SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Thomas_A]

Well, if this issue means that much to you, then why not setup your own test? I typically opt out of these discussions because they're meaningless unless you have access to a high res master tape for comparison. Discussing the merits and dismerits of a format based strictly on listening to commercially distributed CDs and other music discs yields no meaningful conclusions unless you have a master available for comparison, or you produce your own master and run it through the downsampling cycles. Asking for proof as if everybody who works with digital audio equipment for a living has the time and inclination to go write their own academic papers is an equally meaningless spin job.

I used to do my own blind tests for various cassette tapes so that I could adjust the tape bias level to best match the source material. This was for my own dubbing purposes, and not meant for publication or peer reviewed scrutiny. Setting up my deck for the most transparent sound to the source was my goal, not trying to satisfy the demands of naysayers.

Like I said, if getting to an actual answer, as opposed to raising doubts about someone else's conclusions, is your actual end goal, then why not setup your own test?. With a PC, a microphone, a soundcard, and piano or other instrument of your choosing, you can easily record your own high res digital master and then put it through the downsampling cycles. If you hear any difference in the downsampled playback, then you have your answer. If you can't detect any difference, then you have your answer. Sitting back and asking for proof is nothing more than giving the appearance of having an answer by spinning the same question over and over.

But as I said before, tests have been done many times in the high-end studio mentioned above. They have not reported any audible difference during the many 16/44.1 tests that have been made and I am very familiar with the testing procedure. Reporting a null result is not much worth is it? A positive result would give much more, and since people claim that it is audible, there should be some supportive evidence somewhere. But so far, there is none. See also:

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

[Smokey]

As you said before, the issue about audibility is not going to be solved here, so why should I continue to talk about redbook CD vs. higher resolution media?

Thomas, issue here might not be the audibility of signal, but rather the integrity of it. As Sir TT mentioned, by filtering at 22 kHz, transient harmonics and sub-harmonics of signal might be effected and filtered out which are above 22 kHz.

Instead of providing complicated graphs of noise, dynamic or resolution figures, how about going back to basics of filtering on this issue which will shed some light on it. Here is an example:

Suppose we have a 20 kHz low pass filter and we run a 10 kHz square wave thru this filter. Common sense dictate that we will get a 10 kHz square wave out this filter since the cut off frequency is at 20 kHz. But that is not true. What we will get out this low pass filter is not a square wave, but a 10 kHz pure sine wave instead of square wave.

Since 10 kHz square wave is a combination of pure 10khs sine wave and infinite number of odd harmonics that are way beyond 20 kHz, then by filtering the harmonics that are above 20 kHz, we altering the integrity of signal.

The same argument can be applied to complex audio signals that contain many harmonics that are beyond 20 kHz. By filtering the signal around 22 kHz which CD red book does, we might be filtering out transient harmonics and sub-harmonics (which define its character), thus making the recording sound "cold" and too sanitized.

By moving the filtering to 44 kHz or 100 kHz for DVD-A or SACD, the integrity of signal is preserved, giving the sound quality a full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation.

[Thomas_A]

Thomas, issue here might not be the audibility of signal, but rather the integrity of it. As Sir TT mentioned, by filtering at 22 kHz, transient harmonics and sub-harmonics of signal might be effected and filtered out which are above 22 kHz.

Instead of providing complicated graphs of noise, dynamic or resolution figures, how about going back to basics of filtering on this issue which will shed some light on it. Here is an example:

Suppose we have a 20 kHz low pass filter and we run a 10 kHz square wave thru this filter. Common sense dictate that we will get a 10 kHz square wave out this filter since the cut off frequency is at 20 kHz. But that is not true. What we will get out this low pass filter is not a square wave, but a 10 kHz pure sine wave instead of square wave.

Since 10 kHz square wave is a combination of pure 10khs sine wave and infinite number of odd harmonics that are way beyond 20 kHz, then by filtering the harmonics that are above 20 kHz, we altering the integrity of signal.

The same argument can be applied to complex audio signals that contain many harmonics that are beyond 20 kHz. By filtering the signal around 22 kHz which CD red book does, we might be filtering out transient harmonics and sub-harmonics (which define its character), thus making the recording sound "cold" and too sanitized.

By moving the filtering to 44 kHz or 100 kHz for DVD-A or SACD, the integrity of signal is preserved, giving the sound quality a full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation.

But all this means that e.g. there should be an audible difference of 10 kHz squarewave and a 10kHz sinewave, right? There is no evidence of humans hearing above the 22 kHz, regardless whether it is harmonics in music or signals. There is one reference by Oohashi in J. Neurophysiology, but it contains many questionmarks around the method used. The ppt. file above have some more info.

The possibility remains that high frequency content mixes with with each other creating tartini tones of lower frequency, but I've done the tests and it very high levels even to be faintly audible when testing a tone of e.g. 20 kHz (inaudible for me) and 19.5 kHz (which should give difference tone 500 Hz in the ear). It is unlikely that anyone would ever hear difference tone distorsion (as created in the ear) if high frequency content above 20 kHz for music.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well if you look at the previous poster, it was more dealing with DSD vs. PCM in studio applications. And if you truly want to capture the nature of the music such a closed-miced trumpet (or symbals) which may have HF content up to 100 kHz and where the 30-50 kHz energy is 50-60 dB below the highest level harmonics of the trumpet signal, SACD will have problems. If the highest harmonic of a trumpet signal would be at -10 dB in a song, the HF harmonics between 30-50 kHz would be at at -60 to -70 dB, close to the noise of SACD. This will also go for transient information. Applying filters is not nessecary if you have PCM 24/192 - it will capture all of it.

24/192khz does not sound any better than 24/96khz to these ears. You can only record in stereo(which makes it only worthy of an alternate track status) and there are notable bass issues with 192khz. On some material encoded at 192khz, the bass seemed thinned and out of phase slightly. This has been noted by Chuck Ainly and Eliott Schneider on several of their mixes, but mentioned more widely at surround 2004..

While there are tweeters that extend to 50khz, I know of no tweeters that extends to 100khz, so that is a moot point. 24/192khz is not a prominent release format, and should not be compared to SACD which is. A better comparison would be with 24/96khz, but it also uses filters at 48khz, which is lower in frequency to SACD optional filter setting of 50khz. Most amplifiers either roll off signals above 50khz, or just don't produce them at all. While many consumer products(except speakers) are compatible with SACD and DVD-A at 24/96khz, I know of no consumer products optimized for 24/192khz. As far as the noise level, -60 to -70 is below the threshold of what most of us can hear even in a quiet room, but the ambient background level of most homes lies between 45 and 60db, so anything even near -60 or -70 is totally lost anyway. Trying to make a point with this data is focusing on irrelevant manutia with current consumer electronic equipment.

