Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: So the typical oversampling DAC with a filter thats not your ca 1986 brickwall filter does it roughly rigth ? There was a sea change in DAC filters around Y2K and linear phase filters became far more common. Of course the only rule is that there are no rules. ;-) Some modern DACs have switchable filters so you can play DAC filter de jour with them. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Yes. IMO, it looks like this is exactly all it has ever been! We'll see if Meridian and MQA is the next great thing in this chapter when we get to see the kind of upsampling and filter settings they're promoting... Perhaps that will be the pinnacle since Meridian was one of the first to promote minimum phase and got the press going ohhh... ahhh... Again i can repeat often enough that all tests that try to promote low ringing show very, very low statistical value and even then only with very, very strong ringing filters. A setting with a gentle filter setting like these mentioned above is very, very likely all you need to not worry anymore about ringring or voicing every piece of music different because of some phase thing acting in the audible band. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: Ok . So some minimum phase filters have the frequency response slope before 20k not good if it start way before 20k. My concern is thats all there is to it , it's gets slightly softer and whiz bang it's the next big thing for audiophiles ? Yes. IMO, it looks like this is exactly all it has ever been! We'll see if Meridian and MQA is the next great thing in this chapter when we get to see the kind of upsampling and filter settings they're promoting... Perhaps that will be the pinnacle since Meridian was one of the first to promote minimum phase and got the press going ohhh... ahhh... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: I welcome anyone who feels the need to ABX filter settings to go for it :-). he he SoX itlself has some to go trough :)) Wombat wrote: If you asked me Mnyb, for similar reasons. SoX b 91-93 covers the complete redbook spec from 20-20.000. Its aliasing is only allowed above the passband. Especialy with some noise shaped dither used the little aliasing above 20kHz is covered and can't cause any trouble. To lazy to look it up again but non-linear spectral filter pics of impulses showed frequency offsets into the audible band below 20kHz. SoX is the most simple free choice imho. Ok . So some minimum phase filters have the frequency response slope before 20k not good if it start way before 20k. My concern is thats all there is to it , it's gets slightly softer and whiz bang it's the next big thing for audiophiles ? Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Again i can repeat often enough that all tests that try to promote low ringing show very, very low statistical value and even then only with very, very strong ringing filters. A setting with a gentle filter setting like these mentioned above is very, very likely all you need to not worry anymore about ringring or voicing every piece of music different because of some phase thing acting in the audible band. So the typical oversampling DAC with a filter thats not your ca 1986 brickwall filter does it roughly rigth ? I not versed in the exact technical details . I'm certain that there is some kind of group of good compromises that gets its done like the SoX settings you use . Actual chip implementations has and still probably have their own set of problems . Hence the idea now that CPU power cost nought to do this stuff with proper floating point math in software . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: Like that's not happening thousands of times for every track in a modern DAW :D Sssh! Don't tell them! :) To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Julf wrote: Sssh! Don't tell them! :) *cough* can it be so that some plugins and effects in a DAW use Filters what algorithm are used here ? Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: So the typical oversampling DAC with a filter thats not your ca 1986 brickwall filter does it roughly rigth ? Indeed. I not versed in the exact technical details . I'm certain that there is some kind of group of good compromises that gets its done like the SoX settings you use. Yes - I think that is the way beyond more than good enough point. Hence the idea now that CPU power cost nought to do this stuff with proper floating point math in software . Do we want to go there? I can already see it - ah, but floating point is never totally precise, so there is always room for improvement :) To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: So the typical oversampling DAC with a filter thats not your ca 1986 brickwall filter does it roughly rigth ? I not versed in the exact technical details . I'm certain that there is some kind of group of good compromises that gets its done like the SoX settings you use . Actual chip implementations has and still probably have their own set of problems . Hence the idea now that CPU power cost nought to do this stuff with proper floating point math in software . Surely old designs were already good enough with this but marketing has to create problems to solve. You see that even me suddenly wurries about things that most likely not matter :) We can phantasy around even more. Lets assume we use a filter that filters softly at 20kHz for downsampling and i play it at my Transporter. From a measurement at stereoplay i see it filters 44.1kHz material steep around 20.8kHz. Since my SoX resampling setting kicks in at ~20.28kHz the ringing of the 20.8kHz Transporter filter should not matter because there is no loud content left to trigger but we get very theoretical here. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Julf wrote: Do we want to go there? I can already see it - ah, but floating point is never totally precise, so there is always room for improvement :) Like that's not happening thousands of times for every track in a modern DAW :D Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Surely old designs were already good enough with this but marketing has to create problems to solve. You see that even me suddenly wurries about things that most likely not matter :) We can phantasy around even more. Lets assume we use a filter that filters softly at 20kHz for downsampling and i play it at my Transporter. From a measurement at stereoplay i see it filters 44.1kHz material steep around 20.8kHz. Since my SoX resampling setting kicks in at ~20.28kHz the ringing of the 20.8kHz Transporter filter should not matter because there is no loud content left to trigger but we get very theoretical here. Yes , but you can not have it as free software tweak you must build an expensive hardware box then it will be the next thing surely :) Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
What did you actually test was it a preference with listeners for a certain filter ? Is it addressed what filters gives inaudible differences when downsampling from a hires original ? As we before have reached the conclusion that hires can't be heard over CD-res of what use is filter with a slight euphoric preference ? We all have tone controls ? A filter that makes a 16/44.1 down sample indistinguishable from 24/196 must be more correct than a filter than gives a slight euphonic pleasantness to the sound ? Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: What did you actually test was it a preference with listeners for a certain filter ? Is it addressed what filters gives inaudible differences when downsampling from a hires original ? As we before have reached the conclusion that hires can't be heard over CD-res of what use is filter with a slight euphoric preference ? We all have tone controls ? A filter that makes a 16/44.1 down sample indistinguishable from 24/196 must be more correct than a filter than gives a slight euphonic pleasantness to the sound ? No, regarding stuff on settings for downsampling, personally for myself just an intellectual exercise to find something that doesn't ring much (especially for those who believe they can hear the ringing/smearing), frequency response flat to 20kHz (unlike stuff like the Ayre filter), has minimal aliasing while doing the above, and remains linear phase because I think linear phase is still best practice for accuracy. The settings seem to be decent objective tradeoffs that should not result in any subjective concerns / criticisms... I welcome anyone who feels the need to ABX filter settings to go for it :-). Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
