SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[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.

[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.

[mtrycraft]

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?

How else are you to sell a new product? It is no better than the old one? You need an edge, mixing is it, unless there is evidence to support the hi res.


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

You shouldn't, which includes a mix difference, especially in light of the original post how compressed the CD has become. Rather simple.



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.


Yes, it is a potential cause. However, you seem to automatically rule out other causes and seem to accept without evidence that then the hi res must be the cause effect.

Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical,

Check the original post on this. Seems obvious to me what is going on.

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?

That is what it seems to be. Automatic acceptance of the cause as hi res format.



More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different,

If that is the case, then case is closed. You have no idea why the difference. Since there is no evidence to support that it is the hi res. don't know what else it could be. I wonder what it could be left.

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.

Oh, absent evidence is powerful evidence, a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis so it is evidence against it. Prof Johnathan Adler.

[Woochifer]

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?

How else are you to sell a new product? It is no better than the old one? You need an edge, mixing is it, unless there is evidence to support the hi res.

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.

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

You shouldn't, which includes a mix difference, especially in light of the original post how compressed the CD has become. Rather simple.

But, absent any information about the mix difference itself, how would I draw conclusions?

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.

Yes, it is a potential cause. However, you seem to automatically rule out other causes and seem to accept without evidence that then the hi res must be the cause effect.

Did the mastering engineer use the original session notes to make sure that the CD and high res mastering settings were identical,

Check the original post on this. Seems obvious to me what is going on.

Obvious for a specific example, but not necessarily applicable to any of the disc comparisons that I've done. Again, what information do I have that would automatically rule out the resolution as a potential causal factor if I do not know how a transfer was done and what the original master source sounds like?

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?

That is what it seems to be. Automatic acceptance of the cause as hi res format.

You seem desperate to churn this subject by implying that I "accept" any single causal effect over another. Like I said, I don't have complete information so why would I presume any one effect over another? Trying your usual stream of inneuendo seems to only work by trying to pin assertions on me that I've never made. Pretty weak effort, although I admire that you've refrained from the usual alien abduction and psychic stories so far.

More strawman churning. I'm not making any conclusions about why they sound different,

If that is the case, then case is closed. You have no idea why the difference. Since there is no evidence to support that it is the hi res. don't know what else it could be. I wonder what it could be left.

There's no evidence that it's solely due to the mixing and mastering either. If that's the conclusion that you draw, then I assume that you've isolated the resolution as a causal factor and done blind listenings against the master tapes? Didn't know you were on such good terms with Eliot Scheiner and other industry luminaries that they would give you the keys to the vaults and provide you with their session notes.

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.

Oh, absent evidence is powerful evidence, a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis so it is evidence against it. Prof Johnathan Adler.

And what hypothesis am I putting forth? I only observed an effect, but made no assertions about cause. You're the one that seems to be making assertions here by trying to rule out a potential causal effect without evidence.

[mtrycraft]

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
"Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
"Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.

I hate to throw this newpaper on your front door step Mtry, but we are five years from 1999, and six from 1998. Alot has changed in this industry since then. Digging that far in the past for references means nothing today. Sony is not the only one turning out SACD releases, so pinning a problem on one Recording company amoung many in the industry does nothing to further your arguement. Most record companies are not marketing a format, and have no benefit form altering a CD layer to make is sound different than the SACD layer. Producers and artist approve all CD releases, if it sounds different, blame them. Have you any idea why sony supposidly alter the CD layer, and how was it done? If it is different eq, or compression levels, then possible the alter CD is being used as the primary format for many forms of broadcast. It is stupid to try and make a CD layer sound like the SACD layer if they are going to be used in different areas of audio.

[Woochifer]

You need evidence to support the mixing contention as well. Given that I have no evidence supporting any one conclusion over another, I'm simply not ruling any of the known factors out, and the resolution would be one of them.


You need better evidence than the original post and follow up? A confession by recording eng or some recording companies?

How about Sony using mixing tricks to differentiate SACD from CD?
"Evolutionary or Revolutionary- Super Audio CD," Edward Foster, Audio, Nov 1999, page 40-47.
Very telling that the hi res couldn't differentiate it.
96/24- Point-Counter point, Bob Katz and Ken Kantor, Audio, Jul 1998, page 26-31

I am sure there are many others out there I am or you are aware of.

No, there is plenty of evidence for differences between CD and hi res, none of it is due to the hi res.

Maybe one day someone will make a deffinitive demonstration.

So if they're doctoring the CD mixes, then that's one contributory variable verified. But, does that automatically negate the resolution as another contributing factor? Again, I lack the information to make that judgment for myself. If there's "plenty of evidence for differences between CD and high res," why would I care whether or not they are due to the resolution, if in practice they sound different? If CDs are mixed one way by industry practice, and high res formats are done in a different manner, the theoretical angle is irrelevant. Like I said, I've yet to encounter a high res disc that does not sound at least as good as the CD version. The reasons why that is so do not matter, so long as it is so.

