SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[WmAx]

The true benefit of using a higher sampling rate comes from more in band sampling of the voltage of analog waveform. The more times you sample the waveform, the more precise the imaging, the better the tonal quality, and the higher the resolution of the audible signal.

All undeniably true if you remove the word audible from the end of this statement. You state this as if it's proven fact, and I am not aware of any research coming to this conclusion as far as audibility is concerned.

The higher up in sampling frequency you go, the more these things improve up until a point Read;

http://www.digitalproducer.com/artic...le.jsp?id=7408

Certainly it improves accuracy. Audibly with normal music playback? I don't see subtantial evidence of this.

Keep in mind, tests concerning the audiblity of high frequency information above human hearing are still inconclusive

That is the issue So far, the respected controlled tests/references on this subject have not been able to achieve a positive result.

So the perceived effects of higher frequencies on the listening experience have not been determined, and therefore CANNOT be ruled out

I did not state the contrary. I stated exactly this sediment, but I also stated that it is not logical to attribute the things 'credited' to hi-rez playback since their is no strong evidence that suggests that this should be the case. Until a peer-reviewed, scrutinized, valid audiblity test has been performed that achieves positive statistical signficance, then it can not be accepted as fact.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All undeniably true if you remove the word audible from the end of this statement. You state this as if it's proven fact, and I am not aware of any research coming to this conclusion as far as audibility is concerned.

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear. It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates. It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates, so I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.

Certainly it improves accuracy. Audibly with normal music playback? I don't see subtantial evidence of this.

What would constitute substantial to you? I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial. Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade, which can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know, then by all means do so, but that doesn't make good business sense to me.

That is the issue So far, the respected controlled tests/references on this subject have not been able to achieve a positive result.

They have not been able to acheive a negative result either. So it would be short sighted to discount it altogether.

did not state the contrary. I stated exactly this sediment, but I also stated that it is not logical to attribute the things 'credited' to hi-rez playback since their is no strong evidence that suggests that this should be the case. Until a peer-reviewed, scrutinized, valid audiblity test has been performed that achieves positive statistical signficance, then it can not be accepted as fact.

I disagree with your perspective entirely. In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment. I (like many engineers) have my own set of test that allow me to do this in a way that I can make an educated decision. It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase. That is inefficient and unnecessary. After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one. I do not need DBT , and a peer review to make that decision for me. It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.

(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community. That is not the job of a audio engineer. We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment. According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

I have taken this position and I am going to pretty much stick by it for now. I have done my own homework listening to various recordings I have done at various bit and sample rates. I have used several recorders during the same session set at various bit and sample rates so I can play them back and listen. I made my decision based on what I heard. If I heard no differences between 44.1, 48, and 96khz, I would have probably stuck with 44.1 since it required no investment. That however was not the case, and I invested in what I thought sounded the best.

Does the sample rate make a difference in sould quality? Definately. Why? I know it improves imaging, and the sound is cleaner and more distinct to the ear, but otherwise I don't know. Does bitrate matter? Only in recording and post production. I'll let the scientist figure the other crap out

[mtrycraft]

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear.


Or what they imagine to hear?
They should at least see what science has to say about it when that data is available.


It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.

What kind of documents? Not all documents are created equal.


It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates,

Same as above.

o I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.


But what will that intelligent engineer do when the data is in? Or, cannot be demonstrated? Ignore it?


I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial.


Substantial only by numbers. Doesn't mean much beyond that though. After all a huge number of people on the planet believe in the supreme being.

Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade,


That is absolute nonsense. One only has to look at the high end audio, and audio cable industry in specific.
This is a trend driven by numerous drivers. Besides, mastering is different from consumer audio listening and reproduction.


So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know,

Or, what they only think they know as that is certainly not out of question and is certainly a valid and real possibiolity.





In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment.


Subjectively, of course, right? So, it is prone top bias and gullibility?

It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase.

Ah, but if you did do such lisening tests, maybe you wouldn't follow the herd blindly and not waste you money foolishly?


