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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 .
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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: :)
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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,
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...
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
___
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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:*
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:
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
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
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:
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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:
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
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,
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
82 matches
Mail list logo