Looking at the region 10-20 kHz, SACD is no better than standard redbook, only below 10 kHz.

This data draws no such conclusions, and sounds like the rhetoric one hears from detractors of SACD. Your graph shows 24bit performance, not 16 bit. You have not taken phase or distortion measurments from each of these formats, so to say that SACD is no better than redbook in this context is a ball face lie.

As you said before, the issue about audibility is not going to be solved here, so why should I continue to talk about redbook CD vs. higher resolution media? You have not and don't want to provide any other data than your own experience, and there is not much backing up your claims. Thats fine, but what is there to discuss? Do you want to continue or not?

You are sounding exactly like Mtry, so what are you the echo?
As far as providing other data, I could give you thread after thread, url after url from audio engineers who sing the praises of the higher sampling rate. But you would just discount it because it doesn't square with what you think the facts are. IMO, I have done enough homework as a audio engineer to support whatever I claim. Because it is not evidence that YOU deem is worthy, you can easily discount it. But you were quick to mention a musician that call a particular studio "the best in the world" and you took that as fact, and presented it. This picking and choosing of valid facts is inconsistant, and does nothing to foster an intelligent debate. The people who work with the technology everyday opinions don't count, because there is no white paper to support what they hear. So in your opinion, only scientist who publish can be deemed credible. I think this is absurd, and insulting to anyone who is a very skilled and experienced audio engineer.

So based on all of this, I see no need in continuing. It is pointless because you cannot change what I hear, and I cannot change you mind on what you haven't heard.

[Woochifer]

But as I said before, tests have been done many times in the high-end studio mentioned above. They have not reported any audible difference during the many 16/44.1 tests that have been made and I am very familiar with the testing procedure. Reporting a null result is not much worth is it? A positive result would give much more, and since people claim that it is audible, there should be some supportive evidence somewhere. But so far, there is none. See also:

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

That link provides a lot of technical exposition, but little that supports the fundamental objection that you've put forth. Nowhere in that presentation does it specify that 44.1/16 is transparent to a higher resolution source. The tests were done using either commercially available sources, sources with filtering applied to the high end, or test tones of unknown origin. Hardly the same thing as comparing a master source with a downsampled copy.

And what is the nature of these "high end studio" tests that you mention? Are they actually doing level matched downsamples from an original high res source, and using the playback of that source as one of the comparisons? Nowhere in your original post on that Swedish high end studio do you mention the resolution of the original master that you claim supports the null result at 44.1/16 resolution.

Like I said, the professionals that I've met over the years don't have time to devote their energies and billables to writing theoretical white papers or rounding up test subjects for DBT sessions. They spend their time producing playback material that meets their clients' specifications and their own standard for sound quality. If it's an answer that you truly want to get at for your own etification, you don't need to wait for them to do the testing for you and spoon feed their results, when it's something that you can setup for yourself. If you come up with a null result, then that's the answer that you'll have for yourself.

For my own purposes, the high res discs that I've heard so far routinely outclass the CD versions. Whether that's due to parlor tricks with the mastering or if it's format-based, I don't have the means to arrive at my own answer, and frankly, I don't care. To me, it's about results and for my listening, the high res formats give me clear cut improvements in the sound quality for music that I enjoy, and isn't that the end goal in the first place? Whatever reasons exist for that improvement, I leave to people who actually want to find an answer rather than spin the same questions over and over.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But as I said before, tests have been done many times in the high-end studio mentioned above. They have not reported any audible difference during the many 16/44.1 tests that have been made and I am very familiar with the testing procedure. Reporting a null result is not much worth is it? A positive result would give much more, and since people claim that it is audible, there should be some supportive evidence somewhere. But so far, there is none. See also:

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

I have read this report, nothing new here. Did these numerous tests at this high end studio include listening to signals downconverted from higher sampled sources. Or did the test just transfer a analog signal to 16/44.1khz and compared from there? You make mention of these test, but you don't even follow your own example. Do you have a link that outlines how the test was implemented? Was this published? Do you have a link to the white paper?

[DMK]

Like I said, the professionals that I've met over the years don't have time to devote their energies and billables to writing theoretical white papers or rounding up test subjects for DBT sessions. They spend their time producing playback material that meets their clients' specifications and their own standard for sound quality. If it's an answer that you truly want to get at for your own etification, you don't need to wait for them to do the testing for you and spoon feed their results, when it's something that you can setup for yourself. If you come up with a null result, then that's the answer that you'll have for yourself.

For my own purposes, the high res discs that I've heard so far routinely outclass the CD versions. Whether that's due to parlor tricks with the mastering or if it's format-based, I don't have the means to arrive at my own answer, and frankly, I don't care. To me, it's about results and for my listening, the high res formats give me clear cut improvements in the sound quality for music that I enjoy, and isn't that the end goal in the first place? Whatever reasons exist for that improvement, I leave to people who actually want to find an answer rather than spin the same questions over and over.

For the first quoted paragraph, let's take our good friend Bigfoot since belief in him is seen as the same as belief in audible differences in, say, solid state preamps (or high rez digital vs redbook) with the same measurements. Let's say that I claimed I had seen Bigfoot and you asked for proof. I replied that Bigfoot would absolutely and unequivocally appear again at a certain place and time. Would you demand that I supply proof or would you go see for yourself? I don't know that answer but I would suggest you go see for yourself since I don't need proof and I don't feel the need to prove anything. After all, I'm satisfied he exists, right? All I've ever suggested (which is what you seem to be suggesting as well) is that you try it for yourself. Solid state preamps or digital systems are, of course, much more innocuous than perhaps Bigfoot is. What's the big deal? Why demand proof from me when you can easily get your own and then you don't have to take my word for it. Should I really be expected to go through another set of blind tests on preamps or digital when I've already done so, just to satisfy you???? I should waste more of MY time in order to make YOU happy??? What's in it for me? BTW, by "you" in the above, I'm not referring to Woochifer. The people I'm referring to know who they are.

For your second quoted paragraph, all I can say is "Bingo". Results count and the rest of the world can theorize and measure to their hearts content.

You nailed it, Wooch - top to bottom.