If you asked me Mnyb, for similar reasons. SoX b 91-93 covers the complete redbook spec from 20-20.000. Its aliasing is only allowed above the passband. Especialy with some noise shaped dither used the little aliasing above 20kHz is covered and can't cause any trouble. To lazy to look it up again but non-linear spectral filter pics of impulses showed frequency offsets into the audible band below 20kHz. SoX is the most simple free choice imho. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Nice we come to a similar conclusion. I suggest SoX -b92 -a for some years now :) Good stuff :cool: Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Lavorgna posted on this test... Perverse that the guy bothers to comment on my blog contents yet I've been banned from responding on his comments section. I guess he and Plaskin had to resort to censorship at that place. No choice but to leave a response on my blog: :) 'MUSINGS: Digital Filters Test Discussion' (http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/07/musings-digital-filters-test-discussion.html) Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Lavorgna posted on this test... Perverse that the guy bothers to comment on my blog contents yet I've been banned from responding on his comments section. I guess he and Plaskin had to resort to censorship at that place. No choice but to leave a response on my blog: :) 'MUSINGS: Digital Filters Test Discussion' (http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/07/musings-digital-filters-test-discussion.html) Nice we come to a similar conclusion. I suggest SoX -b92 -a for some years now :) Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Lavorgna posted on this test... Perverse that the guy bothers to comment on my blog contents yet I've been banned from responding on his comments section. I guess he and Plaskin had to resort to censorship at that place. We see similar trends over here on the slim devices forum. Who is it that wants contrary viewpoints banned from *their* threads over here? arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Results out! 'Part I: RESULTS' (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling.html) 'Part II: ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS' (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling_10.html) Thanks to all who participated. :cool: Interesting, as always! Thanks! To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
This looks like a lot of work again Archimago and i will read it carefully. Thank you very much btw. for mentioning me in the former article ;) The spectral pics you offer are nice. Audition color sheme seems more clear as the Audacity pics i tried. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: This looks like a lot of work again Archimago and i will read it carefully. Thank you very much btw. for mentioning me in the former article ;) The spectral pics you offer are nice. Audition color sheme seems more clear as the Audacity pics i tried. Thanks Wombat. Appreciate your insights and discussions off the forum here over the years... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Results out! 'Part I: RESULTS' (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling.html) 'Part II: ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS' (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling_10.html) Thanks to all who participated. :cool: Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Happy Father's Day to all the dads... Closing off the test on June 25th! Get your results in if you haven't yet... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
We're 1/2 way through the test period! At present I'm at 35 detailed responses which is not bad given the demands of the test... Folks, if you've ever wanted to know whether this whole digital filters effect with pre-ringing makes a difference for you, I'd highly recommend giving the test a try and participate in the experiment. Satisfy your curiosity while contributing with some data! As far as I know, this would be the largest public trial of this sort and I think this can give us some answers around the audibility of pre-ringing given the (extreme!) type of filter setting I'm using here... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: OK, let's clear something up - what is being tested here - pre-echo on all frequencies in the audio band or the Gibbs effect which only results in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz? Seems you don't really understand the Gibbs effect either. To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: Right, so your statement No DAC playing back 176.4kHz should touch the audible band was meaningless to this test only confuses matters. A minimum phase filter Let's see what Archimago did then - *I took ~1 minute of these three 24/44 or 16/44 recordings and using SoX, upsampled them to 24/176.4 with either the linear or minimum phase upsampling algorithm, re-naming one file A and another B. * So he used an upsampling algorithm of either minimum or linear phase to bring these files to 24/176. Now tell me how pre-ringing at the Nyquist frequency of 88KHz is of interest to anyone what this test is intended to do? Julf wrote: Seems you don't really understand the Gibbs effect either. From what I can see, http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/04/internet-blind-test-linear-vs-minimum.html pretty well answered jkeny's question: As you can see by the images above, when we send a 16/44 impulse through these reconstruction filters, we create different forms of high-frequency ringing. Linear phase filters do not result in phase distortion. However, the issue we are to note looking at the typical linear phase impulse response is the symmetrical ringing as seen above. It has been suggested that the pre-ringing (pre-echo) is damaging to the sound and unnatural. As a result, minimum phase filter algorithms became staples of companies like the aforementioned Meridian and later on Ayre with their well known whitepaper on their filter choice (I see this is also used in the recent PonoPlayer). Realize however that in removing the pre-echo, minimum phase filters will result in high frequency phase shift compared to the linear phase filter as shown here (from the Infinite Wave website looking at SoX 14.4 VHQ Minimum Phase vs. Linear phase): Perhaps we should ask a question that a reasonable person who knew very little about digital technology could still answer, such as What is unclear about the above paragraph? arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Perhaps we should ask a question that a reasonable person who knew very little about digital technology could still answer, such as What is unclear about the above paragraph? Indeed, but I would also love to hear how the Gibbs effect only results in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz... To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Julf wrote: Indeed, but I would also love to hear how the Gibbs effect