SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Thomas_A]

But, if the null result is relevant to the argument that you put forth, then why would those not be published, yet you demand "proof" if someone states the opposite argument? If you do all this writing and reviewing, and this point is so important to you, then why not put the argument to the test directly? You obviously have the technical know-how and the inclination, so what's the hang up? You talk about the supposed transparency of 44.1/16 as if it is proven by the links that you posted, yet it's all a bunch of tangental material that doesn't touch upon that question directly.

If there has been tests with positives then it is easy to show the results. Null results does not mean much especially if there is a positive result somewhere that can be repeated with the specific test material used. The null results only means that the test failed at that particular test, with the participants, and with the equpiment and music material used. It means nothing else. So it is not at all proven that there is an inadubility, because it is not possible to do that. So I don't demand "proof of the negative", only when there is a positive. Why, becuase I am a researcher and music lover and want to know why I seldom find good quality music to buy - when I know there are excellent recordings on CD and thus an excellent medium. If there are claims that the medium is poor, I want to know why. It does not hurt to push a little to get the truth.


Well, if you're assuming that CD audio quality is purposely doctored to sound inferior to SACD, then you'll just have to live with that compromised level of sound quality unless you upgrade to a high res player, right? Regardless of the reasons, I purchase high res discs because at a practical level, they represent an improvement in sound quality. As for whether the improvement is technically based or just due to better attention to detail, I could care less. It's the same reason why I bought half-speed mastered LPs 20 years ago. I didn't care if it was due to the half-speed cutting lathe, higher density vinyl, first generation source material, or just a better mastering engineer at work, bottomline was better audio quality and that's all that mattered. Any conclusions about causal effect would have been mindless speculation.

Am I sure these high res discs represent improvements? Yes, because whether something sounds better is a subjective assessment. For example, recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder remastered a series of his classic jazz sessions on CD, and in my assessment some of the remastered CDs sound worse than before.

There are a few excellent CD recordings and they sound fabolus, but I don't think I am only "assuming" that unessecary poor quality are deliberately put on CD. Analysing the signals, spectral content, dynamics and clipping show that it is really bad of many CDs. So-called remastered versions have often been modified to the worse. This does not happen by accident. Now can you come up to one reason why this happens on CD but not on high-res media? Finally (this will be my last post in this thread) if high-res takes over, there is nothing saying that in a couple of years, the quality will follow the CD route.

[DMK]

Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions.

If all you claimed was that you unleashed a massive fart, I would say that even a naysayer would take that on faith. Now if you claimed that your farts smelled like roses, they'd want a DBT. Better yet, if you claimed that you could tell what someone just ate by their farts, that would demand some testing. If it turned out that you could discern a chili fart from a pizza fart, or beer farts from deviled egg farts, I for one would be impressed. I would personally resurrect Ted Mack's Amateur Hour on TV and put you on as a headliner! :D

I see both sides of the high-rez vs redbook digital battle. On the one hand, I think it's premature to determine that high-rez is audibly better as far as mediums go. I agree that there needs to be testing first. On the other hand, the results are what truly matter to me. That is why I prefer vinyl over either digital medium - simply because the end result sounds better to my ears. Hell, I've got CASSETTES that sound better than CD's! The dozen or so SACD's I own sound better than their redbook counterparts. If that continues, I'm onboard. And what I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that redbook is not able to give us multi-channel audio and that alone should justify its existence.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive.

My claims (supported by identical claims by other engineers) have been published in non peer magazine call Surround Professional. Why are your non peer reviewed claims more valid than mine?

Why is it so difficult to publish the fact that some people can hear a difference, and some people cannot? Some people have better hearing than others. Some people have more balanced hearing than others (more even frequency response between ears). Some can hear higher frequencies better than others. Does anyone check the hearing of the partcipants in these DBT? I get my hearing checked at least once every year so I know exactly what losses have taken place, and how this effects how I hear when mixing.


Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

Well what if a null result came from all previous testing of a particular subject matter, in other words no previous positives. Do they still publish that?


One more thing, the market will decide only if there is two or more formats present. And as I said if the recording engineers deliberately put poor quality on CD, then they are responsible for that. Not me.

This statement is an insult to EVERY audio engineer out who is busting there ass to do a good job. Do you think they mix in a vaccum?? The artist and producer MUST approve the sound of any mix a audio engineer does, so if it sounds like crap, that what the producer wants to hear. You would be surprised how many times we try and talk producers out of doing something, only to be rejected. With all this experience that you have, I am disappointed that you do not know just what role the mixer plays in relationship to the producer/artist.

Currently the film community has three formats. All three have been in co-existence since 1993. The market decided that all three can stay. Right now the consumer market is supporting DVD-A, SACD, MP3, CD, and vinyl LP. It has been this way for about 3 years or so, I don't really see any of them disappearing any time soon. So much for your theory or market trends.

[Thomas_A]

This statement is an insult to EVERY audio engineer out who is busting there ass to do a good job. Do you think they mix in a vaccum?? The artist and producer MUST approve the sound of any mix a audio engineer does, so if it sounds like crap, that what the producer wants to hear. You would be surprised how many times we try and talk producers out of doing something, only to be rejected. With all this experience that you have, I am disappointed that you do not know just what role the mixer plays in relationship to the producer/artist.


Since I'll leave this thread I only have one more question: How come the producer/artist don't want to hear crap when there is a new medium available, all of a sudden? Because they think the medium is better?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since I'll leave this thread I only have one more question: How come the producer/artist don't want to hear crap when there is a new medium available, all of a sudden? Because they think the medium is better?

There has always been a premium format for high quality release in audio. Years ago the compact disc was the premiere format, and the LP was the compromised one since it was used by the most radio station all over this country. The cassette replace the eight track.

Now radio stations use the CD as the common release format, so it has to be all things to all audio formats. So CD's HAVE to be mixed so they sound well no matter what medium is used. That usually set's up compromises because all audio media do not treat audio the same way. DVD-A and SACD are not used in radio, or any other audio format that is broadcast over the air. It does not have to be compromised because it is not used anywhere but in your home, where the only compromise it is subjected to is a poorly set up system.

[mtrycraft]

Of course, it's easy to master two discs differently, but with resolution as another variable, who am I to rule out one variable versus another? And supposing that 44.1/16 and the higher resolutions indeed are transparent to the source, why would they need to be mixed differently?

How else are you to sell a new product? It is no better than the old one? You need an edge, mixing is it, unless there is evidence to support the hi res.


Why and how can I rule out anything if I don't have the tools and access to make my own determination?

You shouldn't, which includes a mix difference, especially in light of the original post how compressed the CD has become. Rather simple.



But, if the high resolution is one of the variables on those discs, then it's remains a potential causal effect if I don't know anything about any differences in the mastering processes used for the different versions.


Yes, it is a potential cause. However, you seem to automatically rule out other causes and seem to accept without evidence that then the hi res must be the cause effect.

Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical,

Check the original post on this. Seems obvious to me what is going on.

or did they use a vinyl playback as a reference for a remaster of a vintage recording, or were they transferred from the same playback feed? Absent that information, I don't know the magnitude of one variable versus another, so why would I conceive a conclusion on the basis of incomplete information?

That is what it seems to be. Automatic acceptance of the cause as hi res format.



More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different,

If that is the case, then case is closed. You have no idea why the difference. Since there is no evidence to support that it is the hi res. don't know what else it could be. I wonder what it could be left.

You seem to be jumping the gun by automatically ruling out the resolution and focusing exclusively on the mixing and mastering process without knowing anything about any specific discs in question.

Oh, absent evidence is powerful evidence, a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis so it is evidence against it. Prof Johnathan Adler.

[Thomas_A]

There has always been a premium format for high quality release in audio. Years ago the compact disc was the premiere format, and the LP was the compromised one since it was used by the most radio station all over this country. The cassette replace the eight track.

Now radio stations use the CD as the common release format, so it has to be all things to all audio formats. So CD's HAVE to be mixed so they sound well no matter what medium is used. That usually set's up compromises because all audio media do not treat audio the same way. DVD-A and SACD are not used in radio, or any other audio format that is broadcast over the air. It does not have to be compromised because it is not used anywhere but in your home, where the only compromise it is subjected to is a poorly set up system.

I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:

"In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.

The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.

Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.

Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."

At

http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html

More at:

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html

And last,

those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

Cantate Domino
Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
Label: Proprius Records
Catalog: #7762
ASIN: B000002480

Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:

George has his opinion(and they are not in short supply in this industry) the artist, producer, and other engineers have theirs. George Graham opinion is just another one. Sorry, but the name means nothing to me. Everyone has their opinion based on THEIR experience. What proof has George offered you to support his claims, a personal demo?


"In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.

His site was last updated in 1999. So this information is quite dated. Does he know that the title(and job) of broadcast audio engineer is a dying breed replaced by almost total automation? Does he understand that compressors and limiters found in radio stations all over the world very in quality, and some are not even regulated by the FCC? Don't you understand that if I compress my CD to match the loudness limits of the FCC in post production, it does not have to be processed quite so heavily by a processor of unknown quality? Nobody masters CD's for release in this country only. The music industry is world wide. The FCC only regulates here in America, what happens if my CD goes number one in a country NOT regulated by the FCC. Why don't you and Chris have this kind of forethought?


The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.

For the record I do not approve of pushing my mixes to digital max or even close to clipping, even the ones destined for radio. I have my own personal way of mixing and mastering that get's the necessary loudness without the clipping that is so common in many CD mixes, especially pop. However, I have heard uncompressed and unlimited CD's on the radio, and the distortion, timbre altering, overly squashed sound of the radio's compressors made it sound absolutely horrible. This would horrify and piss off many a studio executive or producer who has invested many hundreds of thousand dollars on a product that is played over the air with that quality. The reality of todays world is, if you want the best mix, get SACD or DVD-A. The CD is joe six packs format now(you know the guys that like the sound of MP3), and that is just the way it is. Live with it, or not period.


Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.

This is not even close to the norm these days. Mostly all of the product bound for the corporate controlled radio(which has severly limited the choice of music played) comes from master facilities of great quality. Rarely if never does the garage produced CD ever reach the airwaves. The corporatization of broadcast radio has contributed greatly to this end. To use this(somebody elses words I might add) to further your arguement just shows you are reaching for straws, and just trying to find something to latch on to, to legitimitize your arguement. Not buying it at all.


Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."

I am VERY familar with this phenomena. However, in the year 2004(as opposed to 1999 when this was originally written) most compressors in radio just don't automatically work the same way for every mix. The less the mix has been compressed, the harder the radio station compressor works. The more compressed the mix(up to FCC standards) the less the radio station compressors has to work.(at least this was the explaination given to me, I cannot attest to it's accuracy, but it was given to me by a very reliable and accurate source). This is largely a moot arguement because just like broadcast television, over the air analog is losing listeners to satellite digital radio by the thousands. It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium.


At

http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html

More at:

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html

Horribly outdated information. Pertinent pre 1999, irrelevant post 1999.




And last,

those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

Cantate Domino
Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
Label: Proprius Records
Catalog: #7762
ASIN: B000002480

Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.

Great info. However good it sounds, how does it stack up to the original master when compared? How was it recorded(how many channels) Was it mixed and mastered for radio play?

The bottom line is this, the CD has outlived its usefulness as the primary medium for high end playback. In these days with between 30-50 channels being used for a typical high production product, mixing it for CD is like having a hoover dams worth of water going through a typically used kitchen funnel. So much eq, limiting, and compression has to be used to make all of these channels heard over each other after mixdown hardly makes anything pristine anymore. Recording in high rez, and downsampling to redbook is not a transparent process.

CD can sound very good to the end user. But the real test is how well it stands up to the master tape itself. IMO on more occasions than so, it does not. Some differences are slight, some VERY audible. Regardless, the bottom line is we are moving away from redbook and the primary high quality delivery of audio. You can argue this until the moon turns blue, but you cannot prohibit change because it's coming whether you like it or not.

Lastly, it is not in good form to quote someone elses words, and represent them as your own. To say you don't agree with something, and then use someone elses experiences to bolster your argument is disengenous and VERY uncool. If you have some personal experiences, or situations you have participated in, then that is one thing. But you are quoting people as if they are the foremost expert on all subject matter regarding audio, and that is just not the case. Opinions are abundant in this field, and so are counter opposing white papers. You must be very careful where you gravitate towards when you don't work in this industry.

Now ask GG would he turn a client down if the client wanted HIS cd to sound as loud as the artist's competitors? I seriously doubt it.

[Woochifer]

Of course, it's easy to master two discs differently, but with resolution as another variable, who am I to rule out one variable versus another? And supposing that 44.1/16 and the higher resolutions indeed are transparent to the source, why would they need to be mixed differently?

How else are you to sell a new product? It is no better than the old one? You need an edge, mixing is it, unless there is evidence to support the hi res.

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.



Why and how can I rule out anything if I don't have the tools and access to make my own determination?

You shouldn't, which includes a mix difference, especially in light of the original post how compressed the CD has become. Rather simple.

But, absent any information about the mix difference itself, how would I draw conclusions?


But, if the high resolution is one of the variables on those discs, then it's remains a potential causal effect if I don't know anything about any differences in the mastering processes used for the different versions.

Yes, it is a potential cause. However, you seem to automatically rule out other causes and seem to accept without evidence that then the hi res must be the cause effect.

Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical,

Check the original post on this. Seems obvious to me what is going on.

Obvious for a specific example, but not necessarily applicable to any of the disc comparisons that I've done. Again, what information do I have that would automatically rule out the resolution as a potential causal factor if I do not know how a transfer was done and what the original master source sounds like?


or did they use a vinyl playback as a reference for a remaster of a vintage recording, or were they transferred from the same playback feed? Absent that information, I don't know the magnitude of one variable versus another, so why would I conceive a conclusion on the basis of incomplete information?

That is what it seems to be. Automatic acceptance of the cause as hi res format.

You seem desperate to churn this subject by implying that I "accept" any single causal effect over another. Like I said, I don't have complete information so why would I presume any one effect over another? Trying your usual stream of inneuendo seems to only work by trying to pin assertions on me that I've never made. Pretty weak effort, although I admire that you've refrained from the usual alien abduction and psychic stories so far.


More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different,

If that is the case, then case is closed. You have no idea why the difference. Since there is no evidence to support that it is the hi res. don't know what else it could be. I wonder what it could be left.

There's no evidence that it's solely due to the mixing and mastering either. If that's the conclusion that you draw, then I assume that you've isolated the resolution as a causal factor and done blind listenings against the master tapes? Didn't know you were on such good terms with Eliot Scheiner and other industry luminaries that they would give you the keys to the vaults and provide you with their session notes.


You seem to be jumping the gun by automatically ruling out the resolution and focusing exclusively on the mixing and mastering process without knowing anything about any specific discs in question.

Oh, absent evidence is powerful evidence, a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis so it is evidence against it. Prof Johnathan Adler.

And what hypothesis am I putting forth? I only observed an effect, but made no assertions about cause. You're the one that seems to be making assertions here by trying to rule out a potential causal effect without evidence.

[mtrycraft]

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
"Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
"Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.

I hate to throw this newpaper on your front door step Mtry, but we are five years from 1999, and six from 1998. Alot has changed in this industry since then. Digging that far in the past for references means nothing today. Sony is not the only one turning out SACD releases, so pinning a problem on one Recording company amoung many in the industry does nothing to further your arguement. Most record companies are not marketing a format, and have no benefit form altering a CD layer to make is sound different than the SACD layer. Producers and artist approve all CD releases, if it sounds different, blame them. Have you any idea why sony supposidly alter the CD layer, and how was it done? If it is different eq, or compression levels, then possible the alter CD is being used as the primary format for many forms of broadcast. It is stupid to try and make a CD layer sound like the SACD layer if they are going to be used in different areas of audio.

[Thomas_A]

"It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?

Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?

You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.

I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.

[Woochifer]

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
"Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.

So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor? Again, I lack the information to make that judgment for myself. If there's "plenty of evidence for differences between CD and high res," why would I care whether or not they are due to the resolution, if in practice they sound different? If CDs are mixed one way by industry practice, and high res formats are done in a different manner, the theoretical angle is irrelevant. Like I said, I've yet to encounter a high res disc that does not sound at least as good as the CD version. The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

[mtrycraft]

So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor?

No, it doesn't but until the hi res is the onl;y difference no one can know. So far, no such demo has been offered by the people in the know and capability to do such a demo. One has to wonder why that is. Perhaps they know the answer just as the wire companies know the answer, or the writing on the wall.

. Like I said, I've yet to encounter a high res disc that does not sound at least as good as the CD version.

Well, I surely hope that they do sound at least as good as a CD.

The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

As long as only preferences are offered for the hi res. Otherwise, if testable claims are made, then evidence is in order.

[hifitommy]

snnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. yup, its a snore!

[WmAx]

Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

Letter From Mr. Bishop(6-09-04):


Dear Mr. XXXXX,

First of all, you should know that it is very improper (or at the very
least, RUDE) email etiquette to post correspondence with any company or
individual and post it on public forums without permission of all parties.
It is especially improper when one takes quotes out of context for posting.
I very much take objection to you posting our correspondence on public
internet sites, especially since I have not even responded to your last
email yet! I spend quite a bit of time posting and answering questions on
various hi-fi audio and industry web sites and I am always very forthcoming
and straightforward in my answers and assessments on those sites.

Secondly, I happen to agree with Bob Katz's viewpoints on heavy-handed
over-compression of audio and have stated so at many AES Convention panel
discussions with Bob. I also happen to know there are examples of released
audio product that Bob has mastered that have more compression on them than
what he would like in an "ideal" world. I also happen to know that
"Dancing in the Dark" would not be held up by a rational person as an
example of over-compression. The reality is, we all have artists, clients,
etc. to please at the same time as trying to get the best-possible audio
quality. Especially when it comes to artists, as the engineer, I have to
remember it is not MY name on the cover. When I wrote to you that
compromises sometimes are made in mastering a project, that definitely did
NOT mean that one purposely makes a bad-sounding or distorted product. It
means that we try to reach a middle ground between the desires of all
parties involved and what the "ideal" is.

Certainly it would be wonderful to have totally uncompressed, full dynamic
range music recordings in all genres of music, but let's get real! Very
few, if any, music reproduction systems are capable of playing true natural
dynamic range recordings with no alterations made in the master. When the
recording or mastering engineer moves the volume faders in the least during
a recording, the dynamic range is being altered. All analog recordings -
tape or vinyl - without exception, have dynamic range compression taking
place as a part of the recording process and the medium involved.
Recordings long held in high reverence in the audiophile community have had
fairly heavy recording medium and electronic dynamic range compression
imposed on them in the original source recording. Since the audiophiles
that hold these recordings in reverence were not present at the original
sessions, they would have no point of reference for what was "pure,"
"true," or not. The recordings just are what they are. Those that think
there are no manipulations of dynamic range in even the most purest of
audiophile recordings are simply fooling themselves. Engineers who make
the recordings know otherwise, as even having the performers to alter
dynamic range in performance to fit the recording medium (which is a common
occurrence in-session) can be classified as dynamic range compression.
There are also level controls at countless points in every
recording/mastering chain. I would hope some are not so naive as to think
those controls are NEVER touched.

As for the Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD audio, I pointed out
previously that no levels were over -0.10 dB digital peak level in the CD
master. It is not even possible to make a CD master that has "illegal"
levels with over 0 dB digital peak levels as the LBR would reject such a
master. If you have been getting measurements that are over 0 dB, there is
a serious flaw in your measurements or system. Overall mastering
compression was chosen and adjusted to get to the best possible middle
ground between preserving the performance and still have good apparent
volume. Great care was taken to evaluate the effect of any process
introduced at any point in the recording process and subsequent mastering.
The final master was evaluated and was approved by the producer, the
artists, and the manager of the editing department. As was evident on all
our playback systems, not a single person made note of audible distortion
on the CD pcm master that was presented to Sony Disc Manufacturing. The
waveforms you present as evidence of a "defect" simply show peak limiting
of the master. In my opinion, that limiting was very mild compared to the
vast majority of similar CDs on the market. Many dozens of hours were
spent in mastering and evaluating the CD master only, apart from the SACD
master, so certainly the CD should not be considered to be the poor
stepchild of the SACD release.

In my opinion, many similar genre CD releases exhibit much more
heavy-handed compression and severe peak limiting than the relatively mild
compression that was employed on the Sutton CD. "Dancing in the Dark" is
not the first Telarc CD to have compression applied in the mastering
process by a long shot - it certainly won't be the last. Non-classical
projects will always have different requirements and criteria to be
satisfied compared to our classical projects. While the CD master is
usually made from the same source as the SACD stereo master, the CD end
product has to also be suitable in car audio situations, portable players,
and still be good for home playback where background noise may not be a
problem. We get many emails and letters from consumers that complain we
put TOO MUCH dynamic range on our CDs and that they have to turn the volume
up as compared to "other" CDs. I don't think we've gotten more than one
email or letter asking for more dynamic range in the last five years.
Being more of a "pop" release, "Dancing in the Dark" has to fit into all
these other playback situations as well. This project has never been
presented to the public as a purist audiophile recording, but rather a
recording of a great singer and band presenting great tunes. I would hope
that most people recognize the release as fitting that description.

Mastering techniques are applied judiciously by any responsible engineer,
not because anyone thinks the public is "stupid" as you put it in your
email, but to make the release fit the many playback situations the CD may
be played in. Several scientific and double-blind tests have shown without
a doubt that the same recording played back with as little as .5 dB
increase in level is perceived as the "better" recording.

Mastering techniques are never, ever applied to optimize radio airplay.
Every decent engineer knows what the broadcast chain does to a recording
and how our work is undone at that point.

About your choice of taking CD as the best that audio formats can offer: I
have worked with pcm at every sample and bit rate possible since 1976 and
analog recording for ten years before that in every format and speed. I
have worked with DSD since 1996. If DSD went away tomorrow, I would be
very disappointed to have to return to pcm for source recordings,
regardless of the final release format. For my work, I choose to record in
DSD. I'm thrilled the SACD is available so my DSD recordings can be heard
at home without change, all other things being equal. In my opinion, the
16-bit CD is far from being the ideal end product no matter what
noise-shaping techniques are applied. Since I have been a part of every
major (and not-so-major) dithering and noise-shaping test and development
since 1986, I might know something about this.

You apparently have no use for SACD and have no intention of even exploring
the possibilities of the format. Therefore I see little point of making an
exchange of your CD with the SACD version. Since you are so thoroughly
dissatisfied with the Sutton disc, I can only offer that you exchange this
CD with Telarc Customer Service for another single CD title of your choice.

You are not to post, forward, or quote my correspondence with you without
my prior authorization. Please respect that request.


With Best Regards,

Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
Telarc International Corp.
Here is my reply to above e-mail(6-09-04):


>
> First of all, you should know that it is very improper (or at the very
> least, RUDE) email etiquette to post correspondence with any company or
> individual and post it on public forums without permission of all parties.

I did not agree to a non-disclosure agreement. THe email that you send,
addressed to me, is my property.

> It is especially improper when one takes quotes out of context for
posting.

Hold on. I posted your e-mail, in entiretey, as I recieved the email. Not
one of your words, phrases, etc. were edited. I made commentary on some of
your statements; obvisously for this, I would have to point to specific
items in order to make comment on the items. Anyone has the entire email to
read, and judge for themselves.

> Secondly, I happen to agree with Bob Katz's viewpoints on heavy-handed
> over-compression of audio and have stated so at many AES Convention panel
> discussions with Bob. I also happen to know there are examples of
released
> audio product that Bob has mastered that have more compression on them
than
> what he would like in an "ideal" world. I also happen to know that
> "Dancing in the Dark" would not be held up by a rational person as an
> example of over-compression. The reality is, we all have artists,
clients,
> etc. to please at the same time as trying to get the best-possible audio
> quality. Especially when it comes to artists, as the engineer, I have to
> remember it is not MY name on the cover. When I wrote to you that
> compromises sometimes are made in mastering a project, that definitely did
> NOT mean that one purposely makes a bad-sounding or distorted product. It
> means that we try to reach a middle ground between the desires of all
> parties involved and what the "ideal" is.

To be honest, I don't have much concern for the pressures or reasons why
someone decides to degrade the product. I am a consumer, not a mastering
engineer. What I DO CARE ABOUT, is that the average products I consume are
being produced in relative low quality. My post on the forum, my reason for
replying to you, is to make it known that I'm tired of the low quality
product. Hopefully, many other people will start complaining and making a
fuss. I don't specfically want to upset your or anyone else. However,
nothing improves if everyone sits down and ignores the problem(s). This is
historical pattern. If toes get stepped on in the process of achieving the
objective, so let it be.

>
> Certainly it would be wonderful to have totally uncompressed, full dynamic
> range music recordings in all genres of music, but let's get real! Very
> few, if any, music reproduction systems are capable of playing true
natural
> dynamic range recordings with no alterations made in the master. When the
> recording or mastering engineer moves the volume faders in the least
during
> a recording, the dynamic range is being altered. All analog recordings -
> tape or vinyl - without exception, have dynamic range compression taking
> place as a part of the recording process and the medium involved.
> Recordings long held in high reverence in the audiophile community have
had
> fairly heavy recording medium and electronic dynamic range compression
> imposed on them in the original source recording. Since the audiophiles
> that hold these recordings in reverence were not present at the original
> sessions, they would have no point of reference for what was "pure,"
> "true," or not. The recordings just are what they are. Those that think
> there are no manipulations of dynamic range in even the most purest of
> audiophile recordings are simply fooling themselves. Engineers who make
> the recordings know otherwise, as even having the performers to alter
> dynamic range in performance to fit the recording medium (which is a
common
> occurrence in-session) can be classified as dynamic range compression.
> There are also level controls at countless points in every
> recording/mastering chain. I would hope some are not so naive as to think
> those controls are NEVER touched.

I don't know exactly the point. I can only assume you think I want NO
compression EVER used. I did not make this comment. Specifically, this is
about over compression. I guess the term 'radio-style' compression might be
appropriate as a relative term.

>
> As for the Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD audio, I pointed out
> previously that no levels were over -0.10 dB digital peak level in the CD
> master. It is not even possible to make a CD master that has "illegal"
> levels with over 0 dB digital peak levels as the LBR would reject such a
> master. If you have been getting measurements that are over 0 dB, there
is
> a serious flaw in your measurements or system.

Their are sections tht measure at 0dB. Confrimed with Goldwave and Adobe
Audition software programs, of the ripped wave files. As for levels 'over'
0dB. I never made such a claim. Point out where I made this claim.

> compression was chosen and adjusted to get to the best possible middle
> ground between preserving the performance and still have good apparent
> volume. Great care was taken to evaluate the effect of any process
> introduced at any point in the recording process and subsequent mastering.
> The final master was evaluated and was approved by the producer, the
> artists, and the manager of the editing department. As was evident on all
> our playback systems, not a single person made note of audible distortion
> on the CD pcm master that was presented to Sony Disc Manufacturing.

Maybe something IS wrong my version of the disc? I percieve audible
fuzz-like distortion in sections. After hearing these sections, I made note
of the time on the CD player and then checked those times in the ripped wave
file only to find clipped signals.


> of the master. In my opinion, that limiting was very mild compared to the
> vast majority of similar CDs on the market.

Use of the words 'vast majority' is a bit of a generalization, especially in
lack of actual statistics. However, I will say that i have noticed 'many'
severely clipped CDs on the market. The very reason it makes me even more
upset that an 'audiophile' company is also guilty.

Several scientific and double-blind tests have shown without
> a doubt that the same recording played back with as little as .5 dB
> increase in level is perceived as the "better" recording.

I am aware of these studies. Though I can not recollect the specific
researcher/paper ids off the top of my head. However, this is in relation to
the same song, everything else being equal. It also is not in relation to a
louder but signficantly more compressed version. If you have information of
that specific situation, please refer me to the paper. The papers also did
not address louder but with audibly clipped peaks.

> Mastering techniques are never, ever applied to optimize radio airplay.
> Every decent engineer knows what the broadcast chain does to a recording
> and how our work is undone at that point.

O.K. However, I can assume every engineer is 'decent'.