[Woochifer]

For the first quoted paragraph, let's take our good friend Bigfoot since belief in him is seen as the same as belief in audible differences in, say, solid state preamps (or high rez digital vs redbook) with the same measurements. Let's say that I claimed I had seen Bigfoot and you asked for proof. I replied that Bigfoot would absolutely and unequivocally appear again at a certain place and time. Would you demand that I supply proof or would you go see for yourself? I don't know that answer but I would suggest you go see for yourself since I don't need proof and I don't feel the need to prove anything. After all, I'm satisfied he exists, right? All I've ever suggested (which is what you seem to be suggesting as well) is that you try it for yourself. Solid state preamps or digital systems are, of course, much more innocuous than perhaps Bigfoot is. What's the big deal? Why demand proof from me when you can easily get your own and then you don't have to take my word for it. Should I really be expected to go through another set of blind tests on preamps or digital when I've already done so, just to satisfy you???? I should waste more of MY time in order to make YOU happy??? What's in it for me? BTW, by "you" in the above, I'm not referring to Woochifer. The people I'm referring to know who they are.

For your second quoted paragraph, all I can say is "Bingo". Results count and the rest of the world can theorize and measure to their hearts content.

You nailed it, Wooch - top to bottom.

Well, I guess my thing is that all these format debates are done in a vacuum since few people on this board have access to original masters by which to compare the LPs, CDs, DVD-As, and SACDs that are often cited as examples. Absent that kind of access, I can only go by what's available to me, and that's the discs themselves. My experience with high res digital has been very positive so far. If I find that those discs improve upon my listening experience, I keep buying them. If they offer no improvement over CDs, then I won't buy them. I could care less about proof as to why. If it's due to better mastering, it means better sound quality. If it's due to higher resolution, it means better sound quality. Same result with either conclusion, therefore I don't care about the reason behind it.

I mean, if I farted in the middle of a forest, what "proof" would I have that it occurred? By the time I tell everyone that I bellowed some flammables out my back side, the stench would have dissipated. I guess to make the naysayers happy, I'd have to have an immediate medical examination with probabilistic models setup to make a determination on the likelihood that I passed gas at the exact time interval that I claimed that I did. And even if that "proves" that my claim was likely, I'm sure the bias and self-delusion arguments will come up, and I'd have to write a white paper citing how I know for sure that my perception of flatulence was real and not imaginary.

On the other hand, I could just "force one out". You want proof, put your nose down to this and take a hit! Ah, thank you, you want another one sir? And if a naysayer claims that something reeks (well, provided that they can make a claim in the first place), I can either demand proof and ask them to replicate the phenomena or just tell that it's the top of their lip.

[mtrycraft]

Absent that kind of access, I can only go by what's available to me, and that's the discs themselves.


Or, you can research what has been experimented with and published by others.

These discs available will not tell you anything except that they may be different for who know what hundreds of reasons.

My experience with high res digital has been very positive so far.

As wxman posted the differences in dynamic compression would be one reason.

I could care less about proof as to why.

Ah, you are not the inquisitive type then. Maybe you are being fooled? Your perception is really unreliable? Who knows? Anything and everything could be it.

If it's due to better mastering, it means better sound quality. If it's due to higher resolution, it means better sound quality. Same result with either conclusion, therefore I don't care about the reason behind it.

Yet, another real possibility: just trickery by poorly doing the CD so the hi rez sounds superior. You don't want to know if you are fooled so easy?

I mean, if I farted in the middle of a forest, what "proof" would I have that it occurred?

None, unless you recorded it and soemone witnessed that recording.

By the time I tell everyone that I bellowed some flammables out my back side, the stench would have dissipated.

Next time, you could have vitnesses or you could repeat it on request.

I guess to make the naysayers happy, I'd have to have an immediate medical examination with probabilistic models setup to make a determination on the likelihood that I passed gas at the exact time interval that I claimed that I did.

No, you are making it too difficult.

And even if that "proves" that my claim was likely, I'm sure the bias and self-delusion arguments will come up, and I'd have to write a white paper citing how I know for sure that my perception of flatulence was real and not imaginary.

Or, it could be real with better evidence

[Thomas_A]

24/192khz does not sound any better than 24/96khz to these ears. You can only record in stereo(which makes it only worthy of an alternate track status) and there are notable bass issues with 192khz. On some material encoded at 192khz, the bass seemed thinned and out of phase slightly. This has been noted by Chuck Ainly and Eliott Schneider on several of their mixes, but mentioned more widely at surround 2004..

While there are tweeters that extend to 50khz, I know of no tweeters that extends to 100khz, so that is a moot point. 24/192khz is not a prominent release format, and should not be compared to SACD which is. A better comparison would be with 24/96khz, but it also uses filters at 48khz, which is lower in frequency to SACD optional filter setting of 50khz. Most amplifiers either roll off signals above 50khz, or just don't produce them at all. While many consumer products(except speakers) are compatible with SACD and DVD-A at 24/96khz, I know of no consumer products optimized for 24/192khz. As far as the noise level, -60 to -70 is below the threshold of what most of us can hear even in a quiet room, but the ambient background level of most homes lies between 45 and 60db, so anything even near -60 or -70 is totally lost anyway. Trying to make a point with this data is focusing on irrelevant manutia with current consumer electronic equipment.



This data draws no such conclusions, and sounds like the rhetoric one hears from detractors of SACD. Your graph shows 24bit performance, not 16 bit. You have not taken phase or distortion measurments from each of these formats, so to say that SACD is no better than redbook in this context is a ball face lie.



You are sounding exactly like Mtry, so what are you the echo?
As far as providing other data, I could give you thread after thread, url after url from audio engineers who sing the praises of the higher sampling rate. But you would just discount it because it doesn't square with what you think the facts are. IMO, I have done enough homework as a audio engineer to support whatever I claim. Because it is not evidence that YOU deem is worthy, you can easily discount it. But you were quick to mention a musician that call a particular studio "the best in the world" and you took that as fact, and presented it. This picking and choosing of valid facts is inconsistant, and does nothing to foster an intelligent debate. The people who work with the technology everyday opinions don't count, because there is no white paper to support what they hear. So in your opinion, only scientist who publish can be deemed credible. I think this is absurd, and insulting to anyone who is a very skilled and experienced audio engineer.

So based on all of this, I see no need in continuing. It is pointless because you cannot change what I hear, and I cannot change you mind on what you haven't heard.

Oh, so you now wish to continue to discuss? Changed your mind? If SACD cannot reproduce the information for normal music in 30-50 kHz how much better is it than redbook CD? And if you cannot hear above 18 kHz, how should you be able to hear the better resolution of DVD-A and SACD? Your attempts to make an explanation to this has not been successful at all.

The graph is a citation from Stereophile, so it's not my graph. It is easy to look at their homepage and look at 16 bit data and it shows that SACD is no better in the highest octave 10-20 kHz. Have you not seen this before at all? Or must I present all the data for you?

Votes from the masses are nothing that impresses me. And scientists are no guarantee, but they have a high control of methods and there are references and referees. You have only experience.