That is inefficient and unnecessary.

Not if it gets you to an objective answer instead of guessing or just an expensive preference issue.

After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one.

How can you? It is based on a very subjective test prone to bias and unreliability.

I do not need DBT ,

That is unfortunate.



It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.

That is unfortunate also.


(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community.


While you have this opinion, it is unfounded.

That is not the job of a audio engineer.

Why not? I would think you wanted real answers, the truths, not maybe or whatever.


We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment.


That is the whole point. You don't know, not in an objective manner. You think you do but far from being a fact.

According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Well, at least you know it is not scientific. Why not find out for sure?
A higher percent believe in the supreme being. Where there is smoke there is fire, right?
How about psychics? Homeopathic medicines? We can go on and on, audio doesn't have immunity from nonsense, myths, hype, etc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear.

Or what they imagine to hear?
They should at least see what science has to say about it when that data is available.

Mtry, sorry man, I do not play into the "imagined" stuff. IN THIS CASE if we go by what you say, then you are the only sane one, and 90% of the engineers are there are suffering from mass suggestion. That is not logical, and is quite arrogant on your behalf. I do not think people who make a living at listening to audio are that stupid. Either you hear a benefit of a higher sampling rate, or you don't. It is that simple.


It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.

What kind of documents? Not all documents are created equal.

Can you decode this response and play it back to me?


It is well documented that engineers hear their mixes more clearly at higher sampling rates,

Same as above.

Yeah, same as above

o I don't think any intelligent engineer is going to sit around waiting for research on the issue.

But what will that intelligent engineer do when the data is in? Or, cannot be demonstrated? Ignore it?

I guess the answer will come when we cross that bridge, right? We haven't gotten there yet.


I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial.

Substantial only by numbers. Doesn't mean much beyond that though. After all a huge number of people on the planet believe in the supreme being.

What does a person believing in a supreme being have to do with audio? And what makes you think that a studio would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that was a figment of their imagination. Your response is incredibly silly. I gather you don't think audio engineers are very smart, and are subject to hearing things. Incredible!


Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade,

That is absolute nonsense. One only has to look at the high end audio, and audio cable industry in specific.
This is a trend driven by numerous drivers. Besides, mastering is different from consumer audio listening and reproduction.

Here is the problem with discussing recording with someone who has never done it. A piece of wire and a $8000.00 amp costs no where near a Sonic Solution DAW. These things cost $100,000-$200,000 , a far cry from a piece of wire, or any high end product. If there was no improvement in the sonics of this workstation, how could a studio(working on a margin)justify its costs? You are trying to use the woes of the high end audio and cable industry, and apply it to the recording industry. Sorry Mtry, this is a round peg, and you are trying to squeeze it into a square hole. Not the same.


So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know,

Or, what they only think they know as that is certainly not out of question and is certainly a valid and real possibiolity.

What right do you think you have to question their judgement? Do you know more than they do? I do not think so, and everyone cannot be imagining everything. If left up to you everyone is delusional, and there is no reason to pursue any sonic improvements ever. That is not logical or reasonable, and VERY shortsighted.

In case you didn't know it, I (like many other engineers) sit down for many hours testing and listening to new equipment to decide whether it is worth my investment.

Subjectively, of course, right? So, it is prone top bias and gullibility?

Audio quality is indeed a subjective thing don't you agree?. Some people like the sound of MP3, and I think it is crap. Some engineers(like myself) test randomly, and unlabeled do we do not know what is what. Some know exactly what they are listening to. The point is not to prove anything scientifically as YOU desire, but to listen and judge for yourself. Do you understand that concept, or are you too skeptical to actually LISTEN to music rather than testing it?

It is not my job to become a scientist, conduct listening test to obtain a statistical measure just to justify my purchase.

Ah, but if you did do such lisening tests, maybe you wouldn't follow the herd blindly and not waste you money foolishly?

