SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Well what is strange is you are dismissing my comments, yet you take these "other" engineers comments as word."

It's not strange at all. Because you claim to have a positive result, yet not demonstrated any proof of it. All I need is the facts of the test procedure, number of positive results, blinding, randomization or a reference where it is stated.

You claimed to have test that say 16/44.1khz is transparent, where are those tests results?

"So you can continue to argue me down, but it doesn't change my position one bit. "

So I've noticed. I just want the facts.

Set up a listening test, you'll get all the facts you need.

"A debate on audioreveiw is pointless."

A debate without any data is even more pointless.

Okay, so where is the data that states that 16/44.1khz is transparent?

"With all of the facts going against redbook, your arguements against high resolution seem pretty silly."

The "facts" you have presented? You mean DBTs showing that high-res is audibly different from redbook? I would love to see them.

Forget it Thomas, you can't read and that's a fact.

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

So what ARE you trying to do then?

You figure it out.

[Thomas_A]

You claimed to have test that say 16/44.1khz is transparent, where are those tests results?

No, I don't claim that it is transparent. It's not possible to prove that it is transparent according to the laws of science. Proof of a positive is. I claim that the tests that I know of have been negative and thus inconclusive. Details of one of the tests are given in one of my posts. And there are no other tests that I know of that would show any audibility of high-res vs redbook CD. You claim to hear a difference, but you don't want to show the data or give any other information than "AES" standards for the test procedure. It's been published you say, yet you don't want to say whether there were any DBTs involved to confirm the observations you made. Since you also say you need not to proove anything to anyone, I conclude there were no DBTs involved. Thus there is no proof of audible difference. I figured it out. Thanks.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No, I don't claim that it is transparent. It's not possible to prove that it is transparent according to the laws of science. Proof of a positive is. I claim that the tests that I know of have been negative and thus inconclusive.

You are a liar because that is not what you originally said at all.

My take,

the 44.1 kHz/16 bit format was tested in one of the best studios in the world (i.e. highest sound quality, Studio Blue in Stockholm) and they could not hear the difference between a high-quality analog tape and the corresponding transfer to digital. Also, down-sampling from higher sampling rates did not improve the signal audibly. So for consumers there is no need to go higher.

When someone says they cannot hear a difference between the master tape, and the encoded digital audio, they are saying the digital audio is transparent when compared to the original. Now you are attempting to spin this around and make a completely different claim altogether. Spin, spin, spin!! You seem to do this every time your arguement has been effectively countered.






[quote] Details of one of the tests are given in one of my posts.[/quote[

The post you mention does not support your claims at all, do you have any other that may?

And there are no other tests that I know of that would show any audibility of high-res vs redbook CD.

So what you are telling us is that because YOU don't know about it, it must not have been done. Hmmmm....interesting, you must know everything, and what you don't know must not exist. Wow, you are all knowing like God dude, you don't below amoung us mortals.

You claim to hear a difference, but you don't want to show the data or give any other information than "AES" standards for the test procedure. It's been published you say, yet you don't want to say whether there were any DBTs involved to confirm the observations you made. Since you also say you need not to proove anything to anyone, I conclude there were no DBTs involved. Thus there is no proof of audible difference. I figured it out. Thanks.

Since it seems your are bording on retarded, and cannot comprehend my previous posts, I will repeat myself just one more time. I do DBT with my clients using AES protocols to ensure no bias creeps in. I do not do this to publish for peer review, or to prove any point to you. Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why after saying this three previous times you cannot understand this simple concept. Face it, your experience in audio lies strictly in the periphery. You do not mix or master audio, you do not record audio, and you are not a producer. You write about audio based on someone elses experience. This does not qualify you to challenge the assertions of any engineer. I can read about brain surgery all day and all night, understand the complexity of the operation, but if I have no hands on experience, then I have no right to demand proof from a brain surgeon that the way he does things are valid. You are totally out of contexted coming to a audio forum for non professionals demanding DBT, white papers, and scientific studies to support what people say around here. If you are so smart, go to AES and demand that kind of stuff there. But this is the wrong place for it. Now you can except or reject what Michael Bishop says, what I have said(they are totally consistant with one another) and what other engineers have gone on record and said if you desire because it doesn't square what you believe. But in the end you are the ignorant one holding on to your own uneducated ideas. Good luck to you Thomas, I hope that one day you can put the theories that you read about to test. I am sure it will be an eye and ear opening experience for you as it was for me.

[Thomas_A]

You are a liar because that is not what you originally said at all.

When someone says they cannot hear a difference between the master tape, and the encoded digital audio, they are saying the digital audio is transparent when compared to the original. Now you are attempting to spin this around and make a completely different claim altogether. Spin, spin, spin!! You seem to do this every time your arguement has been effectively countered.

