• 08-03-2004, 08:17 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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.
    Quote:

    Perhaps you need to read what Bob Katz(someone you quoted from as word) on this issue

    http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_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.



    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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...

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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
    That's a backwards and counterproductive perspective. Prove it is importnat for playback and then I'm all ears....

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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...

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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
  • 08-04-2004, 05:21 AM
    hifitommy
    well steve
    emptycraft doesnt even believe that vinyl is a he rez format. so much for the 'analytical' mind.
  • 08-04-2004, 05:36 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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!!

    Quote:

    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.



    Quote:

    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.



    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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!!

    Quote:

    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 :-)

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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!!
  • 08-04-2004, 06:10 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

    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?

    Quote:

    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! :-)

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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

    Quote:

    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!

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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/bwco...256D7800673BBA

    From the summary of the resampling:

    "Software-based resampling is one of the new features of LabVIEW 7 Express, 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. "

    Quote:

    So your hairbrained idea about custom filters is rediculous from jump street.
    Did not bother to do even rudimentary research on the issue?

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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. :-)

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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
  • 08-04-2004, 07:11 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SteveW
    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.
  • 08-04-2004, 07:13 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hifitommy
    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.
  • 08-04-2004, 07:23 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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 ...

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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)
  • 08-04-2004, 07:38 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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 ...)

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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!
  • 08-04-2004, 08:17 PM
    hifitommy
    generation eXcrement
    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.
  • 08-05-2004, 09:45 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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.
  • 08-05-2004, 09:49 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    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.
  • 08-06-2004, 05:22 AM
    hifitommy
    once again
    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.
  • 08-06-2004, 10:27 AM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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...

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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.
  • 08-06-2004, 11:21 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    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.


    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    Not suprising you don't see the problem with that statement.
    Not surprising that you DO see a problem with this statement.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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/bwco...256D7800673BBA

    From the summary of the resampling:

    "Software-based resampling is one of the new features of LabVIEW 7 Express, 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.

    Quote:

    Did not bother to do even rudimentary research on the issue?
    Never make assumptions

    Quote:

    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!!!

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    [quoteMore speculations! :-)[/quote]
    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.
  • 08-06-2004, 01:07 PM
    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
  • 08-06-2004, 02:42 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    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
  • 08-06-2004, 03:05 PM
    DMK
    Chris, before you go...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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

    ...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.
  • 08-06-2004, 07:31 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    ...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.
  • 08-07-2004, 06:34 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    ...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
  • 08-07-2004, 07:14 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx

    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 :)
  • 08-08-2004, 05:58 AM
    DMK
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    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?
  • 08-08-2004, 07:08 AM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    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
  • 08-08-2004, 11:16 AM
    DMK
    Ok, thanks
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    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
  • 08-08-2004, 12:32 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    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! :-)


    Quote:

    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
  • 08-08-2004, 03:14 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    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?
  • 08-08-2004, 03:40 PM
    hifitommy
    mtry-this is the ONLY view you have
    "parallax view"<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->