[Thomas_A]

I have read this report, nothing new here. Did these numerous tests at this high end studio include listening to signals downconverted from higher sampled sources. Or did the test just transfer a analog signal to 16/44.1khz and compared from there? You make mention of these test, but you don't even follow your own example. Do you have a link that outlines how the test was implemented? Was this published? Do you have a link to the white paper?

Most of the tests are published in the Journal from the Swedish Audio-Technical Society, but in Swedish. They are not peer reviewed. As I said before I have participated in other tests, and they always contain blind tests with statistics of the number of correct choices. That the journal exist can be seen from small number of translated articles, although only of general interest subjects, here:

http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
http://www.sonicdesign.se/tooleinw.htm
http://www.sonicdesign.se/optimum.html
http://www.sonicdesign.se/subplace.html

A PDF-link to a test between media:

http://www.lts.a.se/artiklar/SACD-praktik.pdf

It's one of the tests published in "Musik & Ljudteknik" no 1/2002. It's in Swedish.

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.

I won't go through the program material 4 & 5, since I have no time for translation of the whole text.


When it comes to 16/44.1, other persons at the Studio have made conversions and listening tests and also made recording in directly in different formats. Their conclusion was that 16/44.1 is sufficient as long as you don't play as loud that you hear the dither noise.Thus when listening to music at realistic levels, there was no audible difference. I gave a link to the discussion between CD, SACD and DVD-A and it is mentioned that the CD standard is much more transparent than people believe. It is of course based on the various tests made. Here they are again:

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
http://www.fivechannels.com/artiklar...A-followup.htm

You will probably now say say that these are irrelevant, but then you have probably not read all of it.

And as you claim above, the HF content does not matter. It is i) not heard because our ≈18 kHz limits, ii) it will be masked by music and noise. That means I can do the tests at home right? No need of supertweeters. And there should be an clear audible improvement of the sound if I sample at 24/96 than at 16/44.1?

And again, can you or cannot you provide any data from your listening tests. ABX, blind, double-blind, who was the test leader and how many correct choices? Since you claim to have positive results according to AES standards it should be data, right? Negative results will be series like 5/10, 6/10 4/10 etc. Positive will be 9/10, 10/10 9/10 etc.

[Thomas_A]

That link provides a lot of technical exposition, but little that supports the fundamental objection that you've put forth. Nowhere in that presentation does it specify that 44.1/16 is transparent to a higher resolution source. The tests were done using either commercially available sources, sources with filtering applied to the high end, or test tones of unknown origin. Hardly the same thing as comparing a master source with a downsampled copy.

And what is the nature of these "high end studio" tests that you mention? Are they actually doing level matched downsamples from an original high res source, and using the playback of that source as one of the comparisons? Nowhere in your original post on that Swedish high end studio do you mention the resolution of the original master that you claim supports the null result at 44.1/16 resolution.

Like I said, the professionals that I've met over the years don't have time to devote their energies and billables to writing theoretical white papers or rounding up test subjects for DBT sessions. They spend their time producing playback material that meets their clients' specifications and their own standard for sound quality. If it's an answer that you truly want to get at for your own etification, you don't need to wait for them to do the testing for you and spoon feed their results, when it's something that you can setup for yourself. If you come up with a null result, then that's the answer that you'll have for yourself.

For my own purposes, the high res discs that I've heard so far routinely outclass the CD versions. Whether that's due to parlor tricks with the mastering or if it's format-based, I don't have the means to arrive at my own answer, and frankly, I don't care. To me, it's about results and for my listening, the high res formats give me clear cut improvements in the sound quality for music that I enjoy, and isn't that the end goal in the first place? Whatever reasons exist for that improvement, I leave to people who actually want to find an answer rather than spin the same questions over and over.

See the post above, you have information of the source and test material in one of the tests made. I don't want to write once again but if there is a null result, there is no meaning of publishing the scores of the blind tests. Ususally, when tests are made and there is no one that can make out the difference in an open test, there is no blinding made. Only when some test subjects think there is a difference, they continue with blind tests to confirm the observation.

Since SirTT claims that virtually every studio engineer claims that higher res is audible different than CD standard, and that tests he have been done are according to "AES standard". Does this not include test protocols, randomization, ABX, blinding, scores, statistiscs? Or what does this mean? The tests are of course not for me but to validate what is audible or not in a scientific way. Then there must be documentation of the above mentioned items. But so far, there has been none of this presented here or elsewhere to my knowlegde.

Besides, the tests might be for me - if it can be proven that higher res is audibly more accurate (not just different) I would start to buy high-res records and update the equipment that are required. So it is a question of whether I should spend money on something which is audible or to be fooled by claims that have no proper grounds. Cf. with the cable debate.

[Woochifer]

Absent that kind of access, I can only go by what's available to me, and that's the discs themselves.


Or, you can research what has been experimented with and published by others.

These discs available will not tell you anything except that they may be different for who know what hundreds of reasons.

Right on cue, why the hell would I need to research when all I'm interested in is whether a high res disc that I buy sounds better than a CD version? There may be hundreds of reasons, but that still doesn't change the results that I've experienced thus far.

I could care less about proof as to why.

Ah, you are not the inquisitive type then. Maybe you are being fooled? Your perception is really unreliable? Who knows? Anything and everything could be it.

Or maybe you are the uninquisitive type since you'd rather read about theory, bench tests, and white papers than actually compare different disc versions. If the mastering and the EQ settings are the biggest determinent, doesn't matter to me since preference is subjective. Thus far I've yet to encounter a high res disc version that did not present at least a subtle improvement in the sound quality over the CD version. If I'm being fooled, then please share a definitive reason why this is so rather than speculating about what I'm perceiving.

If it's due to better mastering, it means better sound quality. If it's due to higher resolution, it means better sound quality. Same result with either conclusion, therefore I don't care about the reason behind it.

Yet, another real possibility: just trickery by poorly doing the CD so the hi rez sounds superior. You don't want to know if you are fooled so easy?

Another strawman argument, since if a CD was mastered poorly to begin with, of course I would want to replace it with something that has better audio quality, irregardless of format. In many cases over the years, I have replaced first generation CDs with remastered versions that clearly improved upon the audio quality. And more recently, I have replaced some of them with high res versions. No trickery there, just a bad transfer getting replaced by a better one.

I mean, if I farted in the middle of a forest, what "proof" would I have that it occurred?

None, unless you recorded it and soemone witnessed that recording.