[Thomas_A]

"It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?

Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?

You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.

I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium."

So why not stop this nonsense-loudness race, and allow the user to decide by using a built-in dynamic range control (DRC) on the digital radios available?

That is not a question that should be answered by audio engineers. We don't make radio's, or set standards. Maybe you should write the FCC, and ask them this question. As long as things are the way they are now, this is the standard practice.

Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). Your concern regarding my mix of direct experience and citing others is strange, since if I would be alone with my opinions, it would seem even stranger, wouldn't it?

Your comments mean nothing to me because I don't know the engineers you (supposidly)talk to, the context of the conversation, or what actual experience these engineers have in hi rez audio.

Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word. In other words picking and choosing information that supports your position. I have talked to at least 40 or more audio engineers(who have STRONG EXPERIENCE in high rez audio(as I do) and they don't know why high rez sounds better, it just does to them(and myself). So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit.

You are right, I cannot stop any change and I have no wish to do so. What can be done is to start a debate about the silly degradation of music that occurs and the following blaming of the CD medium as such when there is no evidence that it is audibly different from high-res.

A debate on audioreveiw is pointless. I know of no other audio engineer that frequents this board. I know of no RIAA executive , studio executive, or producer who frequents this board. So what do you hope to accomplish by your continuous rant?

The redbook CD platform has had problems from the very beginning. So many patches and fixes have been introduced to this format, that is makes your claims that it is so perfect as a audio delivery system seem silly. Redbook audio cannot be upgraded because the standards are set. Any attempt to improve on the audio just leads to degradation once it gets to the redbook platform. There is no support for multichannel, recording at 24bits requires downconversion, and noise to be added(dither) to restore lost dynamic range and punch from the downconversion. Oversampling MUST be used or the audio will suffer from ringing, time smearing, and distortion because of the use of brickwall filters. Anti imaging filters found in most CD players on the market allow for some aliasing/imaging to occur introducing some distortion to the playback chain according to a peer reviewed white paper by Richard Black, confirmed by DCs Ltd and company that makes VERY high quality A/D-D/A conversion filters and equipment.

With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly. 24/96khz requires no dither, no downconversion, no filters with steep roll offs, no bit reduction, and no need for oversampling. It is transparent when compared to the analog source(or digital if recorded at either 24/192 or 24/96khz), and high quality mixing and mastering tools are already in place at most studios.

You have one format that requires several bandaids and has a not so perfect filter system in most players. You have another that requires no band aids, improved audio, and needs no steep filtering system. I choose the one that has the least amount of trade offs as I think any intelligent person would.

I'll skip your other comments, since there is no new information that high-res would be audibly different from CD.

You can skip yourself over a cliff for all I care, I am not trying to convince or impress you anyway.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Thomas_A
Meanwhile, Ive been talking to two other recording engineers, and they have not been able to demonstrate that high-res is audibly different (and they don't claim this either). .[/QUOTE]

Interesting. After following this thread for quite awhile and reading your quoted comment above, I decided to discuss "high rez" vs redbook with the three recording engineers that I know personally. Two of them are close friends of mine and the other is a close friend of one of the other two. I mentioned to all of them that "someone" on A/R had discussed this issue with some RE's who claimed not to be able to tell the difference. The two main comments centered around two themes:

1) They wanted to know what RE's had the absolute lack of hearing that must, in their opinion, accompany a negative result.
2) They all would jump at the opportunity to remaster these RE's stuff on high rez and correct its faults.

All three strongly preferred SACD over RBCD and said that while often the differences are subtle, they are just as often not subtle. In fact, their comments mirrored Sir Terrence's almost to a T. One had become a recent convert and said, just as Sir Terrence did, that he had performed several DBT's before he spent the massive bucks needed to upgrade all his gear. I mentioned that the A/R crowd required peer reviewed test results and his reply was that "anyone with a working ear/brain interface and the hearing of a 50 year old male" should be able to tell the difference. He didn't consider this earth shattering enough to worry about convincing others; rather, it should be a no-brainer. Actually, all three had done DBT and had some rather staggering successes. By the way, one of the three of these RE's is EXTREMELY well known, not only in the industry, but by music consumers. Sadly, he is the one that isn't my personal friend. Those two toil in obscurity. Such is the life of a person committed to avant garde jazz

This, too, does not constitute the data you require and that's not the point of my post. The point is that in light of the overwhelming acceptance in the industry of high res digital as the cure for redbook's limitations, I respectfully suggest, Thomas, that you do your own listening tests and make your own determination. You seem to have the opportunity to do so. Let us know your results.