So that's what you think everyone is doing(except you of course), just being sheep. Mtry either you are the most airheaded individual in the world, or you are just plain arrogant as hell. EVERYONE is not blind and deaf as you loosely assert. Some people hear no difference between 48khz and 96khz sampling rate, and therefore remain stuck in redbook standards, and some hear a definate improvement and upgrade. I guess you would say that there is no audible improvement going from MP3 at 128kbps to 24/96khz

That is inefficient and unnecessary.

Not if it gets you to an objective answer instead of guessing or just an expensive preference issue.

You are only assuming they are guessing, and that would be presumptuous on your part. No smart engineer or studio is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equipment unless it has been rigorous tested by more than one individual(in the case of a studio) or objectively in the case of a smart freelancer. It would be too costly of a mistake for no benefit. Do you think you are the only one that thinks this stuff up?

After I am finish testing a piece of equipment, I know for a fact that my decision to purchase, or not is an educated one.

How can you? It is based on a very subjective test prone to bias and unreliability.

How do you know what it is based on? I never released that information.

I do not need DBT ,

That is unfortunate.

For you maybe.

It is my feeling that most engineers feel this way.

That is unfortunate also.

Once again for you, not for us.


(This is just my opinion) DBT, research and publishing for peer review is for the scientific community.

[quote}While you have this opinion, it is unfounded.

Who made you God so you could decide this?

That is not the job of a audio engineer.

Why not? I would think you wanted real answers, the truths, not maybe or whatever.

You are assuming that an engineer testing methods do not yield accurate answers. More arrogance on your behalf. Maybe we are not quite as smart as you are in this area (sarcasm off)


We only need one answer, does it sound better than my current equipment.

That is the whole point. You don't know, not in an objective manner. You think you do but far from being a fact.

Once again, how do you know YOU are correct? More presumptuous statements here

According to polls taken at the Surround 2004 conference, about 86% of engineers polled believes that 24/96khz sounds better than 16/44.1khz. Is that scientific? No, but it leads me to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Well, at least you know it is not scientific. Why not find out for sure?
A higher percent believe in the supreme being. Where there is smoke there is fire, right?
How about psychics? Homeopathic medicines? We can go on and on, audio doesn't have immunity from nonsense, myths, hype, etc.

Everything is hype to you. So why bother with anything? Audio may not be immune from nonsense, but everyone is not ignorant as you would believe either. So what is your approach, everyone is stupid until science proves them smart?

Lets see, Mtry= no recordings, no experience recording, no recording education, but knows everything. Eliott Scheiner, Chuck Ainsley, Tony Brown, George Massenburg, Shawn Murphy and many more=almost a hundred years of experience between them, audio educated and degreed, thousands of recording between them, and they know nothing. Wow, Mtry you are a real legend(sarcasm off again)

[mtrycraft]

exchange. So wonderful to get the facts from ones who know they are correct, never question anything or anyone.

Oh, I cannot claim to be supernatural. That I will leave to others.

[DMK]

Oh, I cannot claim to be supernatural. That I will leave to others.

You may not be supernatural but I see you are an A/R Elite Member. There's just GOTTA be some perks in that!

[mtrycraft]

You may not be supernatural but I see you are an A/R Elite Member. There's just GOTTA be some perks in that!

You bet
More get to pound on me, longer

[WmAx]

Chris, it is not financially feasible for any engineer to sit around a wait for science to tell them what they already hear. It is well documented that engineers get better imaging from the use of higher sampling rates.....

I mean considering that just about every studio in Los Angeles, New York, Memphis, and every other major city that has a large music community has migrated from 16/44.1khz to 24/96khz, I would call that VERY substantial. Someone had to have heard an audible improvement, or there would be nothing to justify the cost of the upgrade, which can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if you are looking for science to prove what many already know, then by all means do so, but that doesn't make good business sense to me.....

They have not been able to acheive a negative result either. So it would be short sighted to discount it altogether. ....

I disagree with your perspective entirely.....

This seems like a lot of explaining. This is not needed. I stated my position. I don't see any reason I should excuse a certain group of people from the requirements of proof that everyone else is bound to. I don't buy the 'popular opinion' - this is no substantial evidence. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat ... that the Earth was the center of the universe and other various fallacies. The opinion of hundreds of millions of people did not make it so.