only results in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz... Of course, but I'm trying to create a situation where honest sincerity would work for the person asking the question without making demands on a resource that seems highly constrained, namely technical competence. We both know that the Gibbs effect happens in the data domain when you suddenly cut off all of the higher order harmonics. IOW you can demonstrate the Gibbs effect perfectly with just math, which is more fundamental than either analog audio or digital audio. You can do the math in the time domain or the frequency domain and the results are the same. The bottom line is that the math says that when you brick wall low pass filter a waveform a rapid change in the signal will cause ringing, and that is how the ball bounces. IMO the cited paragraph covers that quite clearly and in times past I would be mystified by any failure to comprehend.However I have been working with placebophiles lately and I now understand that their biases severely inhibit learning from reliable sources. So the question becomes how to overcome the perceptual difficulties of placebophiles when it comes to technical discussions. My approach this time was to direct the discussion so that honest sincerity would be the critical resource, not technical competence. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
adamdea wrote: Although your other sentences are quite accurate, there actually is such a thing as echo (distinct from ringing) see para 2.1 of this and Graph E relating to each filter. http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf That said, I think that these days the FR rippling can be made arbitrarily small, so that effect would be (dare I say it) insignificant I just did the ringing pic lately like posted before. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103537-Internet-Blind-Test-Linear-vs-Minimum-Digital-Filtersp=816463viewfull=1#post816463 The resolution of the pic was -110dB but i have to recheck. Using SoX with -v there. Pre-echo was not visible to me. In the pics of bandpass there are indeed these low level patterns most likely due to the extreme steep experimental filter he designed for this test. You are right. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: The test is clearly explained and i don't know what you talk about. There is no such thing as pre-echo at all frequencies. I doubt you understand the basics. A DAC playing back 176.4kHz should not have a filter doing anything to content at 22kHz. For anything higher there is simply no content that can ring in these samples. Although your other sentences are quite accurate, there actually is such a thing as echo (distinct from ringing) see para 2.1 of this and Graph E relating to each filter. http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf That said, I think that these days the FR rippling can be made arbitrarily small, so that effect would be (dare I say it) insignificant adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Did the image get fixed? I'm seeing the pre and post-echo as it should with the steep linear phase filter in the thread after applying the 20kHz filter (2nd column)... Wombat wrote: I don't think the picture was different before. The ringing is nicely shown at the filters frequency where it belongs. Maybe adamdea expected ringing in the audible band. These spectral pics are much more clear with that as the typical graph you see as marketing since ages. Hi. Only just noticed your replies to my post. I have tried to illustrate what I meant on this here. I was under the impression that pre/post ringing and and pre/post echo were two -different- things- the latter being the time domain result of the rippling in the frequency response of a filter. I assume that the two purple lines which appear in the filtered frequency sweep [bottom right] represent pre/post-echo. I only see this effect on the bottom row, whereas the ringing appears on the first and second row too. If I am wrong about this, please show where you think the pre-echo is. If I have misidentified the purple lines in the effect in the bottom row right image, then happy to be corrected 18132 +---+ |Filename: filtering effect.png | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18132| +---+ adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: I just did the ringing pic lately like posted before. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103537-Internet-Blind-Test-Linear-vs-Minimum-Digital-Filtersp=816463viewfull=1#post816463 The resolution of the pic was -110dB but i have to recheck. Using SoX with -v there. Pre-echo was not visible to me. In the pics of bandpass there are indeed these low level patterns most likely due to the extreme steep experimental filter he designed for this test. You are right. I'm intrigued as to why the echo only appears with the sweep in the example and not with the castanets or impulse. I wonder whether there's more energy in the sweep as it does seem to glow brightly. adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
adamdea wrote: I'm intrigued as to why the echo only appears with the sweep in the example and not with the castanets or impulse. I wonder whether there's more energy in the sweep as it does seem to glow brightly. That is it! By definition an impulse being infinitesimally narrow but with the same maximum amplitude as any other kind of test signal, contains less energy. The castanets being a natural sound can pick up some duration over the impulse, but by their nature their energy content is limited. The sine sweep being a continuous tone has duration on its side. We've been through this same progression with speaker measurements. Back in the day we knew we wanted the frequency response whose theoretical synonym is Impulse Response, so we actually set up spark gaps and there was your impulse signal to test with. But the amplitude of the test signal is limited by the max SPL capabilities of the microphone. And people have to be in the room and ear plugs are a hassle so really loud noises are less practical. Then we tried pink noise and the like, which drove up the energy levels by being more of a continuous signal, but the average energy in noise is still less than it is with the sine wave. Today, most of the speaker measurement systems are based on a swept sine wave test signals. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Thanks Arny adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
No DAC playing back 176.4kHz should touch the audible band where the filters from upsampling act in these samples. Archimago surely already has several reports. Please submit your listening results to him with a detailed description of your setup when you have a 176.4kHz capable DAC. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: But, as I said, is this test not attempting to differentiate recordings of two filters by playing them back through a DAC which itself has a filter? Every audio system has many filters in it, some acoustical, some electrical, some in the original recording, some added by the local system. Jkeny, if we let you assert that we can't hear differences in the presence of any other filter but the one of interest, then we have no justification for performing any listening tests, including listening tests of your DACs. How can these confounders be handled? By using what some of us (but obviously not yourself Mr. Jkeny) know about audio technology to ensure that they don't interfere with each other in a significant way. I've explained this to you before but like it will predictably happen this time, the technical content shot over your head, it would seem. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
