-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
you are blathering. again.
Coming from you? LOL. You cannot comprehend the issues. Priceless indeed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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/a...ltrasonics.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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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.
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>
Quote:
Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies,
Quote:
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>
-
in all of this quagmire,
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.
-
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?
[b] but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]
Really?
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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
-
typical
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
[b]but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]
Really?
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
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.
-
Seems you have renewed my interest for the moment! :-)
Quote:
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
Quote:
, 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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
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.
Quote:
. 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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
-
Quote:
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
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>
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
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
-
nap time, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
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 -->
-
Yes, it is nap time for you. Way over your head. Best if you just read something you can.
-
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.
-
its funny
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by WmAx
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
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 :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
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.
-
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.
[b]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.
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?
[b]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.
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.
-
LOST for WORDS? nt
-
never claimed to be one
mtrycraft:" least of all in support of your claimed authority"
i just said that i can HEAR! you consistently demonstrate that you cannot.
|