> About your choice of taking CD as the best that audio formats can offer:
I
> have worked with pcm at every sample and bit rate possible since 1976 and
> analog recording for ten years before that in every format and speed. I
> have worked with DSD since 1996. If DSD went away tomorrow, I would be
> very disappointed to have to return to pcm for source recordings,
> regardless of the final release format. For my work, I choose to record
in
> DSD. I'm thrilled the SACD is available so my DSD recordings can be heard
> at home without change, all other things being equal. In my opinion, the
> 16-bit CD is far from being the ideal end product no matter what
> noise-shaping techniques are applied. Since I have been a part of every
> major (and not-so-major) dithering and noise-shaping test and development
> since 1986, I might know something about this.

My comment on this aspect was based on the noise/dynamic range and bandwidth
as related to playback only. I have not stated it is ideal for
recording/editing. Show/refer me to a peer-reviewed, scientifically valid
listenig test that demonstrated the bandwidth of RBCD is not optimal for
music playback. The ones I am aware of, show that is is optimal for human
audibility purposes of music playback.

>
> You apparently have no use for SACD and have no intention of even
exploring
> the possibilities of the format.

Well, when/if they make a new SACD format that takes advantage of an
extrmeley effective multichannel system such as Holman's 10.2 technology,
then I would be 'all over it'. However, I may HAVE to buy a SACD player in
order to have better quality recordings. I base this on your first email,
claiming that the SACD version does not have the problems of the CD version.

>Therefore I see little point of making an
> exchange of your CD with the SACD version. Since you are so thoroughly
> dissatisfied with the Sutton disc, I can only offer that you exchange this
> CD with Telarc Customer Service for another single CD title of your
choice.

Actually, I like the artist Tierney Sutton. I'll listen to some of the
samples on the website of new releases, and see if their is another artist
that I want.

>
> You are not to post, forward, or quote my correspondence with you without
> my prior authorization. Please respect that request.

I'll consider your request. I'll make no promise in this regard.

-Chris XXXXX






Here is the email that Bishop was replying:



"I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
CD mastering process on this particular release..."

" The piano is not distorted... If that was the case one would see jagged
artifacts around the
piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
peak."

"Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
something out of our control."

The highly audible distortion remains in all of these following cases: (1)
playing CD in all players I have access (2) ripping waveform to computer,
playing back through soundcard (3) reducing maximum level slightly of the
waveform in a waveform editor, playing back on soundcard.

Indeed, I believe this is easily preventable. Simply could have (1) limited
the peaks (2) reduced absolute levels before downsampling(this is the proper
method)

"The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
as possible. "

I don't understand. Competition of what? I simply do not believe consumer
are this stupid to put a CD into the player and believe the quiter one is
'bad' compared to the louder one. (1) You mean radio play? If so, this is
not valid. Radio broadcast music is heavily compressed/limited before it is
transmitted. As far as I know, this is a universal standard. Diffeernt
levels on the CD istels will not manifest itself on broadcast end-use. (2)
The telarc consumer, i would speculate, is more discriminating then the
average consumer. I can not see this trickery as being effective.

I think Bob Katz has some very good points on this issue:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8 (http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8)

"It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
level. "

I'm sorry to see such things happening with what I always considered a
label(telarc) that prioritized ultimate sound quality.

"I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
Dark."

Yes. Why I always trusted Telarc to have high quality. I guess I have to
change this view in response to this email.

"If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
"bottom-of-the-line" player."

I have a CD player that functions perfectly. It is rediculous that I must
purchase a new format player to get versions of the albums that ARE NOT
purposefully degraded.

"I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
the pcm CD is a derivative of that source."

I have paid close attention to the playback formats, and associated
scientific research(NHK labs study, Ooashi nueroscicnce study and the
original 1978 optimal bandwidth study(JAES). Besides the multi-channel
format and copy protection(not advantage to consumers, only for record
companies) I don't see any yet confirmed advantage to the added bandwidth. I
also don't see how 16 bit wordlength is limiting for audio playback,e
speciallly when combined with modern dithering techniques. Even if it was a
problem, seems that these PURPOSEFULLY compromised and compressed versions
of music supercede this issue.

Thank you for responding.

-Chris XXXXX


-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?

That is not a question that should be answered by audio engineers. We don't make radio's, or set standards. Maybe you should write the FCC, and ask them this question. As long as things are the way they are now, this is the standard practice.


Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?

Your comments mean nothing to me because I don't know the engineers you (supposidly)talk to, the context of the conversation, or what actual experience these engineers have in hi rez audio.

Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word. In other words picking and choosing information that supports your position. I have talked to at least 40 or more audio engineers(who have STRONG EXPERIENCE in high rez audio(as I do) and they don't know why high rez sounds better, it just does to them(and myself). So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit.


You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.

A debate on audioreveiw is pointless. I know of no other audio engineer that frequents this board. I know of no RIAA executive , studio executive, or producer who frequents this board. So what do you hope to accomplish by your continuous rant?

The redbook CD platform has had problems from the very beginning. So many patches and fixes have been introduced to this format, that is makes your claims that it is so perfect as a audio delivery system seem silly. Redbook audio cannot be upgraded because the standards are set. Any attempt to improve on the audio just leads to degradation once it gets to the redbook platform. There is no support for multichannel, recording at 24bits requires downconversion, and noise to be added(dither) to restore lost dynamic range and punch from the downconversion. Oversampling MUST be used or the audio will suffer from ringing, time smearing, and distortion because of the use of brickwall filters. Anti imaging filters found in most CD players on the market allow for some aliasing/imaging to occur introducing some distortion to the playback chain according to a peer reviewed white paper by Richard Black, confirmed by DCs Ltd and company that makes VERY high quality A/D-D/A conversion filters and equipment.

With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly. 24/96khz requires no dither, no downconversion, no filters with steep roll offs, no bit reduction, and no need for oversampling. It is transparent when compared to the analog source(or digital if recorded at either 24/192 or 24/96khz), and high quality mixing and mastering tools are already in place at most studios.

You have one format that requires several bandaids and has a not so perfect filter system in most players. You have another that requires no band aids, improved audio, and needs no steep filtering system. I choose the one that has the least amount of trade offs as I think any intelligent person would.


I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.

You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway.

[Thomas_A]

"Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word."

It's not strange at all. Because you claim to have a positive result, yet not demonstrated any proof of it. All I need is the facts of the test procedure, number of positive results, blinding, randomization or a reference where it is stated.

"So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit. "

So I've noticed. I just want the facts.

"A debate on audioreveiw is pointless."

A debate without any data is even more pointless.

"With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly."

The "facts" you have presented? You mean DBTs showing that high-res is audibly different from redbook? I would love to see them.

"You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway."

So what ARE you trying to do then?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

Letter From Mr. Bishop(6-09-04):


Here is my reply to above e-mail(6-09-04):

First, I think you were wrong for posting his letter without his permission. Whether you think you own the email or not, there is something called intended usage, and you didn't let him know your motivations. Very low class of you, and your excuse was feeble at best.

Secondly, his statement mirriors the ones I gave you on this same issue. His answer to you is consistant with industry standards and practices, and he did NOTHING out of the ordinary to the mentioned CD. You usage of the words "degraded" is silly since the audio was already "degraded" in the transition from DSD to PCM. As he mentioned(and Wooch has reinterated time and time again) you were not present at the studio session, and do not know how much the CD version deviates from the original master.

Your responses back to him show that you have no experience in the studio, have never had to please or work with record producers, have no idea about the condition, or how the original source material sounds. You very limited knowledge of the specifics of recording and playback makes you look silly and defensive when responding to his comments.

You have taken Michael Bishops kindness(by responding to your email) and completely disrepected him. He has five hundred times the audio education , and fifty billion times the recording experience than you could ever think to have, yet you feel that you can challenge the information he afforded you. If I were him, I would be insulted by your arrogance, and would never respond to you again.

Your demands for white papers on an issue this man knows loads about shows that you are off base, not so bright, and pretty foolhardy. I think you need to spend more time learning about standard recording practices, working with producers and artists, and how to actually mix and master before you approach this subject matter again. Studing white papers but having no experience with what you study is like walking with one leg, one arm, and one eye. It gives you a false sense of balance and perspective.

Michael Bishops answers to you are consistant to what you will hear from every audio engineer at Mr. Bishops level. His answers(if you are not just being combative) should satisfy every question you would have about compression on CD.

I think it is worth noting that he said the original recording was done in DSD and converted into PCM. So the best way to hear this project would probably be the SACD or two channel DSD layer. I think you will find in the near future that these kinds of conversions, and conversion from 24/96khz to 44.1khz will be the norm instead of the exception, and the CD platform will not be the most prominent or clean source for audio delivery. In other words, get used to the change, because it is not going to be reversed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word."

It's not strange at all. Because you claim to have a positive result, yet not demonstrated any proof of it. All I need is the facts of the test procedure, number of positive results, blinding, randomization or a reference where it is stated.

You claimed to have test that say 16/44.1khz is transparent, where are those tests results?


"So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit. "

So I've noticed. I just want the facts.

Set up a listening test, you'll get all the facts you need.


"A debate on audioreveiw is pointless."

A debate without any data is even more pointless.

Okay, so where is the data that states that 16/44.1khz is transparent?


"With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly."

The "facts" you have presented? You mean DBTs showing that high-res is audibly different from redbook? I would love to see them.

Forget it Thomas, you can't read and that's a fact.


"You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway."

So what ARE you trying to do then?

You figure it out.

[Woochifer]

So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor?

No, it doesn't but until the hi res is the onl;y difference no one can know. So far, no such demo has been offered by the people in the know and capability to do such a demo. One has to wonder why that is. Perhaps they know the answer just as the wire companies know the answer, or the writing on the wall.

In other words, you don't have the answer either.


The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

As long as only preferences are offered for the hi res. Otherwise, if testable claims are made, then evidence is in order.

But, I'm not making a claim about the high res itself, only the discs that are sold under that banner. As I've said already, if common industry practice compromises what gets transferred onto CD, and does not compromise what goes onto high res discs, then I've got my guideline from which to make my purchasing decisions.

[Thomas_A]

You claimed to have test that say 16/44.1khz is transparent, where are those tests results?

No, I don't claim that it is transparent. It's not possible to prove that it is transparent according to the laws of science. Proof of a positive is. I claim that the tests that I know of have been negative and thus inconclusive. Details of one of the tests are given in one of my posts. And there are no other tests that I know of that would show any audibility of high-res vs redbook CD. You claim to hear a difference, but you don't want to show the data or give any other information than "AES" standards for the test procedure. It's been published you say, yet you don't want to say whether there were any DBTs involved to confirm the observations you made. Since you also say you need not to proove anything to anyone, I conclude there were no DBTs involved. Thus there is no proof of audible difference. I figured it out. Thanks.

[WmAx]

... I won't bother quoting you, or really reading your last post in it's entirety. I think it's worth noting that you rarely reply with a worthwhile comment. You seem to be caught up on unsubstantiated issues and argue the endlessly even though it's pointless, especially to the requests for substantiation by several of the people in this thread to date. To reply and argue about something you don't even know for certain, when these people are asking for substantiaion seems to me like you just enjoy pressing the keys on your keyboard, at least too me. You almost seem like a religous leader arguing in support of his religion without a damn thing to substantiate the claims except speculations, testimonials and other stuff worthless as 'proof'.

-Chris

[Woochifer]

Sorry, it's been a while since I updated the correspondence between myself and Telarc.

I recieved a reply in reference to the email i sent(found at the bottom of this post). I will post the recieved email in it's entirety as well as the response to this email. I never recieved another reply, nor do I expect to recieve a reply considering Mr. Bishop's attitude towards being quoted on a forum.

Why would he reply given that you won't even acknowledge his request that you ask him before you go posting his replies on a public forum? I know that someone who doesn't care to abide by my confidentiality requests on e-mail correspondences would not deserve any of my time. If anyone has an attitude on this matter, it certainly doesn't seem to be Mr. Bishop. You seem more interested in perpetuating theoretical soapbox arguments than pursuing the highest possible audio quality for the music that you enjoy. If you don't like the audio quality for a particular CD, then either put up with it or invest in a universal player so you can access the SACD layer. It's not like those hybrid discs will force you to double dip and repurchase your music collection, and it's not like a universal player's an empty investment given that it also allows for multichannel audio.

Like I was telling mtry, if it is common industry practice to alter the CD mixes during the mastering process and not doing these alterations with the high res versions, then why would all these tangental irrelevancies matter when you already know which version is likeliest to give you the best sound quality? The theoretical arguments are irrelevant. If you want to boycott Telarc for compressing the audio or bumping up the levels, then you'll have to boycott every other music company out there as well since Telarc is hardly alone in that practice. That leaves you with listening to test tones.

[WmAx]

Why would he reply given that you won't even acknowledge his request that you ask him before you go posting his replies on a public forum? I know that someone who doesn't care to abide by my confidentiality requests on e-mail correspondences would not deserve any of my time. If anyone has an attitude on this matter, it certainly doesn't seem to be Mr. Bishop.
Everyone has an attitude. You assume I mean this in a negative manner. When someone has an 'attitude', this does mean anything negative. See the definition.


You seem more interested in perpetuating theoretical soapbox arguments than pursuing the highest possible audio quality for the music that you enjoy.
You are correct. That was one of the primary issues I intended in this thread.

I don't claim to be 'nice'. I admit openly that I realize I may seem like an '*******' to many people. I considered this before I posted the email where he demands not to be posted. Indeed, I realized that it may incur responses such as yours before I posted. However, I felt it was important to share the entire communication. This at least allows a better-informed opinion by anyone who cares to read all of the correspondence from the beginning of this thread to the end.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No, I don't claim that it is transparent. It's not possible to prove that it is transparent according to the laws of science. Proof of a positive is. I claim that the tests that I know of have been negative and thus inconclusive.

You are a liar because that is not what you originally said at all.


My take,

the 44.1 kHz/16 bit format was tested in one of the best studios in the world (i.e. highest sound quality, Studio Blue in Stockholm) and they could not hear the difference between a high-quality analog tape and the corresponding transfer to digital. Also, down-sampling from higher sampling rates did not improve the signal audibly. So for consumers there is no need to go higher.

When someone says they cannot hear a difference between the master tape, and the encoded digital audio, they are saying the digital audio is transparent when compared to the original. Now you are attempting to spin this around and make a completely different claim altogether. Spin, spin, spin!! You seem to do this every time your arguement has been effectively countered.







Details of one of the tests are given in one of my posts.[/quote[

The post you mention does not support your claims at all, do you have any other that may?


[quote] And there are no other tests that I know of that would show any audibility of high-res vs redbook CD.

So what you are telling us is that because YOU don't know about it, it must not have been done. Hmmmm....interesting, you must know everything, and what you don't know must not exist. Wow, you are all knowing like God dude, you don't below amoung us mortals.




You claim to hear a difference, but you don't want to show the data or give any other information than "AES" standards for the test procedure. It's been published you say, yet you don't want to say whether there were any DBTs involved to confirm the observations you made. Since you also say you need not to proove anything to anyone, I conclude there were no DBTs involved. Thus there is no proof of audible difference. I figured it out. Thanks.

Since it seems your are bording on retarded, and cannot comprehend my previous posts, I will repeat myself just one more time. I do DBT with my clients using AES protocols to ensure no bias creeps in. I do not do this to publish for peer review, or to prove any point to you. Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why after saying this three previous times you cannot understand this simple concept. Face it, your experience in audio lies strictly in the periphery. You do not mix or master audio, you do not record audio, and you are not a producer. You write about audio based on someone elses experience. This does not qualify you to challenge the assertions of any engineer. I can read about brain surgery all day and all night, understand the complexity of the operation, but if I have no hands on experience, then I have no right to demand proof from a brain surgeon that the way he does things are valid. You are totally out of contexted coming to a audio forum for non professionals demanding DBT, white papers, and scientific studies to support what people say around here. If you are so smart, go to AES and demand that kind of stuff there. But this is the wrong place for it. Now you can except or reject what Michael Bishop says, what I have said(they are totally consistant with one another) and what other engineers have gone on record and said if you desire because it doesn't square what you believe. But in the end you are the ignorant one holding on to your own uneducated ideas. Good luck to you Thomas, I hope that one day you can put the theories that you read about to test. I am sure it will be an eye and ear opening experience for you as it was for me.

[Woochifer]

Everyone has an attitude. You assume I mean this in a negative manner. When someone has an 'attitude', this does mean anything negative. See the definition.

Well, you asked for it.

a : a negative or hostile state of mind b : a cocky or arrogant manner

Obviously, dictionaries have kept up with the conversational usage of the term.


You are correct. That was one of the primary issues I intended in this thread.

I don't claim to be 'nice'. I admit openly that I realize I may seem like an '*******' to many people. I considered this before I posted the email where he demands not to be posted. Indeed, I realized that it may incur responses such as yours before I posted. However, I felt it was important to share the entire communication. This at least allows a better-informed opinion by anyone who cares to read all of the correspondence from the beginning of this thread to the end.

-Chris

Yup, it did inform my opinion. I thought Mr. Bishop's courtesy and class in addressing some condescending questions spoke for itself.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I won't bother quoting you, or really reading your last post in it's entirety. I think it's worth noting that you rarely reply with a worthwhile comment.

Well at least you are consistant. You haven't read any of my post in their entirety or you would still be here blowing smoke. You have your opinon, and here is mine. You think that because you have a basic understanding of digital audio that you are some expert. But the reality is you have never recorded, never mixed, and never mastered a damn thing, so your basic knowledge is meaningless.



You seem to be caught up on unsubstantiated issues and argue the endlessly even though it's pointless, especially to the requests for substantiation by several of the people in this thread to date.

Again, just your opinion, and like butt's we all have one. Right?


To reply and argue about something you don't even know for certain, when these people are asking for substantiaion seems to me like you just enjoy pressing the keys on your keyboard, at least too me.

Now this sounds absolutely hilarious coming from you. You have two, count them TWO audio professionals tell you about how the system works, what goes into the decision making process concerning production, and you still despite the fact that you have never recorded a single piece of audio, can find yourself challenging their experience. This is foolish arrogance if I ever saw it. I know what my ears have told me since 1997, that is unargueable. Now what comparison have you made that would educate your ears? None... just as I suspected.



You almost seem like a religous leader arguing in support of his religion without a damn thing to substantiate the claims except speculations, testimonials and other stuff worthless as 'proof'.

-Chris


Dude, face it, you looked stupid trying to debate an issue that you know very little to nothing about. Michael Bishop made you look like just what you are, and uneducated fool. It was stupid and disrespectful to post a private letter, but it was even more retarded of you to try and challenge him, when you don't have 1/1,000,000th the experience he has. So pop you little ego bubble, crawl back in your hole, and continue to read your white papers and listen to your redbook CD's. It seems that's all you are good for anyway.

Now that we have established that we have a mutual disrespect for each other, what's next? Are you going to tell me that I have to come up with proof that my 48 track digital recorder can record a signal over 20khz?

[Thomas_A]

You are a liar because that is not what you originally said at all.

When someone says they cannot hear a difference between the master tape, and the encoded digital audio, they are saying the digital audio is transparent when compared to the original. Now you are attempting to spin this around and make a completely different claim altogether. Spin, spin, spin!! You seem to do this every time your arguement has been effectively countered.

Not at all. It just means that they fail to hear a difference at that time-point, with those materials, and the equipment at hand. I have written this in one of my posts. The more tests, that fails to hear a difference, the bigger the probability that it is transparent. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.


So what you are telling us is that because YOU don't know about it, it must not have been done. Hmmmm....interesting, you must know everything, and what you don't know must not exist. Wow, you are all knowing like God dude, you don't below amoung us mortals.

Yes I know everything now after reading your posts.


[QOUTE]Since it seems your are bording on retarded, and cannot comprehend my previous posts, I will repeat myself just one more time. I do DBT with my clients using AES protocols to ensure no bias creeps in. I do not do this to publish for peer review, or to prove any point to you. Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why after saying this three previous times you cannot understand this simple concept. Face it, your experience in audio lies strictly in the periphery. You do not mix or master audio, you do not record audio, and you are not a producer. You write about audio based on someone elses experience. This does not qualify you to challenge the assertions of any engineer. I can read about brain surgery all day and all night, understand the complexity of the operation, but if I have no hands on experience, then I have no right to demand proof from a brain surgeon that the way he does things are valid. You are totally out of contexted coming to a audio forum for non professionals demanding DBT, white papers, and scientific studies to support what people say around here. If you are so smart, go to AES and demand that kind of stuff there. But this is the wrong place for it. Now you can except or reject what Michael Bishop says, what I have said(they are totally consistant with one another) and what other engineers have gone on record and said if you desire because it doesn't square what you believe. But in the end you are the ignorant one holding on to your own uneducated ideas. Good luck to you Thomas, I hope that one day you can put the theories that you read about to test. I am sure it will be an eye and ear opening experience for you as it was for me.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the "data".

[WmAx]

Well, you asked for it.

a : a negative or hostile state of mind b : a cocky or arrogant manner

Obviously, dictionaries have kept up with the conversational usage of the term.

That is but one definition of the word 'attitude'. You assume I mean that one?

4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state
-Chris

[WmAx]

Dude, face it, you looked stupid trying to debate an issue that you know very little to nothing about. Michael Bishop made you look like just what you are, and uneducated fool. It was stupid and disrespectful to post a private letter, but it was even more retarded of you to try and challenge him, when you don't have 1/1,000,000th the experience he has.
He made some poor points, in my perspecitve. His correlation of loudness to preference, ignoring the other variables being one example. A fool am I? Yes, of course, experience = correct. Right? Who dares challenge the 'experienced'? Value of a given amount of experience is variable.

As far as some 'etiquette' or 'rudeness' or whatever is concerned, those things are not the issue I care to discuss. Consider me a jerk.



Now that we have established that we have a mutual disrespect for each other, what's next? Are you going to tell me that I have to come up with proof that my 48 track digital recorder can record a signal over 20khz?

What does your multi-track recorder have to do with anything here?

Feel free to continue your long-winded, worthless posts of bull; I have no reason to continue to waste time corresponding with you. At least not at the moment.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not at all. It just means that they fail to hear a difference at that time-point, with those materials, and the equipment at hand. I have written this in one of my posts. The more tests, that fails to hear a difference, the bigger the probability that it is transparent. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.

You are playing silly little word games, and have basically been doing that this entire thread. When someone claims they cannot hear the difference between the original source, and the encoded one, they are claiming the encoded one is transparent to the original PERIOD. Anything else added only gives your wiggle room to backpedal out of the issue.



Yes I know everything now after reading your posts.

Since you encoded this cryptic message, can you decode it?




[QOUTE]Since it seems your are bording on retarded, and cannot comprehend my previous posts, I will repeat myself just one more time. I do DBT with my clients using AES protocols to ensure no bias creeps in. I do not do this to publish for peer review, or to prove any point to you. Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why after saying this three previous times you cannot understand this simple concept. Face it, your experience in audio lies strictly in the periphery. You do not mix or master audio, you do not record audio, and you are not a producer. You write about audio based on someone elses experience. This does not qualify you to challenge the assertions of any engineer. I can read about brain surgery all day and all night, understand the complexity of the operation, but if I have no hands on experience, then I have no right to demand proof from a brain surgeon that the way he does things are valid. You are totally out of contexted coming to a audio forum for non professionals demanding DBT, white papers, and scientific studies to support what people say around here. If you are so smart, go to AES and demand that kind of stuff there. But this is the wrong place for it. Now you can except or reject what Michael Bishop says, what I have said(they are totally consistant with one another) and what other engineers have gone on record and said if you desire because it doesn't square what you believe. But in the end you are the ignorant one holding on to your own uneducated ideas. Good luck to you Thomas, I hope that one day you can put the theories that you read about to test. I am sure it will be an eye and ear opening experience for you as it was for me.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the "data".

You are welcome

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Thomas_A
Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). .[/QUOTE]

Interesting. After following this thread for quite awhile and reading your quoted comment above, I decided to discuss "high rez" vs redbook with the three recording engineers that I know personally. Two of them are close friends of mine and the other is a close friend of one of the other two. I mentioned to all of them that "someone" on A/R had discussed this issue with some RE's who claimed not to be able to tell the difference. The two main comments centered around two themes:

1) They wanted to know what RE's had the absolute lack of hearing that must, in their opinion, accompany a negative result.
2) They all would jump at the opportunity to remaster these RE's stuff on high rez and correct its faults.

All three strongly preferred SACD over RBCD and said that while often the differences are subtle, they are just as often not subtle. In fact, their comments mirrored Sir Terrence's almost to a T. One had become a recent convert and said, just as Sir Terrence did, that he had performed several DBT's before he spent the massive bucks needed to upgrade all his gear. I mentioned that the A/R crowd required peer reviewed test results and his reply was that "anyone with a working ear/brain interface and the hearing of a 50 year old male" should be able to tell the difference. He didn't consider this earth shattering enough to worry about convincing others; rather, it should be a no-brainer. Actually, all three had done DBT and had some rather staggering successes. By the way, one of the three of these RE's is EXTREMELY well known, not only in the industry, but by music consumers. Sadly, he is the one that isn't my personal friend. Those two toil in obscurity. Such is the life of a person committed to avant garde jazz :)

This, too, does not constitute the data you require and that's not the point of my post. The point is that in light of the overwhelming acceptance in the industry of high res digital as the cure for redbook's limitations, I respectfully suggest, Thomas, that you do your own listening tests and make your own determination. You seem to have the opportunity to do so. Let us know your results.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

He made some poor points, in my perspecitve. His correlation of loudness to preference, ignoring the other variables being one example. A fool am I? Yes, of course, experience = correct. Right? Who dares challenge the 'experienced'? Value of a given amount of experience is variable.

Chris, you would say this because he put you in your place. Lack of experience=ignorant. Lack of experience arguing with years of experience=fool
What perspective can your offer? You have never recorded a single thing. You have never mastered a single thing. I am willing to bet good money you have never even sat in on a single recording session as a listener. So just what perspective can you offer someone that has recorded, mixed and mastered music for over twenty years. ZIP!!!!
The value of no experience is zero.


As far as some 'etiquette' or 'rudeness' or whatever is concerned, those things are not the issue I care to discuss. Consider me a jerk.

I already have, its good we can finally agree about something



What does your multi-track recorder have to do with anything here?

What does the demand for white papers and DBT studies have to do with the average audio hobbist?


Feel free to continue your long-winded, worthless posts of bull; I have no reason to continue to waste time corresponding with you. At least not at the moment.

-Chris

Then take your purse and high heels and go home! The fact of the matter is you were stupid for even trying to counter the arguements of a person who mixes and masters the audio you listen to. Own up to your stupidity and lean from it. Maybe next time instead of posing as an audio expert, you'll ask questions like a unexperienced book worm should.

[Woochifer]

That is but one definition of the word 'attitude'. You assume I mean that one?

4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state
-Chris

Presumptuous of me? Yes. More appropriate for the context? Most definitely.

[Thomas_A]

You are playing silly little word games, and have basically been doing that this entire thread. When someone claims they cannot hear the difference between the original source, and the encoded one, they are claiming the encoded one is transparent to the original PERIOD. Anything else added only gives your wiggle room to backpedal out of the issue.

I've already concluded that there is no evidence for an audible difference.You apparently are not familiar with the laws of science so it's no use keep talking to you.

[Thomas_A]

Interesting. After following this thread for quite awhile and reading your quoted comment above, I decided to discuss "high rez" vs redbook with the three recording engineers that I know personally. Two of them are close friends of mine and the other is a close friend of one of the other two. I mentioned to all of them that "someone" on A/R had discussed this issue with some RE's who claimed not to be able to tell the difference. The two main comments centered around two themes:

1) They wanted to know what RE's had the absolute lack of hearing that must, in their opinion, accompany a negative result.
2) They all would jump at the opportunity to remaster these RE's stuff on high rez and correct its faults.