Now we're getting somewhere! So basically you're saying that anything that anyone experiences that was not recorded or witnessed is imaginary and delusional without proof? I guess if someone tells you that they're having a good day, your first response is "Prove it". If if they tell you that they feel good, you won't believe them until they write a white paper with unbiased measures as to why, eh? And if you ever get around to stating something definitive about something that you personally experienced, rather than just spinning questions and trying to conjure up doubt about what others experience for themselves, then I'm sure that will all be documented, recorded, and proven to scientific standards. No wonder why you never share anything about what you listen to.

By the time I tell everyone that I bellowed some flammables out my back side, the stench would have dissipated.

Next time, you could have vitnesses or you could repeat it on request.

Or I can just empty out my stomach and intestinal contents and let you do stool studies to calculate a probability for flatulence since proof is what you live for.

I guess to make the naysayers happy, I'd have to have an immediate medical examination with probabilistic models setup to make a determination on the likelihood that I passed gas at the exact time interval that I claimed that I did.

No, you are making it too difficult.

Oh, but no standard is too difficult if PROOF is what you desire. If I tell you that I farted in the forest, what would make a naysayer believe me? I thought so...

And even if that "proves" that my claim was likely, I'm sure the bias and self-delusion arguments will come up, and I'd have to write a white paper citing how I know for sure that my perception of flatulence was real and not imaginary.

Or, it could be real with better evidence

Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions. And we all know how unreliable, delusional, and imaginary those are, right? Like I said, what proof would you have that some foul stench originated externally or just something off the top of your lip?

[Woochifer]

See the post above, you have information of the source and test material in one of the tests made. I don't want to write once again but if there is a null result, there is no meaning of publishing the scores of the blind tests. Ususally, when tests are made and there is no one that can make out the difference in an open test, there is no blinding made. Only when some test subjects think there is a difference, they continue with blind tests to confirm the observation.

Why not publish the null results? Since for a positive finding you're demanding "proof" via peer reviewed papers, documented sessions, blind testing techniques, etc. Wouldn't a null finding with the same level of scrutiny add to your contention of transparency between the various sources and sampling rates? Those links that you point to are basically anti-SACD articles that got passed around these boards a couple of years ago by the pro-DVD-A camp. Again, they say NOTHING about the transparency of the 44.1/16 format to a high res original source. That studio test that you cite does absolutely nothing to support your contention. Your contention is only supported by anecdotes, so I hardly regard that as the gold standard of proof that you demand from others.

Since SirTT claims that virtually every studio engineer claims that higher res is audible different than CD standard, and that tests he have been done are according to "AES standard". Does this not include test protocols, randomization, ABX, blinding, scores, statistiscs? Or what does this mean? The tests are of course not for me but to validate what is audible or not in a scientific way. Then there must be documentation of the above mentioned items. But so far, there has been none of this presented here or elsewhere to my knowlegde.

Again, most of the sound engineers that I've met over the years don't have the time or inclination to do scientific publications. If that's all that you're interested in, then by all means indulge yourself! We would LOVE to hear about what you find out under the conditions that you prescribe. Basically, if you want proof, put up or shut up.

[Woochifer]

Votes from the masses are nothing that impresses me. And scientists are no guarantee, but they have a high control of methods and there are references and referees. You have only experience.

These "votes from the masses" if we accept T's informal polling, are sound engineers who work with the equipment everyday and have access to both board feeds and master sources, things that the buying "masses" do not have access to. So, I don't think that their opinions can just be thrown into the pile with everybody else. Scientists may know how to bench test different wave phenomena, but that doesn't mean that they know squat about how to properly record live instruments or mix multitracks together to create a spatial image, or know anything about the techniques that have to be deployed to tailor a final mix to the playback format. T "only" has experience, but that still seems to be a lot more than you (or I or most others on this board) have.

[Thomas_A]

Why not publish the null results? Since for a positive finding you're demanding "proof" via peer reviewed papers, documented sessions, blind testing techniques, etc. Wouldn't a null finding with the same level of scrutiny add to your contention of transparency between the various sources and sampling rates? Those links that you point to are basically anti-SACD articles that got passed around these boards a couple of years ago by the pro-DVD-A camp. Again, they say NOTHING about the transparency of the 44.1/16 format to a high res original source. That studio test that you cite does absolutely nothing to support your contention. Your contention is only supported by anecdotes, so I hardly regard that as the gold standard of proof that you demand from others.



Again, most of the sound engineers that I've met over the years don't have the time or inclination to do scientific publications. If that's all that you're interested in, then by all means indulge yourself! We would LOVE to hear about what you find out under the conditions that you prescribe. Basically, if you want proof, put up or shut up.

Oh..proof of a negative? How is that possible? If there is proof of a positive, that's the way. I provided one link in Swedish and a short explanation of the test and results. No difference was heard between samples 1-3 in that test and in no other test I've seen have been positive. I've never claimed proof that needs to be peer reviewed, although that would strengthen it. Only the details of the test and the test scores IF there was a difference. Since there apparently are tests being done according to "AES standards" then there should be some numbers. If not, there is no proof. Knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others.

[Thomas_A]

These "votes from the masses" if we accept T's informal polling, are sound engineers who work with the equipment everyday and have access to both board feeds and master sources, things that the buying "masses" do not have access to. So, I don't think that their opinions can just be thrown into the pile with everybody else. Scientists may know how to bench test different wave phenomena, but that doesn't mean that they know squat about how to properly record live instruments or mix multitracks together to create a spatial image, or know anything about the techniques that have to be deployed to tailor a final mix to the playback format. T "only" has experience, but that still seems to be a lot more than you (or I or most others on this board) have.

No, I don't throw opinions away. If I did I would not be here. If there is knowledge that breaks new grounds, I'm happy to learn. But I'm not satisfied with just opinions. I may upgrade to high-res audio if that shows to be audible in some way. But until no evidence exist, I'll keep my equipment.

[Woochifer]

Oh..proof of a negative? How is that possible? If there is proof of a positive, that's the way. I provided one link in Swedish and a short explanation of the test and results. No difference was heard between samples 1-3 in that test and in no other test I've seen have been positive. I've never claimed proof that needs to be peer reviewed, although that would strengthen it. Only the details of the test and the test scores IF there was a difference. Since there apparently are tests being done according to "AES standards" then there should be some numbers. If not, there is no proof. Knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others.

No, a null result is not proof of a negative, it's a nonconclusive finding. But, documenting those null results has value, especially since we're in the rhelm of comparing a 44.1/16 source against a high res master. Are you saying that something should be published ONLY if a positive result shows up? You're making a leap of logic to assume that all of these unpublished null results that you cite as proof of transparency between 44.1/16 and the master source are every bit as credible as the opinions of sound engineers who work with high res digital equipment on a daily basis.