I don't see an answer in the two previous posts - just a lot of hand waving. According to ArchiMago's instructions there are 6 Flac files which he wants people to play back through their DAC state a preference. He gives some useful DAC setup instructions warnings. But, as I said, is this test not attempting to differentiate recordings of two filters by playing them back through a DAC which itself has a filter? How can these confounders be handled? jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: Can you show that the DAC's filter will not have an affect on the playback of the recordings? This being the premise that underpins the whole test. Yes. The test runs at 24/192 which is a 96 KHz bandpass and the filters being studied run around 22 KHz. Surely the correct approach is to use a DAC which has switchable filters do your blind testing on it? Wrong again. The design of the test puts the DAC filters up at 96 Khz, while the test itself runs at 22 KHz. The 74 KHz difference keeps them out of each other's way. Any reasonable 24/192 DAC filter will have its brick wall effects well away from the test frequencies. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: OK, let's clear something up - what is being tested here - pre-echo on all frequencies in the audio band or the Gibbs effect which only results in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz? Your post talks about 176.4KHz playback not touching anything in the audible band but 22.05KHz is not in the audible band, is it? The test is clearly explained and i don't know what you talk about. There is no such thing as pre-echo at all frequencies. I doubt you understand the basics. A DAC playing back 176.4kHz should not have a filter doing anything to content at 22kHz. For anything higher there is simply no content that can ring in these samples. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
arnyk wrote: Every audio system has many filters in it, some acoustical, some electrical, some in the original recording, some added by the local system. Jkeny, if we let you assert that we can't hear differences in the presence of any other filter but the one of interest, then we have no justification for performing any listening tests, including listening tests of your DACs. By using what some of us (but obviously not yourself Mr. Jkeny) know about audio technology to ensure that they don't interfere with each other in a significant way. I've explained this to you before but like it will predictably happen this time, the technical content shot over your head, it would seem. Can you show that the DAC's filter will not have an affect on the playback of the recordings? This being the premise that underpins the whole test. It's not up to me to prove it does - it up to those who are suggesting this as a valid test to prove this premise is correct Surely the correct approach is to use a DAC which has switchable filters do your blind testing on it? jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: No DAC playing back 176.4kHz should touch the audible band where the filters from upsampling act in these samples. Archimago surely already has several reports. Please submit your listening results to him with a detailed description of your setup when you have a 176.4kHz capable DAC. OK, let's clear something up - what is being tested here - pre-echo on all frequencies in the audio band or the Gibbs effect which only results in ringing at frequencies around 22.05KHz? Your post talks about 176.4KHz playback not touching anything in the audible band but 22.05KHz is not in the audible band, is it? jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: Right, so your statement No DAC playing back 176.4kHz should touch the audible band was meaningless to this test only confuses matters. A minimum phase filter Let's see what Archimago did then - *I took ~1 minute of these three 24/44 or 16/44 recordings and using SoX, upsampled them to 24/176.4 with either the linear or minimum phase upsampling algorithm, re-naming one file A and another B. * So he used an upsampling algorithm of either minimum or linear phase to bring these files to 24/176. Now tell me how pre-ringing at the Nyquist frequency of 88KHz is of interest to anyone what this test is intended to do? As before i doubt you understand the basics. Do the test or let it go but please don't waste my time. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: The test is clearly explained and i don't know what you talk about. There is no such thing as pre-echo at all frequencies. I doubt you understand the basics. A DAC playing back 176.4kHz should not have a filter doing anything to content at 22kHz. For anything higher there is simply no content that can ring in these samples. Right, so your statement No DAC playing back 176.4kHz should touch the audible band was meaningless to this test only confuses matters. A minimum phase filter Let's see what Archimago did then - *I took ~1 minute of these three 24/44 or 16/44 recordings and using SoX, upsampled them to 24/176.4 with either the linear or minimum phase upsampling algorithm, re-naming one file A and another B. * So he used an upsampling algorithm of either minimum or linear phase to bring these files to 24/176. Now tell me how pre-ringing at the Nyquist frequency of 88KHz is of interest to anyone what this test is intended to do? jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: Right, so your statement No DAC playing back 176.4kHz should touch the audible band was meaningless to this test only confuses matters. A minimum phase filter Let's see what Archimago did then - *I took ~1 minute of these three 24/44 or 16/44 recordings and using SoX, upsampled them to 24/176.4 with either the linear or minimum phase upsampling algorithm, re-naming one file A and another B. * So he used an upsampling algorithm of either minimum or linear phase to bring these files to 24/176. Correct. Now tell me how pre-ringing at the Nyquist frequency of 88KHz is of interest to anyone what this test is intended to do? That snide comment just shows the monumental amount of relevant technical information that you don't know about upsampling, jkeny. Upsampling is done by zero-filling the input file, followed by a brick wall low pass filter whose corner frequency is based on the sample rate of the original file. The filtering is required because the original file has been expanded into the output file by putting in samples whose value is equal to zero to bring the number of samples up to the new, higher number of samples. This naturally creates aliases of the original audio data. By properly filtering the new file, we end up with a higher sample rate file whose audio information is an excellent approximation of the original flie. In the case of this test, the 44 KHz input data is upsampled to 176 KHz by means of zero filling which initially creates 3 aliases of the input data. The 44 KHz low pass brick wall filter which is implemented at a 176 KHz sample rate is supposed to knock out the 3 aliases leaving the original data clean and pure. If it is designed well, then all is well. This test is about what constitutes a well designed 44 KHz filter operating at 176 KHz. It is supposed to be inaudible. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Thank you for clarifying! jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
