynamic range and colouration from distortion.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I agree, reports like this shouldn't be published in journals at all, this is not even poster quality! I had AES access for some time and was astonished that actually most of papers are of same inadequate scienticic/statistical quality. Number of participants is so low that no significance can be expected.

It wasn't. It's a convention paper. On the top of the first page it's clearly labeled as such and points out:

This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed by at least two qualified anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention paper has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents.

This disclaimer doesn't excuse bad work, or answer any of the criticisms. But the "how could they?" outrage can be avoided, unless that's the fun part.

 

[Carnajo]

Peer review at its best

EDIT: By that I mean that this forum is the peer review, not a comment about the paper itself, i.e. I was complementing the forumites who have been reading and commenting on the paper.

 

[SIY]

Peer review at its best

To be fair, the only thing reviewed was the abstract. Which was promising, but let down by the convention paper. The latter is not the reviewers' fault.

 

[Carnajo]

I should have been more specific, I meant this forum is doing the peer review
i.e. my comment was meant to be a compliment to the forum, not an insult to any who may or may not have reviewed the paper. I have edited my comment to be a bit more explanatory.

To be fair, the only thing reviewed was the abstract. Which was promising, but let down by the convention paper. The latter is not the reviewers' fault.

 

[krabapple]

I agree, reports like this shouldn't be published in journals at all, this is not even poster quality! I had AES access for some time and was astonished that actually most of papers are of same inadequate scienticic/statistical quality. Number of participants is so low that no significance can be expected.

AES Convention publications are not vetted to the same standard as JAES articles.