Arny Krueger <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fjpuu7015hj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Actually it's from a 2007 AES conference, not the JAES,
> > so I'm not sure it's peer reviewed
> Conference papers aren't reviewed at all - only the title and abstract
have
> been seen by the session chairman.
> > ...but anyway:
> > "Which of the Two Digital Audio Systems Best Matches the
> > Quality of the Analog System?"
> >
> > http://www.hitech-projects.com/hera/people/aarts/papers/aar07pu4.pdf
> > It appears that the formats compared to a live feed
> > (analog) were DXD (353.8 kHz/24) and
> > 44.1/24, both in surround, using a blind comparison
> > protocol.
> It appears that the program material is best described as being "sound
> effects".
> Also, every time some high resoution advocate cites this paper, ask them
to
> reflect on how closely it resembles listening to music for pleasure in a
> residential listening room. ;-)
> > Two additional listening conditions were tested
> > : one where the A/D signal bandwith was 100 kHz (thanks
> > to special microphone 'super-tweeters') and the other
> > where bandwidth was limited to 20kHz. The authors say
> > their results show that listeners 'more often than not'
> > identify the hi-rez audio (and not
> > the 44.1 kHz audio) as being similar in quality to the
> > analog feed...but only when the bandwidth is limited!
> Let's cut to the chase and look at the raw data on page 19.
> As I read it, there were 10 subjects and 6 listening sessions for which
> individual responses were required. IOW, 60 trials.
> I pasted their matrix into Excel and tried to do some quick sums. I came
up
> with Test Condition 1 = 23/60 and Test Condition 2 = 31/60. IOW, one
test
> produced an outcome that was worse than random guessing, and the other
was
> random guessing.
> Results that are worse than random guessing may cause some head
scratching,
> but they are not all that unusual in experiments like this where
> communication between the listeners can affect the outcome.
> The most probable explanation for worse-than-random results is that that
> some of the listeners were basing their results on their perceptions of
what
> other listeners were perceiving, and the total number of independent
> responses was far less than what you get from a naive count of the
actual
> responses.
There was science news article recently -- can't find it right now, but it
was in the last
week or so -- re****ting a study demonstrating the influence of having
someone else in the
room, on perception of *comedy* (in this case, the probe signal was
sketches from Saturday
Night Live). Just seeing the back of someone else's head, as they
watched, was enough to
influence subjects to find the presentation funny or not.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
|
