SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[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 Recording engineers do DBT all the time, and do not publish their results because that is not the intent of the test.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.

[Woochifer]

Everyone has an attitude. You assume I mean this in a negative manner. When someone has an 'attitude', this does mean anything negative. See the definition.

Well, you asked for it.

a : a negative or hostile state of mind b : a cocky or arrogant manner

Obviously, dictionaries have kept up with the conversational usage of the term.

You are correct. That was one of the primary issues I intended in this thread.

I don't claim to be 'nice'. I admit openly that I realize I may seem like an '*******' to many people. I considered this before I posted the email where he demands not to be posted. Indeed, I realized that it may incur responses such as yours before I posted. However, I felt it was important to share the entire communication. This at least allows a better-informed opinion by anyone who cares to read all of the correspondence from the beginning of this thread to the end.

-Chris

Yup, it did inform my opinion. I thought Mr. Bishop's courtesy and class in addressing some condescending questions spoke for itself.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I won't bother quoting you, or really reading your last post in it's entirety. I think it's worth noting that you rarely reply with a worthwhile comment.

Well at least you are consistant. You haven't read any of my post in their entirety or you would still be here blowing smoke. You have your opinon, and here is mine. You think that because you have a basic understanding of digital audio that you are some expert. But the reality is you have never recorded, never mixed, and never mastered a damn thing, so your basic knowledge is meaningless.

You seem to be caught up on unsubstantiated issues and argue the endlessly even though it's pointless, especially to the requests for substantiation by several of the people in this thread to date.

Again, just your opinion, and like butt's we all have one. Right?

To reply and argue about something you don't even know for certain, when these people are asking for substantiaion seems to me like you just enjoy pressing the keys on your keyboard, at least too me.

Now this sounds absolutely hilarious coming from you. You have two, count them TWO audio professionals tell you about how the system works, what goes into the decision making process concerning production, and you still despite the fact that you have never recorded a single piece of audio, can find yourself challenging their experience. This is foolish arrogance if I ever saw it. I know what my ears have told me since 1997, that is unargueable. Now what comparison have you made that would educate your ears? None... just as I suspected.

You almost seem like a religous leader arguing in support of his religion without a damn thing to substantiate the claims except speculations, testimonials and other stuff worthless as 'proof'.

-Chris

Dude, face it, you looked stupid trying to debate an issue that you know very little to nothing about. Michael Bishop made you look like just what you are, and uneducated fool. It was stupid and disrespectful to post a private letter, but it was even more retarded of you to try and challenge him, when you don't have 1/1,000,000th the experience he has. So pop you little ego bubble, crawl back in your hole, and continue to read your white papers and listen to your redbook CD's. It seems that's all you are good for anyway.

Now that we have established that we have a mutual disrespect for each other, what's next? Are you going to tell me that I have to come up with proof that my 48 track digital recorder can record a signal over 20khz?

[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".

[WmAx]

Well, you asked for it.

a : a negative or hostile state of mind b : a cocky or arrogant manner

Obviously, dictionaries have kept up with the conversational usage of the term.

That is but one definition of the word 'attitude'. You assume I mean that one?

4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state
-Chris

[WmAx]

Dude, face it, you looked stupid trying to debate an issue that you know very little to nothing about. Michael Bishop made you look like just what you are, and uneducated fool. It was stupid and disrespectful to post a private letter, but it was even more retarded of you to try and challenge him, when you don't have 1/1,000,000th the experience he has.

He made some poor points, in my perspecitve. His correlation of loudness to preference, ignoring the other variables being one example. A fool am I? Yes, of course, experience = correct. Right? Who dares challenge the 'experienced'? Value of a given amount of experience is variable.

As far as some 'etiquette' or 'rudeness' or whatever is concerned, those things are not the issue I care to discuss. Consider me a jerk.

Now that we have established that we have a mutual disrespect for each other, what's next? Are you going to tell me that I have to come up with proof that my 48 track digital recorder can record a signal over 20khz?

What does your multi-track recorder have to do with anything here?

Feel free to continue your long-winded, worthless posts of bull; I have no reason to continue to waste time corresponding with you. At least not at the moment.