All three strongly preferred SACD over RBCD and said that while often the differences are subtle, they are just as often not subtle. In fact, their comments mirrored Sir Terrence's almost to a T. One had become a recent convert and said, just as Sir Terrence did, that he had performed several DBT's before he spent the massive bucks needed to upgrade all his gear. I mentioned that the A/R crowd required peer reviewed test results and his reply was that "anyone with a working ear/brain interface and the hearing of a 50 year old male" should be able to tell the difference. He didn't consider this earth shattering enough to worry about convincing others; rather, it should be a no-brainer. Actually, all three had done DBT and had some rather staggering successes. By the way, one of the three of these RE's is EXTREMELY well known, not only in the industry, but by music consumers. Sadly, he is the one that isn't my personal friend. Those two toil in obscurity. Such is the life of a person committed to avant garde jazz :)

This, too, does not constitute the data you require and that's not the point of my post. The point is that in light of the overwhelming acceptance in the industry of high res digital as the cure for redbook's limitations, I respectfully suggest, Thomas, that you do your own listening tests and make your own determination. You seem to have the opportunity to do so. Let us know your results.


Sure. I can listen to Arny Krugers downsampling samples, which I have been doing frequently. I have not listened the 24/96 to 16/44.1 samples yet, but I will. Arny has not yeat reported anyone to hear a difference of downsampling 24/96 to 16/44.1, as far as I know, using the PCABX comparator. If I or anyone else hear a difference there, I can initiate a blindtest at the studio if there is an interest in the Swedish Audio-Technical Society to do so (again), like I did when I and John Stalberg made the CD player test as initiated on AudioReview. We can invite somebody over from the US like we did last time, if someone is happens to travel around Europe. (Although that person did not show up due to some travel problems.)

BTW, what do you mean by remaster the RE stuff to correct it's faults? If there is an original master source recorded with microphones linear to 50 kHz (at least) at 96 kHz sampling f there should be no correction of faults, just a high-quality transfer to 44.1 and a direct comparison with 96 kHz.

BTW2, I hate the word "remaster"...most remastered CDs I've listened to have shown more compression and higher loudness as compared to the original...

[DMK]

BTW, what do you mean by remaster the RE stuff to correct it's faults? .

Well, it isn't what I mean, it's what "they" meant and I can't speak for them. I'm pretty sure the word "remaster" in that sentence is mine, though. They indicated they'd like to "redo" the disc in the higher rez format to make it sound better.

[mtrycraft]

Well, it isn't what I mean, it's what "they" meant and I can't speak for them. I'm pretty sure the word "remaster" in that sentence is mine, though. They indicated they'd like to "redo" the disc in the higher rez format to make it sound better.


And, if that includes remixing which may not be revealed, it will certainly sound different, yet not due to the hi res format but the new remixing and other additions for the improved sound.

[mtrycraft]

In other words, you don't have the answer either.

No one has demonstrated that it is due to the hi res format. that should be very easy. Absent evidence, still.



But, I'm not making a claim about the high res itself, only the discs that are sold under that banner. As I've said already, if common industry practice compromises what gets transferred onto CD, and does not compromise what goes onto high res discs, then I've got my guideline from which to make my purchasing decisions.

Yes, an issue of preference not due to the hi res format as you don't know.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've already concluded that there is no evidence for an audible difference.You apparently are not familiar with the laws of science so it's no use keep talking to you.

And just because YOU came to this conclusion everyone else is imagining things. Thomas(who has never recorded a damn thing, who has never mixed a damn thing, has never mastered a damn thing, who has never produced anything) knows all there is about recording audio, and what Thomas doesn't believe cannot possibly exist, or be true. Well Thomas, you are God's right hand man, bask in your glory, you are all knowing and we(who have done the the recording, done the mixing and mastering) don't know anything about the subject

Right!

Thomas, you are not as familar with recording as you THINK you are. Participating in a few DBT test does not make you a expert in the field. Writing articles in a european audio rag doesn't equal to hands on experience. When you have recorded, mixed and mastered your first CD come talk to me. There is nothing that you have said here that any EXPERIENCED recording engineer would agree with. The two RE that you site as proof positive of your point are complete unknowns, the RE's that support what I have learned and practice are grammy award winners for technical achievement, best recording, and lifetime achievement. I will leave it to the readers of this post to decide who's information they believe.

[Woochifer]

In other words, you don't have the answer either.

No one has demonstrated that it is due to the hi res format. that should be very easy. Absent evidence, still.

And if it's due to industry practice, then the answer can only come from someone who has access to a master source and can do the downsampling. Nice of you to volunteer to conduct the test since it's so easy to demonstrate in your view.



But, I'm not making a claim about the high res itself, only the discs that are sold under that banner. As I've said already, if common industry practice compromises what gets transferred onto CD, and does not compromise what goes onto high res discs, then I've got my guideline from which to make my purchasing decisions.

Yes, an issue of preference not due to the hi res format as you don't know.

Issue of preference with several variables that a consumer lacks the means to isolate. So, who am I to judge whether or not the higher resolution is a contributing factor? Since you've already ruled out the higher res as a contributory variable, then I suppose you're going to share your peer reviewed findings with the group sometime soon, right?

[Thomas_A]

And just because YOU came to this conclusion everyone else is imagining things. Thomas(who has never recorded a damn thing, who has never mixed a damn thing, has never mastered a damn thing, who has never produced anything) knows all there is about recording audio, and what Thomas doesn't believe cannot possibly exist, or be true. Well Thomas, you are God's right hand man, bask in your glory, you are all knowing and we(who have done the the recording, done the mixing and mastering) don't know anything about the subject

Right!

Thomas, you are not as familar with recording as you THINK you are. Participating in a few DBT test does not make you a expert in the field. Writing articles in a european audio rag doesn't equal to hands on experience. When you have recorded, mixed and mastered your first CD come talk to me. There is nothing that you have said here that any EXPERIENCED recording engineer would agree with. The two RE that you site as proof positive of your point are complete unknowns, the RE's that support what I have learned and practice are grammy award winners for technical achievement, best recording, and lifetime achievement. I will leave it to the readers of this post to decide who's information they believe.

The rest of the world who reads this are hopefully grown-ups and make their own decisions. They know after this that the high-res are most likely mixed differently, hence a direct comparison for them between e.g. CD and SACD issues is not the test to be done to compare the media. Your posts just make people even more interested in the thruth. That's good. Very good.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The rest of the world who reads this are hopefully grown-ups and make their own decisions. They know after this that the high-res are most likely mixed differently, hence a direct comparison for them between e.g. CD and SACD issues is not the test to be done to compare the media. Your posts just make people even more interested in the thruth. That's good. Very good.

First, comparing CD and SACD is apple and oranges. They are completely different technologies(I am surprised with you extensive knowledge and experience unable to make that judgement) They are also used, and purposed for different environments. CD's are mixed to be played back in a variety of environments(radio, boomboxes, home stereo's, cars, television, satellite radio) with good results. That is not what SACD is produced for. SACD is produced strictly for 5.1 setups, and are best heard in optimum conditions. Based on these facts(and realities) they SHOULD be mixed differently. The CD is a mass market format, SACD is not. Anyone with brain larger than a fly should know this, and understand this. (based on your responses I guess this excludes you)

The truth is, you have no idea what influence this post will have on people, so save your energy by not trying to read peoples minds, and predict their reaction and motivations.

[Thomas_A]

First, comparing CD and SACD is apple and oranges. They are completely different technologies(I am surprised with you extensive knowledge and experience unable to make that judgement) They are also used, and purposed for different environments. CD's are mixed to be played back in a variety of environments(radio, boomboxes, home stereo's, cars, television, satellite radio) with good results. That is not what SACD is produced for. SACD is produced strictly for 5.1 setups, and are best heard in optimum conditions. Based on these facts(and realities) they SHOULD be mixed differently. The CD is a mass market format, SACD is not. Anyone with brain larger than a fly should know this, and understand this. (based on your responses I guess this excludes you)

The truth is, you have no idea what influence this post will have on people, so save your energy by not trying to read peoples minds, and predict their reaction and motivations.

From Telarc:

"Stereo SACD:
Two versions of the stereo program can be available on SACD. The high-resolution DSD program represents the best that SACD can offer in stereo. Playback on a SACD player is required.


Connect the analog stereo outputs of the player to the analog stereo inputs (or left/right front) of the preamplifier or receiver. (See figure 1)

Remember, as with any high-resolution program, the wider dynamic range and frequency response of SACD will place larger demands on your playback system.

Adjust the volume accordingly and use caution until you are familiar with the program content. The stereo track will play only on the front stereo channels under normal receiver settings.


A stereo PCM program is included on the CD layer of all Telarc SACDs. With this hybrid layer, the SACD will play as a standard CD on all CD players. Dynamic range and frequency content is the same as any standard CD."

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From Telarc:

"Stereo SACD:
Two versions of the stereo program can be available on SACD. The high-resolution DSD program represents the best that SACD can offer in stereo. Playback on a SACD player is required.


Connect the analog stereo outputs of the player to the analog stereo inputs (or left/right front) of the preamplifier or receiver. (See figure 1)

Remember, as with any high-resolution program, the wider dynamic range and frequency response of SACD will place larger demands on your playback system.

Adjust the volume accordingly and use caution until you are familiar with the program content. The stereo track will play only on the front stereo channels under normal receiver settings.


A stereo PCM program is included on the CD layer of all Telarc SACDs. With this hybrid layer, the SACD will play as a standard CD on all CD players. Dynamic range and frequency content is the same as any standard CD."

I am coming to the conclusion you are not who you say you are. Nobody with the background you say you posses, can dance around and spin so many issues as you do. It just wouldn't be necessary.

Stereo DSD is not CD redbook. Stereo DSD is based off of the Direct stream digital platform, and CD is based off of the LPCM platform, VERY different technologies. Redbook CD is a 16/44.1khz format and DSD stereo is a 1 bit 2.82mhz. VERY different. The tools to mix and master CD's CANNOT be used on DSD stereo. You cannot play a DSD stereo layer in a regular CD player.

If none of this was true, then their would be no need for two layers on a hybrid disc. A DSD stream has to be CONVERTED to LPCM.

Now if you cannot see that comparing the two is an apple and orange proposition, then a eye exam is definately in order

[Thomas_A]

I am coming to the conclusion you are not who you say you are. Nobody with the background you say you posses, can dance around and spin so many issues as you do. It just wouldn't be necessary.

Stereo DSD is not CD redbook. Stereo DSD is based off of the Direct stream digital platform, and CD is based off of the LPCM platform, VERY different technologies. Redbook CD is a 16/44.1khz format and DSD stereo is a 1 bit 2.82mhz. VERY different. The tools to mix and master CD's CANNOT be used on DSD stereo. You cannot play a DSD stereo layer in a regular CD player.

If none of this was true, then their would be no need for two layers on a hybrid disc. A DSD stream has to be CONVERTED to LPCM.

Now if you cannot see that comparing the two is an apple and orange proposition, then a eye exam is definately in order

You have not been following the high-res vs CD debate much I can see. There are numerous of claims of the audibility of the high-res vs CD based on comparisons between redbook CD and SACD (e.g. threads at RAHE). These speculations have also been figuring in this thread, if you are not totally blind.

You claimed that it was solely mixed as a 5.1 format above. It's not. There is a stereo track from which I can use the analog output from a SACD player (or DVD-A) and record that signal in either 24/96 or 16/44.1 PCM and compare audibility between the tracks. I can record from live sources provided I can get a microphone that stretch up to at least 30 kHz or more or use a high-quality master. I can thus repeat those tests that have been made with previous negative results. You are saying I will be suprised. I will bring the report here.

The issue is the audibility of the medium. High-res vs. redbook CD. Nothing else.

T

[mtrycraft]

Issue of preference with several variables that a consumer lacks the means to isolate. So, who am I to judge whether or not the higher resolution is a contributing factor? Since you've already ruled out the higher res as a contributory variable, then I suppose you're going to share your peer reviewed findings with the group sometime soon, right?

Don't need to. My citation to the Sony demo where they cheated to make their hi res sound audibly different is sufficient for now. If hi res could stand on its own merit, there would not have been a need for Sony the cheat. They did. They got caught, they couldn't demo the merits of hi res. END of STORY. Check mate.

[Woochifer]

Don't need to. My citation to the Sony demo where they cheated to make their hi res sound audibly different is sufficient for now. If hi res could stand on its own merit, there would not have been a need for Sony the cheat. They did. They got caught, they couldn't demo the merits of hi res. END of STORY. Check mate.

That's YOUR definition of PROOF?! How laughable. You ought to have your naysayer's membership revoked for all the logical holes that you left open in that statement.

So, somebody put together an invalid test. Big deal, you disregard the findings and start over. How does that PROVE your case under more valid and equitable conditions? I thought so, just conjuring up more inneuendo to avoid having to do the work yourself. BTW, jumping the gun in a chess game does not make you a winner.

[mtrycraft]

That's YOUR definition of PROOF?! How laughable. You ought to have your naysayer's membership revoked for all the logical holes that you left open in that statement.

So, somebody put together an invalid test. Big deal, you disregard the findings and start over. How does that PROVE your case under more valid and equitable conditions? I thought so, just conjuring up more inneuendo to avoid having to do the work yourself. BTW, jumping the gun in a chess game does not make you a winner.


Proof? No, that is how you imagine this evidence as. It is evidence you cannot dismiss. No, you can if you want, no one is stopping you.
Invalid test for you that is. That is your assertion. I suppose you can point to some evidence of any kind? Oh, your listening comparison and speculations? Yes, that is a given. Any other? How telling.

[WmAx]

That's YOUR definition of PROOF?! How laughable. You ought to have your naysayer's membership revoked for all the logical holes that you left open in that statement.

So, somebody put together an invalid test. Big deal, you disregard the findings and start over. How does that PROVE your case under more valid and equitable conditions? I thought so, just conjuring up more inneuendo to avoid having to do the work yourself. BTW, jumping the gun in a chess game does not make you a winner.
What? No one has yet demonstrated hi-res to be a cause in the first place. Cart before the horse syndrome? Soiunds like you've already accepted hi-res as being a real, plausible reason for difference when it's very low on the suspect list considering existing research/studies on bandwidth audibility. All mtrycraft did was tell you of a famous incident showing the desperation they have resorted to in order to falsify positive results since they have not been achieved elsewhere in a controlled/scrutinized test scenario.

-Chris

[hifitommy]

you are blathering. again.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You have not been following the high-res vs CD debate much I can see. There are numerous of claims of the audibility of the high-res vs CD based on comparisons between redbook CD and SACD (e.g. threads at RAHE). These speculations have also been figuring in this thread, if you are not totally blind.

Since I don't visit or participate in RAHE, how in the heck am supposed to know what the contents of their threads are? If we are just comparing format vs format(and not taking into consideration anything else) I can see where a comparison can be made. Otherwise you cannot compare bit level, sample rate, they don't even use the same data carrier(LPCM vs DSD)


You claimed that it was solely mixed as a 5.1 format above. It's not. There is a stereo track from which I can use the analog output from a SACD player (or DVD-A) and record that signal in either 24/96 or 16/44.1 PCM and compare audibility between the tracks.

The stereo track from DSD is a downmixed version of the 5.1 track. So let me get this straight, you say you can convert a DSD stream into LPCM at 24/96 or 16/44.1khz and compare the audiblilty between tracks. Now I KNOW you are a phony. Converting a DSD stream to LPCM will completely negate any comparison that can be made. Common sense would dictate that when you convert one type of signal to another, the losses in the conversion would tilt the results in favor of the native signal. Worse, you would be passing that signal through the A/D and D/A of the SACD, redigitizing it into LPCM and then back through the D/A stages. Then you are comparing this to a signal that was recorded and played back in it's native form. Oooooo, very fair comparison(sarcasm off)

Now you say you write for the Swedish audio society? This rag must suffer from malnutrition in the accuracy area!!!!



I can record from live sources provided I can get a microphone that stretch up to at least 30 kHz or more or use a high-quality master. I can thus repeat those tests that have been made with previous negative results. You are saying I will be suprised. I will bring the report here.

The issue is the audibility of the medium. High-res vs. redbook CD. Nothing else.

T

The way you are proposing to do these tests will not reveal much of anything. You are converting signals from one format to another, and trying to compare them to unconverted signals. That is not the most pristine way of doing a test, and will tilt the results in favor of the unconverted format. The only way to conduct this test and get a fair result is to take your master, encode it into a DSD stream, and at 16/44.1khz. Using your mixing board, or a ABX comparorator that is level matched with full latency, blindly compare each track with the master. The one that comes closest to sounding like the master is the most transparent.

A sided by side comparison with no master in between will only tell someone that either they sound different from each other, or the same. But it won't say which is transparent, and closest to sounding like the master.

If this test is any indication to how previous have been run, I would highly suspect the results attained. Maybe you should allow someone else to design the testing methods, because it is apparent that you lack of experience in this area negatively betrays you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What? No one has yet demonstrated hi-res to be a cause in the first place. Cart before the horse syndrome? Soiunds like you've already accepted hi-res as being a real, plausible reason for difference when it's very low on the suspect list considering existing research/studies on bandwidth audibility. All mtrycraft did was tell you of a famous incident showing the desperation they have resorted to in order to falsify positive results since they have not been achieved elsewhere in a controlled/scrutinized test scenario.

-Chris

Here we go again, back to the issue of bandwidth when that was taken off the table several hundred replies ago. Chris you are sounding like a broken record because you really don't have a leg to stand on. Michael Bishop effectively cut them both off. Neither you, Mtry, or Thomas has participated in these test, so you have no way of TRUELY verifying anything that has to do with them. You don't know if they were desperate(inflammatory language shows a lack of effective communitcation skills) or just overlook a small variable. You are doing the exactly same thing as they are by picking and choosing what is legit and what is not based on your beliefs. The key to this is to shut your fat trap, and listen to the audio, and not sit around talking about it in a passive, indirect way. I know this is difficult for you to do, but give it a try, you may actually learn something in the process

The bottom line is that no test has effectively ruled that high frequency information is, or is not peceived in high resolution audio. That just means that some were effected, and other were not. I would say the maximum high frequency information that one can hear effects what can be perceived in the ultra sonic range. The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

[Thomas_A]

Since I don't visit or participate in RAHE, how in the heck am supposed to know what the contents of their threads are? If we are just comparing format vs format(and not taking into consideration anything else) I can see where a comparison can be made. Otherwise you cannot compare bit level, sample rate, they don't even use the same data carrier(LPCM vs DSD)



The stereo track from DSD is a downmixed version of the 5.1 track. So let me get this straight, you say you can convert a DSD stream into LPCM at 24/96 or 16/44.1khz and compare the audiblilty between tracks. Now I KNOW you are a phony. Converting a DSD stream to LPCM will completely negate any comparison that can be made. Common sense would dictate that when you convert one type of signal to another, the losses in the conversion would tilt the results in favor of the native signal. Worse, you would be passing that signal through the A/D and D/A of the SACD, redigitizing it into LPCM and then back through the D/A stages. Then you are comparing this to a signal that was recorded and played back in it's native form. Oooooo, very fair comparison(sarcasm off)

Now you say you write for the Swedish audio society? This rag must suffer from malnutrition in the accuracy area!!!!




The way you are proposing to do these tests will not reveal much of anything. You are converting signals from one format to another, and trying to compare them to unconverted signals. That is not the most pristine way of doing a test, and will tilt the results in favor of the unconverted format. The only way to conduct this test and get a fair result is to take your master, encode it into a DSD stream, and at 16/44.1khz. Using your mixing board, or a ABX comparorator that is level matched with full latency, blindly compare each track with the master. The one that comes closest to sounding like the master is the most transparent.

A sided by side comparison with no master in between will only tell someone that either they sound different from each other, or the same. But it won't say which is transparent, and closest to sounding like the master.

If this test is any indication to how previous have been run, I would highly suspect the results attained. Maybe you should allow someone else to design the testing methods, because it is apparent that you lack of experience in this area negatively betrays you.

Oh. I have explained one of the previous tests already. You can read, or perhaps not? I am starting to wonder, since you have not understood anything what I've said at all. I want am analogue source signal which has frequency content >22 kHz, thus that can be the analogue signal from SACD, DVD-A, a master tape which has a frequency content >22 kHz (DAT high-speed), or directly fed by microphones that can reproduce at least up to 30 kHz. I record that in 24/96 and use that as the original signal. From this I can down-sample to e.g. 16/48 and test the audibility of that against the original. I can also record the same SACD or DVD-A signal in 16/44.1, not to loose the sync by downconverting 24/96-16/44.1.

Just like I said, I am comparing the audibility of high-res vs redbook CD only. Nothing else.

[WmAx]

Here we go again, back to the issue of bandwidth when that was taken off the table several hundred replies ago. Chris you are sounding like a broken record because you really don't have a leg to stand on. Michael Bishop effectively cut them both off. Neither you, Mtry, or Thomas has participated in these test, so you have no way of TRUELY verifying anything that has to do with them. You are doing the exactly same thing as they are by picking and choosing what is legit and what is not based on your beliefs. The key to this is to shut your fat trap, and listen to the audio, and not sit around talking about it in a passive, indirect way. I know this is difficult for you to do, but give it a try, you may actually learn something in the process
Refer to my last reply addressed to you. Nothing has changed.

-Chris

[WmAx]

Oh. I have explained one of the previous tests already. You can read, or perhaps not? I am starting to wonder, since you have not understood anything what I've said at all.
I would tend to agree with your suspicion(s) so far.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I would tend to agree with your suspicion(s) so far.

-Chris

You would. I think you talk to much, and don't listen enough. So, everyone has the negative personal opinions about each, but how does that advance your arguement(or lack of one)?

[WmAx]

You would. I think you talk to much, and don't listen enough. So, everyone has the negative personal opinions about each, but how does that advance your arguement(or lack of one)?That was my opinion. I felt like chiming 'in' per say.

Re: your other assertions: It does not advance my arguments. I already submitted my arguments. This assertion I made in reply to Thomas was not meant as as addendum to past arguments I have had with you. You irrationally responded to the past arguments --- I let it be known that I have no reason to discuss these issues with you further -- specifically because you seem to lack comprehension. SO far this still stands.

-Chris

[Woochifer]

Proof? No, that is how you imagine this evidence as. It is evidence you cannot dismiss. No, you can if you want, no one is stopping you.

Evidence, proof, whatever you offered up constitutes neither. Try coming up with another word if you're up to it. Nice of you to evolve the discussion into yet another word twisting exercise. In case you forgot or intentionally decided to overlook, you're the one who's making the assertion that high res should be eliminated as a causal variable. All I've stated all along is that I lack the information and access to source material to draw my own conclusion about the causal effects. I'll leave you to obsess all you want over the causal effects, since I sure don't.

Since you're making the assertion, show me the evidence, proof, DBTs, peer reviewed findings, or whatever else you typically demand of others who make assertions on this board. If this is all the "evidence" that you can offer when actually making an assertion, maybe it's better that you just revert back to inneuendo, condescention, and mudslinging.


Invalid test for you that is. That is your assertion.

Invalid test for me? No, you were the one who cited the Sony test as faulty, and therefore supportive of your conclusion. Tell me again, how that "evidence" confirms that the resolution is not a potential causal effect? I thought so, just more spin for its own sake.


I suppose you can point to some evidence of any kind? Oh, your listening comparison and speculations? Yes, that is a given. Any other? How telling.

I've stated all along that I don't have the answer, so you are asking me for evidence to that effect? You crack me up, thanx for the good laugh.

And you're only half right on the last point. I do the listening, you do the speculating. When you come up with the evidence and proof that you claim is so easy to verify, let us know.

[Woochifer]

What? No one has yet demonstrated hi-res to be a cause in the first place. Cart before the horse syndrome? Soiunds like you've already accepted hi-res as being a real, plausible reason for difference when it's very low on the suspect list considering existing research/studies on bandwidth audibility. All mtrycraft did was tell you of a famous incident showing the desperation they have resorted to in order to falsify positive results since they have not been achieved elsewhere in a controlled/scrutinized test scenario.

-Chris

Go ahead and perpetuate the spin all you want. All that I've said is that I don't have the information and access to source material to come up with my own assessment over the relative importance of the various causal effects. If the resolution is one of the known variables when I do a disc comparison (which I'm stuck with since I don't have access to master sources), then who am I to eliminate it as a causal factor? Mtry tried to cite a faulty test that Sony did as "evidence" that resolution should be eliminated as a causal effect. To me, a faulty test proves nothing one way or another. You can draw all the inneuendo and conspiracy conclusions that you want, but that hardly qualifies as evidence or proof of anything.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh. I have explained one of the previous tests already. You can read, or perhaps not? I am starting to wonder, since you have not understood anything what I've said at all.

If you knew what you were talking about, it might making it easier to understand what you write. I am begining to wonder if you passed a basic english composition course.



I want am analogue source signal which has frequency content >22 kHz, thus that can be the analogue signal from SACD, DVD-A, a master tape which has a frequency content >22 kHz (DAT high-speed), or directly fed by microphones that can reproduce at least up to 30 kHz.

Why would you use a analog signal from a SACD or DVD-A? That signal is not pristine as it has passed through the A/D and D/A circuits. I do not know of any DAT player that can record signals up to 30khz(typical sampling rates are 32. 44.1 and 48khz which limits their frequency response to 24khz). Will this signal be from a pre-recorded SACD or DVD-A? That would be stupid because it probably has been through post production processing. Why would you choose a microphone with a high frequency limit of 30khz? That would make the source the limiting factor and not the formats themselves. SACD is -3 at 50khz, and 24/96khz is down about 5 db at 48khz. The microphone should be flat to 50khz so the source is not the limiting factor. Will this source be close miked? It sure better or you will lose any ultra high frequency information that would be present to the air.




I record that in 24/96 and use that as the original signal. From this I can down-sample to e.g. 16/48 and test the audibility of that against the original. I can also record the same SACD or DVD-A signal in 16/44.1, not to loose the sync by downconverting 24/96-16/44.1.

Why in the hell would you record in 24/96khz if the comparison is 16/44.1khz? Why would you downsample to 16/48khz if this test is about SACD vs CD. Secondly, going from 24/96khz to SACD is a stupid, unnecessary conversion. In order to be fair, you need a DSD stream encoded directly from the microphone, no conversion at all. Otherwise you compromise the test. In order for the test to be valid, all formats must be in their native format.
Thirdly, SACD cannot be recorded into 16/44.1khz without conversion. It runs at 1 bit 2.822mhz and is not LPCM. You also cannot record a DVD-A signal at 16/44.1khz because the format runs off of a 48khz platform per specfication set by the DVD audio group
You cannot record a SACD signal to 16/44.1khz without conversion from DSD to LPCM. Not pristine. You also cannot cleanly or pristinely downsample from DVD-A to 16/44.1khz because the decimation process from 48khz to 44.1khz introduces some distortion and degredation.





Just like I said, I am comparing the audibility of high-res vs redbook CD only. Nothing else.

If the comparison is high res vs redbook you are not going to cleanly get there with what you propose. If you are simply camparing high rez to redbook then the test would be as simple as a live feed to a recorder at 16/176.4khz, and the same feed to a recorder at 16/44.1khz, level matched. . That is the only way you do not introduce distortions into the mix. I however thought we were talking about SACD vs CD since this is the topic of the thread(damn, you are like a roach with the lights going on, scrambling all over the place)

Your main problem is that you don't have a very good understanding of recording practices, sample rates, conversion, or studio technology at all. You are proposing to record with sample rates that will introduce distortion during downsampling. You are taking DSD signals and converting them to LPCM signals. You want to use equipment that actually introduces weakness to the process, and you never make mention to the reproduction devices at all(speakers or headphones????)

When a person introduces a testing methods the way you have, one can only come form a few conclusions. 1. you don't know what you are talking about. 2. You do not understand the technology, OR 3. a combination of both 1 and 2 keeps your from designing a non compromising testing procedure.

Please go back to the drawing board and try this again. There are enough holes in this testing procedure to double as a water sprinkler.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That was my opinion. I felt like chiming 'in' per say.

Can you chime on topic??


Re: your other assertions: It does not advance my arguments. I already submitted my arguments.

Those were arguements. Wow, as much profoundness as a puddle of spit


This assertion I made in reply to Thomas was not meant as as addendum to past arguments I have had with you. You irrationally responded to the past arguments --- I let it be known that I have no reason to discuss these issues with you further -- specifically because you seem to lack comprehension. SO far this still stands.

-Chris

Chris, the way Michael cut you down to size shows that you lack comprehension. You looked like a feeble old woman trying to cross 5th Ave during rush hour in your responses to him. Since you don't know me well enough to assume what contexted my resposes were to, your assumptions a far off base. You also don't know me well enough to evaluate the rational, or irrational nature of them. Stick to what you know, pretending to know much about nothing. You are really good at that.