To you the knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others, yet these null results that help bolster your case aren't published -- does that not make your point worthless as well since it also exists strictly in the rhelm of opinion? Conversely, it's not a recording engineer's obligation to try and prove the worth of his/her procedures to a layperson. One of two of them out of thousands, it might be disputable, but considering how the entire industry has standardized around high resolution digital formats, either you got a case of mass delusion occurring or the merits of higher resolution than 44.1/16 are very clear to the people who have the best access to the source material that can help make that determination.

No, I don't throw opinions away. If I did I would not be here. If there is knowledge that breaks new grounds, I'm happy to learn. But I'm not satisfied with just opinions. I may upgrade to high-res audio if that shows to be audible in some way. But until no evidence exist, I'll keep my equipment.

You're assuming that the only difference between CDs and high res discs is the resolution, and you seem to have judged the merits of the formats based strictly on bench tests, which does not say anything about how actual CDs compare to their high res versions. Have you even bothered giving any of the high res formats a listen? I'm not basing my opinion of the high res formats on theoretical arguments, I'm basing it on what gets demonstrated to me by what's actually available to an end consumer. On that basis, I've yet to hear a high res disc that does not at least subtlely improve upon the CD version (in some cases, the improvement is huge). As I've stated many times, I don't care about the causal effects, I only care about the end results. Theoretical arguments I'll leave to the recording engineers who work with the technology, and anyone else who has the time and inclination to deal with those questions.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of CDs still on the market that were poorly transferred in the first place. The high res formats afford an opportunity to not only get the transfer done right, but also to create a multichannel mix as well as a remixed two-channel master (since creating a multichannel mix requires going back to the original multitrack master and do the mixdown without the degradation that you got with analog equipment) and benefit from the higher resolution, whether or not you believe that the resolution alone has any causal effect. That's a practical benefit that these theoretical spin jobs almost always ignore. If you'd rather live in theory and technical details and base your opinion of the high res formats' value strictly on that basis while ignoring the practical improvements that are easily demonstrated by the discs on the market, that's your choice

[mtrycraft]

Right on cue, why the hell would I need to research when all I'm interested in is whether a high res disc that I buy sounds better than a CD version? There may be hundreds of reasons, but that still doesn't change the results that I've experienced thus far.

Yes, you don't need to do any further research unless you think it is because of the hi res format alone is the reason.



[b]Or maybe you are the uninquisitive type since you'd rather read about theory, bench tests, and white papers than actually compare different disc versions. [b]

Not difficult to have twop pressings ythat sound different. What does that tell you about the cause? Nothing, certainly not if it is caused by the hi res process. That is the downfall of comparing two unknown disc processes. Not much can be found out if they are different and one prefers one over the other. Certainly not why.



If the mastering and the EQ settings are the biggest determinent, doesn't matter to me since preference is subjective.

Yes, preference is subjective, end of story, nothing to discuss about a preference.

Thus far I've yet to encounter a high res disc version that did not present at least a subtle improvement in the sound quality over the CD version.


That is exactely what the original post started this whole thread.
You still have no idea if that difference is the cause of the recording process or the different technology. It may not matter at all in the end. It matters when one wants to know or claim that it is due because of the hi res format alone.

If I'm being fooled, then please share a definitive reason why this is so rather than speculating about what I'm perceiving.

Oh, you are most likely not fooled into perceiving differences, the original post stated why this is. You just have no idea if you are fooled into thinking because of the hi res format and not something else that could make the CD just as good.




And more recently, I have replaced some of them with high res versions. No trickery there, just a bad transfer getting replaced by a better one.

Yep, that is all that is happening a better transfer, not necessarily due to hi res process.



Now we're getting somewhere! So basically you're saying that anything that anyone experiences that was not recorded or witnessed is imaginary and delusional without proof?

one has no idea if it is something of importance that one makes claims about. In your example, it is a non event, couldn't care less what anyone claimed.

I guess if someone tells you that they're having a good day, your first response is "Prove it".

Why would I? Not really important to me. If it was, I asked what good happened. If they claimed extraordinary events, yes, I would ask for further substantiation, if it was important.


If if they tell you that they feel good, you won't believe them until they write a white paper with unbiased measures as to why, eh?

Same.

then I'm sure that will all be documented, recorded, and proven to scientific standards.

Yes, certainly, if it was important enough.

No wonder why you never share anything about what you listen to.

Oh, I have stated what music I listen to mostly. Everything else is rather irrelevant.


Or I can just empty out my stomach and intestinal contents and let you do stool studies to calculate a probability for flatulence since proof is what you live for.

If this mattered. It doesn't.



Oh, but no standard is too difficult if PROOF is what you desire. If I tell you that I farted in the forest, what would make a naysayer believe me? I thought so...

Unimportant. Nothing extraordinary there. An easy event to perform. Very probable so why would I bother with anything?




Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions. And we all know how unreliable, delusional, and imaginary those are, right? Like I said, what proof would you have that some foul stench originated externally or just something off the top of your lip?

Would need more subjects and testing for sure.

[Woochifer]

[b]Or maybe you are the uninquisitive type since you'd rather read about theory, bench tests, and white papers than actually compare different disc versions. [b]

Not difficult to have twop pressings ythat sound different. What does that tell you about the cause? Nothing, certainly not if it is caused by the hi res process. That is the downfall of comparing two unknown disc processes. Not much can be found out if they are different and one prefers one over the other. Certainly not why.

Doesn't tell me anything, and the resolution remains one of the variables. What else would you want to find out? I do my listening and comparing, and if one sounds better than the other, then that's the one that I listen to. Coincidental that the ones that I've preferred under those circumstances just happened to all be the high res versions.

Thus far I've yet to encounter a high res disc version that did not present at least a subtle improvement in the sound quality over the CD version.


That is exactely what the original post started this whole thread.
You still have no idea if that difference is the cause of the recording process or the different technology. It may not matter at all in the end. It matters when one wants to know or claim that it is due because of the hi res format alone.

But, you're presuming that it matters to me whether the improvements that I perceive are due to the format alone. And it's not like I got the means to make a determination on the format as the sole causal effect anyway, so the issue's a nonstarter. All I got to go on is the discs themselves, and if they're merely mastered better, then I still benefit with improved sound quality and get a multichannel mix thrown in for good measure.

If I'm being fooled, then please share a definitive reason why this is so rather than speculating about what I'm perceiving.

Oh, you are most likely not fooled into perceiving differences, the original post stated why this is. You just have no idea if you are fooled into thinking because of the hi res format and not something else that could make the CD just as good.