-Chris

[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

[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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

He made some poor points, in my perspecitve. His correlation of loudness to preference, ignoring the other variables being one example. A fool am I? Yes, of course, experience = correct. Right? Who dares challenge the 'experienced'? Value of a given amount of experience is variable.

Chris, you would say this because he put you in your place. Lack of experience=ignorant. Lack of experience arguing with years of experience=fool
What perspective can your offer? You have never recorded a single thing. You have never mastered a single thing. I am willing to bet good money you have never even sat in on a single recording session as a listener. So just what perspective can you offer someone that has recorded, mixed and mastered music for over twenty years. ZIP!!!!
The value of no experience is zero.

As far as some 'etiquette' or 'rudeness' or whatever is concerned, those things are not the issue I care to discuss. Consider me a jerk.

I already have, its good we can finally agree about something

What does your multi-track recorder have to do with anything here?

What does the demand for white papers and DBT studies have to do with the average audio hobbist?

Feel free to continue your long-winded, worthless posts of bull; I have no reason to continue to waste time corresponding with you. At least not at the moment.

-Chris

Then take your purse and high heels and go home! The fact of the matter is you were stupid for even trying to counter the arguements of a person who mixes and masters the audio you listen to. Own up to your stupidity and lean from it. Maybe next time instead of posing as an audio expert, you'll ask questions like a unexperienced book worm should.

[Woochifer]

That is but one definition of the word 'attitude'. You assume I mean that one?

4 a : a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state
-Chris

Presumptuous of me? Yes. More appropriate for the context? Most definitely.

[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.

[Thomas_A]

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.

Sure. I can listen to Arny Krugers downsampling samples, which I have been doing frequently. I have not listened the 24/96 to 16/44.1 samples yet, but I will. Arny has not yeat reported anyone to hear a difference of downsampling 24/96 to 16/44.1, as far as I know, using the PCABX comparator. If I or anyone else hear a difference there, I can initiate a blindtest at the studio if there is an interest in the Swedish Audio-Technical Society to do so (again), like I did when I and John Stalberg made the CD player test as initiated on AudioReview. We can invite somebody over from the US like we did last time, if someone is happens to travel around Europe. (Although that person did not show up due to some travel problems.)

BTW, what do you mean by remaster the RE stuff to correct it's faults? If there is an original master source recorded with microphones linear to 50 kHz (at least) at 96 kHz sampling f there should be no correction of faults, just a high-quality transfer to 44.1 and a direct comparison with 96 kHz.

BTW2, I hate the word "remaster"...most remastered CDs I've listened to have shown more compression and higher loudness as compared to the original...

[DMK]

BTW, what do you mean by remaster the RE stuff to correct it's faults? .

Well, it isn't what I mean, it's what "they" meant and I can't speak for them. I'm pretty sure the word "remaster" in that sentence is mine, though. They indicated they'd like to "redo" the disc in the higher rez format to make it sound better.

[mtrycraft]

Well, it isn't what I mean, it's what "they" meant and I can't speak for them. I'm pretty sure the word "remaster" in that sentence is mine, though. They indicated they'd like to "redo" the disc in the higher rez format to make it sound better.

And, if that includes remixing which may not be revealed, it will certainly sound different, yet not due to the hi res format but the new remixing and other additions for the improved sound.

[mtrycraft]

In other words, you don't have the answer either.

No one has demonstrated that it is due to the hi res format. that should be very easy. Absent evidence, still.



But, I'm not making a claim about the high res itself, only the discs that are sold under that banner. As I've said already, if common industry practice compromises what gets transferred onto CD, and does not compromise what goes onto high res discs, then I've got my guideline from which to make my purchasing decisions.

Yes, an issue of preference not due to the hi res format as you don't know.

[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.

[Woochifer]

In other words, you don't have the answer either.

No one has demonstrated that it is due to the hi res format. that should be very easy. Absent evidence, still.

And if it's due to industry practice, then the answer can only come from someone who has access to a master source and can do the downsampling. Nice of you to volunteer to conduct the test since it's so easy to demonstrate in your view.

