SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What? No one has yet demonstrated hi-res to be a cause in the first place. Cart before the horse syndrome? Soiunds like you've already accepted hi-res as being a real, plausible reason for difference when it's very low on the suspect list considering existing research/studies on bandwidth audibility. All mtrycraft did was tell you of a famous incident showing the desperation they have resorted to in order to falsify positive results since they have not been achieved elsewhere in a controlled/scrutinized test scenario.

-Chris

Here we go again, back to the issue of bandwidth when that was taken off the table several hundred replies ago. Chris you are sounding like a broken record because you really don't have a leg to stand on. Michael Bishop effectively cut them both off. Neither you, Mtry, or Thomas has participated in these test, so you have no way of TRUELY verifying anything that has to do with them. You don't know if they were desperate(inflammatory language shows a lack of effective communitcation skills) or just overlook a small variable. You are doing the exactly same thing as they are by picking and choosing what is legit and what is not based on your beliefs. The key to this is to shut your fat trap, and listen to the audio, and not sit around talking about it in a passive, indirect way. I know this is difficult for you to do, but give it a try, you may actually learn something in the process

The bottom line is that no test has effectively ruled that high frequency information is, or is not peceived in high resolution audio. That just means that some were effected, and other were not. I would say the maximum high frequency information that one can hear effects what can be perceived in the ultra sonic range. The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

[WmAx]

Here we go again, back to the issue of bandwidth when that was taken off the table several hundred replies ago. Chris you are sounding like a broken record because you really don't have a leg to stand on. Michael Bishop effectively cut them both off. Neither you, Mtry, or Thomas has participated in these test, so you have no way of TRUELY verifying anything that has to do with them. You are doing the exactly same thing as they are by picking and choosing what is legit and what is not based on your beliefs. The key to this is to shut your fat trap, and listen to the audio, and not sit around talking about it in a passive, indirect way. I know this is difficult for you to do, but give it a try, you may actually learn something in the process

Refer to my last reply addressed to you. Nothing has changed.

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

You keep referring to the AES running this test.
Please cite the work. It better be good, not that sloppy conference paper.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You keep referring to the AES running this test.
Please cite the work. It better be good, not that sloppy conference paper.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

Read J4

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/a...ltrasonics.htm

Mtry, since you have added absolutely nothing to this conversation, you have a lot of nerve to make demands on anyone. I went ahead and posted this for the benefit of the board, not for you, Chris, or Thomas.

Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies, the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.

[E-Stat]

Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.

The sad part is that these guys really don't get the live musical experience. To each his own. The "dumbing down" of America marches onward.

rw

[mtrycraft]

To each his own. The "dumbing down" of America marches onward.

rw

Yes, the hi end audio certainly is doing its best to do its part. Thanks.

[E-Stat]

Yes, the hi end audio certainly is doing its best to do its part. Thanks.

Lame try.

BTW, one of TTT's AES references should have been J3. Reading really is fun - just like listening to music. Perhaps some day you will pick that up.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Lame try.

BTW, one of TTT's AES references should have been J3. Reading really is fun - just like listening to music. Perhaps some day you will pick that up.

rw

Since you are such an expert at reading, please, fill us in what is in that conference presentation. The description has nothing of value to support TTs claims.
Boyk in the other reference has not shown anything either, certainly not audibility.
And, since you are so well versed in these things, you would also know the research that has been done to demonstrate audibility of ultrasonics, right? Or, rather the lack of it. You are too much. LOL

Oh, you do have a nice setup. I guess my boomox may not do to bring over, right

[WmAx]

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

I see speculation. I don't see any controlled/peer-reviewed listenig tests. I also see an error(that I myself made eariler in this thread taht Monstrous Mike graciously corrected):

" A fascinating discussion ensued in which an alternate model of human hearing was presented as a possible explanation for the reason high-resolution audio sounds better. Instead of simply detecting tones, the hearing system might also detect impulses, or "clicks"—localization cues that arrive at the ears within a 10-microsecond window. These impulses necessarily lie above the bandwidth for tones—in the energy band studied by Story and his dCS colleagues. In the wild, hearing is the body's "early warning system," as one panelist put it, and the "wideband target locator" hypothesis might explain why high-resolution audio sounds better—because it gets the cues right."

A larger bandwidth is not required in order to have signal accuracy that is placed in time to the limits of human perception. The vector combinatino of frequency respnse and signal:noise ratio are respnsible, not simply the bandwidth. Well under 10 usec range is possible with RBCD standards.

http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

I have not yet had an opportunity to aquire and review this paper. Here is the preprint information for those that wich to find it(no preprint ID is given in the link above):

Physical and Perceptual Considerations for High-resolution Audio

Preprint Number: 5931 Convention: 115 (September 2003)

Author: Woszczyk, Wieslaw

Read J4

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/a...ltrasonics.htm

Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies,

the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present

Be careful. You misrepresent the testers and the person referring to the Oohashi paper. It is not shown that their is DEFINATELY a change when IT(hi frequency data - being the only variable) is present. The authors of the paper and the reference link carefully state terms such as 'may' repeatedly in order to qualify their statements. Their are some key reasons: No difference was found in the brain scans when only the ultrasonic data was presented. Only when combined with the sonic data, was a pattern difference found to be present. This, itself, poses many more questions --- some related to the test system /methodology itself. NHK Labs in response to Oohashi, ran new bandwidth audibility test, specifically looking for audible positive results paying attention to Oohashi's concerns. No positive results could be obtained:

Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components

Preprint Number: 5876 Convention: 115 (September 2003)

Authors: Nishiguchi, Toshiyuki; Iwaki, Masakazu; Hamasaki, Kimio; Ando, Akio As far as CAN HEAR or CANNOT HEAR -- I don't remember making such an absolute statement without qualification(maybe I did by some error at one point that i do not remember?). What I have tried made clear is that no one has yet shown under repeatable, controlled and scrutinized tests that a larger bandwidth is responsible for audible differences for music playback. -Chris

[hifitommy]

its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.

doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab. he STARTED hi rez vinyl, and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.

its not to say that bernie grundman or a host of other pros are not up to snuff, but why would sax and harley go out on a limb? well, its not a limb. its the right pathway to better music storage.

you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear), but not them nor terrible terrence. these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced, nor was the hardware which sounds better on RBCD than any i have had in the house. NO, they dont all sound the same!

i still dont get the unfair competition angle. the product can stand on its own.

[mtrycraft]

its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.


Isn't Harley the one who wrote an idiotic audio book? Ah, no wonder you are so confused. You are listening and reading someone who has no idea what componets sound like, in reality. He makes up bs. You give him more credit than he deserves. Just because he is pro hi res is indication of absolurtely zero.

doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab.

So what?

he STARTED hi rez vinyl,


What? That is laughable. Vinyl is anything but hi res, LOL. But, understandable, coming from you.

and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

Maybe he uses it to master music? Nothing wrong with that at all. I subscribe to that.

yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.


Well, you certainly dredge up the bottom of the rotten barrel with Hartley to support you? LOL. Try someone with credentials for a change, not entertainers of the golden ears.

but why would sax and harley go out on a limb?

Sax is probably doing it for mastering. Harley is overcome by the dark side of audio, mythology.

its the right pathway to better music storage.

Certainly for the studios and recording engineers. But, how would you know?

you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear),

No, you shoot yourself, thanks. Oh, when did you demonstrate your hearing ability?


[b] but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]


Really?

these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

Did you know that this also applies to John Edwards et al?


i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced,

Very good. Enjoy.

[hifitommy]

its amusing/amazing to see those that maintain that hi rez isnt necessary to advance sound storage.

robert harley, a jounalist and former digital mastering engineer, who has a VERY thorough understanding of audio in general, and digital recording in particular is pro hi rez.


Isn't Harley the one who wrote an idiotic audio book? Ah, no wonder you are so confused. You are listening and reading someone who has no idea what componets sound like, in reality. He makes up bs. You give him more credit than he deserves. Just because he is pro hi res is indication of absolurtely zero.

doug sax, ever heard of him. many of the very CDs in your collections have been mastered by him and the mastering lab.

So what?

he STARTED hi rez vinyl,


What? That is laughable. Vinyl is anything but hi res, LOL. But, understandable, coming from you.

and has a large investment in digital recording equipment, and therefore a lot to lose by touting the hi rez systems available today.

Maybe he uses it to master music? Nothing wrong with that at all. I subscribe to that.

yet, these two, among others, professionals in the trade, far more qualified than mtry, ax, or tomA, are vigorously supporting the improved sound of the hi rez formats over conventional RBCD.


Well, you certainly dredge up the bottom of the rotten barrel with Hartley to support you? LOL. Try someone with credentials for a change, not entertainers of the golden ears.

but why would sax and harley go out on a limb?

Sax is probably doing it for mastering. Harley is overcome by the dark side of audio, mythology.

its the right pathway to better music storage.

Certainly for the studios and recording engineers. But, how would you know?

you can shoot holes in me (untrained, uneducated, but can hear),

No, you shoot yourself, thanks. Oh, when did you demonstrate your hearing ability?


[b]but not them nor terrible terrence. [b]


Really?

these are guys out there making a living in doing what they believe in. someone PAYS them for what they know and do.

Did you know that this also applies to John Edwards et al?


i hear the relaxed, fulfilled sound of sacd, i support this format by purchasing product. its not overpriced,

Very good. Enjoy.

once again, mtry covers his ears and yells "LALALALALALALALALALA, I DONT HEAR YOU" typical answer mrt.

[mtrycraft]

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionJ.cfm

Read J4

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/a...ltrasonics.htm

Mtry, since you have added absolutely nothing to this conversation, you have a lot of nerve to make demands on anyone. I went ahead and posted this for the benefit of the board, not for you, Chris, or Thomas.

Not one of you have submitted anything that discounts the beneift of the higher frequencies, the only thing that you guys seems to say is that we cannot HEAR it. Yet perceptually speaking, you just don't get that while direct stimulus is not possible, test have shown that there is definately a change in brain patterns when it is present.

From your previous post:
The test that AES ran tested the hearing of the subjects that participated. The ones that could hear the highest frequencies were the ones that tested with a positive result, and the ones that had some hearing damage(high frequency losses) produced the null result.

You failed to post the citation to those tests. You offer 3 lame links.
J4 has nothing in it, nor the other two. Links to discussions? Suppositions?
I thought for sure you had something about ultrasonics or something definitive. Thatt is what I get for thinking/
Don't forget, you are the one who made all the claims, then you make a rocus when asked for citations. Still waiting.