AES Paper: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation

vc69

aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160715/18296.pdf

I thought you guys might have some interest in this.

@DarqueKnight

vc69

author's commentary can be found HERE

BlueFox

Thanks. Didn't read it start to finish, but the gist is people can tell the difference between high-res, and CD quality music.

txcoastal1

BlueFox wrote: »

Thanks. Didn't read it start to finish, but the gist is people can tell the difference between high-res, and CD quality music.

It does state that if you're trained to listen then you can hear the difference

The reality is you must be familiar with the music in order to devise a comparison

jeremymarcinko

Thanks for the cliff notes fellas there is no way in hell Im going read all that.

BlueFox

txcoastal1 wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

Thanks. Didn't read it start to finish, but the gist is people can tell the difference between high-res, and CD quality music.

It does state that if you're trained to listen then you can hear the difference

The reality is you must be familiar with the music in order to devise a comparison

Yes, it states if you are trained then you can better tell the difference, but even without training there still is a statistical difference in being able to hear a difference.

vc69

I figured DK would feel vindicated.

It's really not that bad of a slog (to read through) and summaries are made at the end of most sections.

DarqueKnight

Finally got around to reading this. A common characteristic of many of these type studies is that they do not directly relate to the stereophonic listening experience. This is particularly true with regard to listening to only snippets of a recording.

Some notable quotes:

"The results are striking. The training subgroup reported
an overall strong and significant ability to discriminate high
resolution audio. " p. 371

"The International Telecommunication Union recommends
that sound samples used for sound quality comparison
should not last longer than 15–20 s, and intervals
between sound samples should be up to 1.5 s [78], partly
because of limitations in short-term memory of test subjects.
However, the extensive research into brain response
to high resolution content suggests that exposure to high
frequency content may evoke a response that is both lagged
and persistent for tens of seconds, e.g., [22, 48]. This implies
that effective testing of high resolution audio discrimination
should use much longer samples and intervals than the
ITU recommendation implies." p. 371

"It is well-known that the dynamic range of human hearing (when measured
over a wide range of frequencies and considering deviations among subjects)
may exceed 100 dB. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that bit depth beyond
16 bits may be perceived." p. 372

"When subjects were trained, the ability to discriminate was far
more significant. The analysis also suggested that careful
selection of stimuli, including their duration, may play an
important role in the ability to discriminate between high
resolution and standard resolution audio. Sensitivity analysis,
where different selection criteria and different analysis
approaches were applied, confirmed these results." p. 373

vc69 wrote: »

author's commentary can be found HERE

I laughed out loud when I saw that the first and only responder was someone who has been banned from numerous audio forums.

BlueFox

Good point Ray, although I was expecting Jinjuku.

erniejade

enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/Why_Do_WAV_And_FLAC_Files_Sound_Different.htm