Not at all. It just means that they fail to hear a difference at that time-point, with those materials, and the equipment at hand. I have written this in one of my posts. The more tests, that fails to hear a difference, the bigger the probability that it is transparent. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.

So what you are telling us is that because YOU don't know about it, it must not have been done. Hmmmm....interesting, you must know everything, and what you don't know must not exist. Wow, you are all knowing like God dude, you don't below amoung us mortals.

Yes I know everything now after reading your posts.


[QOUTE]Since it seems your are bording on retarded, and cannot comprehend my previous posts, I will repeat myself just one more time. I do DBT with my clients using AES protocols to ensure no bias creeps in. I do not do this to publish for peer review, or to prove any point to you. Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why after saying this three previous times you cannot understand this simple concept. Face it, your experience in audio lies strictly in the periphery. You do not mix or master audio, you do not record audio, and you are not a producer. You write about audio based on someone elses experience. This does not qualify you to challenge the assertions of any engineer. I can read about brain surgery all day and all night, understand the complexity of the operation, but if I have no hands on experience, then I have no right to demand proof from a brain surgeon that the way he does things are valid. You are totally out of contexted coming to a audio forum for non professionals demanding DBT, white papers, and scientific studies to support what people say around here. If you are so smart, go to AES and demand that kind of stuff there. But this is the wrong place for it. Now you can except or reject what Michael Bishop says, what I have said(they are totally consistant with one another) and what other engineers have gone on record and said if you desire because it doesn't square what you believe. But in the end you are the ignorant one holding on to your own uneducated ideas. Good luck to you Thomas, I hope that one day you can put the theories that you read about to test. I am sure it will be an eye and ear opening experience for you as it was for me.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the "data".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not at all. It just means that they fail to hear a difference at that time-point, with those materials, and the equipment at hand. I have written this in one of my posts. The more tests, that fails to hear a difference, the bigger the probability that it is transparent. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.

You are playing silly little word games, and have basically been doing that this entire thread. When someone claims they cannot hear the difference between the original source, and the encoded one, they are claiming the encoded one is transparent to the original PERIOD. Anything else added only gives your wiggle room to backpedal out of the issue.

Yes I know everything now after reading your posts.

Since you encoded this cryptic message, can you decode it?




[QOUTE]Since it seems your are bording on retarded, and cannot comprehend my previous posts, I will repeat myself just one more time. I do DBT with my clients using AES protocols to ensure no bias creeps in. I do not do this to publish for peer review, or to prove any point to you. Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why after saying this three previous times you cannot understand this simple concept. Face it, your experience in audio lies strictly in the periphery. You do not mix or master audio, you do not record audio, and you are not a producer. You write about audio based on someone elses experience. This does not qualify you to challenge the assertions of any engineer. I can read about brain surgery all day and all night, understand the complexity of the operation, but if I have no hands on experience, then I have no right to demand proof from a brain surgeon that the way he does things are valid. You are totally out of contexted coming to a audio forum for non professionals demanding DBT, white papers, and scientific studies to support what people say around here. If you are so smart, go to AES and demand that kind of stuff there. But this is the wrong place for it. Now you can except or reject what Michael Bishop says, what I have said(they are totally consistant with one another) and what other engineers have gone on record and said if you desire because it doesn't square what you believe. But in the end you are the ignorant one holding on to your own uneducated ideas. Good luck to you Thomas, I hope that one day you can put the theories that you read about to test. I am sure it will be an eye and ear opening experience for you as it was for me.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the "data".

You are welcome

[Thomas_A]

You are playing silly little word games, and have basically been doing that this entire thread. When someone claims they cannot hear the difference between the original source, and the encoded one, they are claiming the encoded one is transparent to the original PERIOD. Anything else added only gives your wiggle room to backpedal out of the issue.

I've already concluded that there is no evidence for an audible difference.You apparently are not familiar with the laws of science so it's no use keep talking to you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've already concluded that there is no evidence for an audible difference.You apparently are not familiar with the laws of science so it's no use keep talking to you.

And just because YOU came to this conclusion everyone else is imagining things. Thomas(who has never recorded a damn thing, who has never mixed a damn thing, has never mastered a damn thing, who has never produced anything) knows all there is about recording audio, and what Thomas doesn't believe cannot possibly exist, or be true. Well Thomas, you are God's right hand man, bask in your glory, you are all knowing and we(who have done the the recording, done the mixing and mastering) don't know anything about the subject

Right!

Thomas, you are not as familar with recording as you THINK you are. Participating in a few DBT test does not make you a expert in the field. Writing articles in a european audio rag doesn't equal to hands on experience. When you have recorded, mixed and mastered your first CD come talk to me. There is nothing that you have said here that any EXPERIENCED recording engineer would agree with. The two RE that you site as proof positive of your point are complete unknowns, the RE's that support what I have learned and practice are grammy award winners for technical achievement, best recording, and lifetime achievement. I will leave it to the readers of this post to decide who's information they believe.