But, I'm not making a claim about the high res itself, only the discs that are sold under that banner. As I've said already, if common industry practice compromises what gets transferred onto CD, and does not compromise what goes onto high res discs, then I've got my guideline from which to make my purchasing decisions.

Yes, an issue of preference not due to the hi res format as you don't know.

Issue of preference with several variables that a consumer lacks the means to isolate. So, who am I to judge whether or not the higher resolution is a contributing factor? Since you've already ruled out the higher res as a contributory variable, then I suppose you're going to share your peer reviewed findings with the group sometime soon, right?

[Thomas_A]

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.

The rest of the world who reads this are hopefully grown-ups and make their own decisions. They know after this that the high-res are most likely mixed differently, hence a direct comparison for them between e.g. CD and SACD issues is not the test to be done to compare the media. Your posts just make people even more interested in the thruth. That's good. Very good.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The rest of the world who reads this are hopefully grown-ups and make their own decisions. They know after this that the high-res are most likely mixed differently, hence a direct comparison for them between e.g. CD and SACD issues is not the test to be done to compare the media. Your posts just make people even more interested in the thruth. That's good. Very good.

First, comparing CD and SACD is apple and oranges. They are completely different technologies(I am surprised with you extensive knowledge and experience unable to make that judgement) They are also used, and purposed for different environments. CD's are mixed to be played back in a variety of environments(radio, boomboxes, home stereo's, cars, television, satellite radio) with good results. That is not what SACD is produced for. SACD is produced strictly for 5.1 setups, and are best heard in optimum conditions. Based on these facts(and realities) they SHOULD be mixed differently. The CD is a mass market format, SACD is not. Anyone with brain larger than a fly should know this, and understand this. (based on your responses I guess this excludes you)

The truth is, you have no idea what influence this post will have on people, so save your energy by not trying to read peoples minds, and predict their reaction and motivations.

[Thomas_A]

First, comparing CD and SACD is apple and oranges. They are completely different technologies(I am surprised with you extensive knowledge and experience unable to make that judgement) They are also used, and purposed for different environments. CD's are mixed to be played back in a variety of environments(radio, boomboxes, home stereo's, cars, television, satellite radio) with good results. That is not what SACD is produced for. SACD is produced strictly for 5.1 setups, and are best heard in optimum conditions. Based on these facts(and realities) they SHOULD be mixed differently. The CD is a mass market format, SACD is not. Anyone with brain larger than a fly should know this, and understand this. (based on your responses I guess this excludes you)

The truth is, you have no idea what influence this post will have on people, so save your energy by not trying to read peoples minds, and predict their reaction and motivations.

From Telarc:

"Stereo SACD:
Two versions of the stereo program can be available on SACD. The high-resolution DSD program represents the best that SACD can offer in stereo. Playback on a SACD player is required.


Connect the analog stereo outputs of the player to the analog stereo inputs (or left/right front) of the preamplifier or receiver. (See figure 1)

Remember, as with any high-resolution program, the wider dynamic range and frequency response of SACD will place larger demands on your playback system.

Adjust the volume accordingly and use caution until you are familiar with the program content. The stereo track will play only on the front stereo channels under normal receiver settings.


A stereo PCM program is included on the CD layer of all Telarc SACDs. With this hybrid layer, the SACD will play as a standard CD on all CD players. Dynamic range and frequency content is the same as any standard CD."

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From Telarc:

"Stereo SACD:
Two versions of the stereo program can be available on SACD. The high-resolution DSD program represents the best that SACD can offer in stereo. Playback on a SACD player is required.


Connect the analog stereo outputs of the player to the analog stereo inputs (or left/right front) of the preamplifier or receiver. (See figure 1)

Remember, as with any high-resolution program, the wider dynamic range and frequency response of SACD will place larger demands on your playback system.

Adjust the volume accordingly and use caution until you are familiar with the program content. The stereo track will play only on the front stereo channels under normal receiver settings.


A stereo PCM program is included on the CD layer of all Telarc SACDs. With this hybrid layer, the SACD will play as a standard CD on all CD players. Dynamic range and frequency content is the same as any standard CD."

I am coming to the conclusion you are not who you say you are. Nobody with the background you say you posses, can dance around and spin so many issues as you do. It just wouldn't be necessary.