Its rather amusing to me that you clam up when you do not have an effective argument to present. That might be a good thing because it keeps you from look so stupid as poor Thomas does.

[Thomas_A]

If you knew what you were talking about, it might making it easier to understand what you write. I am begining to wonder if you passed a basic english composition course.

Keep wondering.



Why would you use a analog signal from a SACD or DVD-A? That signal is not pristine as it has passed through the A/D and D/A circuits.

Does not matter. A signal is a signal, whether it is from a signal generator, LP playback, CD, DVD-A, SACD or live source. If I capture this signal and if it changes audibly from the original after any processing event, then there is a positive result in a DBT. If not, it's a negative. The purpose of the test is to investigate whether a wider bandwith, higher sampling rate, or more bits are audibly different from standard 16/44.1.


I do not know of any DAT player that can record signals up to 30khz(typical sampling rates are 32. 44.1 and 48khz which limits their frequency response to 24khz).

http://perso.club-internet.fr/farzeno/piopor.htm



Will this signal be from a pre-recorded SACD or DVD-A?

Most probably not.


That would be stupid because it probably has been through post production processing. Why would you choose a microphone with a high frequency limit of 30khz?

There are mics which are linear up to 50 kHz. The at least 30 kHz limit was said because you previously claimed we cannot hear above 18 kHz. Thus, it should not matter for audibilty if there is a roll-off at 30 kHz. Or? Changed your mind?


That would make the source the limiting factor and not the formats themselves. SACD is -3 at 50khz, and 24/96khz is down about 5 db at 48khz.

Correct. If we can hear above 22,050 Hz as you stated we cannot.


The microphone should be flat to 50khz so the source is not the limiting factor. Will this source be close miked? It sure better or you will lose any ultra high frequency information that would be present to the air.

Yes, so I've stated previously. Below you see a link with 24/96 example of rattling keys with ultra-high frequency contents.



Why in the hell would you record in 24/96khz if the comparison is 16/44.1khz?

Why not, if I want to test the audibility between 24/96 and 16/44.1?


Why would you downsample to 16/48khz if this test is about SACD vs CD.

It's CD vs high-res. The test is whether a signal with higher sampling rate, a wider bandwidth or more bits is audibly different/better from redbook CD.


Secondly, going from 24/96khz to SACD is a stupid, unnecessary conversion.

Agreed. SACD is stupid, therefore I will not convert 24/96 to SACD.


In order to be fair, you need a DSD stream encoded directly from the microphone, no conversion at all. Otherwise you compromise the test.

No. You have not understood the test.


In order for the test to be valid, all formats must be in their native format.

I am not testing all formats.


Thirdly, SACD cannot be recorded into 16/44.1khz without conversion. It runs at 1 bit 2.822mhz and is not LPCM. You also cannot record a DVD-A signal at 16/44.1khz because the format runs off of a 48khz platform per specfication set by the DVD audio group.

I will not do any conversion.


You cannot record a SACD signal to 16/44.1khz without conversion from DSD to LPCM. Not pristine.

Se above.


You also cannot cleanly or pristinely downsample from DVD-A to 16/44.1khz because the decimation process from 48khz to 44.1khz introduces some distortion and degredation.

Agreed. That's why I record from the source signal directly to 24/96 and to 16/44.1.



If the comparison is high res vs redbook you are not going to cleanly get there with what you propose. If you are simply camparing high rez to redbook then the test would be as simple as a live feed to a recorder at 16/176.4khz, and the same feed to a recorder at 16/44.1khz, level matched. . That is the only way you do not introduce distortions into the mix. I however thought we were talking about SACD vs CD since this is the topic of the thread(damn, you are like a roach with the lights going on, scrambling all over the place)

See my first post in this thread.


Your main problem is that you don't have a very good understanding of recording practices, sample rates, conversion, or studio technology at all. You are proposing to record with sample rates that will introduce distortion during downsampling.

Se above.


You are taking DSD signals and converting them to LPCM signals. You want to use equipment that actually introduces weakness to the process, and you never make mention to the reproduction devices at all(speakers or headphones????)

See spec of the speakers earlier in the thread. That is what I can use. Headphones can probably be any of the STAX models.


When a person introduces a testing methods the way you have, one can only come form a few conclusions. 1. you don't know what you are talking about. 2. You do not understand the technology, OR 3. a combination of both 1 and 2 keeps your from designing a non compromising testing procedure.

Well, you do not qualify as a scientific reviewer so I don't care what you think.


Please go back to the drawing board and try this again. There are enough holes in this testing procedure to double as a water sprinkler.

Here is some excercise for you:

http://64.41.69.21/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

Good luck.


T

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Keep wondering.

Don't have to, it's readily apparent





Does not matter. A signal is a signal, whether it is from a signal generator, LP playback, CD, DVD-A, SACD or live source. If I capture this signal and if it changes audibly from the original after any processing event, then there is a positive result in a DBT. If not, it's a negative. The purpose of the test is to investigate whether a wider bandwith, higher sampling rate, or more bits are audibly different from standard 16/44.1.

It does matter. That is why I think you are a fake, you are sloppy and overly complicated which contaminates results.




http://perso.club-internet.fr/farzeno/piopor.htm

You still have A/D and D/A conversion to worry about so using a DAT is stupid, unclean, and unwise.





Most probably not.[/qoute]

Incomplete answer which shows you had every intent on doing it, but changed your mind when called on it.




There are mics which are linear up to 50 kHz. The at least 30 kHz limit was said because you previously claimed we cannot hear above 18 kHz. Thus, it should not matter for audibilty if there is a roll-off at 30 kHz. Or? Changed your mind?

It doesn't matter if we cannot hear above 18khz or not, if the object is to compare high rez to redbook CD, then you don't won't your microphone to roll off the output before the format does. More sloppiness and lack of forethought. Signs of profound inexperience!




Correct. If we can hear above 22,050 Hz as you stated we cannot.

Not interested. I am interested in what YOU do, not what someone else did. You cannot continue to use someone elses work, I am interested in what YOU would do. So far I am left unconvinced that you know what you are talking about




Yes, so I've stated previously. Below you see a link with 24/96 example of rattling keys with ultra-high frequency contents.

Once again, stop pointing to someone elses work. If you are so knowledgeable, I am sure you can think things up for yourself.





Why not, if I want to test the audibility between 24/96 and 16/44.1?

In case you have forgotten, the title of this thread is SACD vs CD unfair comparison. That means we are not talking DVD-A vs CD. You are making me dizzy with all of this spin action you are trying to put on this topic. You are busted, but your over blown ego won't let you admit that you don't know what you are talking about( a problem you and Chris share). Stevie Wonder can see that




It's CD vs high-res. The test is whether a signal with higher sampling rate, a wider bandwidth or more bits is audibly different/better from redbook CD.

Go back to the title of the thread. You cannot quote the noise levels of one format, then change to a completely different one. That is called spin, and this is a no spin zone. Try again buddy




Agreed. SACD is stupid, therefore I will not convert 24/96 to SACD.

You are not qualified to make this statement. What format did you bring to the consumer? None, and I am sure the engineers that created the SACD know alot more than you about digital audio.




No. You have not understood the test.

That is because your testing method is overly complicated, full of audio degrading and unnecessary conversions, and downsampling. That is not a test that would pass mustard at AES




I am not testing all formats.

You are not testing any formats with what you propose, you are testing the quality of the conversion and downsampling process. Hardly what I would call a SACD vs CD comparison which is the crust of these threads




not do any conversion.

That is not what is outlined in your previous post. More spin I see.





agreed that's why I record from the source signal directly to 24/96 and to 16/44.1.

Once again you are off topic. This is SACD vs CD not DVD-A vs CD. Damn I am getting dizzy. Spin, spin spin!!!



See spec of the speakers earlier in the thread. That is what I can use. Headphones can probably be any of the STAX models.

Doesn't matter what you use based on your testing standards, it would not get the result that is desired.




Well, you do not qualify as a scientific reviewer so I don't care what you think.

And you are no audio journalist either, so this is irrelevant. I have probably done more DBT that you have anyway, so that would make me just a little more qualified than yourself.




Here is some excercise for you:

http://64.41.69.21/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

Good luck.


T

Your are not qualified in any way to pass out homework assignments. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You should change your name to spinmiester.

There is nothing here that is relevant to the topic at hand. Stay on topic, and choose a testing method based on sound recording practices and comparison. Do not point to work that you haven't done yourself. Anyone can do that.

[mtrycraft]

Here is some excercise for you:

http://64.41.69.21/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

Good luck.


T

You don't play fair :D Facts always get in the way.

Tilt. Overload :D

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Here is some excercise for you:

http://64.41.69.21/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

Good luck.


T

You don't play fair :D Facts always get in the way.

Tilt. Overload :D

Were are the facts? How do I know from what source these signal come from, the quality of the signal, processed or unprocessed. I see no facts here. Try again old inexperienced one.

[WmAx]

Its rather amusing to me that you clam up when you do not have an effective argument to present. That might be a good thing because it keeps you from look so stupid as poor Thomas does

It's pointless to argue with someone(you) who does not demonstrate the ability to comprehend the difference between speculation and substantiation and the relative value(s).

-Chris

[hifitommy]

"It's pointless to argue with someone(you) who does not demonstrate the ability to comprehend the difference between speculation and substantiation and the relative
value(s)."

so why do you insist on demonstrating that disability?

[Thomas_A]

Were are the facts? How do I know from what source these signal come from, the quality of the signal, processed or unprocessed. I see no facts here. Try again old inexperienced one.

In case you can't read:

"24 bit 96 KHz "reference" samples were made by using 2 B&K 4007 1/2" condenser microphones powered by an Audio Technica phantom power unit, preamplified using a Benchmark Media mic preamp, and recorded using a CardD Deluxe in a 800 Mhz Pentium 3 computer located in another room. They were closely miced on-axis in a fairly small dead space. Therefore the transients are very well-defined and harmonic-rich, technically speaking. They also have relatively low amounts of background noise (mostly acoustic). They may sound quite "dry" to your ears.


Each test file was prepared by downsampling the reference file to the indicated sample rate, and then upsampled to the indicated sample rate of either 16/44 or 24/96."

[Thomas_A]

Your are not qualified in any way to pass out homework assignments. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You should change your name to spinmiester.

There is nothing here that is relevant to the topic at hand. Stay on topic, and choose a testing method based on sound recording practices and comparison. Do not point to work that you haven't done yourself. Anyone can do that.

I cite from the first post in this thread:

"Let's consider the following points:

(1) I can not find a scientific research project demonstrating audibly benefits to humans of a wider bandwidth then CD offers.

(2) I can not find definitive research of SACD vs CD releases, to find alternative explanations.

(3) I can not find reason for larger then 16 bit wordlength for audio playback, especially when properly dithered, which can effectively remove the quantitazation noise and allow the theoretical limit of CD of 96dB to be approached and/or met."


If VmAx think I drifted off topic, I am sure he would say so. Besides, the "work" that is done by Arny Krueger on the webpage I referred to, I am now sure you have not looked at the page. These are free listening tests which anyone can perform.

Your lack of scientific thinking and skills is obvious. I choose to record a signal in 24/96 and in 16/44.1. If nobody hear a difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1 in a DBT, then all possible differences between the two samples, including the most obvious - higher sampling rate, are inaudible. Simple. One of the questions posed in the initial post has already been solved. It's an unfair comparison since the CD and SACD are mixed differently. The remaining issue is whether high-res provides anything more that is audible compared to redbook CD.

BTW,

the K622 recording may be interesting. The interview also have some points about DSD:

http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/

T

[Thomas_A]

It does matter. That is why I think you are a fake, you are sloppy and overly complicated which contaminates results.

You are wrong. The signal itself should contain the matter to be tested, but that's implicated in the test question itself. If it is the importance of wide bandwidth that should be examined, it should contain high bandwidth. The quality of the signal is not important. Most often, test signals such as dirac's, pink noise, and short transients are most revealing.



You still have A/D and D/A conversion to worry about so using a DAT is stupid, unclean, and unwise.

You cannot understand a "wire bypass test" or "before/after" test, that's very clear I can see.


Incomplete answer which shows you had every intent on doing it, but changed your mind when called on it.

Incomplete answer? Where are your answers to my questions? DBT? ABX? Results? Statistics? Dream on.


It doesn't matter if we cannot hear above 18khz or not, if the object is to compare high rez to redbook CD, then you don't won't your microphone to roll off the output before the format does. More sloppiness and lack of forethought. Signs of profound inexperience!

My previous quote:

"The test included a high-quality analog musik signal with a bandwith of 46 kHz recorded with high-speed DAC (fs=96 kHz) with two Earthworks microphones. This was the original signal. Signal 2 was the same but filtered analog with 3rd order butterworth at 25 kHz. Signal three, the original was converted to normal DAT standard (48 kHz).

Two different tweeters were used, both which were ±0.5 dB up to 20 kHz ±30°. The first falls soft above 26-28 kHz, the second continue 20-80 kHz ±9dB. If the peak at 28 kHz is exlcuded it was within ±4 dB.

There were no signifcant audible differences between the three program material used with any of the tweeters."


Not interested. I am interested in what YOU do, not what someone else did. You cannot continue to use someone elses work, I am interested in what YOU would do. So far I am left unconvinced that you know what you are talking about

I am overwhelmed over the interest of what I do. Care to share the data from your DBTs again?


Once again, stop pointing to someone elses work. If you are so knowledgeable, I am sure you can think things up for yoursel

Yes I can. I have a reference list of my scientific work if you want to know.


In case you have forgotten, the title of this thread is SACD vs CD unfair comparison. That means we are not talking DVD-A vs CD. You are making me dizzy with all of this spin action you are trying to put on this topic. You are busted, but your over blown ego won't let you admit that you don't know what you are talking about( a problem you and Chris share). Stevie Wonder can see that

Well it takes a while to understand science. I can't help if it makes you dizzy.


Go back to the title of the thread. You cannot quote the noise levels of one format, then change to a completely different one. That is called spin, and this is a no spin zone. Try again buddy

I've read it. This question is solved. There are different mixes of SACD and CD. The remaining questions in VmAx first post is the topic now.


You are not qualified to make this statement. What format did you bring to the consumer? None, and I am sure the engineers that created the SACD know alot more than you about digital audio.

Of course I am qualified. It suffers from noise and when filtered only marginally better performance than PCM 16/44.1. This view is shared by many and among recording engineers.


That is because your testing method is overly complicated, full of audio degrading and unnecessary conversions, and downsampling. That is not a test that would pass mustard at AES

That's your opinion. You have not published anything so you don't know.


You are not testing any formats with what you propose, you are testing the quality of the conversion and downsampling process. Hardly what I would call a SACD vs CD comparison which is the crust of these threads

Nope the unfair comparison SACD vs CD has been solved. It is unfair because they are differently mixed. The question is whether higher sampling rate or more bits are audible compared to 16/44.1.


Once again you are off topic. This is SACD vs CD not DVD-A vs CD. Damn I am getting dizzy. Spin, spin spin!!!

Read the initial post of this thread. The main question between SACD and CD has been solved. It is not possible to do the comparison if not the mixes are identical. They are very seldom the same. An exception might be the K668 Stereophile project (cited from Stereophile):

"Sidebar 1: K622: The Music

K622: Mozart Clarinet Concerto MFSACD017/MFLP017

Antony Michaelson, clarinet, with the Michaelangelo Chamber Orchestra conducted by Robert Bailey
Flute: Andy Findon, Helen Keen
Bassoon: Brian Sewell, Francesca Carpos
Horn: Richard Watkins, David Wythe
Violin: Adrian Levine (concertmaster), Kathy Andrew, Alex Balanescu, Sue Briscoe, Gordon Buchan, Beverly Davison, Ruth Erlich, Jonathan Evans-Jones, Alison Kelly, Pauline Lowbury, Rona Murray, David Ogden, Julian Tear, Paul Willey
Viola: Marina Ascherson, Rachel Bolt, Tim Grant, Rusen Gunes
Cello: Naomi Butterworth, Mike Hurwitz, Judith Serkin, Jonathan Williams
Double bass: Paddy Lannigan, Steve Williams

LP Side 1: Allegro (12:38)
LP Side 2: Adagio (7:58), Rondo (Allegro) (8:51)

SACD Hi-Rez Layer
1: Allegro (pure DSD) 12:38
2: Adagio (pure DSD) 7:58
3: Rondo (Allegro) (pure DSD) 8:51
4: Allegro (DSD transfer from analog tape) 12:38
5: Adagio (DSD transfer from analog tape) 7:58
6: Rondo (Allegro) (DSD transfer from analog tape) 8:51

SACD "Red Book" Layer
1: Allegro (PCM downsampled from DSD) 12:38
2: Adagio (PCM downsampled from DSD) 7:58
3: Rondo (Allegro) (PCM downsampled from DSD) 8:51
4: Allegro (PCM transfer from analog tape) 12:38
5: Adagio (PCM transfer from analog tape) 7:58
6: Rondo (Allegro) (PCM transfer from analog tape) 8:51

Recorded by Tony Faulkner in Henry Wood Hall, London, on November 19, 2003. LP mastered by Stan Ricker and pressed by RTI, Camarillo, California"


Doesn't matter what you use based on your testing standards, it would not get the result that is desired

That's only your opinion. If there are two conversions from one master tape, you claim that the one closest to the master is the best one. That's very true. If there is one that is more close, that implies that there must be a difference between the two converted ones. Thus, I need not compare the samples to the master; I can compare them to each other. The question is if whether a higher bandwidth is audible. Your desire is not the issue.


And you are no audio journalist either, so this is irrelevant. I have probably done more DBT that you have anyway, so that would make me just a little more qualified than yourself.

Please entertain me. Where were we... yes..the DBT results, can you share?

[mtrycraft]

you are blathering. again.


Coming from you? LOL. You cannot comprehend the issues. Priceless indeed.

[mtrycraft]

The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

You keep referring to the AES running this test.
Please cite the work. It better be good, not that sloppy conference paper.

[mtrycraft]

Mtry tried to cite a faulty test that Sony did as "evidence" that resolution should be eliminated as a causal effect. To me, a faulty test proves nothing one way or another. You can draw all the inneuendo and conspiracy conclusions that you want, but that hardly qualifies as evidence or proof of anything.

Faulty? You read it? You don't like the answer?
You have a better one? Didn't think so. Come back when you have something.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You keep referring to the AES running this test.
Please cite the work. It better be good, not that sloppy conference paper.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

Read J4

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm

Mtry, since you have added absolutely nothing to this conversation, you have a lot of nerve to make demands on anyone. I went ahead and posted this for the benefit of the board, not for you, Chris, or Thomas.

Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies, the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.

[Woochifer]

Faulty? You read it? You don't like the answer?
You have a better one? Didn't think so. Come back when you have something.

I guess this is how you respond when you actually decide to stretch beyond the rhelm of inneuendo and make an actual assertion, unsubstantiated as it is. How sad when someone who demands that others live up to such high standards of evidence and proof when commenting on their hobbies can't even come close to attaining those standards himself.

Pretty funny to keep asking me repeatedly to come back with something when all I've said all along is that I lack the means to come up with an answer on causal effects. So, now you expecting me to provide the answer for you? You said it was easy to prove, so why would not come up with the evidence yourself? After all, you're the all knowing expert and the one that's out to prove something, right? Asking me to bail you out is quite a humorous, albeit empty and hypocritical, gesture.

[E-Stat]

Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.
The sad part is that these guys really don't get the live musical experience. To each his own. The "dumbing down" of America marches onward.

rw

[WmAx]

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/I see speculation. I don't see any controlled/peer-reviewed listenig tests. I also see an error(that I myself made eariler in this thread taht Monstrous Mike graciously corrected):

" A fascinating discussion ensued in which an alternate model of human hearing was presented as a possible explanation for the reason high-resolution audio sounds better. Instead of simply detecting tones, the hearing system might also detect impulses, or "clicks"—localization cues that arrive at the ears within a 10-microsecond window. These impulses necessarily lie above the bandwidth for tones—in the energy band studied by Story and his dCS colleagues. In the wild, hearing is the body's "early warning system," as one panelist put it, and the "wideband target locator" hypothesis might explain why high-resolution audio sounds better—because it gets the cues right."

A larger bandwidth is not required in order to have signal accuracy that is placed in time to the limits of human perception. The vector combinatino of frequency respnse and signal:noise ratio are respnsible, not simply the bandwidth. Well under 10 usec range is possible with RBCD standards.


(http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm)http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm (http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm)

I have not yet had an opportunity to aquire and review this paper. Here is the preprint information for those that wich to find it(no preprint ID is given in the link above):

Physical and Perceptual Considerations for High-resolution Audio

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Preprint Number: 5931 Convention: 115 (September 2003)</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Author: Woszczyk, Wieslaw</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Read J4

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm

Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies,

the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present
Be careful. You misrepresent the testers and the person referring to the Oohashi paper. It is not shown that their is DEFINATELY a change when IT(hi frequency data - being the only variable) is present. The authors of the paper and the reference link carefully state terms such as 'may' repeatedly in order to qualify their statements. Their are some key reasons: No difference was found in the brain scans when only the ultrasonic data was presented. Only when combined with the sonic data, was a pattern difference found to be present. This, itself, poses many more questions --- some related to the test system /methodology itself. NHK Labs in response to Oohashi, ran new bandwidth audibility test, specifically looking for audible positive results paying attention to Oohashi's concerns. No positive results could be obtained:

Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Preprint Number: 5876 Convention: 115 (September 2003)</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Authors: Nishiguchi, Toshiyuki; Iwaki, Masakazu; Hamasaki, Kimio; Ando, Akio



As far as CAN HEAR or CANNOT HEAR -- I don't remember making such an absolute statement without qualification(maybe I did by some error at one point that i do not remember?). What I have tried made clear is that no one has yet shown under repeatable, controlled and scrutinized tests that a larger bandwidth is responsible for audible differences for music playback.

-Chris


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[hifitommy]

its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.

doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab. he STARTED hi rez vinyl, and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.

its not to say that bernie grundman or a host of other pros are not up to snuff, but why would sax and harley go out on a limb? well, its not a limb. its the right pathway to better music storage.

you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear), but not them nor terrible terrence. these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced, nor was the hardware which sounds better on RBCD than any i have had in the house. NO, they dont all sound the same!

i still dont get the unfair competition angle. the product can stand on its own.

[mtrycraft]

its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.


Isn't Harley the one who wrote an idiotic audio book? Ah, no wonder you are so confused. You are listening and reading someone who has no idea what componets sound like, in reality. He makes up bs. You give him more credit than he deserves. Just because he is pro hi res is indication of absolurtely zero.

doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab.

So what?

he STARTED hi rez vinyl,


What? That is laughable. Vinyl is anything but hi res, LOL. But, understandable, coming from you.

and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

Maybe he uses it to master music? Nothing wrong with that at all. I subscribe to that.

yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.


Well, you certainly dredge up the bottom of the rotten barrel with Hartley to support you? LOL. Try someone with credentials for a change, not entertainers of the golden ears.

but why would sax and harley go out on a limb?

Sax is probably doing it for mastering. Harley is overcome by the dark side of audio, mythology.

its the right pathway to better music storage.

Certainly for the studios and recording engineers. But, how would you know?

you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear),

No, you shoot yourself, thanks. Oh, when did you demonstrate your hearing ability?


but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]


Really?

[b] these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

Did you know that this also applies to John Edwards et al?


i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced,

Very good. Enjoy.

[mtrycraft]

I guess this is how you respond when you actually decide to stretch beyond the rhelm of inneuendo and make an actual assertion, unsubstantiated as it is. How sad when someone who demands that others live up to such high standards of evidence and proof when commenting on their hobbies can't even come close to attaining those standards himself.

Pretty funny to keep asking me repeatedly to come back with something when all I've said all along is that I lack the means to come up with an answer on causal effects. So, now you expecting me to provide the answer for you? You said it was easy to prove, so why would not come up with the evidence yourself? After all, you're the all knowing expert and the one that's out to prove something, right? Asking me to bail you out is quite a humorous, albeit empty and hypocritical, gesture.


You mean you have not read that citation then after all?

[mtrycraft]

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

Read J4

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm

Mtry, since you have added absolutely nothing to this conversation, you have a lot of nerve to make demands on anyone. I went ahead and posted this for the benefit of the board, not for you, Chris, or Thomas.

Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies, the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.

From your previous post:
The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

You failed to post the citation to those tests. You offer 3 lame links.
J4 has nothing in it, nor the other two. Links to discussions? Suppositions?
I thought for sure you had something about ultrasonics or something definitive. Thatt is what I get for thinking/
Don't forget, you are the one who made all the claims, then you make a rocus when asked for citations. Still waiting.

[mtrycraft]

To each his own. The "dumbing down" of America marches onward.

rw

Yes, the hi end audio certainly is doing its best to do its part. Thanks.

[E-Stat]

Yes, the hi end audio certainly is doing its best to do its part. Thanks.
Lame try.

BTW, one of TTT's AES references should have been J3. Reading really is fun - just like listening to music. Perhaps some day you will pick that up.

rw

[hifitommy]

its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.


Isn't Harley the one who wrote an idiotic audio book? Ah, no wonder you are so confused. You are listening and reading someone who has no idea what componets sound like, in reality. He makes up bs. You give him more credit than he deserves. Just because he is pro hi res is indication of absolurtely zero.

doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab.

So what?

he STARTED hi rez vinyl,


What? That is laughable. Vinyl is anything but hi res, LOL. But, understandable, coming from you.

and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

Maybe he uses it to master music? Nothing wrong with that at all. I subscribe to that.

yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.


Well, you certainly dredge up the bottom of the rotten barrel with Hartley to support you? LOL. Try someone with credentials for a change, not entertainers of the golden ears.

but why would sax and harley go out on a limb?

Sax is probably doing it for mastering. Harley is overcome by the dark side of audio, mythology.

its the right pathway to better music storage.

Certainly for the studios and recording engineers. But, how would you know?

you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear),

No, you shoot yourself, thanks. Oh, when did you demonstrate your hearing ability?


but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]


Really?

[b] these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

Did you know that this also applies to John Edwards et al?


i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced,

Very good. Enjoy.
once again, mtry covers his ears and yells "LALALALALALALALALALA, I DONT HEAR YOU" typical answer mrt.

[Woochifer]

You mean you have not read that citation then after all?

No, and I never said that I did (though I have read plenty of articles citing that test and its procedural flaws). Your response is just another convenient excuse and bailout to avoid the other questions. Nice try. You're the one who's making an assertion, so the burden's on you to demonstrate why that citation supports your point. All you've offered up so far is inneuendo, which is typical. FYI, inneuendo does not equate to evidence or proof, but I thought that you knew that already. How disappointing that you can't make that distinction, given how consistently you demand higher standards of evidence from everybody else.

Since you've obviously read the ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL (assuming that your definition of "citation" means that you've read the original article and not just some third party interpretation of it, since you're an all knowing expert who's so into proof and evidence), educate me on how a test that Sony did and has been criticized by naysayers everywhere is actual evidence that the SACD resolution as the sole causal effect is indistinguishable from 44.1/16. You're citing this as evidence, so make your argument. We're still waiting. Should be quite amusing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So predictable it pitful. You show evidence, and they discount it immediately because it does not square with their beliefs. I said this was going to happen, and it did. When you have people picking and choosing what is right, then nothing you offer will be good enough, especially if they don't want to believe that on some level you are correct. This has become a total waste of my time. Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio, because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list)

Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez, and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook. Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???) Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid. These are all excuses these gentlemen lay down, but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing.

Mtry, in the end you lost the DD vs Dts arguement from years ago. When DBT from the studio level was conducted, the studio's ended up purchasing encoders, and now Dts is everywhere. In the end all three of you will lose this arguement as well. DSD now has editing and processing tools, DVD-A editing and processing tools are getting better and cheaper, engineers are getting better at mixing 5.1, and enough people with a better understanding of digital audio than you three are going from conference to conference playing up high rez formats.

You three guys are forum killers. It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from here. Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary. The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue.

