SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[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