Stereo DSD is not CD redbook. Stereo DSD is based off of the Direct stream digital platform, and CD is based off of the LPCM platform, VERY different technologies. Redbook CD is a 16/44.1khz format and DSD stereo is a 1 bit 2.82mhz. VERY different. The tools to mix and master CD's CANNOT be used on DSD stereo. You cannot play a DSD stereo layer in a regular CD player.

If none of this was true, then their would be no need for two layers on a hybrid disc. A DSD stream has to be CONVERTED to LPCM.

Now if you cannot see that comparing the two is an apple and orange proposition, then a eye exam is definately in order

[Thomas_A]

I am coming to the conclusion you are not who you say you are. Nobody with the background you say you posses, can dance around and spin so many issues as you do. It just wouldn't be necessary.

Stereo DSD is not CD redbook. Stereo DSD is based off of the Direct stream digital platform, and CD is based off of the LPCM platform, VERY different technologies. Redbook CD is a 16/44.1khz format and DSD stereo is a 1 bit 2.82mhz. VERY different. The tools to mix and master CD's CANNOT be used on DSD stereo. You cannot play a DSD stereo layer in a regular CD player.

If none of this was true, then their would be no need for two layers on a hybrid disc. A DSD stream has to be CONVERTED to LPCM.

Now if you cannot see that comparing the two is an apple and orange proposition, then a eye exam is definately in order

You have not been following the high-res vs CD debate much I can see. There are numerous of claims of the audibility of the high-res vs CD based on comparisons between redbook CD and SACD (e.g. threads at RAHE). These speculations have also been figuring in this thread, if you are not totally blind.

You claimed that it was solely mixed as a 5.1 format above. It's not. There is a stereo track from which I can use the analog output from a SACD player (or DVD-A) and record that signal in either 24/96 or 16/44.1 PCM and compare audibility between the tracks. I can record from live sources provided I can get a microphone that stretch up to at least 30 kHz or more or use a high-quality master. I can thus repeat those tests that have been made with previous negative results. You are saying I will be suprised. I will bring the report here.

The issue is the audibility of the medium. High-res vs. redbook CD. Nothing else.

T

[mtrycraft]

Issue of preference with several variables that a consumer lacks the means to isolate. So, who am I to judge whether or not the higher resolution is a contributing factor? Since you've already ruled out the higher res as a contributory variable, then I suppose you're going to share your peer reviewed findings with the group sometime soon, right?

Don't need to. My citation to the Sony demo where they cheated to make their hi res sound audibly different is sufficient for now. If hi res could stand on its own merit, there would not have been a need for Sony the cheat. They did. They got caught, they couldn't demo the merits of hi res. END of STORY. Check mate.

[Woochifer]

Don't need to. My citation to the Sony demo where they cheated to make their hi res sound audibly different is sufficient for now. If hi res could stand on its own merit, there would not have been a need for Sony the cheat. They did. They got caught, they couldn't demo the merits of hi res. END of STORY. Check mate.

That's YOUR definition of PROOF?! How laughable. You ought to have your naysayer's membership revoked for all the logical holes that you left open in that statement.

So, somebody put together an invalid test. Big deal, you disregard the findings and start over. How does that PROVE your case under more valid and equitable conditions? I thought so, just conjuring up more inneuendo to avoid having to do the work yourself. BTW, jumping the gun in a chess game does not make you a winner.

[mtrycraft]

That's YOUR definition of PROOF?! How laughable. You ought to have your naysayer's membership revoked for all the logical holes that you left open in that statement.

So, somebody put together an invalid test. Big deal, you disregard the findings and start over. How does that PROVE your case under more valid and equitable conditions? I thought so, just conjuring up more inneuendo to avoid having to do the work yourself. BTW, jumping the gun in a chess game does not make you a winner.

Proof? No, that is how you imagine this evidence as. It is evidence you cannot dismiss. No, you can if you want, no one is stopping you.
Invalid test for you that is. That is your assertion. I suppose you can point to some evidence of any kind? Oh, your listening comparison and speculations? Yes, that is a given. Any other? How telling.