Chris, your lack of respect towards a EXTREMELY reputable audio engineer was sickening. The very fact that you don't have any mixing experience whatsoever, and you took Michael's words completely out of contexted should garner you no respect on the board at all.

Thomas, the listening test you designed is dirty, complex, and loaded with unnecessary processes. I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT to check out your post, and all of them said that the only thing your test will reveal, is the quality of the downconversion capabilites of a particular processor, and nothing more.

As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here. I think based on the formats growth many have already made up their minds. You guys can sit behind and white paper yourself to death hanging on to an old, dated, and unsufficient format if you desire, but the audio world is leaving you behind. Good luck to all three, and time will whether your are correct, or I am.

[WmAx]

This has become a total waste of my time. Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio
, because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list) Yet these tests have not been published and peer reviewed for crtitical analysis...

Do you realize that studies by David Griesinger(acoustics physicist, Lexicon) and presented at 2002 Munich AES conference showed that speakers that do not use a seperate supertweeter, with the normal tweeter rolled off, are likely to cause audible intermodulation distortion under some circumstances. A DBT or ABX test applied ignoring this issue will be automaticly flawed.


Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez, and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook.Well, if they would go on to produce a valid study supporting their suspicions(as anyone is required to do in any field that uses a scientific method/protocol) then I would not have any issues with the claim(s).


Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???) Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid. These are all excuses these gentlemen lay down, but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing. Pointing out popularity or success of an item/trend is not represnative of it's merits. At one point, for example, exotic wires and the like were not popular. They have grown in popularity. Lots of things are successful that are not established as real. Psychics are enjoying much more money and success today then a hundred years ago. :-) Don't try to point to popularity, success, etc. as an indication of objective proof.


You three guys are forum killers. It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from hereThe kinds of people that don't want to post in an environment that requires substantiation of claims ---- if that's what you mean --- good riddance.


. Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary. Well, if you believe their is a correlation between having to mix/master music and the independant issue of requiring substantiation... your views are just scewy, to be frank. Again, your trying to correlate experience with fact. Must be able to communicatino with the dead -- John Edwards says so -- he has ALOT of experience and is REALLY successful, too. Silvyia Brown, another one of thse very well-respected pyschics.They have got to be right, huh.


The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue.Indeed, I have no contributions in performing lab experiments with bandwidth. But I can point out the ones who do and their results.



Chris, your lack of respect towards a EXTREMELY reputable audio engineer was sickening. The very fact that you don't have any mixing experience whatsoever, and you took Michael's words completely out of contexted should garner you no respect on the board at all.
Please refer to 'out of context' quotes that are fraudulently represenative of the situation(s) you are talking about. This is what you seem to imply. I provided the entire text of our communications for ANYONE to read in full. I quoted certain parts of the letters, as y ou have to select out parts to response to specifically. This was done directly after teh full text(s) were posted.


As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here.The issue I am resolving here is that their is no substantiation to suppport claims of audibility to hi-rez bandwidth over standard RBCD in playback. If that substantian pops up, then good for you and me. Don't make empty claims as if they are fact.

-Chris

[Thomas_A]

Thomas, the listening test you designed is dirty, complex, and loaded with unnecessary processes. I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT to check out your post, and all of them said that the only thing your test will reveal, is the quality of the downconversion capabilites of a particular processor, and nothing more.

You may critize the report better when I bring the results. It will contain much more than just down-conversion.

[WmAx]

You may critize the report better when I bring the results. It will contain much more than just down-conversion.
Are you applying a line level low pass filter to the tweeter(22khz is likely sufficient), seperately amplifying and crossing at the relevant frequency to the supertweeter? I did not see a specification such as this in your test description.

Please refer to:

Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Preprint Number: 5401 Convention: 110 (April 2001)</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Authors: Kiryu, Shogo; Ashihara, Kaoru

-Chris

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[kingdaddykeith]

Sorry if I’m butting in, but considering that many on this thread seem to have experience in pro sound recording and mixing, maybe one of you can either confirm or rebut this statement I recently read.

I’ll have to paraphrase, the article was a Q&A to 3 top recording/Audio engineers on the subject of Hi-Rez recordings.

They all unanimously agreed that the highest resolution medium of all time to present is 2” analog tape, they claim that there is far more headroom , dynamic range and resolution then SACD, DVD-A, DAT or any analog device. If this is true, I wonder why they don’t aim a little higher with these new formats, or just go back to analog, I would try it if I could afford it.

[Thomas_A]

Are you applying a line level low pass filter to the tweeter(22khz is likely sufficient), seperately amplifying and crossing at the relevant frequency to the supertweeter? I did not see a specification such as this in your test description.

Please refer to:

Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Preprint Number: 5401 Convention: 110 (April 2001)</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Authors: Kiryu, Shogo; Ashihara, Kaoru

-Chris

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Wmax, there will be no additional supertweeter. The monitor system that usually is used during testing has a f response 20 Hz - 25 kHz ± 1 dB at listening position, and the tweeter continues, reasonably linear, to at least 45 kHz.

[WmAx]

Wmax, there will be no additional supertweeter. The monitor system that usually is used during testing has a f response 20 Hz - 25 kHz ± 1 dB at listening position, and the tweeter continues, reasonably linear, to at least 45 kHz.In short, Karou and Shogo found that when the ultransonic harmonics were at the same amplitude as the fundamentals, non linearity was introduced at an audible level. Postive results were confirmed with 13 subjects. This audible non linearity was eliminated when the ultrasonic information was played over a seperate supertweeter. None of the subjects could differentiate at this point. Note that this was specifically when the harmonics were = fundamental amplitude. Source material that had considerably lower level harmonics in the ultrasonics will impose less non linearity. Be critical of these issues(fundamental vs. ultrasonic harmonics and the speaker arrangement).

-Chris

[hifitommy]

Yet these tests have not been published and peer reviewed for crtitical analysis...

Do you realize that studies by David Griesinger(acoustics physicist, Lexicon) and presented at 2002 Munich AES conference showed that speakers that do not use a seperate supertweeter, with the normal tweeter rolled off, are likely to cause audible intermodulation distortion. Of the samples he tested, all had this audible distortion present. A DBT or ABX test applied ignoring this issue will be automaticly flawed.


Well, if they would go on to produce a valid study supporting their suspicions(as anyone is required to do in any field that uses a scientific method/protocol) then I would not have any issues with the claim(s).


Pointing out popularity or success of an item/trend is not represnative of it's merits. At one point, for example, exotic wires and the like were not popular. They have grown in popularity. Lots of things are successful that are not established as real. Psychics are enjoying much more money and success today then a hundred years ago. :-) Don't try to point to popularity, success, etc. as an indication of objective proof.


The kinds of people that don't want to post in an environment that requires substantiation of claims ---- if that's what you mean --- good riddance.


Well, if you believe their is a correlation between having to mix/master music and the independant issue of requiring substantiation... your views are just scewy, to be frank. Again, your trying to correlate experience with fact. Must be able to communicatino with the dead -- John Edwards says so -- he has ALOT of experience and is REALLY successful, too. Silvyia Brown, another one of thse very well-respected pyschics.They have got to be right, huh.


Indeed, I have no contributions in performing lab experiments with bandwidth. But I can point out the ones who do and their results.


Please refer to 'out of context' quotes that are fraudulently represenative of the situation(s) you are talking about. This is what you seem to imply. I provided the entire text of our communications for ANYONE to read in full. I quoted certain parts of the letters, as y ou have to select out parts to response to specifically. This was done directly after teh full text(s) were posted.


The issue I am resolving here is that their is no substantiation to suppport claims of audibility to hi-rez bandwidth over standard RBCD in playback. If that substantian pops up, then good for you and me. Don't make empty claims as if they are fact.

-Chris
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by WmAx
Are you applying a line level low pass filter to the tweeter(22khz is likely sufficient), separately amplifying and crossing at the relevant frequency to the supertweeter? I did not see a specification such as this in your test description.

Please refer to:

Detection threshold for tones above 22 kHz

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Preprint Number: 5401 Convention: 110 (April 2001)</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top align=top>Authors: Kiryu, Shogo; Ashihara, Kaoru

-Chris


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Thomas, the listening test you designed is dirty, complex, and loaded with unnecessary processes. I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT to check out your post, and all of them said that the only thing your test will reveal, is the quality of the downconversion capabilites of a particular processor, and nothing more. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
You may critize the report better when I bring the results. It will contain much more than just down-conversion.

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 44214" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>WmAx</TD><TD class=alt2><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This has become a total waste of my time. Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">, because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Yet these tests have not been published and peer reviewed for crtitical analysis...

Do you realize that studies by David Griesinger(acoustics physicist, Lexicon) and presented at 2002 Munich AES conference showed that speakers that do not use a seperate supertweeter, with the normal tweeter rolled off, are likely to cause audible intermodulation distortion. Of the samples he tested, all had this audible distortion present. A DBT or ABX test applied ignoring this issue will be automaticly flawed.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez, and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Well, if they would go on to produce a valid study supporting their suspicions(as anyone is required to do in any field that uses a scientific method/protocol) then I would not have any issues with the claim(s).
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???) Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid. These are all excuses these gentlemen lay down, but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Pointing out popularity or success of an item/trend is not represnative of it's merits. At one point, for example, exotic wires and the like were not popular. They have grown in popularity. Lots of things are successful that are not established as real. Psychics are enjoying much more money and success today then a hundred years ago. :-) Don't try to point to popularity, success, etc. as an indication of objective proof.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">You three guys are forum killers. It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from here </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->The kinds of people that don't want to post in an environment that requires substantiation of claims ---- if that's what you mean --- good riddance.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">. Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Well, if you believe their is a correlation between having to mix/master music and the independant issue of requiring substantiation... your views are just scewy, to be frank. Again, your trying to correlate experience with fact. Must be able to communicatino with the dead -- John Edwards says so -- he has ALOT of experience and is REALLY successful, too. Silvyia Brown, another one of thse very well-respected pyschics.They have got to be right, huh.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Indeed, I have no contributions in performing lab experiments with bandwidth. But I can point out the ones who do and their results.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
Chris, your lack of respect towards a EXTREMELY reputable audio engineer was sickening. The very fact that you don't have any mixing experience whatsoever, and you took Michael's words completely out of contexted should garner you no respect on the board at all.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Please refer to 'out of context' quotes that are fraudulently represenative of the situation(s) you are talking about. This is what you seem to imply. I provided the entire text of our communications for ANYONE to read in full. I quoted certain parts of the letters, as y ou have to select out parts to response to specifically. This was done directly after teh full text(s) were posted.
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->The issue I am resolving here is that their is no substantiation to suppport claims of audibility to hi-rez bandwidth over standard RBCD in playback. If that substantian pops up, then good for you and me. Don't make empty claims as if they are fact.

-Chris</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[mtrycraft]

Yes, it is nap time for you. Way over your head. Best if you just read something you can.

[mtrycraft]

No, and I never said that I did (though I have read plenty of articles citing that test and its procedural flaws).

Your implication was certainly there.

Then, perhaps you can cite those that you did read then, thanks.



Should be quite amusing.


Actually, you did a great job.

Maybe you should read it too. As was indicated, Sony had to play games to make SACD better than the CD. They were caught at the demo. Simple.

[hifitommy]

pictures take but a small amount of data but music requires monster quantitiies. listening to the music reveals more in seconds than in reams of print. and you prefer print.

you must be an intelectual with no need for reality.

[mtrycraft]

pictures take but a small amount of data but music requires monster quantitiies. listening to the music reveals more in seconds than in reams of print. and you prefer print.

you must be an intelectual with no need for reality.


Ah, you are comparing a still picture to a stream of notes? You think that is fair?
How about comparing video stream to music stream. Oh, the video has more?

[Thomas_A]

In short, Karou and Shogo found that when the ultransonic harmonics were at the same amplitude as the fundamentals, non linearity was introduced at an audible level. Postive results were confirmed with 13 subjects. This audible non linearity was eliminated when the ultrasonic information was played over a seperate supertweeter. None of the subjects could differentiate at this point. Note that this was specifically when the harmonics were = fundamental amplitude. Source material that had considerably lower level harmonics in the ultrasonics will impose less non linearity. Be critical of these issues(fundamental vs. ultrasonic harmonics and the speaker arrangement).

-Chris

Yes. Those data were a 2 kHz pure tone with odd harmonics of the same amplitude. Usually this is not audible with music material. However the ultrasonics of SACD may introduce non-linearites.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry if I’m butting in, but considering that many on this thread seem to have experience in pro sound recording and mixing, maybe one of you can either confirm or rebut this statement I recently read.

I’ll have to paraphrase, the article was a Q&A to 3 top recording/Audio engineers on the subject of Hi-Rez recordings.

They all unanimously agreed that the highest resolution medium of all time to present is 2” analog tape, they claim that there is far more headroom , dynamic range and resolution then SACD, DVD-A, DAT or any analog device. If this is true, I wonder why they don’t aim a little higher with these new formats, or just go back to analog, I would try it if I could afford it.

KDK,

2" tape is the best for professional recording. But you cannot make a 2" analog tape machine at an affordable price, and any media that actually touches the playback head will cause the tape to deteriorate each time its played. In other words you will continually lose the high frequencies every time you played the tape. This is why DAT, DCC, never really caught on with consumers.

When encoding to SACD or DVD-A, the losses are pretty minimal, but definately there. To most untrained ears you probably wouldn't hear any difference.

Also, the tape heads must be properly aligned, the tape cost a bundle, significant modification have to be performed on the machine to lower wow and flutter, and when the recording and playback heads are worn, they must be replaced at a significant cost. As you can see, they are major maintainence.

[Woochifer]

Should be quite amusing.


Actually, you did a great job.

Maybe you should read it too. As was indicated, Sony had to play games to make SACD better than the CD. They were caught at the demo. Simple.

So tell me again how that constitutes evidence that under more equitable test conditions, SACD would be transparent to 44.1/16? A pretty simple question that I've been posing to you, and that you continue to evade. I said that I don't have the answer, but you claimed that it was possible to eliminate the resolution as one of the causal factors. You made the assertion, now back it up. You said it was simple to prove your point, so where's the proof? We're still waiting.

Pretty hypocritical that you only provide implication and inneuendo to back up your assertions, when you demand proof, evidence, and citations from others. How sad when someone can't even live up to their own standards, though it is quite amusing and hilarious to the rest of us.

[Pat D]

So tell me again how that constitutes evidence that under more equitable test conditions, SACD would be transparent to 44.1/16? A pretty simple question that I've been posing to you, and that you continue to evade. I said that I don't have the answer, but you claimed that it was possible to eliminate the resolution as one of the causal factors. You made the assertion, now back it up. You said it was simple to prove your point, so where's the proof? We're still waiting.

Pretty hypocritical that you only provide implication and inneuendo to back up your assertions, when you demand proof, evidence, and citations from others. How sad when someone can't even live up to their own standards, though it is quite amusing and hilarious to the rest of us.
You're asking a different question, Wooch. Sony cheated on a demo some years ago and I think mtry has the article in Audio magazine to show this. Now, if you want to just say it's an invalid test, fine, but Sony is a pretty large outfit and has the resources to do a proper test. Some of us want to know why they did not. The most likely answer seems to be that they had no confidence they could get a positive result. That's the sort of question a historian might ask.

You are asking mtry to absolutely prove the null hypothesis, which is of course not possible.

[Woochifer]

You're asking a different question, Wooch. Sony cheated on a demo some years ago and I think mtry has the article in Audio magazine to show this. Now, if you want to just say it's an invalid test, fine, but Sony is a pretty large outfit and has the resources to do a proper test. Some of us want to know why they did not. The most likely answer seems to be that they had no confidence they could get a positive result. That's the sort of question a historian might ask.

You are asking mtry to absolutely prove the null hypothesis, which is of course not possible.

Big difference though is that I've stated since the beginning of this thread is that as an end user, none of us have the means to make any conclusion about the causal effects of any audible improvements observed based on comparisons between high res discs and their CD versions. I don't have access to DSD or high res PCM master sources, and I don't have equipment that can do the necessary downsampling. All I got is a set of comparison discs that have all sorts of known and unknown variables between them, one of the known variables being the resolution.

If the improvement is due to the mixing and mastering, great, I have something improves upon the existing version. If the improvement is due to the higher resolution, great, I have something improves upon the existing version. If the improvement is due to a combination of several known and unknown variables, great, I have something improves upon the existing version. The causal effects, whether it's a remastered CD or a high res audio disc, don't mean a thing to me so long as I'm getting something that improves upon the existing version.

Mtry seems to have a problem with my not eliminating the resolution as one of the causal variables. He's the one that's asserted that any audible differences between high res discs and CDs are due solely to differences in mastering and mixing procedures, and I'm simply asking for evidence to that effect. All he's cited is the Sony test, which to me is nothing more than inneuendo. Just because Sony did not do a proper test does not provide evidence of anything one way or the other, other than a test that still leaves all the variables in play.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You're asking a different question, Wooch. Sony cheated on a demo some years ago and I think mtry has the article in Audio magazine to show this. Now, if you want to just say it's an invalid test, fine, but Sony is a pretty large outfit and has the resources to do a proper test. Some of us want to know why they did not. The most likely answer seems to be that they had no confidence they could get a positive result. That's the sort of question a historian might ask.

You are asking mtry to absolutely prove the null hypothesis, which is of course not possible.

Pat,

II do not think the logical answer is that Sony did not have any confidence to get a honest positive result. As you alluded to in your post, Sony is a VERY large company, A more logical reason for this misstep could have been the lack of communication in setting up the test. This has happened to me on a couple of listening test I have done on Dolby Digital and Dts. Sony had to know that they were going to have to prove the technology, so why be foolish to think that you could pull one over other engineers. That doesn't make sense, and is very uncharacteristic of a Japanese company.

[mtrycraft]

Lame try.

BTW, one of TTT's AES references should have been J3. Reading really is fun - just like listening to music. Perhaps some day you will pick that up.

rw
Since you are such an expert at reading, please, fill us in what is in that conference presentation. The description has nothing of value to support TTs claims.
Boyk in the other reference has not shown anything either, certainly not audibility.
And, since you are so well versed in these things, you would also know the research that has been done to demonstrate audibility of ultrasonics, right? Or, rather the lack of it. You are too much. LOL

Oh, you do have a nice setup. I guess my boomox may not do to bring over, right :)

[mtrycraft]

once again, mtry covers his ears and yells "LALALALALALALALALALA, I DONT HEAR YOU" typical answer mrt.


Once again, you have nothing to say, least of all in support of your claimed authority. Interesting.

[mtrycraft]

You show evidence, and they discount it immediately because it does not square with their beliefs.

Evidence? Where? That is what we ask for. You present not much outside of claims.

When you have people picking and choosing what is right,

Facts speak for themselves. Not up to cherry picking.

Mtry and Chris are not going to stop the progress of high rez audio, because too many VERY reputable audio engineers( who have conducted their own DBT and have participated in countless others) are convinced that it sounds better than RBCD(I am on that list)

We are not here to stop anything. Your perception is flawed as ever.
Oh, and those self conducted DBTs. Intersting. They should publish so it can be evaluated and, if it has merit, advance the progress of audio. So far, it is no different from Jon Risch's pocked DBT. Worthless.


Hundreds of audio engineers sing the praises of high rez,

Why wouldn't they? Hi res is multi channel format, even if it is just 2 ch that is pressed. Besides, as was mentioned, a popularity contest is not how you advance science ansd knowledge. But, it is appropriate for voodoo, mythology, etc.

and three guys posting on a audio forum think these engineers are imagining things, hearing things, and have no proof it sound any better than redbook. [b]

Well, who knows what they think they hear? They have not demonstrated what they claim, have they? Where? Hiding in their pockets? At least the cold fusion guys had the balls to tell the whole world of their discovery before a peer publication. Where are they now? That is how it is in science, you win some, you loose some.

[b]Ears don't count because white papers don't support what you hear (what???)

Confused again, or still. What counts is what you can demonstrate, not imagine. However, the marketplace doesn't care, the gullibility factor, you know.


Your hearing is biased, the test were not valid.

You mean perceptions are facts? Since when?

but whether the word maybe is used, people are noticing a improvment, and the formats are growing.

Good. We are not trying to stop anything, only trying to find facts you seem to lack. Nothing wrong with preferences, especially when the format is multi channel which I have supported from day one.
At least the engineers are not compressing the hi res as they do the CD.



Mtry, in the end you lost the DD vs Dts arguement from years ago. When DBT from the studio level was conducted, the studio's ended up purchasing encoders, and now Dts is everywhere.

I did? Were these published? You think Dolby will agree with you on this? Have they published anything? Or, they will just cover it up?
Or, this will be one of those pocket jobs too.

In the end all three of you will lose this arguement as well.

If it is based in fact, that is good.



You three guys are forum killers.

That is right, you want obedient readers who don't ask for facts but are happy with voodoo, bs, mythology, urban legends. Too bad.

It was just the kind of behavior that you three have exibited in this thread that has chased many a experience audio person away from here.

And who would that be? Audio story tellers? Myth pedlers?

Nobody with a good understanding of digital audio, and years of hands on experience is interested in having three guys who have never even mixed a single piece of music to tell them that they are hearing things. [b]

Yes, it can be a rude awakening that perception may not be reality.

[b]Your picking and choosing what information can been deemed as credible is the height of arrogance, and does a huge disservice to this board, as it serves to only confuse someone when it is not necessary.

Ah, you want blind obediance, accept anything and everything because one has an EE behind their names, or happen to be sound mixers? LOL.

The spin jobs you guy do muddles the issue, clouds the subject matter, and has added nothing to further anyone knowledge on this issue.

Yes, you want blind obedience and acceptance of authority. LOL.



I asked four other engineers who have done several AES sanctioned DBT

You keep refering to this. I have serious doubts that AES sanctions anything. They have members who may or may not perform DBT listeing.

As I said about 30 posts ago, this issue is not going to be decided here.

Did anyone state that this is the final authority on hi res?

I think based on the formats growth many have already made up their minds.

And? That makes it what?

You guys can sit behind and white paper yourself to death hanging on to an old, dated, and unsufficient format if you desire, but the audio world is leaving you behind. Good luck to all three, and time will whether your are correct, or I am.

Oh, the multi channel hi res is here to stay, no arguments. You think it is stated otherwise? Or still confused about the discussions here?
And, just because it is a hit in the market place, you think that makes it factual that hi res on its own is responsible for the sonic differences? Same old story for many, popularity makes it a fact. Such is human nature.

[mtrycraft]

nt, nt nt

[hifitommy]

mtrycraft:" least of all in support of your claimed authority"

i just said that i can HEAR! you consistently demonstrate that you cannot.

[mtrycraft]

mtrycraft:" least of all in support of your claimed authority"

i just said that i can HEAR! you consistently demonstrate that you cannot.

You can hear? What can you hear? What have you demonstrated to be able to hear, with respect to music? So far, lots of claims but lacking in substance.

[hifitommy]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft]You can hear? What can you hear? What have you demonstrated to be able to hear, with respect to music? So far, lots of claims but lacking in substance.[/QUOTE

demonstrating it to you is low on my priority list whereas your demonstration of the lack of hearing ability is a constant here. what a buffoon you are.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft]You can hear? What can you hear? What have you demonstrated to be able to hear, with respect to music? So far, lots of claims but lacking in substance.[/QUOTE

demonstrating it to you is low on my priority list whereas your demonstration of the lack of hearing ability is a constant here. what a buffoon you are.

HFT,
There really is no point in arguing with Mtry. Remember, you are arguing with a person who uses white papers to judge the sound quality of a format. If a white paper doesn't confirm what you hear, you are just imagining it. If every audio engineer doesn't publish the DBT's they perform for their clients and make them available for HIM, they cannot be taken seriously. Chris, Mtry, and Thomas have alot to lean about the music industry, or they wouldn't be making the kind of asinine demands they do.

Don't waste your time arguing with any of these gentlemen, you will be just going around in circles with them asking the same questions(even though you have already given the answers) and making the same demands over and over. Move on to something else.

[Woochifer]

Don't waste your time arguing with any of these gentlemen, you will be just going around in circles with them asking the same questions(even though you have already given the answers) and making the same demands over and over. Move on to something else.

Kinda reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Bart and Lisa kept asking if they could have a pool over and over, until Homer finally relented and built a pool. It's as if spinning the same questions over and over somehow proves a point (not like asking questions and conjuring up inneuendo constitutes proof of anything).

Then again, I find it amusing that Mtry derides making unsubstantiated claims, yet when caught in the act after inadvertently making an actual assertion (after that momentary lapse, seems that he's back in his element with voodoo and mythology analogies), all he can muster up is inneuendo when asked to provide the same level of backup that he demands of others.

[E-Stat]

Since you are such an expert at reading, please, fill us in what is in that conference presentation.
I was just lending a helping hand to those who ride in the short bus with figuring out the obvious. Since you apparently prefer to read about life rather than experience it, I'll let you have all the fun with the text.


Oh, you do have a nice setup. I guess my boomox may not do to bring over, right :)
Bring it on. I would be utterly amazed to discover if there actually is anyone on this planet capable of counting their fingers and toes who cannot tell the difference between such and a high rez system.

rw

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft]You can hear? What can you hear? What have you demonstrated to be able to hear, with respect to music? So far, lots of claims but lacking in substance.[/QUOTE

demonstrating it to you is low on my priority list whereas your demonstration of the lack of hearing ability is a constant here. what a buffoon you are.


Showing off your intelligence, again?

Demonstrating your hearing ability to anyone is a non even for you as it may embarrass you to no end. What else is new.

[mtrycraft]

There really is no point in arguing with Mtry. Remember, you are arguing with a person who uses white papers to judge the sound quality of a format.

Yep, evidence is useless to you. Imaginations are what drive it.

If a white paper doesn't confirm what you hear, you are just imagining it.

If you cannot demonstrate what you claim, what else is there left but faulty perception or imagination?

If every audio engineer doesn't publish the DBT's they perform for their clients and make them available for HIM,

No, not to me, to everyone interested in audio. Simple, isn't it?

Chris, Mtry, and Thomas have alot to lean about the music industry, or they wouldn't be making the kind of asinine demands they do.

More useless spouting of nonsense. But it figures, evidence may destroy your beliefs; what a catastrophy.

Don't waste your time arguing with any of these gentlemen,

At least you don't resort to name calling, thanks.

you will be just going around in circles with them asking the same questions(even though you have already given the answers)

That is the problem no answers to be seen, just speculations.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Kinda reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Bart and Lisa kept asking if they could have a pool over and over, until Homer finally relented and built a pool. It's as if spinning the same questions over and over somehow proves a point (not like asking questions and conjuring up inneuendo constitutes proof of anything).

Then again, I find it amusing that Mtry derides making unsubstantiated claims, yet when caught in the act after inadvertently making an actual assertion (after that momentary lapse, seems that he's back in his element with voodoo and mythology analogies), all he can muster up is inneuendo when asked to provide the same level of backup that he demands of others.

This is the way a person who picks and chooses what information is correct behaves. Only the evidence they offer up(or in his case not offer up) is valid. Though I must admit its awful novel to enjoy music with your eyes instead of your ears. I wonder if he walks on his hands, or drives with his feet? That would be consistant with the listening with eyes.

What I think is funny is that he believes that audio engineers are hearing things when the record, mix, and master audio. We must be lucky when we do a good mix, because our hearing is so flawed we couldn't possibly do a good mix by skill and experience. For all that matter why did we graduate from the cassette deck or eight track player/recorder. Since there is no proven audible difference between these formats and CD that have been published, then the compact disc was nothing more than snake oil that the manufacturer sold us. Oh and damn, why didn't we stay with video tape. There hasn't been a published double blind test(we do watch video with our ears since our eyes are too busy listening) that support the fact that we are seeing improved pictures with DVD. Jeez, let's not forget about HDTV, how do we know they didn't just add controlled amounts of edge enhancement or sharpness to the HDTV picture so it subjectively looks better than the analog picture. There has to be DBT performed on every new audio or video improvement, or its all a marketing claim. I think the manufacturers of 2" tape recorders ought to go to hell for selling us a format that has no DBT done on it to compare it to redbook. I mean it is important that some scientist tells me what I am hearing.