-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This seems like a lot of explaining. This is not needed. I stated my position. I don't see any reason I should excuse a certain group of people from the requirements of proof that everyone else is bound to. I don't buy the 'popular opinion' - this is no substantial evidence. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat ... that the Earth was the center of the universe and other various fallacies. The opinion of hundreds of millions of people did not make it so.


-Chris

Chris,

I hate to be the one that bursts your bubble, but know one in the industry really cares about your position. They don't care whether you excuse them or not from providing proof. What you need to do if you are so gung ho about holding audio engineers to your personal scrutiny, is to visit a studio and listen for yourself. You can postulate and pontificate on this audio forum all you desire, but if you are looking for evidence that someone hears improvements at higher sampling rate, you will be waiting a long time. You have heard neither DVD-A or SACD, and already by technical means (and not actually listening) condemning them as unnecessary. Music is for listening, and that what engineers do, they listen. If you really don't believe anything, and EVERYTHING is a marketing ploy then take a trip to a studio, and listen for yourself. If you are firm in your position, and are not willing to take a trip to a studio and listen for yourself, then you will find yourself still here at audioreview complaining like mad that science is the only way to tell what your ears hear. Science cannot measure imaging. Science cannot measure hearing more tightness in percussion, or space and air around instruments. So to rely so purely on science in a medium that requires that you listen, can sometime make you walk away with half a picture.

I am in the belief that more testing has to be done before anyone can discount anything. I think that bandwidth issue is pretty settled, but there are remaining issues yet to be explored. Rather than taking a hard fast position as you have, I will wait until more testing with filters, and converters and their influence on what we hear before I decide that 96khz is a waste. In the mean time, I will use what God gave me(my ears) and listening to those things that need listening to, and watch things that require my sight.

As far as your analogy about the earth, its off base. Audio has already discovered the earth was round, now we are looking into what is akin to the oceans, or best said area's where was have not sonically explored yet.

[mtrycraft]

science is the only way to tell what your ears hear.

That is the only way to tell in a reliable manner. If you don't believe that and it appears that you don't, that is unfortunate. I suppose acoustics was arrived without the scientific approach? Without DBT listeing?

Science cannot measure imaging.

You think? Perhaps phase shift between the two front speakers cannot be measured? But why measure it and spec it? As soon as you change your acoutic environment, it affects the phase shift at your ears.

Science cannot measure hearing more tightness in percussion, or space and air around instruments.

You really think this? I bet the scope can detect what you perceive that better than you can imagine it, at times.

So to rely so purely on science in a medium that requires that you listen, can sometime make you walk away with half a picture.

One thing to measure it which you stated cannot be done which would imply something beyond science and the physical world, kind of supernatural, and, another having a real need for it as these are greatly affected by the acoustic space, speakers and recording quality.
Perhaps you deal in mysticism?


I will use what God gave me(my ears) and listening to those things that need listening to, and watch things that require my sight.

Unfortunately he also threw in a monkey wrench, the brain that can confuse the issue, make stuff up and fill in blank information or a different bit when nothing has changed. But, hey, blame science for that for discovering it. Throw it out. Burn them at the stake.

[WmAx]

Chris,

I hate to be the one that bursts your bubble, but know one in the industry really cares about your position. They don't care whether you excuse them or not from providing proof.

I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do not see any new issues being brought up. Only a defense of non-scientific evaluation. You can refer to my previous replies, as if i reply at this point, it will be redundant.

-Chris

I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.

[WmAx]

I think I have learned enough from your replies that tell me that you would rather talk than listen. So I think its fair to say we have taken our debate as far as it can go.

It is true that I have no desire to listen to a subjectively-based standpoint on the issue(bandwidth audibility). I did try to make it clear I was uninterested in subjective perspecitve on this issue. I apologize if I was not satisfactorily clear. In the event that research data collected via controlled scenarios is discussed in this matter, I am all ears. :-)

-Chris