Again, you're trying to manufacture an argument here. I never stated that the improvements that I perceived were solely due to the resolution. You're the one who's trying to steer the discussion in that direction, and to me that has no merit given that nobody else who's chimed in (except for maybe Terrence) has the means immediately at their disposal to do the necessary comparisons to confirm or rule the resolution out as a potential causal effect.

Yep, that is all that is happening a better transfer, not necessarily due to hi res process.

How do you know? Have you ever done a DBT between a master and downsampled copy? Unless you've heard the masters that created both versions of the discs that I've compared, you have no basis for assessing the importance of one factor over another.

Now we're getting somewhere! So basically you're saying that anything that anyone experiences that was not recorded or witnessed is imaginary and delusional without proof?

one has no idea if it is something of importance that one makes claims about. In your example, it is a non event, couldn't care less what anyone claimed.

Why would you not care? If someone tells you that they farted, wouldn't a naysayer's first instinct be to ask for proof? And in the absence of that proof, infer delusion, bias, and unreliability of sensory perceptions? After all, a person can only know of their flatulence through their senses, which of course are susceptible to all kinds of distortions.

I guess if someone tells you that they're having a good day, your first response is "Prove it".

Why would I? Not really important to me. If it was, I asked what good happened. If they claimed extraordinary events, yes, I would ask for further substantiation, if it was important.

What if they just told you that they feel good? They're providing you with no proof. Would you believe them just because they told you, or would you doubt their assessment since feelings and perception are so fraught with fallibility?

then I'm sure that will all be documented, recorded, and proven to scientific standards.

Yes, certainly, if it was important enough.

At least you're consistent.

No wonder why you never share anything about what you listen to.

Oh, I have stated what music I listen to mostly. Everything else is rather irrelevant.

Oh? I guess that's why you never make any assertions of your own, and just churn questions over and over.

Or I can just empty out my stomach and intestinal contents and let you do stool studies to calculate a probability for flatulence since proof is what you live for.

If this mattered. It doesn't.

Oh, but if you doubted my ability to make an assessment of an event based solely on my sensory perceptions, then it matters a lot. You want proof? There you'd have it. The means are at your disposal, it's only up to you whether or not you want to get at an answer or just try and make points by conjuring up doubts.

Oh, but no standard is too difficult if PROOF is what you desire. If I tell you that I farted in the forest, what would make a naysayer believe me? I thought so...

Unimportant. Nothing extraordinary there. An easy event to perform. Very probable so why would I bother with anything?

Easy event to perform, under the right circumstances, but those circumstances don't always exist. If I had told you that event occurred at a specific time, you would just have to take my word for it. And that's never the first instinct of a naysayer, now is it?

Yes, but if I unload one close to your nose, how would you be able to prove to yourself that it occurred since all you're relying on is your sensory perceptions. And we all know how unreliable, delusional, and imaginary those are, right? Like I said, what proof would you have that some foul stench originated externally or just something off the top of your lip?

Would need more subjects and testing for sure.

Let the Taco Bell party begin...

[hifitommy]

this whole thing is beginning to seem like a mat groenig episode.

[mtrycraft]

Doesn't tell me anything, and the resolution remains one of the variables. What else would you want to find out? I do my listening and comparing, and if one sounds better than the other, then that's the one that I listen to. Coincidental that the ones that I've preferred under those circumstances just happened to all be the high res versions.

Ah, you are jumping to a cause without knowing the effect. No, not all cause related to the effect. Hi res protocol must be the cause for your preference. You have zero idea of that cause and effect and not interested obviously.
As I indicated, easy to master two discs differently by mixing it differently. It so happens that the high res is mixed differently, period. This was well demontrated when Sony was caught with their pants down in just such a test that they tried to cheat on. Oh, yes, that is also published.



But, you're presuming that it matters to me whether the improvements that I perceive are due to the format alone.

Not at all. You express that very well on your own.

And it's not like I got the means to make a determination on the format as the sole causal effect anyway, so the issue's a nonstarter.

Doesn't seem like you are interested in knowing, just correlate the easyest cause and effect. Doesn't work so simply. You have not ruled out other causes in this case, mixes.

[b]All I got to go on is the discs themselves, and if they're merely mastered better, then I still benefit with improved sound quality and get a multichannel mix thrown in for good measure. [b]

Yes, multi channel is the real benefit not available on CD. Since you only have the disc, you seem to rule out causes that doesn't fit for you?
Nothing wrong with remastering better. But that has nothing to do with a hi res capability.




Again, you're trying to manufacture an argument here. I never stated that the improvements that I perceived were solely due to the resolution. You're the one who's trying to steer the discussion in that direction, and to me that has no merit given that nobody else who's chimed in (except for maybe Terrence) has the means immediately at their disposal to do the necessary comparisons to confirm or rule the resolution out as a potential causal effect.

That is fine. More reason not to jump to an unwarranted conclusion then why they sound different, right?



How do you know? Have you ever done a DBT between a master and downsampled copy? Unless you've heard the masters that created both versions of the discs that I've compared, you have no basis for assessing the importance of one factor over another.

Oh, easy. No evidence exist, actually the contrary, that it is not the hi res at work. That is the issue, isn't it? You and others certainly jump to that conclusion in a hurry.



Why would you not care? If someone tells you that they farted, wouldn't a naysayer's first instinct be to ask for proof?

Actually, now you atre the one that seem to be delusional about this issue.


What if they just told you that they feel good? They're providing you with no proof. Would you believe them just because they told you, or would you doubt their assessment since feelings and perception are so fraught with fallibility?

Really not important, it is a feeling, isn't it? Just as the above silly comparison you are trying to conjourne up.

[Thomas_A]

No, a null result is not proof of a negative, it's a nonconclusive finding. But, documenting those null results has value, especially since we're in the rhelm of comparing a 44.1/16 source against a high res master. Are you saying that something should be published ONLY if a positive result shows up? You're making a leap of logic to assume that all of these unpublished null results that you cite as proof of transparency between 44.1/16 and the master source are every bit as credible as the opinions of sound engineers who work with high res digital equipment on a daily basis.

To you the knowledge is worthless if it cannot be delivered to others, yet these null results that help bolster your case aren't published -- does that not make your point worthless as well since it also exists strictly in the rhelm of opinion? Conversely, it's not a recording engineer's obligation to try and prove the worth of his/her procedures to a layperson. One of two of them out of thousands, it might be disputable, but considering how the entire industry has standardized around high resolution digital formats, either you got a case of mass delusion occurring or the merits of higher resolution than 44.1/16 are very clear to the people who have the best access to the source material that can help make that determination.