I personally believe that Mtry does DBT while driving. I mean if a ambulance was coming down the street with sirens blaring, statistics must be established that we are really hearing that siren. Absent the studies, how can we really be sure its the siren of a ambulance? A pedestrian crossing the sidewalk must be us seeing things, because absent of studies that cover our ears how can we REALLY be sure they are there?

The acoustics of your room. How can we really be sure that our instruments are really picking up a resonance without a DBT? Our ears see the spectrum analyzer jumping all over the place, but can they REALLY be relied upon?

Wooch, I have alot of work to do now. I think it is my job now to go out into the movie and audio industry, and tell them they have been doing this all wrong. No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. HUGE mistake. The film guys MUST learn that they have to listen to the film with their ears, the eyes cannot be relied on for detecting flaws. This is going to be tough, and I must get busy.

[DMK]

No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. HUGE mistake. .

Thanks for clearing up a 20+ year mystery! :D

[mtrycraft]

No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. .

Actually, CDs sound bad as many or most are so compressed that it hurts. But you knew that and stated it so, didn't you? So, what is the beef?
As to the rest of your rhetoric, lame.

[WmAx]

What I think is funny is that he believes that audio engineers are hearing things when the record, mix, and master audio. We must be lucky when we do a good mix, because our hearing is so flawed we couldn't possibly do a good mix by skill and experience. For all that matter why did we graduate from the cassette deck or eight track player/recorder. Since there is no proven audible difference between these formats and CD that have been published, then the compact disc was nothing more than snake oil that the manufacturer sold us. Oh and damn, why didn't we stay with video tape. There hasn't been a published double blind test(we do watch video with our ears since our eyes are too busy listening) that support the fact that we are seeing improved pictures with DVD. Jeez, let's not forget about HDTV, how do we know they didn't just add controlled amounts of edge enhancement or sharpness to the HDTV picture so it subjectively looks better than the analog picture. There has to be DBT performed on every new audio or video improvement, or its all a marketing claim. I think the manufacturers of 2" tape recorders ought to go to hell for selling us a format that has no DBT done on it to compare it to redbook. I mean it is important that some scientist tells me what I am hearing.

Poor coorelations - very poor. In situations where pre-established perceptual studies exist -- it is entirely predictable without a DBT. One exampe are the distortions(IMD and THD[1]), timing variation[2](stretched tape, old deck,e tc.) and signal:noise[3], etc. that are resultant on a cassette deck vs. CD in of your rediculous examples are well known and have been confirmed in prior perceptual testing in isoltated tests.

[1] Just Detectable Distortion Levels, James Moir, Wireless World, February 1981

[2] Pitch Perception of Frequency Modulated Tones, Kin, Maurycy J., Renowski, Janusz, AES preprint 4670, Convention 104(1998)

[3] Signal-To-Noise Ratio Requirement for Digital Transmission Systems, Spikofski, Gerhard, AES preprint 2196, Convention 77(1985)

You trying to correlate these things to something like RBCD vs. high-res audio bandwidth is dumbfounding. Weak. Yes--- as mtrycraft pointed out rightly so --- LAME. So far you have failed to substantiate any claims of the important issues that I can recollect in this discussion.

-Chris

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I have alot of work to do now. I think it is my job now to go out into the movie and audio industry, and tell them they have been doing this all wrong. No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. HUGE mistake. The film guys MUST learn that they have to listen to the film with their ears, the eyes cannot be relied on for detecting flaws. This is going to be tough, and I must get busy.

Hey T-

Sorry to add to your workload, but you also need to school the industry on the Mtry/naysayer method. Y'know, offer up no answers or solutions, just keep asking questions and demanding proof. It's great because everybody in the industry would no longer need to take responsibility for or learn anything. If a client wants a project to meet certain parameters, just spin the questions, demands for proof, and voodoourbanmythalienabductionpsychic analogies over and over. If the client comes back and says that something sounds like crap, demand that the client to verify that claim by DBT or that they're imagining things. If someone actually addresses the questions and inneuendo, just repeat the questions over and over, even if they've already been answered. Doesn't matter if this approach offers up zero substance or applicability to actual practice, it's all about declaring victory by default. Actually asserting something would be a huge mistake, since it might entail having to listening to something.

And if someone inadvertently makes a claim, they can just look at this thread and emulate the Mtry approach. Y'know, reply to an inquiry for evidence and proof (basically, the same thing thing demanded of others, but we'll let that slide for now) by offering up some absurdly tangental nonsense and hope that the inquirer will just laugh it off and give up. And if that approach fails, just ignore everything and go back to the original stream of inneuendo, mudslinging, and repetitive questions. I hope this helps your effort to reeducate the industry.

[Dual-500]

Red book allows for 96 dB dynamic range. Nothing to deal with but the recording practices.

Bullseye!!!!

Let me add - "recording practices" = Engineering.

Poor engineering = poor sound

Good engineering = good sound.

I see compression discussed so many times as an "evil" or negative side effect to the recording process.

Far from the truth.

Compression can be a positive attribute in virtually every case. It's simply the APPLICATION of the process of compression that somethimes could have been better.

When dealing with recorded or LIVE sound, compression is used almost universally - not only to deal with shortcomings in the dynamic range of equipment but to add to the overall output.

Want to hear uncompressed and reinforced live sound? Go to a beer bar or low end club and watch a local garage band playing through a Peavy PA mixing head - when operated properly, fair to good results can be obtained and when operated incorrectly (overloaded) the results are horrible sounding.

Virtually any live reinforced musical "Event" will use a degree of compression somewhere in the overall mix - much the same as the boys in the studio. After all, a reinforcement sound system also has limitations and can be overloaded. Compression is what allows the vocals to cut through the music and not tear your head off.

Compression is a tool and should be considered as an integral part of sound engineering. Any discussion of "Compression" should be a sub part of the larger topic of "Engineering".

With ALL recorded sound and most live sound - what you hear is the as much a result of the engineer as the artist.

[lumiere]

http://www.soundstage.com/editrl/edit89.htm

[hifitommy]

good work. no waste of verbiage.

[mtrycraft]

http://www.soundstage.com/editrl/edit89.htm


You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.

[mtrycraft]

good work. no waste of verbiage.

When you have nothing to say, he is smart enough not to waste on on BS, myth, voodoo.

[mtrycraft]

Bullseye!!!!

Let me add - "recording practices" = Engineering.

Poor engineering = poor sound

Good engineering = good sound.

I see compression discussed so many times as an "evil" or negative side effect to the recording process.

Far from the truth.

Compression can be a positive attribute in virtually every case. It's simply the APPLICATION of the process of compression that somethimes could have been better.

When dealing with recorded or LIVE sound, compression is used almost universally - not only to deal with shortcomings in the dynamic range of equipment but to add to the overall output.

Want to hear uncompressed and reinforced live sound? Go to a beer bar or low end club and watch a local garage band playing through a Peavy PA mixing head - when operated properly, fair to good results can be obtained and when operated incorrectly (overloaded) the results are horrible sounding.

Virtually any live reinforced musical "Event" will use a degree of compression somewhere in the overall mix - much the same as the boys in the studio. After all, a reinforcement sound system also has limitations and can be overloaded. Compression is what allows the vocals to cut through the music and not tear your head off.

Compression is a tool and should be considered as an integral part of sound engineering. Any discussion of "Compression" should be a sub part of the larger topic of "Engineering".

With ALL recorded sound and most live sound - what you hear is the as much a result of the engineer as the artist.

Yet, some classical productions approach 70dB dynamic range on CD. I guess you just need a good recording engineer not producing for a radio station or the average joe.
But, that still doesn't settle the issue of hi res discs as it is not the medium that has a shortcoming.

[lumiere]

You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.

Sorry, God, I forgot to consult you first :( . Then again, your existence hasn't been proved with DBTs.

[Woochifer]

When you have nothing to say, he is smart enough not to waste on on BS, myth, voodoo.

And when you have nothing new to add, just keep churning the tired myth and voodoo cliches. Been a while since you brought up psychics and UFOs, maybe you should try those instead if all you're looking to accomplish is spin inneuendo over and over.

[Woochifer]

You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.

I guess that the NRC measurements that they use in their product reviews are a joke too. Once again, judging a book by its cover. Maybe one of these days, you'll progress onto Cliffs Notes.

[mtrycraft]

I guess that the NRC measurements that they use in their product reviews are a joke too. Once again, judging a book by its cover. Maybe one of these days, you'll progress onto Cliffs Notes.


Now why would they fudge those measurements? No different from Stereopile measuring and publishing such data. It all boils down to their subjective BS, hype, voodoo, that is the problem, just like the time soundstage so fondly endorsed the Belt rainbow foil. No NRC measurements there to publish though, right?

[mtrycraft]

And when you have nothing new to add, just keep churning the tired myth and voodoo cliches. Been a while since you brought up psychics and UFOs, maybe you should try those instead if all you're looking to accomplish is spin inneuendo over and over.


Yep, you guys keep expecting 4+4 to have a new answer ever day? Every person?
Oh, yes, psychics have different answers, don't they?
Stick to what you know and is a safe bet.

[Dual-500]

Yet, some classical productions approach 70dB dynamic range on CD. I guess you just need a good recording engineer not producing for a radio station or the average joe.
But, that still doesn't settle the issue of hi res discs as it is not the medium that has a shortcoming.

That is true - my comments were on a side discussion regarding compression in general and it's place/use in the audio chain.

SACD is a more capable medium for audio. All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.

[mtrycraft]

SACD is a more capable medium for audio.

Because?

All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

And you know this because? If that engineer cannot use the 96dB dynamic range of a CD, how in the world he will use more? LOL, too funny.
Resolution? To do what? Even further exceed the hearing capacity of humans?


With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.

Really? Or, is that just the speculated guesses ?
Or, there is some evidence after all?

[Dual-500]

Read the Red Book specification (CDA) and then compare to the Scarlet Book specification (SACD).

Do you know the difference between film and VHS video or DVD in terms of color, texture, contrast and resolution?

To argue this is pointless.

[mtrycraft]

Read the Red Book specification (CDA) and then compare to the Scarlet Book specification (SACD).

Do you know the difference between film and VHS video or DVD in terms of color, texture, contrast and resolution?

To argue this is pointless.


Ah, your comparison is so straw man, not even close. Please, try something that is relevant to compare it.

Besides the numbers, what impresses you about SACD? Oh, perhaps that there is no component that can do 24 bit resolution? that you cannot hear ultrasonic information? that the recording engineers are not even filling the capability of the Red Book CD?

You are rtight, it is poinless as you don't have any evidence that someone can hear ultrasonic, or, any recording is pressed better that 16 bit dynamic range? LOL. too funny, again.

[WmAx]

That is true - my comments were on a side discussion regarding compression in general and it's place/use in the audio chain.

SACD is a more capable medium for audio. All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.Based on the several examinatinos of the avaiable technologies for recording, I can not conclude SACD is offering anything of benefit. PCM format is the main basis of most digital audio technology in recording studios, or so it seems. It is not compatilbel with DSD(SACD). Requiring redundant DSD equipment along with high-res PCM equipment is not cost effective, especially consideirng it has not been proven to be superior to PCM systems in practical recording/mastering situations that I am aware(please correct me if you aware of some DSD specific proven advantage(s)). Why should DSD replace PCM, which is already established, versatile and understood by the majority? The main advantages for recording in my perspective for both SACD and hi-res PCM are a wider tolerance for recording levels without risk of clipping. The levels are then adjusted to fit within the 16 bit space of RBCD later when mastering. But, since most work has less then 20dB of average range in it's released form...or many modern POP music having less then 10dB of average dynamic range...the CD format has magnitudes greater dynamic range then needed for most music. However, RBCD has more then adequate S:N ratio for playback when properly dithered even with uncompressed classical music in almost all circumstances; provided the amplifiers and speakers can support these levels(rare). An average quiet room is approx. 35dB. In order to resolve 96dB of CD to it's full potential above this noisfloor, a SPL of 131 dB would be required, starting -96 at the noisefloor. In reality, the noisefloor of RBCD is used well under the ambient room noise floor since most amp/speaker combinations struggle to do little over 100dB at the listening position without gross distortion levels. As for bandwidth resolution; in recording it 'may' be beneficial in some cases to capture at a high resolution so that the downsample to RBCD can have a customized(potentially) anti-alias filter performed with software/hardware. If captured at the old 48kHz standard, the flexibility in later signficnat modification of the anti-alias filter is not possible. FOr purposes of plaback; I can not still not find any conclusions supporting that bandwidth exceeding that of RBCD is audibly signficant.


-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Based on the several examinatinos of the avaiable technologies for recording, I can not conclude SACD is offering anything of benefit.

Have you ever WORKED with DSD? Better yet, have you even recorded anything? No you haven't, so you don't know what benefits it brings to the engineer. You have not even heard it, so what basis can you make any conclusions. There you have it ladies and gents, the professional opinion of somebody who has never recorded, mix, mastered, or for that matter even heard SACD.


PCM format is the main basis of most digital audio technology in recording studios, or so it seems. It is not compatilbel with DSD(SACD). Requiring redundant DSD equipment along with high-res PCM equipment is not cost effective, especially consideirng it has not been proven to be superior to PCM systems in practical recording/mastering situations that I am aware(please correct me if you aware of some DSD specific proven advantage(s))

Analog used to be the main basis for recording and storage, it however got replaced by digital. Studio's decide themselves if it is cost effective for them to have both, not some guy posting on a amateur audio board, and certainly not a non engineer or studio owner. The advantages or disadvantages are soley decided on by the purchaser of the equipment. It has been seen as an advantage to someone, because almost every major record label is producing DSD recordings.


. Why should DSD replace PCM, which is already established, versatile and understood by the majority?

Well its really up to the engineers isn't it. And many of the top grammy award winning engineers choose(or have already chosen) DSD. So who was this question for, engineers, or the average consumer?



The main advantages for recording in my perspective for both SACD and hi-res PCM are a wider tolerance for recording levels without risk of clipping.

What perspective? You never even heard it!!!!. You have never recorded, mixed, or mastered in it as well. I would say your perspective is lacking quite a bit. Music formats are for listening to, not reading about.

From a recording end, that is a huge advantage. Other advantages would be capturing ALL of the fundemental and harmonic textures, improved imaging, and better resolution of fine details. Also, less eq, less processing, no dither, no downsampling, and no downconversion. In other words no bandaids.


The levels are then adjusted to fit within the 16 bit space of RBCD later when mastering.

There is more than that going on. It has to be compressed, heavily equalized(remember you are downmixing many microphone inputs into only two channels, levels and frequencies must be balanced) downconverted, downsampled, dithered and then passed on to CD. Like Michael Bishop told you, redbook is hardly pristine when it arrives on the disc itself.



But, since most work has less then 20dB of average range in it's released form...or many modern POP music having less then 10dB of average dynamic range...the CD format has magnitudes greater dynamic range then needed for most music.

You are looking at this from purely theoritical terms. Hardly reality on the real world. Quite a bit of classical music(and some jazz) have more than 20db average dynamic range, you are correct about pop(but that is not my forte anyway). The CD may have the necessary dynamic range, but how does redbook stack up against the master tape? That is the question, and why redbook is not good enough. It doesn't stack up very well in my(hands on) experience. If it did, then I( and many others) would not have invested in DSD technology or 24/96/192khz. Sometime statistics and specifications alone do not tell the whole story.


However, RBCD has more then adequate S:N ratio for playback when properly dithered even with uncompressed classical music in almost all circumstances; provided the amplifiers and speakers can support these levels(rare).

But you have conviently skipped what Michael has told you. No amount of dither will(in reality using real world equipment not theory) repair the damage of downconverting the audio. Also dither in most DAW software is all over the place in terms of quality. Unless the audio engineer is VERY careful, the dither he uses can cover the low level detail he(or she) is trying to flesh out. This is not needed at all when you record at 24 bits, mix and master at 24bit, and release to format at 24 bits unfortunately you can't do this with redbook




An average quiet room is approx. 35dB.

Where did you get this figure from? Can your provide studies that make this a fact, and not a number you pulled out of your bum? I have installed hundreds of hometheaters and custom listening rooms, and not one of them even approached 35db background noise before extensive structural work had been done. Most people do not have the infrastructure that lends to such a low background level. Do you want to try this again?





In order to resolve 96dB of CD to it's full potential above this noisfloor, a SPL of 131 dB would be required, starting -96 at the noisefloor. In reality, the noisefloor of RBCD is used well under the ambient room noise floor since most amp/speaker combinations struggle to do little over 100dB at the listening position without gross distortion levels

Yes, but this tells nothing about the sound quality when compared to the high rez digital or analog source. The whole story is not be told when simply quoting specifications. That would assume that everything else is perfect, and it is not.






. As for bandwidth resolution; in recording it 'may' be beneficial in some cases to capture at a high resolution so that the downsample to RBCD can have a customized(potentially) anti-alias filter performed with software/hardware.

Few audio engineers would agree with your inexperienced assumptions. Why bother to capture at high resolution only to have some of that thrown away to a lesser format. Any engineer worth his salt would tell that if your product was headed for the redbook format, it is better to record, mix and master at 44.1khz, because you gain nothing by working at any higher sampling rate than that. If you want to archive at a higher resolution, that's a different animal altogether. The redbook standard does not allow "customizing " of the anti aliasing filters, and no software I know of can do such a thing. Redbook standard REQUIRES that you filter above 22,050khz or aliasing will occur. So there isn't anything to customize.


If captured at the old 48kHz standard, the flexibility in later signficnat modification of the anti-alias filter is not possible. FOr purposes of plaback; I can not still not find any conclusions supporting that bandwidth exceeding that of RBCD is audibly signficant.

-Chris

48khz is not a "standard" for redbook CD or high rez. The "standard" is 44.1khz. For DVD-A the "standard" would be 24/96khz, not 48khz. DVD-V has the only standard based on 48khz sampling rate. I do not know of anybody who would use 48khz as a "standard" for recording in either high rez, or redbook.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read the Red Book specification (CDA) and then compare to the Scarlet Book specification (SACD).

Do you know the difference between film and VHS video or DVD in terms of color, texture, contrast and resolution?

To argue this is pointless.

Steve, no use in trying to convince these two individuals of anything. Neither have even heard SACD, let alone comment about sound quality.

[Woochifer]

Yep, you guys keep expecting 4+4 to have a new answer ever day? Every person?

Right on cue, talking in circles and bringing irrelevant tangents into the discussion. Do you ever say anything, or is every reply just another riddle?


Oh, yes, psychics have different answers, don't they?

At least they come up with answers (whether or not they have value is another question). Endless questions and inneuendo seem good enough for you.


Stick to what you know and is a safe bet.

Obviously, you've done just that. The only time you deviated and actually made an assertion, turned out that all you could provide was spurious drivel. So, I will agree, stick to what you know -- conjuring up repetitive inneuendo and spinning questions -- since it's obvious you can't contribute anything else.

[Woochifer]

Now why would they fudge those measurements? No different from Stereopile measuring and publishing such data. It all boils down to their subjective BS, hype, voodoo, that is the problem, just like the time soundstage so fondly endorsed the Belt rainbow foil. No NRC measurements there to publish though, right?

Just another straw man argument from you. I was responding to your generalized blanket statement about Soundstage, not the article in question. So tell me again, how the NRC measurements make them "a joker"? Glad to see though that the word "hype" has now entered your ever expanding vocabulary, but I guess you're still having a difficult time letting go of "voodoo."

[WmAx]

you ever WORKED with DSD? Better yet, have you even recorded anything? No you haven't, so you don't know what benefits it brings to the engineer. You have not even heard it, so what basis can you make any conclusions.I asked for substantiation that DSD is beneficial compared to PCM. Have any?


It has been seen as an advantage to someone, because almost every major record label is producing DSD recordings. A technical advantage? A marketing advantage? I am prepared to accept the later.



Well its really up to the engineers isn't it. And many of the top grammy award winning engineers choose(or have already chosen) DSD. So who was this question for, engineers, or the average consumer?For anyone who can substantiate their answer(s).


What perspective? You never even heard it!!!!. You have never recorded, mixed, or mastered in it as well. I would say your perspective is lacking quite a bit. Music formats are for listening to, not reading about.Irrelevant what I have or not have heard. This is about substantiating, not speculating.


From a recording end, that is a huge advantage. Other advantages would be capturing ALL of the fundemental and harmonic textures, improved imaging, and better resolution of fine details. Also, less eq, less processing, no dither, no downsampling, and no downconversion. In other words no bandaids.I never made an assertion that hi-resoluiotn was not beneficial from the recording end.



The CD may have the necessary dynamic range, but how does redbook stack up against the master tape?Master tape? I could not find reference to studio analogue tape that was measured at more then an approximate 75dB S:N ratio range. At the upper limits of this range, THD rapidly increased to single digit values. Actually, at around the -17dB range, I see most being specced at about 3% THD. I am not sure what it ultimately rises to at the upper level(near 0). These are based on the manufacturer specs I have seen on analogu studio tape. If you have references with signficantly better specifications I would be glad to see these. According to the specifications published, the mater tape will audibly color recorded material by a subtle margin, audibly, when correlated with established perceptual thresholds of distortion. Perhaps their is analogue tape exists that does not audibly color a recording. Please specify one if it exists. Either way, analogue tape I can not conclude is a transparent method for recording in any normal studio situation.


But you have conviently skipped what Michael has told you.Mr. Bishop did not substantiate his statements concerning RBCD and it's supposed audible inferior quality. I have to disregard.


No amount of dither will(in reality using real world equipment not theory) repair the damage of downconverting the audioDamage? Do you mean audibly? Please specify how a properly downconverted/sampled file will be audibly damaged. Citations?


Also dither in most DAW software is all over the place in terms of quality. Unless the audio engineer is VERY careful, the dither he uses can cover the low level detail he(or she) is trying to flesh out. I agree. High quality dithering algorythem needs to be used. But when one of good quality is used, what is the problem?



Where did you get this figure from? Can your provide studies that make this a fact, and not a number you pulled out of your bum? I have installed hundreds of hometheaters and custom listening rooms, and not one of them even approached 35db background noise before extensive structural work had been done.Actually, I was quoting a figure that is worst case scenario for RBCD, and assuming a quiet(as in a quiet interior room out in the middle of the country away from public road, or specially built, etc.). The average room, I do not cosider quiet by any means. However, the quieter a room the less ideal RBCD would be, that is why I quoated a lowball figure. For example, let's say someone had a room with 10dB noise floor(virtually impossible), then the 96dB range of RBCD would not be ideal in some cases, theoretically.



The redbook standard does not allow "customizing " of the anti aliasing filters, and no software I know of can do such a thing. Redbook standard REQUIRES that you filter above 22,050khz or aliasing will occur. So there isn't anything to customize. As I sated, 'potentially'. THe software applies a preset filter, but the curve of this filter can be customized, theoretically. Because no current software allows a custome curve does not equal 'not technically possible'. This is what I was referring. Two anti-alias filters are implemtned in digital audio. One at the stage of recording(or software downsampling) and one upon playback(in the D-A stage of the player).



48khz is not a "standard" for redbook CD or high rez. As I sated, 48Khz was the OLD/PREVIOUS professional standard. I did not state it was a current standard. It was chosen and used due to it's integer relation to multiple end use samling rates and it's easy resampling to those rates. Refer to: Letters To The Editor, AES Journal, July/August 1978, Volume 26, Number 7/8, page 562

Are you the one accusing some people of failure to read in prior posts? Perhaps you should learn to read the stuff before replying before accusing others. Your accusation of me 'pullilng something out of my bum' is hilarious, too. Your the one with the many speculations and testimonials but no substantion(s). If I did make an error or two, that would be me being guilty of being human. One only need point out my error. You on the other hand continously talk and talk about nothing more then your speculations. My thread is only concerned about substaniatable issues in regards to hi-resolution audibility and the like, not what someone thinks or has concluded based on a test done with poor protocol/methodology/no scrutiny.

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

Steve, no use in trying to convince these two individuals of anything. Neither have even heard SACD, let alone comment about sound quality.


You mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with his analogy witht he VHS tape and audio? I hope you are smarter than that, If you don't, that would explain a lot too.

[Woochifer]

You mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with his analogy witht he VHS tape and audio? I hope you are smarter than that, If you don't, that would explain a lot too.

Once again, I see that you've resorted to talking in circular riddles that have no bearing to Terrence's reply whatsoever. So what do YOU see that's wrong with the analogy? Rather than spin the question, offer up something substantive for a change. Asking someone else to bail you out when you can't offer up a substantive reply of your own doesn't speak too well for your level of know how either. I thought you were smarter than that, but then that might be just as illusory as the voodoo and myths that you seem to obsess over.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I asked for substantiation that DSD is beneficial compared to PCM. Have any?

You and I both know this answer is lame as hell. You made a statement, better yet, an authoritive statement as if you have been WORKING with DSD. The fact that you made this statement and have never heard DSD kills you credibility on the issue entirely. The reason the top audio engineers prefer DSD is because it sounds more "analog" like than PCM. Even 24/96khz has a "digital" edge to its sound. How in the heck does one make the statements you do without even HEARING anything? This doesn't show any intelligence whatsoever, just the same spin Mtry put on. Are you guys the same person?


A technical advantage? A marketing advantage? I am prepared to accept the later.

I guess someone who has never heard it is prepared to accept anything. I call it the not so educated guess



For anyone who can substantiate their answer(s).

Come on Chris, no one owes you any answers. Beside, how would you know if they are wrong or right, you have never recorded, mixed or mastered ANYTHING let alone in DSD.


Irrelevant what I have or not have heard. This is about substantiating, not speculating.

Since you have never heard it, then everything you say is speculation when it comes to DSD. All you are basing your opinions on is specifications. If you looked at specifications alone, Sony's film codec SDDS looks great, but if performs poorly in the field. That is the danger of looking at stat's alone. These formats are for the ears, not the eyes. Unless you buy into Mtry way of listening to music, with the eyes.


I never made an assertion that hi-resoluiotn was not beneficial from the recording end.

If it is beneficial from the recording end, what makes it less beneficial from the reproduction end.? If you stick with hi rez from the front of the process to the end, there is no need for downsampling, downconverting, dither, steep slope anti aliasing filters, less need for compression, less eq, and less post processing. How is this a bad thing?



Master tape? I could not find reference to studio analogue tape that was measured at more then an approximate 75dB S:N ratio range.

Are you referring to 1/2" 1" or 2" magnetic tape? 2" does considerable better than that. And when you add noise reduction, it does WAY better than that.


At the upper limits of this range, THD rapidly increased to single digit values. Actually, at around the -17dB range, I see most being specced at about 3% THD. I am not sure what it ultimately rises to at the upper level(near 0). These are based on the manufacturer specs I have seen on analogu studio tape. If you have references with signficantly better specifications I would be glad to see these. According to the specifications published, the mater tape will audibly color recorded material by a subtle margin, audibly, when correlated with established perceptual thresholds of distortion. Perhaps their is analogue tape exists that does not audibly color a recording. Please specify one if it exists. Either way, analogue tape I can not conclude is a transparent method for recording in any normal studio situation.

Meaningless. You have not stated what size tape you describe as having these specs, and you are quoting specs from a unknown manufacturer. How is this helpful??? More rhetorical bull.

I have a heavily modified Studer A 827 that is configurable from 2 to 24 tracks. 2" tape with only two tracks and Dolby SR yields a dynamic range of about 110db which is considerably better than the 96db redbook offers. It uses direct drive technology so wow and flutter are almost unmeasureable and definately inaudible. With the modified head unit I can record signals up to 40-50khz without any audible distortion. I have used Ampex 2" metal oxide tape and it doesn't measure in any way as you describe. As a matter of fact I know of no tape currently in use that has the characteristic you mention.

Perhaps you need to read what Bob Katz(someone you quoted from as word) on this issue

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=37/


Mr. Bishop did not substantiate his statements concerning RBCD and it's supposed audible inferior quality. I have to disregard.

How could he have, it would require you to listen with your ears. You listen with your eyes, so it is impossible to substantiate anything in audio with your approach until it changes.


Damage? Do you mean audibly? Please specify how a properly downconverted/sampled file will be audibly damaged. Citations?

A file downcoverted from 24/88.2 to 16/44.1khz will not have the dynamic range of the original even with dither. A file downsampled from 88.2khz to 44.1khz will make instruments with high frequency harmonics sound very different than the original(especially muted brass, cymbals, glocks, chimes, triangles). If you hearing is not terribly damaged, hearing this is not that difficult. But it requires that you listen, and not read.


