SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[Woochifer]

Don't waste your time arguing with any of these gentlemen, you will be just going around in circles with them asking the same questions(even though you have already given the answers) and making the same demands over and over. Move on to something else.

Kinda reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Bart and Lisa kept asking if they could have a pool over and over, until Homer finally relented and built a pool. It's as if spinning the same questions over and over somehow proves a point (not like asking questions and conjuring up inneuendo constitutes proof of anything).

Then again, I find it amusing that Mtry derides making unsubstantiated claims, yet when caught in the act after inadvertently making an actual assertion (after that momentary lapse, seems that he's back in his element with voodoo and mythology analogies), all he can muster up is inneuendo when asked to provide the same level of backup that he demands of others.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Kinda reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Bart and Lisa kept asking if they could have a pool over and over, until Homer finally relented and built a pool. It's as if spinning the same questions over and over somehow proves a point (not like asking questions and conjuring up inneuendo constitutes proof of anything).

Then again, I find it amusing that Mtry derides making unsubstantiated claims, yet when caught in the act after inadvertently making an actual assertion (after that momentary lapse, seems that he's back in his element with voodoo and mythology analogies), all he can muster up is inneuendo when asked to provide the same level of backup that he demands of others.

This is the way a person who picks and chooses what information is correct behaves. Only the evidence they offer up(or in his case not offer up) is valid. Though I must admit its awful novel to enjoy music with your eyes instead of your ears. I wonder if he walks on his hands, or drives with his feet? That would be consistant with the listening with eyes.

What I think is funny is that he believes that audio engineers are hearing things when the record, mix, and master audio. We must be lucky when we do a good mix, because our hearing is so flawed we couldn't possibly do a good mix by skill and experience. For all that matter why did we graduate from the cassette deck or eight track player/recorder. Since there is no proven audible difference between these formats and CD that have been published, then the compact disc was nothing more than snake oil that the manufacturer sold us. Oh and damn, why didn't we stay with video tape. There hasn't been a published double blind test(we do watch video with our ears since our eyes are too busy listening) that support the fact that we are seeing improved pictures with DVD. Jeez, let's not forget about HDTV, how do we know they didn't just add controlled amounts of edge enhancement or sharpness to the HDTV picture so it subjectively looks better than the analog picture. There has to be DBT performed on every new audio or video improvement, or its all a marketing claim. I think the manufacturers of 2" tape recorders ought to go to hell for selling us a format that has no DBT done on it to compare it to redbook. I mean it is important that some scientist tells me what I am hearing.

I personally believe that Mtry does DBT while driving. I mean if a ambulance was coming down the street with sirens blaring, statistics must be established that we are really hearing that siren. Absent the studies, how can we really be sure its the siren of a ambulance? A pedestrian crossing the sidewalk must be us seeing things, because absent of studies that cover our ears how can we REALLY be sure they are there?

The acoustics of your room. How can we really be sure that our instruments are really picking up a resonance without a DBT? Our ears see the spectrum analyzer jumping all over the place, but can they REALLY be relied upon?

Wooch, I have alot of work to do now. I think it is my job now to go out into the movie and audio industry, and tell them they have been doing this all wrong. No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. HUGE mistake. The film guys MUST learn that they have to listen to the film with their ears, the eyes cannot be relied on for detecting flaws. This is going to be tough, and I must get busy.

[DMK]

No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. HUGE mistake. .

Thanks for clearing up a 20+ year mystery!

[mtrycraft]

No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. .

Actually, CDs sound bad as many or most are so compressed that it hurts. But you knew that and stated it so, didn't you? So, what is the beef?
As to the rest of your rhetoric, lame.

[WmAx]

What I think is funny is that he believes that audio engineers are hearing things when the record, mix, and master audio. We must be lucky when we do a good mix, because our hearing is so flawed we couldn't possibly do a good mix by skill and experience. For all that matter why did we graduate from the cassette deck or eight track player/recorder. Since there is no proven audible difference between these formats and CD that have been published, then the compact disc was nothing more than snake oil that the manufacturer sold us. Oh and damn, why didn't we stay with video tape. There hasn't been a published double blind test(we do watch video with our ears since our eyes are too busy listening) that support the fact that we are seeing improved pictures with DVD. Jeez, let's not forget about HDTV, how do we know they didn't just add controlled amounts of edge enhancement or sharpness to the HDTV picture so it subjectively looks better than the analog picture. There has to be DBT performed on every new audio or video improvement, or its all a marketing claim. I think the manufacturers of 2" tape recorders ought to go to hell for selling us a format that has no DBT done on it to compare it to redbook. I mean it is important that some scientist tells me what I am hearing.

Poor coorelations - very poor. In situations where pre-established perceptual studies exist -- it is entirely predictable without a DBT. One exampe are the distortions(IMD and THD[1]), timing variation[2](stretched tape, old deck,e tc.) and signal:noise[3], etc. that are resultant on a cassette deck vs. CD in of your rediculous examples are well known and have been confirmed in prior perceptual testing in isoltated tests.

[1] Just Detectable Distortion Levels, James Moir, Wireless World, February 1981

[2] Pitch Perception of Frequency Modulated Tones, Kin, Maurycy J., Renowski, Janusz, AES preprint 4670, Convention 104(1998)

[3] Signal-To-Noise Ratio Requirement for Digital Transmission Systems, Spikofski, Gerhard, AES preprint 2196, Convention 77(1985)

You trying to correlate these things to something like RBCD vs. high-res audio bandwidth is dumbfounding. Weak. Yes--- as mtrycraft pointed out rightly so --- LAME. So far you have failed to substantiate any claims of the important issues that I can recollect in this discussion.

-Chris

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I have alot of work to do now. I think it is my job now to go out into the movie and audio industry, and tell them they have been doing this all wrong. No wonder the CD sounds so bad a majority of the time, they have been listening to them rather than looking at them. HUGE mistake. The film guys MUST learn that they have to listen to the film with their ears, the eyes cannot be relied on for detecting flaws. This is going to be tough, and I must get busy.

Hey T-

Sorry to add to your workload, but you also need to school the industry on the Mtry/naysayer method. Y'know, offer up no answers or solutions, just keep asking questions and demanding proof. It's great because everybody in the industry would no longer need to take responsibility for or learn anything. If a client wants a project to meet certain parameters, just spin the questions, demands for proof, and voodoourbanmythalienabductionpsychic analogies over and over. If the client comes back and says that something sounds like crap, demand that the client to verify that claim by DBT or that they're imagining things. If someone actually addresses the questions and inneuendo, just repeat the questions over and over, even if they've already been answered. Doesn't matter if this approach offers up zero substance or applicability to actual practice, it's all about declaring victory by default. Actually asserting something would be a huge mistake, since it might entail having to listening to something.

And if someone inadvertently makes a claim, they can just look at this thread and emulate the Mtry approach. Y'know, reply to an inquiry for evidence and proof (basically, the same thing thing demanded of others, but we'll let that slide for now) by offering up some absurdly tangental nonsense and hope that the inquirer will just laugh it off and give up. And if that approach fails, just ignore everything and go back to the original stream of inneuendo, mudslinging, and repetitive questions. I hope this helps your effort to reeducate the industry.