arnyk wrote: Yes, but based on past experience with you John, you are incapable of appreciating or benefiting from the explanation. Any reasonable explanation will be bent, folded, spindled, torn and mutilated. Ok, I got it - you can't justify it jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: Ok, I got it - you can't justify it Jkeny you seem to think that I am omniscient and control this test. In fact it originated before the first time I ever posted on this forum. Therefore it is an undeniable fact that I had no influence over its parameters, and your continued bulling of me related to it is just more evidence of the fantasy world in which you seem to live. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Maybe we can agree at least. This test only can show if upsampling with a linear phase filter can sound different as with a minimum phase filter and what sound people prefer. It doesn't even test what filter sounds more like the original. The files are pretty good at helping to test this without involving the playback hardware sound to much. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
arnyk wrote: Jkeny you seem to think that I am omniscient and control this test. In fact it originated before the first time I ever posted on this forum. Therefore it is an undeniable fact that I had no influence over its parameters, and your continued bulling of me related to it is just more evidence of the fantasy world in which you seem to live. I asked an open question to all objectivists about the validity of this test - you chose to respond to my post with a slur but no answer. So I get it - you can't justify it so why bother responding to my post - let others respond who can answer my question. As far as I can make out the logic of this test - it seems to me the equivalent of recording two different DACs then asking people to play back this recording through their own DAC to see if they can differentiate between the two. jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Safe your energy Arnold. This forum has a long history in letting people talk about their daydreams. Over time here were several bizarre claims made by well known überears no one should take to serious. Since this is an audiophile sub forum no one really complains and in some way it makes it a bit special and enjoyable. It even leads to some funny writings when people explore the twilight zone. Just take it with a smile :) Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: I asked an open question to all objectivists about the validity of this test - you chose to respond to my post with a slur but no answer. So I get it - you can't justify it so why bother responding to my post - let others respond who can answer my question. See, jkeny there you go again. How am I possibly so omniscient that I prevented anybody from responding to your question? As far as I can make out the logic of this test - it seems to me the equivalent of recording two different DACs then asking people to play back this recording through their own DAC to see if they can differentiate between the two. Am I missing something? Yes, jkeny you are missing the fact that the test is not about DACs or anything like them. It is about a technical operation that can and often does happen with nary a DAC in sight. Therefore your interpretation of the logic of the test is false. Furthermore, you are holding a perfectly valid kind of test of DACs up to ridicule. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Can anyone tell me the logic of this test, please? Is there not an issue with testing the audible effect of recordings that used linear or minimum phase filters when listening through a DAC that itself uses one of these filters? jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jkeny wrote: Can anyone tell me the logic of this test, please? Yes, but based on past experience with you John, you are incapable of appreciating the explanation. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
arnyk wrote: The literature related to doing this kind of listening test contains many examples of attention and inattention to the potential for nonlinear distortion (e.g. IM) in the monitoring system to cause false positives. This pair of sample-rate-testing files contain the results of several generations of trying to build a listening test that is self-diagnostic for this problem: 'Link to files for studying the audible effects of downsampling that are also self-diagnostic for IM' (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107570view=findpostp=894877) The way this works is that the primary test is the classic Keys Jangling sound originally recorded at 24/96 and then downsampled to 44/16 and upsampled back to 24/96. Following the keys jangling sound is a brief low level marker tone followed by ultrasonic test tones designed to elicit audible IM if there is excess nonlinear distortion in the monitoring chain. The intent is that an ABX file comparison tool such as Foobar2K with its ABX plug-in (all freeware) are used to control the test. In the basic test (keys jangling, before the audible test tone) the intent is that you either hear or do not hear a difference. That's the primary test. Following the low level test tone is the secondary qualification test for your monitoring chain. If you hear any difference between the files in this test segment, (or hear anything but silence or a very faint low level rushing noise) then your monitoring chain has audible IM and any positive results from the primary test are probably the results of that. IOW, false positives. Thanks for that Arnold. I'm glad you guys are doing your best to test this properly, as a counter to the somewhat warped methods of those with commercial interests at heart. As an aside, I've recently updated one of my long term projects (involved with genuine ultrasonic content) to take advantage of the ready availability of low cost 192KHz ADC/DAC devices now. I'm really impressed with the performance, but for me - especially with my ageing ears - it is utterly pointless (and quite possibly detrimental) to use such high sample rates for music. utgg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40900 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
utgg wrote: I'm coming late to all these discussions, so forgive me if I'm covering old ground here. As an engineer that has worked for many years in all sorts of fields involved in signal processing, I've found the difficulties with wide-band high resolution systems are mostly to do with non-linearities. I suspect that if people can actually hear a difference between wide bandwidth input vs. the same thing low-pass filtered - that we know shouldn't be audible - this is probably a non-linearity defect in either the reproduction equipment or receiving apparatus (i.e. the ears). Most likely the ears. In other words, those that think they've got 'golden ears' because they can hear a difference maybe shouldn't be too proud - it could well be because their ears are unusually non-linear, i.e. defective. It could, of course, be a non-linear defect in the (expensive) wide-bandwidth amplifier/speaker/listening environment combination being revealed with this new-fangled high-sample rate source material. That might be equally problematic Thanks for the note UTGG. I've heard a similar comment with psychoacoustic encoding as well. I remember running into an older fellow (mid 60's) with sensorineural hearing loss from acoustic trauma a number of years back who claims he could hear the difference in MP3 even at high bitrates. He attributed it to his own hearing damage such that the normal mechanisms of auditory masking didn't work for him any more. Good insight I thought in that he didn't just proclaim that MP3 sucks!, but rather realized that he could hear things that were different when his own kids and grandkids had no complaints. Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