I agree. High quality dithering algorythem needs to be used. But when one of good quality is used, what is the problem?

If you had any studio experience whatsoever you would find that 80% of the time good dither is NOT used. And that is the problem. Even if good dither is used, it cannot make 16 bits behave like 24 bits, even on a good day.



Actually, I was quoting a figure that is worst case scenario for RBCD, and assuming a quiet(as in a quiet interior room out in the middle of the country away from public road, or specially built, etc.).

You are skewing and fudging to bolster your point. Not in good form. Just how many people live in the above conditions? Rediculous, plain rediculous. You ARE pulling this from your bum


The average room, I do not cosider quiet by any means. However, the quieter a room the less ideal RBCD would be, that is why I quoated a lowball figure. For example, let's say someone had a room with 10dB noise floor(virtually impossible), then the 96dB range of RBCD would not be ideal in some cases, theoretically.

I do not think the arguement is dynamic range. Its how redbook sonically compares to a 24/176.8khz master. It not about spec, its how it sounds. I say this for the hundreth time. And you comment on my reading skills!!!!



As I sated, 'potentially'. THe software applies a preset filter, but the curve of this filter can be customized, theoretically.

You cannot create a customized curve on a redbook CD period. The filter must cutoff all frequencies above 22,050khz period. Either the player oversamples and a gentle filter can be used, or you must use a brickwall filter to do the job. You CANNOT customize anything from the recording end period!!! So there is no potential for anything.




Because no current software allows a custome curve does not equal 'not technically possible'. This is what I was referring. Two anti-alias filters are implemtned in digital audio. One at the stage of recording(or software downsampling) and one upon playback(in the D-A stage of the player).

Because no current studies have proven conclusively that increased bandwidth is the reason that 24/96khz sounds better than redbook CD, doesn't mean that it doesn't. You are attempting to play this from both sides, and picking and choosing information once again. If we follow the logic you have set forth, then I want to see peer reviewed, published studies that prove customize curves are possible with the redbook format. Absent of that, I will chalk this statement up to wishful thinking.

Why does one need two anti alias filters? Why advocate more processing in the audio chain? So let me get this straight, you would downconvert, downsample, dither, and send the signal through two anti aliasing filters??? Are you interested in transparent high quality audio, or just a bunch of signal altering devices??? This is where some recording experience comes in handy, something you don't have. Why apply more bandaids to a format full of them?



As I sated, 48Khz was the OLD/PREVIOUS professional standard. I did not state it was a current standard. It was chosen and used due to it's integer relation to multiple end use samling rates and it's easy resampling to those rates. Refer to: Letters To The Editor, AES Journal, July/August 1978, Volume 26, Number 7/8, page 562

I am sorry Chris, but 48khz has NEVER been a standard, EVER!!! What format would 48khz have been associated with may I ask? Other than the DVD-V based formats 48khz has had no relationship with any digital format I know of. Couldn't be redbook standard because that is 44.1. That is the only other digital format we have had in the last 20 years(aside from Dolby Digital, Dts, SDDS) Could this be another pull out of the bum job??
It is not easy processing to downsample from 48khz to 44.1khz. We know this. That is the reason engineers choose to downsample from 176.4 to 44.1khz, or 88.2khz to 44.1khz. No engineer worth a dime would choose 48khz sample rate to record in when releasing to redbook CD, there is the possibility of amplitude modulation and distortion that can creep in if not carefully done.


Are you the one accusing some people of failure to read in prior posts? Perhaps you should learn to read the stuff before replying before accusing others. Your accusation of me 'pullilng something out of my bum' is hilarious, too. Your the one with the many speculations and testimonials but no substantion(s). If I did make an error or two, that would be me being guilty of being human. One only need point out my error. You on the other hand continously talk and talk about nothing more then your speculations. My thread is only concerned about substaniatable issues in regards to hi-resolution audibility and the like, not what someone thinks or has concluded based on a test done with poor protocol/methodology/no scrutiny.

This crap means nothing. You have never recorded, mixed, mastered or even heard hi rez, so nothing you say holds water. You are only going by what you have read from someone elses words and studies, but you have nothing to press that information against. You quote specs left and right, but that has no correlation with sonic QUALITY.
You are a inexperienced know it all(or think you do) who has no hands on audio experience at all. What the hell do you think you could teach me?

No one would point out any of your errors if you didn't behave in such a know it all arrogant way. You have no idea how silly you look trying to cover you sorry butt point after point. Your approach to this topic is sophomoric, lacks any profound knowledge of the fundimentals of recording, not much clarity(which makes you respond in circles), shows your inexperience, and lacks the fundimental understanding of how decisions are made in choosing sample rates, compression amounts, or basic studio functions. You are somewhat bookwise, but format and sample foolish. Like Thomas your premise of what makes good audio is full of signal altering conversions, downsamplings, filters and unnecessary processing.
What might be helpful to you rather than sitting at your computer pretending to know what you are talking about, is to take a trip to a high end studio, and actually listen to what you have been talking about. Otherwise your lack of experience makes any point you attempt to make pointless.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with his analogy witht he VHS tape and audio? I hope you are smarter than that, If you don't, that would explain a lot too.

I am not impressed with veiled insults. I am even less impressed with individuals who make feeble attempts to gain noteriety on a amateur audio forum by opposing every argument, making stupid asinine demands, spinning facts or totally ignoring them to support their position, and arguing just for the sake of it. Get a life Mtry, I have one.

[Dual-500]

I am not impressed with veiled insults. I am even less impressed with individuals who make feeble attempts to gain noteriety on a amateur audio forum by opposing every argument, making stupid asinine demands, spinning facts or totally ignoring them to support their position, and arguing just for the sake of it. Get a life Mtry, I have one.

Thanks. I think you understood my point.

My analogy was to compare film to other types of video medium is similar to a comparison of SACD to other audio medium.

Then came the distorted rhetoric.

Oh well - aside from the insults, and personal attacks, this actually is an interesting thread.

[mtrycraft]

My analogy was to compare film to other types of video medium is similar to a comparison of SACD to other audio medium.

Perhaps you should have compared vinyl to SACD then. Vinyl is about a VHS type audio equivalent.

Then came the distorted rhetoric.

No. Then came some further analysis and discussion of your post.

[Dual-500]

My analogy was to compare film to other types of video medium is similar to a comparison of SACD to other audio medium.

Perhaps you should have compared vinyl to SACD then. Vinyl is about a VHS type audio equivalent.

The examples I used for comparison in my analogy are valid and stand as such.

Try playing a DVD on a screen the size of an average Loews or AMC cinema and tell me how it looks compared to film.

[WmAx]

The fact that you made this statement and have never heard DSD kills you credibility on the issue entirely. The reason the top audio engineers prefer DSD is because it sounds more "analog" like than PCM. Even 24/96khz has a "digital" edge to its sound. How in the heck does one make the statements you do without even HEARING anything? This doesn't show any intelligence whatsoever, just the same spin Mtry put on. Are you guys the same person?You just don't get it. Not suprising. You just want to speculate.


Since you have never heard it, then everything you say is speculation when it comes to DSD. Ah. But sir, I just ask for substantiation that validates your claims. I looked for this myself and failed to find it. I resort to asking you to substantiate -- you can't, apparently.



If you stick with hi rez from the front of the process to the end, there is no need for downsampling, downconverting, dither, steep slope anti aliasing filters, less need for compression, less eq, and less post processing. How is this a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing. Not the point of this communicatino. The point is for you to substantiate your claims of hi-rez audibility.


Are you referring to 1/2" 1" or 2" magnetic tape? 2" does considerable better than that. And when you add noise reduction, it does WAY better than that.I would be interested in an objective measurement set of 2", if you have such a reference. It would be interesting. I did ask for these measurements. One of the tape's specs I based the numbers on were manufacturer specs on Grand Master Gold Studio 499. Since from available evidence so far, the distortion rises signfcantly in the upper 20dB of the dynamnic range on analogue tape; how can analogue tape begin to compare to high quality digital recording systems where distortion remains at inaudible levels throughout it's total range? Again, maybe some tape has inaudible levels? I am not prepared to research analogue tape systems at the moment since this is not an important issue of the discussion. I will gladly accept references with objective information though.



I have a heavily modified Studer A 827 that is configurable from 2 to 24 tracks. 2" tape with only two tracks and Dolby SR yields a dynamic range of about 110db which is considerably better than the 96db redbook offers. It uses direct drive technology so wow and flutter are almost unmeasureable and definately inaudible. With the modified head unit I can record signals up to 40-50khz without any audible distortion. I have used Ampex 2" metal oxide tape and it doesn't measure in any way as you describe. As a matter of fact I know of no tape currently in use that has the characteristic you mention.

Perhaps you need to read what Bob Katz(someone you quoted from as word) on this issue

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=37/
While I have referred to Bob Katz in the past, it was in specific frame of him talking about radio programmers -- his views on that issue. He left out specific distortion measurements, etc. He did not make any statement about 2" in 2 channel mode on tht page.




A file downcoverted from 24/88.2 to 16/44.1khz will not have the dynamic range of the original even with dither. It is obvious that the 16 bit would not have the dynamic rane of the 24 bit. However, if you actually had to use 24 bits of range for the final mix, I don't know what speakers/amps woudl be able to deal with it exceting some very high efficiency horn devices.


A file downsampled from 88.2khz to 44.1khz will make instruments with high frequency harmonics sound very different than the original(especially muted brass, cymbals, glocks, chimes, triangles). If you hearing is not terribly damaged, hearing this is not that difficult. But it requires that you listen, and not read.Why is this? I would suspect a problem with the filter algorythm if indeed it was aubible. But I would not accept your claiming it's audible as a fact without supporting evidence.


If you had any studio experience whatsoever you would find that 80% of the time good dither is NOT used. And that is the problem. Even if good dither is used, it cannot make 16 bits behave like 24 bits, even on a good day. Why is 24 bits needed for playback?



You are skewing and fudging to bolster your point. Not in good form. Just how many people live in the above conditions? Rediculous, plain rediculous. You ARE pulling this from your bum
Listen here, chap. I quoted a low ball number that made hi-rez seem more justifiable, not the other way around. The lower the room noisefloor, the more dynamic range is needed in the playback format.



I do not think the arguement is dynamic range. Its how redbook sonically compares to a 24/176.8khz master. It not about spec, its how it sounds. I say this for the hundreth time. And you comment on my reading skills!!!!Indeed. You keep offering speculations and testimonials. These need not apply. Yet you keep it up...


You cannot create a customized curve on a redbook CD period. The filter must cutoff all frequencies above 22,050khz period. Either the player oversamples and a gentle filter can be used, or you must use a brickwall filter to do the job. You CANNOT customize anything from the recording end period!!! So there is no potential for anything.Basic sampling theory.... you miss that class? You think their is only one filter specification for sampling?


Because no current studies have proven conclusively that increased bandwidth is the reason that 24/96khz sounds better than redbook CD, doesn't mean that it doesn'tThat's a backwards and counterproductive perspective. Prove it is importnat for playback and then I'm all ears....


If we follow the logic you have set forth, then I want to see peer reviewed, published studies that prove customize curves are possible with the redbook format. Absent of that, I will chalk this statement up to wishful thinking.It has nothing to specfically with RBCD. The only thing that RBCD dictates is the theoretical frequencies that must not be allowed to be sampled, in this case the basic value is 22Khz. THis is basic sampling theory. Their is no anti-alias filter, etc. contained in the actual RBCD format. The filters are independant of the RBCD specification. I'm not going to waste my time explaing this too you any further.


Why does one need two anti alias filters? Why advocate more processing in the audio chain?Basic sampling theory. Their's one at the sampling end and one at the DA end in a player. Again, go read up on the details and you'll find out why.


I am sorry Chris, but 48khz has NEVER been a standard, EVER!!! What format would 48khz have been associated with may I ask?Not notice the reference? It's not just a reference, it's an AES standards paper. I suppose you never wondered why you had a 48Khz sampling rate option on DAT machines.


It is not easy processing to downsample from 48khz to 44.1khz. We know this. Actually, 48Khz was chosen because it is easy to downsample to 44.1 and OTHER rates. If you read the reference, you would know this. You would also realize their is not just the U.S.A...


You are a inexperienced know it all(or think you do) who has no hands on audio experience at all. What the hell do you think you could teach me? I don't care to teach you anything. I do care that you try to dish out your speculations and testimonials as if they were fact, thus propograting misinformation.


You have no idea how silly you look trying to cover you sorry butt point after point. Your approach to this topic is sophomoric, lacks any profound knowledge of the fundimentals of recording,Actually, you look foolish to me and I suspect to anyone else who is aware of the basic issues you misunderstand in logic and in the basic digital theories you seem to not even know exiist.



What might be helpful to you rather than sitting at your computer pretending to know what you are talking about, is to take a trip to a high end studio, and actually listen to what you have been talking about.
You don't get it. I dont' care what I hear or what others hear -- I don't hold my own perceptions as more valuable then others in these issues -- if I heard something I would subject myelf to the same scrutiny and doubt. Actually, I have. Without proper controls/scrutiny, what 'I heard' is as worthless as what you heard.

-Chris

[hifitommy]

emptycraft doesnt even believe that vinyl is a he rez format. so much for the 'analytical' mind.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You just don't get it. Not suprising. You just want to speculate.

You call it speculation, I call it experience. This is something you completely lack, hence your poor choice of words.


Ah. But sir, I just ask for substantiation that validates your claims. I looked for this myself and failed to find it. I resort to asking you to substantiate -- you can't, apparently.

You asked for no such thing, you made a definative statement. A statement that you cannot(by lack of experience or exposure) make.


It's not a bad thing. Not the point of this communicatino. The point is for you to substantiate your claims of hi-rez audibility.

You have made a whole career out of backpeddling. Damn, you good at it too!!


I would be interested in an objective measurement set of 2", if you have such a reference. It would be interesting. I did ask for these measurements. One of the tape's specs I based the numbers on were manufacturer specs on Grand Master Gold Studio 499. Since from available evidence so far, the distortion rises signfcantly in the upper 20dB of the dynamnic range on analogue tape; how can analogue tape begin to compare to high quality digital recording systems where distortion remains at inaudible levels throughout it's total range? Again, maybe some tape has inaudible levels? I am not prepared to research analogue tape systems at the moment since this is not an important issue of the discussion. I will gladly accept references with objective information though.

There are already objective measurements with 2" tape, they are on the box the tape comes in. So you take the measurements of one tape, and apply that to all tape. Bright move Chris, convient but not very accurate. Also your brightness, nobody records on magnetic tape without some type of noise reduction, so any measurement sans noise reduction do not reflect real world conditions. The noise reduction keeps distortion low to the point of saturation. Dolby SR applies 20db of noise reduction from 20-20khz, which is how magnetic tape can have more dynamic range than it's CD counterpart.

As far as what you would gladly accept.....no, I won't write that.




While I have referred to Bob Katz in the past, it was in specific frame of him talking about radio programmers -- his views on that issue. He left out specific distortion measurements, etc. He did not make any statement about 2" in 2 channel mode on tht page.

Yeah, that's what I thought. You use his quotes to bolster your point, but when his words don't support your point, they are automatically dismissed because they didn't provide exact measurements. This is the stupidest bunch of crap I have ever seen on this board(next to mtry crap) Measurement are just what they are, measurements. But they tell you nothing about how something sounds. Unless your ears are worthless to you(which might be the reason you are avoiding using yours). I guess you missed the part when he says that the wider that tape, the lower the noise.




It is obvious that the 16 bit would not have the dynamic rane of the 24 bit. However, if you actually had to use 24 bits of range for the final mix, I don't know what speakers/amps woudl be able to deal with it exceting some very high efficiency horn devices.

I don't think that's the point. If you record in 24bits, it doesn't really matter if you don't use all the bits. What matters is that you don't have to downconvert or dither. Dither is a bandaid.


Why is this? I would suspect a problem with the filter algorythm if indeed it was aubible. But I would not accept your claiming it's audible as a fact without supporting evidence.

No sir, the problem is with the format, it cuts off harmonics and blunts transients. But of course you wouldn't know this because you have never recorded, mixed or mastered anything, and I doubt that you have even been into a studio. I don't care if you accept what I have to say anyway. Your not paying me!!


Why is 24 bits needed for playback?

Since you seem to know everything I am sure you can answer this by yourself. Besides you are not going to listen to my speculative reasons anyway :-)


Listen here, chap. I quoted a low ball number that made hi-rez seem more justifiable, not the other way around. The lower the room noisefloor, the more dynamic range is needed in the playback format.

Since you have taken to calling me Chap, may I call you Betty? You fudged pure and simple. Stop spining or you are going to make yourself dizzy.



Indeed. You keep offering speculations and testimonials. These need not apply. Yet you keep it up..

Its called experience, first hand experience. When you don't have that(as you don't) then its called speculation.


Basic sampling theory.... you miss that class? You think their is only one filter specification for sampling?

For Redbook CD, yes. If I missed that class, I learned with hands on experience. You probably caught the class, but are definately missing the experience.


That's a backwards and counterproductive perspective. Prove it is importnat for playback and then I'm all ears....

I don't think it is at all, that's just your opinion. You are not all ears, you are all eyes based on what you have written.



It has nothing to specfically with RBCD. The only thing that RBCD dictates is the theoretical frequencies that must not be allowed to be sampled, in this case the basic value is 22Khz. THis is basic sampling theory. Their is no anti-alias filter, etc. contained in the actual RBCD format. The filters are independant of the RBCD specification. I'm not going to waste my time explaing this too you any further.

How do you keep the frequencies from not being sampled? You use a filter right? What do CD players use to block frequencies above 22khz? A filter right? What did Philips and Sony think they were going to use to block frequencies above 22khz, scotch tape? Their first player had filters. So while the standards don't list filters specifically, you know you have to use them to conform to the standard. Your half baked explaination wasn't needed in the first place.


Basic sampling theory. Their's one at the sampling end and one at the DA end in a player. Again, go read up on the details and you'll find out why.

I know exactly why. And because I know why, I also know you cannot make CUSTOM filters for a standard that has definate specification about what is, and what is not to be sampled. So your hairbrained idea about custom filters is rediculous from jump street.


Not notice the reference? It's not just a reference, it's an AES standards paper. I suppose you never wondered why you had a 48Khz sampling rate option on DAT machines.

48khz is a option, not a standard. Dat also had 32khz as a option, is that also what you would call a standard? Laughable and lame.


Actually, 48Khz was chosen because it is easy to downsample to 44.1 and OTHER rates. If you read the reference, you would know this. You would also realize their is not just the U.S.A...

Downsampling from 48khz to 44.1khz is NOT easy. Its not even recommended by any engineer that I know of. Anyone who has digital audio recording experience(oops you don't have any which explains this brain fart) know that when downsampling audio destined for CD your record at either 176.4khz or 88.2khz and downsample to 44.1khz. For DVD-A your record at 192khz or 96khz and downsample to 48khz. Downsampling from 48khz to 44.1khz REQUIRES a great deal of care and attention, and even then distortion can creep in. You also have to have VERY good sample rate converter(which are EXTREMELY expensive) to do this and get just acceptable results.


I don't care to teach you anything. I do care that you try to dish out your speculations and testimonials as if they were fact, thus propograting misinformation.

You CAN"T teach me anything and that is the bottom line. There is no misinformation here. If you have ever recorded digital audio(instead of scratching your butt reading about it) your would learn everything I have said by experience. If you have ever attending any conferences on recording digital audio, high rez audio, or recording in 5.1 for DVD-A this information is commonly passed between engineers. If you ever read mags such as Surround professional, EQ, MIX or any other recording rag, this information is published there. So there is no misinformation, just plain stupid ignorance on your part.


Actually, you look foolish to me and I suspect to anyone else who is aware of the basic issues you misunderstand in logic and in the basic digital theories you seem to not even know exiist.

Who cares how I look to you. You are the idiot who has never recorded, mixed or mastered anything telling someone who has for 20+ years how to do his job. You are he idiot trying to debate a grammy award winning engineer about something he knows profoundly, and you don't know squat about. I am sure they don't make dunce caps large enough to fit your head.


You don't get it. I dont' care what I hear or what others hear -- I don't hold my own perceptions as more valuable then others in these issues -- if I heard something I would subject myelf to the same scrutiny and doubt. Actually, I have. Without proper controls/scrutiny, what 'I heard' is as worthless as what you heard.

-Chris

What perceptions can someone who has never recorded, mixed , mastered one piece of audio have. What could you possibly bring to the table in term of experience and knowledge. Not one damn thing. Since you listen with your eyes, I can imagine that you wouldn't trust your ears. I bet you look very strange with ears where your eyes should be, and eyes where your ears should be. I bet that arraingement works great for for your shortsighted and ignorant thought process!!

[WmAx]

You asked for no such thing, you made a definative statement. A statement that you cannot(by lack of experience or exposure) make. The only thing I've stated in this regard of hi-rez is that I know of no work substantiating improved audibility. So far no one else has been able to mention one either. So. Have one yet? Just more speculations and testimonials?


There are already objective measurements with 2" tape, they are on the box the tape comes in. So you take the measurements of one tape, and apply that to all tape. Bright move Chris, convient but not very accurate. I looked at a few tapes, that was a typical spec unit. 2nd, I did speficially ask for references on tht particular subject - and did so in a sincere manner. It serves no purpose to push a point on something I was inquiring about. Let's go back and see what I said AND asked:

"These are based on the manufacturer specs I have seen on analogu studio tape. If you have references with signficantly better specifications I would be glad to see these. According to the specifications published, the mater tape will audibly color recorded material by a subtle margin, audibly, when correlated with established perceptual thresholds of distortion. Perhaps their is analogue tape exists that does not audibly color a recording. Please specify one if it exists"

It was more of an inquiry, really. Nothing to attack. Things to answer, though! :-)


Yeah, that's what I thought. You use his quotes to bolster your point, but when his words don't support your point, they are automatically dismissed because they didn't provide exact measurements.I quoted him as I expected you may respect him, and yes, he happened to agree with my arguement in that regard. I am guilty of this infraction.


This is the stupidest bunch of crap I have ever seen on this board(next to mtry crap) After all this, Im only in 2nd place? :-D



Measurement are just what they are, measurements. But they tell you nothing about how something sounds. Unless your ears are worthless to you(which might be the reason you are avoiding using yours). I guess you missed the part when he says that the wider that tape, the lower the noise.
Measurments are very useful! They do tell you what to expect in terms of audibility when corrleated with perceptual research relating to those measurements!



I don't think that's the point. If you record in 24bits, it doesn't really matter if you don't use all the bits. What matters is that you don't have to downconvert or dither. Dither is a bandaid.
Band-aid or not(not gong to debate this), with it 16 bit has adequate S:N for playback.


Since you have taken to calling me Chap, may I call you Betty? You fudged pure and simple. Stop spining or you are going to make yourself dizzy.Call me Betty if you like. I'm sorry that I used a figure that was best-case for hi-rez. I was being more then fair. Your apparent lack of comprehension is clouding your judgement, it seems.


Its called experience, first hand experience. When you don't have that(as you don't) then its called speculation.Not suprising you don't see the problem with that statement.


I don't think it is at all, that's just your opinion. You are not all ears, you are all eyes based on what you have written.You don't seem to see much of anything. I don't even think you've read that important standards paper yet.



How do you keep the frequencies from not being sampled? You use a filter right? What do CD players use to block frequencies above 22khz? A filter right? What did Philips and Sony think they were going to use to block frequencies above 22khz, scotch tape? Their first player had filters. So while the standards don't list filters specifically, you know you have to use them to conform to the standard. Your half baked explaination wasn't needed in the first place.
Their are many types/orders/implementations of filters to remove excessive freqeuncies. Normally, the filter/interpolation is decided by the manufacturer with no user configuration. Here is labratory DSP AD unit with an anti-alias filter with customizable paraemeters:

http://www.spsolutions.com/VF_Brochure.pdf

The same thing(customized filter) is possible when downsampling in software. Most just happens to have preset, non user settable filters just like hardware. This is not a big issue -- I have not even mentioned audible properties - just optional extended power/versatality of having customizable filter when downsampling instead of a preset.

Here is an example of software that allows custumized FIR filters when resampling:

http://digital.ni.com/worldwide/bwcontent.nsf/web/all/15299000DA974CF586256D7800673BBA

From the summary of the resampling:

"Software-based resampling is one of the new features of LabVIEW 7 Express (http://www.ni.com/labview), and it includes an interactive Align and Resample Express VI and a traditional waveform datatype VI. In short, interpolation, as applied to resampling, predicts new values based on existing signal samples that you input. The LabVIEW Express VI gives you four methods of interpolation"

"FIR Filter-Based Interpolation
This method applies a digital finite impulse response (FIR) filter to compute the resampled values. With the LabVIEW 7 Express implementation, you can set the attenuation level of aliased signal components. A normalized bandwidth selection also specifies the fraction of the smallest of input and output not attenuated. "


So your hairbrained idea about custom filters is rediculous from jump street.Did not bother to do even rudimentary research on the issue?


48khz is a option, not a standard. Dat also had 32khz as a option, is that also what you would call a standard? Laughable and lame.Tell me, what is the relation between these? Why would 48Khz be available when no consumer end-use medium/format(that I am aware of) operates at this frequency? What is the signficnace of 32kHz? It's all right their in the standards paper.


Downsampling from 48khz to 44.1khz is NOT easy. Its not even recommended by any engineer that I know of. Anyone who has digital audio recording experience(oops you don't have any which explains this brain fart) know that when downsampling audio destined for CD your record at either 176.4khz or 88.2khz and downsample to 44.1khz. For DVD-A your record at 192khz or 96khz and downsample to 48khz. Downsampling from 48khz to 44.1khz REQUIRES a great deal of care and attention, and even then distortion can creep in. You also have to have VERY good sample rate converter(which are EXTREMELY expensive) to do this and get just acceptable results.48 was chosen as a logical rate for transformat use. It was choses specifically becuase it was economical to build hardware that could change the sample rate in the days of early digital. As for good convertors havig to be expensive.... I have no knowledge of the specific convertors typically u sed in the studio or objective tests to show quality degradation on these convertors. However, did you know that common, inexpensive audio cards have regularly operated at a 48kHz inernal sample rate, resampling 48Khz to 44.1 kHz with extremely low levels(inaduble levels) of distortion? Creative Labs as one example have been using such a system in their cards for many years. Objective tests, for example, testing loopback recording at 44.1Khz(48Khz resampled to 44.1) produces 0.002% THD and 0.002% IMD. This from the AD convertor of a consumer soundcard that costs less then $100. http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/ct4830-d44/index.htm
I find it difficult to believe that professional equipment has a difficult time meeting or exceeding the low distortion sample rate conversion capability of a cheap consumer soundcard. If you read the standards paper, it would not be a mystry why it's not difficult to resample from 48 to 44.1.

Since you seem to pretend the reference I provided is non-existant, let me take an excerpt(mind you, this was the historical consideration letter the initated the standard and then entered into the AES standards. It is the reason you find 48kHz rates on professional equipment such as DAT machines):






Page 562, JOURNALOF THE AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY, JULY/AUGUST 1978, VOLUME26, NUMBER 7/8






F. A. BELLIS AND G. W. McNALLYBritish Broadcasting Corporation, Research Department,Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey KT20 6NP,England


In the discussions of standards relative to digital audio to date we feel that the needs of broadcasting organizations have been little mentioned, and we would like to make a fewpoints, In Europe a standard sampling rate of 32 kHz _+ 50 parts per million, giving an audio bandwidth of 15 kHz, has been agreed within the EBU for use by broadcasters. As commercial applications assumea bandwidth of about 20 kHz, and hence sampling rates from 40 to 60 kHz, it is probable that broadcasters who will need to interface between these standards will do so by means of a digital rate-changing filter, so avoiding D/A and A/D conversion, To make this rate-changing filter as simple as possible to instrument, it is desirable to choose certain sampling frequencies for the commercial recording application. These in order of merit are:
1)_____________________48 [kHz]
2)___________40______________ ____56
3) ________________44______ __52 ________60
4) ______________42 ___46__ 50


Each row of frequencies requires twice as many calculations in the filter as the previous one. For easy rate-changing of this kind, both the input and the output sampling rates should be locked, and so any choice of system-clock frequency should be integer related to 32 kHz, as well as to the system sampling rate. To satisfy "Heaslett's criteria" (J. Audio Eng. Soc.,vol. 26, pp. 66-70, 1978 Jan./Feb.), we need a master reproclock frequency of 18 MHz and values K = 8, M = 375, and N = 80, these values giving an integer relationship with 32 kHz.