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive. Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

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

You're assuming that the only difference between CDs and high res discs is the resolution, and you seem to have judged the merits of the formats based strictly on bench tests, which does not say anything about how actual CDs compare to their high res versions. Have you even bothered giving any of the high res formats a listen? I'm not basing my opinion of the high res formats on theoretical arguments, I'm basing it on what gets demonstrated to me by what's actually available to an end consumer. On that basis, I've yet to hear a high res disc that does not at least subtlely improve upon the CD version (in some cases, the improvement is huge). As I've stated many times, I don't care about the causal effects, I only care about the end results. Theoretical arguments I'll leave to the recording engineers who work with the technology, and anyone else who has the time and inclination to deal with those questions.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of CDs still on the market that were poorly transferred in the first place. The high res formats afford an opportunity to not only get the transfer done right, but also to create a multichannel mix as well as a remixed two-channel master (since creating a multichannel mix requires going back to the original multitrack master and do the mixdown without the degradation that you got with analog equipment) and benefit from the higher resolution, whether or not you believe that the resolution alone has any causal effect. That's a practical benefit that these theoretical spin jobs almost always ignore. If you'd rather live in theory and technical details and base your opinion of the high res formats' value strictly on that basis while ignoring the practical improvements that are easily demonstrated by the discs on the market, that's your choice

I am not assuming that the only difference is the resolution. The only TECHNICAL difference is the resolution and the storage amount. What the recording engineers put there is different, and if the continue to make bad recordings on CD when there is no reason for it, is it to push other formats becuase they think "CD is technically bad" or any other reasons ? Using 8-10 bits of resolution and compressed material on CD when there are 16, is a bad thing not good.

I have listened to so-called hybrid discs with SACD and CD. And you are sure that there are improvements or just different? There are excellent SACD pressings as there are CD ones, even though they get more rare - because of the above.

I only speak as a medium for two-channel music as previously said.

[Woochifer]

Doesn't tell me anything, and the resolution remains one of the variables. What else would you want to find out? I do my listening and comparing, and if one sounds better than the other, then that's the one that I listen to. Coincidental that the ones that I've preferred under those circumstances just happened to all be the high res versions.

Ah, you are jumping to a cause without knowing the effect. No, not all cause related to the effect. Hi res protocol must be the cause for your preference. You have zero idea of that cause and effect and not interested obviously.
As I indicated, easy to master two discs differently by mixing it differently. It so happens that the high res is mixed differently, period. This was well demontrated when Sony was caught with their pants down in just such a test that they tried to cheat on. Oh, yes, that is also published.

Quite the contrary. I am only going by effect, not documenting the cause, since as I've stated many times, I lack the information draw any conclusions about the causes. You seem to be the one that gets hung up on cause without regard for the effect.

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

And it's not like I got the means to make a determination on the format as the sole causal effect anyway, so the issue's a nonstarter.

Doesn't seem like you are interested in knowing, just correlate the easyest cause and effect. Doesn't work so simply. You have not ruled out other causes in this case, mixes.

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

[b]All I got to go on is the discs themselves, and if they're merely mastered better, then I still benefit with improved sound quality and get a multichannel mix thrown in for good measure. [b]

Yes, multi channel is the real benefit not available on CD. Since you only have the disc, you seem to rule out causes that doesn't fit for you?
Nothing wrong with remastering better. But that has nothing to do with a hi res capability.

But, if the high resolution is one of the variables on those discs, then it's remains a potential causal effect if I don't know anything about any differences in the mastering processes used for the different versions. Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical, or did they use a vinyl playback as a reference for a remaster of a vintage recording, or were they transferred from the same playback feed? Absent that information, I don't know the magnitude of one variable versus another, so why would I conceive a conclusion on the basis of incomplete information?

Again, you're trying to manufacture an argument here. I never stated that the improvements that I perceived were solely due to the resolution. You're the one who's trying to steer the discussion in that direction, and to me that has no merit given that nobody else who's chimed in (except for maybe Terrence) has the means immediately at their disposal to do the necessary comparisons to confirm or rule the resolution out as a potential causal effect.

That is fine. More reason not to jump to an unwarranted conclusion then why they sound different, right?

More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different, so why would that be unwarranted? If you want to argue about whether or not I actually perceived a difference, that's fine. Do your own listenings and compare notes, but don't start nitpicking points that I'm not making.

How do you know? Have you ever done a DBT between a master and downsampled copy? Unless you've heard the masters that created both versions of the discs that I've compared, you have no basis for assessing the importance of one factor over another.

Oh, easy. No evidence exist, actually the contrary, that it is not the hi res at work. That is the issue, isn't it? You and others certainly jump to that conclusion in a hurry.

I thought you were the inquisitive one who's interested in determining causal effects, or are you just about raising doubt and proving nothing? I'm not making any conclusion, just not ruling any of causal effects out. You seem to be jumping the gun by automatically ruling out the resolution and focusing exclusively on the mixing and mastering process without knowing anything about any specific discs in question.

[Why would you not care? If someone tells you that they farted, wouldn't a naysayer's first instinct be to ask for proof?

Actually, now you atre the one that seem to be delusional about this issue.

Quite a statement considering that you're the one who has so little trust in people's ability to interpret sensory perceptions without external validation. Obviously, you can't even trust your own sensory perceptions, otherwise we would hear more about all the comparisons and listenings that I'm sure you do to experientially validate all the technical largess that you live for.

What if they just told you that they feel good? They're providing you with no proof. Would you believe them just because they told you, or would you doubt their assessment since feelings and perception are so fraught with fallibility?

Really not important, it is a feeling, isn't it? Just as the above silly comparison you are trying to conjourne up.

No sillier than presuming that people's sensory perceptions are automatically the product of delusion and readily dismissed unless they somehow recorded them or had witnesses.

[Woochifer]

But how many times should I say it? It has been documented in a non-peer reviewed magazine. I publish (and review) other matters in peer-reviewed journals and null results are often difficult to publish since they are inconclusive. Journals have thousands of manuscript to choose from and null results are often rejected. IF not the null result is a result of a previous positive finding that is questionable. So since there is no positive finding of a difference that has been published with some scientific method involved, why should there be more publications of null results?

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

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

I am not assuming that the only difference is the resolution. The only TECHNICAL difference is the resolution and the storage amount. What the recording engineers put there is different, and if the continue to make bad recordings on CD when there is no reason for it, is it to push other formats becuase they think "CD is technically bad" or any other reasons ? Using 8-10 bits of resolution and compressed material on CD when there are 16, is a bad thing not good.

I have listened to so-called hybrid discs with SACD and CD. And you are sure that there are improvements or just different? There are excellent SACD pressings as there are CD ones, even though they get more rare - because of the above.

I only speak as a medium for two-channel music as previously said.

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

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