utgg wrote: I'm coming late to all these discussions, so forgive me if I'm covering old ground here. As an engineer that has worked for many years in all sorts of fields involved in signal processing, I've found the difficulties with wide-band high resolution systems are mostly to do with non-linearities. I suspect that if people can actually hear a difference between wide bandwidth input vs. the same thing low-pass filtered - that we know shouldn't be audible - this is probably a non-linearity defect in either the reproduction equipment or receiving apparatus (i.e. the ears). Most likely the ears. In other words, those that think they've got 'golden ears' because they can hear a difference maybe shouldn't be too proud - it could well be because their ears are unusually non-linear, i.e. defective. It could, of course, be a non-linear defect in the (expensive) wide-bandwidth amplifier/speaker/listening environment combination being revealed with this new-fangled high-sample rate source material. That might be equally problematic The literature related to doing this kind of listening test contains many examples of attention and inattention to the potential for nonlinear distortion (e.g. IM) in the monitoring system to cause false positives. This pair of sample-rate-testing files contain the results of several generations of trying to build a listening test that is self-diagnostic for this problem: 'Link to files for studying the audible effects of downsampling that are also self-diagnostic for IM' (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107570view=findpostp=894877) The way this works is that the primary test is the classic Keys Jangling sound originally recorded at 24/96 and then downsampled to 44/16 and upsampled back to 24/96. Following the keys jangling sound is a brief low level marker tone followed by ultrasonic test tones designed to elicit audible IM if there is excess nonlinear distortion in the monitoring chain. The intent is that an ABX file comparison tool such as Foobar2K with its ABX plug-in (all freeware) are used to control the test. In the basic test (keys jangling, before the audible test tone) the intent is that you either hear or do not hear a difference. That's the primary test. Following the low level test tone is the secondary qualification test for your monitoring chain. If you hear any difference between the files in this test segment, then your monitoring chain has audible IM and any positive results from the primary test are probably the results of that. IOW, false positives. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
I'm coming late to all these discussions, so forgive me if I'm covering old ground here. As an engineer that has worked for many years in all sorts of fields involved in signal processing, I've found the difficulties with wide-band high resolution systems are mostly to do with non-linearities. I suspect that if people can actually hear a difference between wide bandwidth input vs. the same thing low-pass filtered - that we know shouldn't be audible - this is probably a non-linearity defect in either the reproduction equipment or receiving apparatus (i.e. the ears). Most likely the ears. In other words, those that think they've got 'golden ears' because they can hear a difference maybe shouldn't be too proud - it could well be because their ears are unusually non-linear, i.e. defective. It could, of course, be a non-linear defect in the (expensive) wide-bandwidth amplifier/speaker/listening environment combination being revealed with this new-fangled high-sample rate source material. That might be equally problematic utgg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40900 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Did the image get fixed? I'm seeing the pre and post-echo as it should with the steep linear phase filter in the thread after applying the 20kHz filter (2nd column)... I don't think the picture was different before. The ringing is nicely shown at the filters frequency where it belongs. Maybe adamdea expected ringing in the audible band. These spectral pics are much more clear with that as the typical graph you see as marketing since ages. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
In the meantime I've just noticed this post on HA (I think Wombat participated in the thread) which very neatly shows the two effects of a steep filter namely pre-ringing and pre-echo (and post for each too). The middle row (impulse) just shows ringing (the blurry horizontal line showing spuriae in the transition band). This can also be seen in the top row (castanets) The bottom row (tone sweep) shows this again with also pre- and post echoes being the diagonal purple lines. I'm not quite sure why the impulse (middle row) and casanets do not show pre and post echo though. http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=showtopic=93588view=findpostp=895337 adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
adamdea wrote: In the meantime I've just noticed this post on HA (I think Wombat participated in the thread) which very neatly shows the two effects of a steep filter namely pre-ringing and pre-echo (and post for each too). The middle row (impulse) just shows ringing (the blurry horizontal line showing spuriae in the transition band). This can also be seen in the top row (castanets) The bottom row (tone sweep) shows this again with also pre- and post echoes being the diagonal purple lines. I'm not quite sure why the impulse (middle row) and casanets do not show pre and post echo though. http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=showtopic=93588view=findpostp=895337 Did the image get fixed? I'm seeing the pre and post-echo as it should with the steep linear phase filter in the thread after applying the 20kHz filter (2nd column)... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Thank you for the link Mr. Krueger! So, I feel like I'm missing something here and curious about practical implications: 1. As for the actual claims of The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System per the title, what exactly did they find here? (Other than suboptimal dithering being audible...) Since they didn't test filters that were Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System and instead tested filters with a misch-mash of parameters with inherently flawed listening tests of their own contrivance; they found out what their inherently flawed listening tests revealed related to that cats-and-dogs set of filters. The paper was about straw men. The other big straw man came from a lack of understanding of ABX testing as it is practiced today in audio. They referenced a 1950 paper about an early form of ABX testing that was not the interactive process that is used in audio today. When corrected, they went back and referenced a later paper that cited the same 1950 paper. I guess you can't teach old dogs new tricks. At any rate their excuse for ignoring ABX testing was a repetition of the false claim that ABX is necessarily a 2AFC listening test which as a practical matter is not true. ABX as practiced today is interactive and therefore many choices about how to execute the test are up to the listener. The listener has the option of using ABX as a same/different test, and many say they exercise this option. The paper's own test methodology locked their listeners into fixed-length arbitrary samples, while many ABX testers prefer shorter samples of their choosing. What we know about how people detect audible differences favors shorter samples of the listener's choosing. 2. What device uses 16-bit RPDF dithering which would be of any significance for the hi-fi enthusiast these days? I have no idea of any such device being commonly used. Hi Fi enthusiasts generally only use DACs, and unlike ADCs, dither is not central to the operation of DACs. The predominate source of dither involved with a typical piece of hi fi gear is generally the digital recording. If we adopt the model of recordings being made with ADCs that have less noise then their sources which seems reasonable, then the actual dithering noise in the recording can easily be the background noise from acoustical and analog sources that are an inherent part of the recording process. Analog noise generally has a Gaussian PDF which more strongly resembles TPDF dither than RPDF dither. 5 arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Welcome Mr. K. :) This is turning into a rather remarkable sub-forum. :) To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