In consideration of the above points, we suggest that 48 kHz would be a good choice of sampling frequency for commercial digital audio recording systems. Dr. Bruce Moffat, our Head of Section, shares this view. Notwithstandingthe above, werecognize that there may be circumstances, (such as in the 3M variable-speed re-corder), where other considerations make a somewhat higher sampling rate desirable. It is, however, in our view essential that provision be made for locking the recorder to an external32-kHzclock on replay, by again using an 18-MHz master clock frequency.



If you have ever attending any conferences on recording digital audio, high rez audio, or recording in 5.1 for DVD-A this information is commonly passed between engineers. If you ever read mags such as Surround professional, EQ, MIX or any other recording rag, this information is published there. So there is no misinformation, just plain stupid ignorance on your part. Then I'm sure they all cited substantiation for the claims. It should be easy for you to provide those. :-)


Who cares how I look to you. You are the idiot who has never recorded, mixed or mastered anything telling someone who has for 20+ years how to do his job. You are he idiot trying to debate a grammy award winning engineer about something he knows profoundly, and you don't know squat about. I am sure they don't make dunce caps large enough to fit your head. I made my own dunce cap out of an old traffic cone. One can of white spray paint and some adhesive letters and it's a beauty! But as I sit here and wear my home-made dunce cap, you still fail to substantiate your speculations.


What could you possibly bring to the table in term of experience and knowledge. Not one damn thing. Since you listen with your eyes, I can imagine that you wouldn't trust your ears. I bet you look very strange with ears where your eyes should be, and eyes where your ears should be. I bet that arraingement works great for for your shortsighted and ignorant thought process!!More speculations! :-)

You know what? I'm tired of this discussion. Unless something new and relevant is brought up(like the DBT Thomas is participating) concerning hi resolution audibility, I'm out of it.

Later.

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

The examples I used for comparison in my analogy are valid and stand as such.

Try playing a DVD on a screen the size of an average Loews or AMC cinema and tell me how it looks compared to film.

Oh, now you are stretching for justification, right?
Since when and by whom claimed that DVD is equivalent to film?
And since when is VHS in video quality equivalent to a CD in audio quaility? Evidence please. You don't have it, you never will and your comparison is so pittyfull not even worth further discussion.

[mtrycraft]

emptycraft doesnt even believe that vinyl is a he rez format. so much for the 'analytical' mind.

Vinyl is a what res? You are lucky if it is a 12 bit equivalent for starters. But, how will you ever know? You should get out in the real audio world, not the hi end audio world of hype, bs abd voodoo.

[Woochifer]

Vinyl is a what res? You are lucky if it is a 12 bit equivalent for starters. But, how will you ever know?

And how would you ever know? For someone who demands evidence, you're sure getting into an awful lot of unsubstantiated speculation. Have you actually listened to a 12-bit sample? Yah, I thought so ...


You should get out in the real audio world, not the hi end audio world of hype, bs abd voodoo.

And maybe you should get out in the real world and do some listening, rather than spending so much time obsessing about voodoo. (or since you're more into specs than music, do some of your own testing rather than wait for other people to do it for you)

[Woochifer]

Oh, now you are stretching for justification, right?
Since when and by whom claimed that DVD is equivalent to film?

Accusing others of stretching for justification, that's really funny! Kinda like that load of crap that you were spinning when you made the mistake of trying to say something substantive? (And I mean "trying" in the loosest sense ...)


And since when is VHS in video quality equivalent to a CD in audio quaility? Evidence please. You don't have it, you never will and your comparison is so pittyfull not even worth further discussion.

Good to see that you're back to the usual hypocritical demands and poseur condescension. Calling someone else pitiful is in itself pitiful considering that you don't even assert anything to begin with. All you do is impugn and imply, but avoid saying anything definitive. If you think this is a bad analogy, why not state the reasons? Heaven forbid if you put yourself in a position of having to back something up yourself!

[hifitommy]

empty:"Vinyl is a what res? You are lucky if it is a 12 bit equivalent for starters. But, how will you ever know? You should get out in the real audio world, not the hi end audio world of hype, bs and voodoo."

geneX is obviously where you are aged, where the they want everything to be easy, by the numbers, proven only by whats been written, not accomplished by action.

its actually YOU who "get out in the real audio world", a place with which you are unfamiliar.

the highest rez is analog tape at 15-30 ips with musically educated engineers at the controls. next is now dsd, and hi rez pcm (debatable), and way below that is 44.1/16.

for the consumer, vinyl is highest rez arguably vs sacd, then dsd, then dvda, then all the rest.

vinyl is not in favor because of the necessary extra work needed to play it adequately and maintain its freedom from artifacts. sacd is as convenient to use as rbcd, nearly as cost effective, and superior to rbcd in sound (that is demonstrable). unfair advantage? i dont think so.

if ONLY you had some common sense, you would embrace this technology with both paws and realize that this is real progress toward sonic realism.

[mtrycraft]

empty:"Vinyl is a what res? You are lucky if it is a 12 bit equivalent for starters. But, how will you ever know? You should get out in the real audio world, not the hi end audio world of hype, bs and voodoo."

geneX is obviously where you are aged, where the they want everything to be easy, by the numbers, proven only by whats been written, not accomplished by action.

its actually YOU who "get out in the real audio world", a place with which you are unfamiliar.

the highest rez is analog tape at 15-30 ips with musically educated engineers at the controls. next is now dsd, and hi rez pcm (debatable), and way below that is 44.1/16.

for the consumer, vinyl is highest rez arguably vs sacd, then dsd, then dvda, then all the rest.

vinyl is not in favor because of the necessary extra work needed to play it adequately and maintain its freedom from artifacts. sacd is as convenient to use as rbcd, nearly as cost effective, and superior to rbcd in sound (that is demonstrable). unfair advantage? i dont think so.

if ONLY you had some common sense, you would embrace this technology with both paws and realize that this is real progress toward sonic realism.

If you only knew what you were talking about, we could discuss this. But no, you are confused. When you go beyond speculation into the real known audio world, you may get ahead, not fall further behind each time you speak. Good luck. Enjoy.

[mtrycraft]

And how would you ever know? For someone who demands evidence, you're sure getting into an awful lot of unsubstantiated speculation. Have you actually listened to a 12-bit sample? Yah, I thought so ...



And maybe you should get out in the real world and do some listening, rather than spending so much time obsessing about voodoo. (or since you're more into specs than music, do some of your own testing rather than wait for other people to do it for you)

Now why did I think you would provide evidence on anything? Speculations is so simple, isn't it?
It may not be too late for you to learn something factual, for a change, in audio, specifically about vinyl. Na, for get it. You will not like the answers.

[hifitommy]

you exhibit true the difference in your ignorance and your stupidity:

"If you only knew what you were talking about, we could discuss this. But no, you are confused. When you go beyond speculation into the real known audio world, you may get ahead, not fall further behind each time you speak. Good luck. Enjoy.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
mtrycrafts "

it seems to be the religious worship of technology over reality.

[Woochifer]

Now why did I think you would provide evidence on anything? Speculations is so simple, isn't it?

Because I'm not the one making the assertion and the speculation. I see that your endless voodoo tirades have now given way to just making **** up for argument's sake, what a pathetic descent. Speculations are very simple as you've demonstrated quite well for yourself, and calling the pot black does not make it so, though I see that doesn't stop you from trying. Oh, and tell me more about that 12-bit sample that you're comparing vinyl to. Ooops...


It may not be too late for you to learn something factual, for a change, in audio, specifically about vinyl. Na, for get it. You will not like the answers.

Factual? Okay, since you think that I'm factually challenged and will not like the answers, why don't you provide "something factual" and put me in my place? Talking in circular riddles doesn't make you the learned one, it just exposes your own factual and experiential lapses.

Of course, the question that you would be answering would be pure speculation on your part since I did not state anything about vinyl to begin with. YOU were the one making the 12-bit implication about vinyl, and I was simply asking for evidence and clarification. If you can't handle the exact kind of inquiry that you condescendingly make of others, then that makes you no better than any other spineless playground poseur who likes to dish it out but is exposed with the glass chin when the favor gets returned. And all this attempted reversal and spinning on your part certainly doesn't provide any indication to the contrary.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The only thing I've stated in this regard of hi-rez is that I know of no work substantiating improved audibility. So far no one else has been able to mention one either. So. Have one yet? Just more speculations and testimonials?
It's not my job to provide you with information that YOU desire, It's up to you to satisfy yourself. I spent my money attending conferences, purchasing mags, and doing whatever it takes to educate myself, you have to do the same for yourself. I gave you a reference to dCs's white paper on a listening test they did, and published.
http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/papers/effects.pdf
The improvements they noted for 24/96khz where improved seperation between instruments and reverberation, better bass balance, and the point I have been trying to make to you for the last 200 replies cymbals and percussion sound better. For 24/192khz, improved seperation between instruments and room acoustics, and stereo image is widened by 1.5 times ?
This paper has been published, and peer reviewed. No one has disputed the finding of this paper that I know of, because generally these are the improvements that engineers who work with high rez comment on. Now if improved imaging, better sounding percussion and bass, and better seperation between orchestra and ambience are NOT considered improvements, then I stand correct on every point I have made so far.



I looked at a few tapes, that was a typical spec unit. 2nd, I did speficially ask for references on tht particular subject - and did so in a sincere manner. It serves no purpose to push a point on something I was inquiring about. Let's go back and see what I said AND asked:

"These are based on the manufacturer specs I have seen on analogu studio tape. If you have references with signficantly better specifications I would be glad to see these. According to the specifications published, the mater tape will audibly color recorded material by a subtle margin, audibly, when correlated with established perceptual thresholds of distortion. Perhaps their is analogue tape exists that does not audibly color a recording. Please specify one if it exists"

It was more of an inquiry, really. Nothing to attack. Things to answer, though! :-)
There was nothing really to answer either. Different tape formulations have different degrees of noise levels. In the absence of measurements that include noise reduction the specification are useless, as nobody records on tape san noise reduction.


I quoted him as I expected you may respect him, and yes, he happened to agree with my arguement in that regard. I am guilty of this infraction.
Shame on you Chris! But at least you owned up to it.


After all this, Im only in 2nd place? :-D
You argue and actually know a little bit, Mtry argues and knows nothing. Yes just 2nd.


Measurments are very useful! They do tell you what to expect in terms of audibility when corrleated with perceptual research relating to those measurements!
Measurement alone are NOT useful at all. Measurements collaborated with listening are helpful. I know you have heard speakers that measured well, but sound like crap. I know I have.


Band-aid or not(not gong to debate this), with it 16 bit has adequate S:N for playback.
This response represent the easiest way to gloss over detail. Anyone with common sense(maybe its not so common) could clearly see that if you record in 24 bit, post process in 24 bit, that it would be smarter, cleaner sounding, better sounding and more efficient to release in 24bit. The minute you start downconverting and dithering you are opening the door for more errors, bad dither and poor downconversion software. Downconverting and adding dither takes time if its going to be done correctly. Time is money. Unnecessary conversion waste time and money, so you won't stay in business long doing things the way you propose.


Call me Betty if you like. I'm sorry that I used a figure that was best-case for hi-rez. I was being more then fair. Your apparent lack of comprehension is clouding your judgement, it seems.
More spin, this is not about my comprehension. It is about you making up numbers out of thin air, whatever motivation you may have. If you are going to demand proof to support statements, be prepared to provide some of your own. Fudging numbers shows a definate weaknes in your arguement.



Not suprising you don't see the problem with that statement.
Not surprising that you DO see a problem with this statement.


You don't seem to see much of anything. I don't even think you've read that important standards paper yet.
Don't think or assume. I probably see more than you do, because I acutally use my eyes to see not my ears like you do.


Their are many types/orders/implementations of filters to remove excessive freqeuncies. Normally, the filter/interpolation is decided by the manufacturer with no user configuration. Here is labratory DSP AD unit with an anti-alias filter with customizable paraemeters:

http://www.spsolutions.com/VF_Brochure.pdf

The same thing(customized filter) is possible when downsampling in software. Most just happens to have preset, non user settable filters just like hardware. This is not a big issue -- I have not even mentioned audible properties - just optional extended power/versatality of having customizable filter when downsampling instead of a preset.

Here is an example of software that allows custumized FIR filters when resampling:

http://digital.ni.com/worldwide/bwcontent.nsf/web/all/15299000DA974CF586256D7800673BBA

From the summary of the resampling:

"Software-based resampling is one of the new features of LabVIEW 7 Express (http://www.ni.com/labview), and it includes an interactive Align and Resample Express VI and a traditional waveform datatype VI. In short, interpolation, as applied to resampling, predicts new values based on existing signal samples that you input. The LabVIEW Express VI gives you four methods of interpolation"

"FIR Filter-Based Interpolation
This method applies a digital finite impulse response (FIR) filter to compute the resampled values. With the LabVIEW 7 Express implementation, you can set the attenuation level of aliased signal components. A normalized bandwidth selection also specifies the fraction of the smallest of input and output not attenuated. "

Once again you are clouding the issue with a bunch of junk. You know good and damn well customized filters will not work where there are standards already in place. What, you just change the standard?? The redbook standard leaves no room for customization. It simply states that nothing should be sampled higher than 22.050khz PERIOD. PLAIN AND SIMPLY. No caveats and no options. Secondly, it would be the worst mistake in the history of bad mistakes to put adjustable filters into the hands of consumers. All they have to do is dial in the wrong setting that doesn't match what was used in recording, and you have a audio mess. You also cannot mass produce something like this at a reasonable cost. That is probably the reason Sony and Philips didn't include such a thing in the first CD player, or in any subsequent CD player up until now.


Did not bother to do even rudimentary research on the issue?

Never make assumptions


Tell me, what is the relation between these? Why would 48Khz be available when no consumer end-use medium/format(that I am aware of) operates at this frequency? What is the signficnace of 32kHz? It's all right their in the standards paper.

Chris, this is not a standards paper, its a recommendation only. The only format built around 48khz sampling rate is DVD-V. You brought the paper to my attention, and now you are asking me to justify it. Now that is funny!!!


48 was chosen as a logical rate for transformat use. It was choses specifically becuase it was economical to build hardware that could change the sample rate in the days of early digital. As for good convertors havig to be expensive.... I have no knowledge of the specific convertors typically u sed in the studio or objective tests to show quality degradation on these convertors. However, did you know that common, inexpensive audio cards have regularly operated at a 48kHz inernal sample rate, resampling 48Khz to 44.1 kHz with extremely low levels(inaduble levels) of distortion? Creative Labs as one example have been using such a system in their cards for many years.

Sound cards in computers sit in some of the worst contaminated space imagineable. So to think that card is resampling the data cleanly, I have a island in SF bay I can sell you cheap. Also sync problems have been known to crop up in sound cards that resample. You can also resample the data with the wrong timing information can give an error in the reconstructive data stream. This can make the resamplers representation of the analog waveform incorrect which causes frequency modulation. Resampling, oversampling, downsampling are all processes that have the potential for introducing distortion. I wouldn't do any of them unless I absolutely had to.



Objective tests, for example, testing loopback recording at 44.1Khz(48Khz resampled to 44.1) produces 0.002% THD and 0.002% IMD. This from the AD convertor of a consumer soundcard that costs less then $100. http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/ct4830-d44/index.htm
I find it difficult to believe that professional equipment has a difficult time meeting or exceeding the low distortion sample rate conversion capability of a cheap consumer soundcard. If you read the standards paper, it would not be a mystry why it's not difficult to resample from 48 to 44.1.

This card you mention was rated only fair in frequency response(down -4 at 20khz at the digital output) which to me would be audible. Dynamic range on this card is not even at CD levels. And this particular test was conducted on a operating system that isn't being used in the studio's I have worked in. I also would not use this with highly dynamic material because the noise levels from this card are higher than most mixing desk, and microphones that I use. But the real question is, how does it sound.



Since you seem to pretend the reference I provided is non-existant, let me take an excerpt(mind you, this was the historical consideration letter the initated the standard and then entered into the AES standards. It is the reason you find 48kHz rates on professional equipment such as DAT machines):

I never said the paper didn't exist, I said there are no audio formats that are support by the 48khz sampling rate. And DAT is used for temporary mixes only, not for primary recording. And this is basically the only equipment besides that for DVD-A that uses a 48khz sampling rate. As I have told you before, nobody is going to record at 48khz sample rate just to have to downsample to 44.1khz. They'll just record at 44.1khz and skip that process, it's cleaner and leaves less potiental for audio damage.





Page 562, JOURNALOF THE AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY, JULY/AUGUST 1978, VOLUME26, NUMBER 7/8





F. A. BELLIS AND G. W. McNALLYBritish Broadcasting Corporation, Research Department,Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey KT20 6NP,England


In the discussions of standards relative to digital audio to date we feel that the needs of broadcasting organizations have been little mentioned, and we would like to make a fewpoints, In Europe a standard sampling rate of 32 kHz _+ 50 parts per million, giving an audio bandwidth of 15 kHz, has been agreed within the EBU for use by broadcasters. As commercial applications assumea bandwidth of about 20 kHz, and hence sampling rates from 40 to 60 kHz, it is probable that broadcasters who will need to interface between these standards will do so by means of a digital rate-changing filter, so avoiding D/A and A/D conversion, To make this rate-changing filter as simple as possible to instrument, it is desirable to choose certain sampling frequencies for the commercial recording application. These in order of merit are:
1)_____________________48 [kHz]
2)___________40______________ ____56
3) ________________44______ __52 ________60
4) ______________42 ___46__ 50


Each row of frequencies requires twice as many calculations in the filter as the previous one. For easy rate-changing of this kind, both the input and the output sampling rates should be locked, and so any choice of system-clock frequency should be integer related to 32 kHz, as well as to the system sampling rate. To satisfy "Heaslett's criteria" (J. Audio Eng. Soc.,vol. 26, pp. 66-70, 1978 Jan./Feb.), we need a master reproclock frequency of 18 MHz and values K = 8, M = 375, and N = 80, these values giving an integer relationship with 32 kHz.

In consideration of the above points, we suggest that 48 kHz would be a good choice of sampling frequency for commercial digital audio recording systems. Dr. Bruce Moffat, our Head of Section, shares this view. Notwithstandingthe above, werecognize that there may be circumstances, (such as in the 3M variable-speed re-corder), where other considerations make a somewhat higher sampling rate desirable. It is, however, in our view essential that provision be made for locking the recorder to an external32-kHzclock on replay, by again using an 18-MHz master clock frequency.


Then I'm sure they all cited substantiation for the claims. It should be easy for you to provide those. :-)[\quote]

YOU ARE SURE???? Right Chris, I want to see the substantiations. You are presenting this as proof to support your claims, its up to you to provide what ever supportive data that is required to bolster this point. This is not a standard at all, and was probably never written into a standard. It is a recommendation submitted for review.


I made my own dunce cap out of an old traffic cone. One can of white spray paint and some adhesive letters and it's a beauty! But as I sit here and wear my home-made dunce cap, you still fail to substantiate your speculations.

Chris, I have experience, you have speculations because you lack experience. Let me introduce these three words to your vocabulary, HANDS ON EXPERIENCE. Only people who lack that speculate.



Clears throat, and yawns

[quote]You know what? I'm tired of this discussion. Unless something new and relevant is brought up(like the DBT Thomas is participating) concerning hi resolution audibility, I'm out of it.

Later.

-Chris

This is the second time you have decided to back away from this conversation because in reality you cannot refute what I have said. Because of you lack of acutal recording experience, what you propose is inefficient and wasteful in true studio conditions. Your idea of flexible filters in the hands of the ordinary consumer is madness and too complex. It would also violate redbook standards if not properly implemented. You rely WAY to much on specifications, and not nearly enough on sound quality. Your reliance on theory is flawed because theory only works when everything is perfect. Not many things are perfect when it comes to recording and mixing audio.

[WmAx]

Sir Terrence, you have failed to comprehend nearly every part of the information provided. THis is a pattern behaivour you demonstrate. That's why the discussion with you is ended. Go ahead, relish in your ignorance and delusions, it seems to be the only thing you apparently know how to do.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

It's not my job to provide you with information that YOU desire, It's up to you to satisfy yourself. I spent my money attending conferences, purchasing mags, and doing whatever it takes to educate myself, you have to do the same for yourself. I gave you a reference to dCs's white paper on a listening test they did, and published.
You sir have the patience of Job with these armchair quarterbacks. Anyone who says that RBCD retains the natural high end extension of live music is either deaf or never heard truly live music.

rw

[DMK]

Sir Terrence, you have failed to comprehend nearly every part of the information provided. THis is a pattern behaivour you demonstrate. That's why the discussion with you is ended. Go ahead, relish in your ignorance and delusions, it seems to be the only thing you apparently know how to do.

-Chris

...please help me understand your POV. You wrote in an earlier post on this thread something to the effect that your perceptions (what you hear?) are no more valid than anyone elses. Did I understand correctly? So what you are saying is even if you hear an improvement in sound quality with SACD over RBCD, it isn't valid until it's proven that there is a measurable and audible improvement? You're requesting that someone validate what you hear with measurements and until then, you'd prefer to deny yourself the greater musical pleasure that you hear?

Or are you waiting for someone to prove that it doesn't just sound better to you but that it IS better? Again, you're willing to deny yourself what you yourself would perceive as better and more realistic sonics because the scientific community hasn't blessed it?

If I understand you, I DON'T understand you. How do you determine if you prefer Jif to Skippy, blondes to brunettes, baseball to football, Coke to Pepsi, etc? Preference, correct? So why not consider SACD a preference and be done with it? How do you determine if Heifetz' performance of Paganini's Caprices are "better" than Perlman's? Do you read the reviews and let the reviewers decide for you? When do your own perceptions count?

The total objectivist POV seems to me to be very restrictive and not much fun! I'm guessing that I just don't follow your viewpoint so please explain it, if you would.

[mtrycraft]

...please help me understand your POV. You wrote in an earlier post on this thread something to the effect that your perceptions (what you hear?) are no more valid than anyone elses. Did I understand correctly? So what you are saying is even if you hear an improvement in sound quality with SACD over RBCD, it isn't valid until it's proven that there is a measurable and audible improvement? You're requesting that someone validate what you hear with measurements and until then, you'd prefer to deny yourself the greater musical pleasure that you hear?

Or are you waiting for someone to prove that it doesn't just sound better to you but that it IS better? Again, you're willing to deny yourself what you yourself would perceive as better and more realistic sonics because the scientific community hasn't blessed it?

If I understand you, I DON'T understand you. How do you determine if you prefer Jif to Skippy, blondes to brunettes, baseball to football, Coke to Pepsi, etc? Preference, correct? So why not consider SACD a preference and be done with it? How do you determine if Heifetz' performance of Paganini's Caprices are "better" than Perlman's? Do you read the reviews and let the reviewers decide for you? When do your own perceptions count?

The total objectivist POV seems to me to be very restrictive and not much fun! I'm guessing that I just don't follow your viewpoint so please explain it, if you would.

Perception and hearing, two different events.

Your brain tells you there was something to be interpreted as a sound and here it is. That is perception. It may be real or your brain doing its usual tricks, filling in blank spaces or just making things up altogether. Your brain told you the person next to you said something you are not sure of what it was. You ask to repeat it just to be told nothing was communicated. Golden ears perceive a lot of non real sounds.
Hearing what can be demonstrated over and over on demand and at times in a credible manner such as under DBT conditions.

Similar to a feel of a chill when in fact no temperature change occurred.

[WmAx]

...please help me understand your POV. You wrote in an earlier post on this thread something to the effect that your perceptions (what you hear?) are no more valid than anyone elses. Did I understand correctly? So what you are saying is even if you hear an improvement in sound quality with SACD over RBCD, it isn't valid until it's proven that there is a measurable and audible improvement? You're requesting that someone validate what you hear with measurements and until then, you'd prefer to deny yourself the greater musical pleasure that you hear?
Mtrycraft's response to you was spot on -- pretty much what I would have stated in response.

Perception and reality are not nescarrily the same thing. This is what I mean.

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

Perception and reality are not nescarrily the same thing. This is what I mean.

-Chris


That is why eye witnesses in court are such an unreliable evidence :)

[DMK]

Mtrycraft's response to you was spot on -- pretty much what I would have stated in response.

Perception and reality are not nescarrily the same thing. This is what I mean.

-Chris

So you don't trust any of your perceptions until they're validated as reality by someone else?

[WmAx]

So you don't trust any of your perceptions until they're validated as reality by someone else?
Correct. However, I feel more confident if I ABX or DBT perception X and pass. Of course, this does not establish as fact yet since much more extensive testing/scrutiny need to be subjected to the results.

I feel you may be confusing matters. I am only referring to the perception vs. reality conclusions of perception X in relation to what can be considered fact or discussed with certainty. I have no adversions to enjoying/accepting unverified perceptions; I just do not and would not refer to them as certainties/facts when they have not been established as such. They would only be my perceptions.

Example of errored statement: I heard product Y and the imaging was superior then product Z.

Example of proper statement: I heard product Y and my perception was that the imaging was superior to product Z.

In the first example, the claim was made as fact, when this certainly is not verified. The 2nd example is an accurate statement in the case of an unverified claim. Regardless of the difference(s) of product Y vs. Z being real or imagined, the 2nd statement remains true.

-Chris

[DMK]

Correct. However, I feel more confident if I ABX or DBT perception X and pass. Of course, this does not establish as fact yet since much more extensive testing/scrutiny need to be subjected to the results.

I feel you may be confusing matters. I am only referring to the perception vs. reality conclusions of perception X in relation to what can be considered fact or discussed with certainty. I have no adversions to enjoying/accepting unverified perceptions; I just do not and would not refer to them as certainties/facts when they have not been established as such. They would only be my perceptions.

Example of errored statement: I heard product Y and the imaging was superior then product Z.

Example of proper statement: I heard product Y and my perception was that the imaging was superior to product Z.

In the first example, the claim was made as fact, when this certainly is not verified. The 2nd example is an accurate statement in the case of an unverified claim. Regardless of the difference(s) of product Y vs. Z being real or imagined, the 2nd statement remains true.

-Chris

I think most people's posts regarding the sound quality of this or that piece of gear is an obvious opinion but Sir Terence states his as facts, so I understand the argument better from your side. And I agree with the essence of your statements above, if not necessarily your take on SACD. But that's only my opinion at this point.

Do you ABX/DBT everything? I've done enough of that to know that I should pity you if you do! :D

[WmAx]

I think most people's posts regarding the sound quality of this or that piece of gear is an obvious opinion but Sir Terence states his as facts, so I understand the argument better from your side. Indeed, that is the point. You can research/search any of the specific issues I point out and verify. Also, you can email me or IM me and I will provide in-depth information, references or summarized information on any of the issues. The real problem for me is (1) people claiming opinions as absolute facts without substantiation [and] (2) when someone acts like they are conversing, but don't bother to read the details of my statements or do any level of reference/research/verification on the specific statements and yet respond with conviction as if they did do those things. Af for my views on SACD, etc., I actually have not made statements about this sounding one way or another; I just question/ask for substantiation of the 'sound' that is claimed by certain other parties on the merit of the actual format. In the event certain people only made these statements about a certain sound or quality as opinions, their would be nothing to debate! :-)




Do you ABX/DBT everything? I've done enough of that to know that I should pity you if you do!
No. I only subject myself to such tests when I can not find a reputable referenced perceptual test and that the testing I want to perform is feasible to perform.

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

So you don't trust any of your perceptions until they're validated as reality by someone else?


All depends what we are to accomplish with that perception. Convince others with it? Accept it as a personal issue of preference?
As an example, ask pctower how reliable eye witnesses are in the court of law, let alone in the court of science:) Remember the movie parallax view?

[hifitommy]

"parallax view"<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->