arnyk wrote: TRUE. Read his explanation for that here: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?ID=416 If you read the articles at the above link, you will see that the RPDF dither was only one of several such asymmetries. Thank you for the link Mr. Krueger! Interesting discussion on the paradigm. As for RPDF dithering as a probe for suboptimal DACs, it looks like they acknowledge the quantisation and dither tests were reported for information but are not central to the point of the paper. Okay... The last sentence of the Stuart reply: we have continued this series of experiments using different filters (including both shorter and minimum-phase designs) and will be reporting these findings in the near future. I'm sure we'll be looking forward to this paper. So, I feel like I'm missing something here and curious about practical implications: 1. As for the actual claims of The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System per the title, what exactly did they find here? (Other than suboptimal dithering being audible...) 2. What device uses 16-bit RPDF dithering which would be of any significance for the hi-fi enthusiast these days? Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Welcome Mr. K. :) *Home:* VortexBox 4TB (2.3) LMS 7.8 Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet) *Cottage:* VBA 3TB (2.3) LMS 7.8 Touch Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Office:* Win7(64) LMS 7.9 Squeezelite *Spares:* Touch(3), Radio(3), Boom, SB3, CONTROLLER *Controllers:* iPhone6 iPadAir2 (iPeng8 Squeezepad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.8 on Win7(64) laptop *Files:* ripping: dbpoweramp FLAC; post-rip: mp3tag, PerfectTunes; Streaming: Spotify garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Welcome Mr. K. :) Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Thanks for the confirmation on this. That's really quite ridiculous! Deservedly a -shame -for the AES for publishing this if indeed there was some kind of scholarly peer-review process applied and missed such an obvious omission. Maybe they should print / publish a followup where the authors are asked to submit details of the filters, or a retraction if these basics of the experiment set-up cannot be provided?! More information here: Google: AES Convention Papers Forum and a few keywords from the paper title. I'd post the link if I could but I am currently prohibited from doing so by the forum software. Which is the AES papers forum for the paper that we are discussing (readible by anybody, postable by AES members) arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: No one really knows. The paper talks about a filter using a 500Hz transition band realized with Matlab. People that know much more about this stuff wanted to create own files but the paper does not include the exact parameters you need. Matlab must have tons of possibilities there. It is a kind of joke that in a so called peer reviewed paper the data for verifying the findings it is about are missing :) They even used a bad dither method that no real-world resampler would use today. This may be also just another move to build a reason MQA does not need all bits. Is this the paper where they used rectangular pdf dither not triangular despite the fact that Stuart knows fully well that rectangular PDF dither does not remove all the quantisation distortion? I thought that was simply outrageously intellectually bankrupt. Absolutely up there with staircase graphs to prove that hi rez is better. adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
adamdea wrote: Is this the paper where they used rectangular pdf dither not triangular TRUE. despite the fact that Stuart knows fully well that rectangular PDF dither does not remove all the quantisation distortion? Read his explanation for that here: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?ID=416 I thought that was simply outrageously intellectually bankrupt. Absolutely up there with staircase graphs to prove that hi rez is better. If you read the articles at the above link, you will see that the RPDF dither was only one of several such asymmetries. arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: Don't know about the brilliant part... I figure it was just obvious in order to isolate the variables :-). Now if someone out there can explain to me what kind of Filter responses tested were representative of anti-alias filters used in A/D (analog-to-digital) converters or mastering processes settings these people used, I would be most appreciative as I do not have access to said famous AES paper: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17497 I'm also a bit confused as to why this paper even bothers to mention 16-bit quantization and dithering at all... How's that supposed to fit into the title Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System? Perplexed... No one really knows. The paper talks about a filter using a 500Hz transition band realized with Matlab. People that know much more about this stuff wanted to create own files but the paper does not include the exact parameters you need. Matlab must have tons of possibilities there. It is a kind of joke that in a so called peer reviewed paper the data for verifying the findings it is about are missing :) The paper makes no claims about 16bit being inferior to higher bit depth. They even used a bad dither method that no real-world resampler would use today. This may be also just another move to build a reason MQA does not need all bits. Like mentioned before elsewhere. This paper has many critics for just being a Meridian marketing paper and buy-in at the AES. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: No one really knows. The paper talks about a filter using a 500Hz transition band realized with Matlab. People that know much more about this stuff wanted to create own files but the paper does not include the exact parameters you need. Matlab must have tons of possibilities there. It is a kind of joke that in a so called peer reviewed paper the data for verifying the findings it is about are missing :) The paper makes no claims about 16bit being inferior to higher bit depth. They even used a bad dither method that no real-world resampler would use today. This may be also just another move to build a reason MQA does not need all bits. Like mentioned before elsewhere. This paper has many critics for just being a Meridian marketing paper and buy-in at the AES. Thanks for the confirmation on this. That's really quite ridiculous! Deservedly a -shame -for the AES for publishing this if indeed there was some kind of scholarly peer-review process applied and missed such an obvious omission. Maybe they should print / publish a followup where the authors are asked to submit details of the filters, or a retraction if these basics of the experiment set-up cannot be provided?! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Absolutely! If people don't hear day and night differences with this strong ringing i doubt it ever can become a problem. Just read at CA about every digit from 0-2000 changes sound obviously in the thread about recommended iZotope settings :) Unfortunately here is also no 176.4 native support. Just for illustration a simple pic showing the ringing distribution for sox 99% 44.1 - 176.4, L and M Exactly! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Mnyb wrote: Good luck with this ! I can't be a test subject this time due to the 24/96 limit of my system . However is any comparison done to the original ? I say if what if any of the converted files sounds different ? They're really should not then we might have got in the territory of pleasantly colouring artefacts . The ones sounding different from the original is broken ? Does any of the filters have a frequency drop inside of 20kHz ? There have been many SoX filters suggested by some users over the years , some quite unorthodox often made on the fly by for example convert.conf settings in lms or by other means with other systems . Some of these give a slight attenuation of the treble ? I always wondered if we just have a fancy tone control here . Although suboptimal, you can certainly still give it a try Mnyb. Squeezebox will downsample to 88kHz (?96) and assuming you're just using a standard linear filter, you'll still maintain the general effect. No frequency drop in 20kHz as demonstrated in the frequency response curve on the blog page. That's definitely one variable that had to be controlled. Straight up STEEP filters with no significant frequency response anomaly up to 20kHz except for nasty pre-echo ringing with the linear setting and unavoidable phase distortion with minimum setting. Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Fun fact to me with your test is the idea not using a 192kHz source against a lowpassed one. You may do better as a famous AES paper lately claimed to :) Well, not exactly but one of the reasons in the AES paper differences may be heard is still the possibility of IM of music content in the ultra hard metal tweeter. Your test has no IM content only the added ringing at the filters frequency. Brillant! Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: Fun fact to me with your test is the idea not using a 192kHz source against a lowpassed one. You may do better as a famous AES paper lately claimed to :) Well, not exactly but one of the reasons in the AES paper differences may be heard is still the possibility of IM of music content in the ultra hard metal tweeter. Your test has no IM content only the added ringing at the filters frequency. Brillant! Don't know about the brilliant part... I figure it was just obvious in order to isolate the variables :-). Now if someone out there can explain to me what kind of Filter responses tested were representative of anti-alias filters used in A/D (analog-to-digital) converters or mastering processes settings these people used, I would be most appreciative as I do not have access to said famous AES paper: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17497 I'm also a bit confused as to why this paper even bothers to mention 16-bit quantization and dithering at all... How's that supposed to fit into the title Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System? Perplexed... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
If you really used SoX with the steep filter of 99% it isn't exactly real-world. The high amount of ringing introduced with 99% is completely maintained in the 176kHz upsampled signal. A DAC playing back the 44.1kHz signal never has such a steep filter imho. Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Wombat wrote: My little critic shouldn't invalidate anything of your well done test. It is only that many use filters with a transition band of 1-2 kHz to avoid any problems steep filters may have. On the other hand there are no real convincing arguments there is really a problem, only some marketing papers, anectodes or faulty experiments :) No worries Wombat! I totally accept the critique and welcome it since it's good to know and realistically present the findings (if any!). Like you said, there are marketing papers out there and certain research presented (often by parties with vested interests). I'd love to see we, the consumers weigh in! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
jimmypowder wrote: I can tell the difference with nearfield monitors .In a hifi environment ,I doubt it. JIMMY: 17939 Please, have a listen on the nearfield monitors! Let me know what you hear! +---+ |Filename: Uncle Sam.jpg| |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17939| +---+ Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Good luck with this ! I can't be a test subject this time due to the 24/96 limit of my system . However is any comparison done to the original ? I say if what if any of the converted files sounds different ? They're really should not then we might have got in the territory of pleasantly colouring artefacts . The ones sounding different from the original is broken ? Does any of the filters have a frequency drop inside of 20kHz ? There have been many SoX filters suggested by some users over the years , some quite unorthodox often made on the fly by for example convert.conf settings in lms or by other means with other systems . Some of these give a slight attenuation of the treble ? I always wondered if we just have a fancy tone control here . Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
I can tell the difference with nearfield monitors .In a hifi environment ,I doubt it. jimmypowder's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=61215 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
In doing this we can see if there is any significant preference among respondents! I want to know, EVEN with this amount of (pre-)ringing, whether suppression with the minimum phase setting actually results in a significant difference detected. 1. Is there significant *preference* in a naturalistic sample for one setting vs. another? 2. Are listeners able to consistently prefer one variety over another among the 3 samples? Ie. They keep preferring the same type of filter? How many of these potential golden ears are there? Of course it's also possible that the folks with these *systems* are particularly susceptible to high frequency nonlinearities. 3. Can we detect cohort effect among musicians, production folks, and even audio reviewers? I have been told for example that musicians and those who record and produce music may be able to detect the differences better... In any event, the filter effect is clear. Trading strong pre-ringing at 22kHz for high frequency phase shift. Is there an audible difference and can some people consistently tell? We can deal with the idea of suppressing ringing and such in a future test. One variable at a time :-). BTW: I resample with these steep filters all the time. So I have vested interest in changing how I do things based on the results! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
My little critic shouldn't invalidate anything of your well done test. It is only that many use filters with a transition band of 1-2 kHz to avoid any problems steep filters may have. On the other hand there are no real convincing arguments there is really a problem, only some marketing papers, anectodes or faulty experiments :) Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Internet Blind Test: Linear vs. Minimum Digital Filters...
Archimago wrote: No worries Wombat! I totally accept the critique and welcome it since it's good to know and realistically present the findings (if any!). Like you said, there are marketing papers out there and certain research presented (often by parties with vested interests). I'd love to see we, the consumers weigh in! Absolutely! If people don't hear day and night differences with this strong ringing i doubt it ever can become a problem. Just read at CA about every digit from 0-2000 changes sound obviously in the thread about recommended iZotope settings :) Unfortunately here is also no 176.4 native support. Just for illustration a simple pic showing the ringing distribution for sox 99% 44.1 - 176.4, L and M +---+ |Filename: ring.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17940| +---+ Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
