Search results

  1. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    If Redbook mastering 'doesn't work well' in your hands, maybe you're doing it wrong? Unless your claim is that there have been no CDs that sounded 'well', ever. In that case, well....:eek: Which is another funny thing about the hi rez cheerleaders. Their claims range from 'CD just sounds...
  2. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    We're actually still waiting for DBTs that demonstrate when and how 'normal levels of jitter' are audible, contra Ashihara. You got 'em? IIRC Amir's been asked but he won't tell. (And actually Ashihara et al. is not the only piece of publication artillary brandished in the jitter wars. You're...
  3. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Post edited to remove personal insults What it says is that mastering engineers (sometimes) used more 'audiophile' practices for these 'new formats'*. The rest of the paper provides evidence for the idea (which is thoroughly supported by the actual technical capacities of REdbook vs SACD and...
  4. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Yes, if you understand the limits of Redbook, you know there 'can be' audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a 'standard CD'. I can think one example of such a signal right off the bat. I consider it rather unimportant for home audio enjoyment, though. So I'm eager to see...
  5. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Congrats on completely misreading my meaning, as well as coming up with a novel meaning of the phrase 'weasel words', which I have always understood to mean, 'words that try to have it both ways' or words 'that purposely fail to be clear in their meaning' -- not 'words that aren't supported by...
  6. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Amir, just for example, Ron Party has already questioned your (and Arny's) motivations and credibility once or twice on this very thread, in fairly blunt terms. You didn't rebuke him for it. Your rhetorical gamesmanship is practically legendary at this point. Aren't you proud? You're...
  7. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    btw is this the Meridian M&M-followup? http://www.aes.org/events/137/papers/?ID=4058
  8. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Dancing Man still playing his games, I see. This game is 'let's focus on two words'. Hoping to make it *all about those two words* from here on. Anyway, there's a thing called Pubmed Central. Millions of nonpaywalled articles in life science, dating back decades. Go play with yourself.
  9. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Allow me to quote, as I have before , what claims M&M made for their results in the final paragraph of their Conclusion Tony Lauck for some reason refers to this as 'weasel wording', when it's actually pretty standard scientific paper practice. I've long since lost count of the number of...
  10. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    It certainly has bearing, since sighted listening is 'much lauded' as a valid way of "proving" the audibility of anything, by Stereophile, and indeed the bulk of the 'audiophile'community, and the hi-end industry itself. It, and not DBT is, in fact, the standard operating procedure. Mike...
  11. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    That a rather bold and self-inflating misrepresentation, and it's the sort of thing that keeps getting you a 'rep'. What was 'thought' was that a rigorous double-blind comparison that is truly between 'hi rez' vs 'Redbook' formats will yield a negative result...except under extraordinary...
  12. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    If you mean, using short samples is worse for discrimination of audible difference than long ones, perceptual testing science doesn't support you. You are, of course, still free to use long samples in an ABX if you think it will help you. If you mean, minimizing switching interval between the...
  13. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    i would say this is a distinction without meaning, for listeners. There is no 'hearing' without the 'ear/brain interface'. You can't subjectively separate them, you can't 'trust your ears', you can only trust your 'ear/brain interface' ...your auditory system.
  14. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    correction: Crum
  15. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Not unreservedly, no, we shouldn't. Is that such a difficult thing to accept?
  16. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Indeed. Not to mention that the claim about long-term sighted listening vs 'controlled ABX' has never been demonstrated. (Tom Nousaine wrote up at least one 'long term sighted listening' test that did *not* demonstrate the benefits.) Long term sighted listening and controlled tests don't...
  17. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Brilliant. Now all you need to do is provide evidence that the shock troops of the high rez campaign - from elite high end reviewers at Stereophile or TAS or computeraudiophile, the high-end boutique gear sellers, through the middlebrows like Sound & Vision reviewers through the online...
  18. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    A stance which could quickly lead to nonsense , depending on how 'best' is defined. E.g., if 'best' means the format that most accurately captures the highest frequencies at the deepest bitdepth, the 'best' , with current tech, would be 192kHz/24bit. Now go peddle that claim to, say, Dan...
  19. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Sure. http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
  20. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Under what conditions was that SR difference 'reasonably audible?
  21. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    If the <sarc>great performance'</sarc> doesn't rise to the level of 'audible', who cares?
  22. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    :D
  23. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Which part, JA, the 'numerous' ? I admit to never counting. Or the idea that anyone who has had words printed in Stereophile (or TAS) -- including audiophile letters to the editor -- might claim 48/24 to be less than 'high rez'? (Much less 44/16) Have you polled your staff lately? Does...
  24. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    I know what an implication is. The issue is with 'profound'. Meyer and Moran (2007), which Your Host has now dismissed as superseded(!), already provided evidence that audible difference can occur between RB and hi rez versions (even apart from obvious mastering difference) -- *depending on...
  25. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Lossy encoding will never be acceptable as an archiving format. But as a consumer format, it is *effectively* 'transparent to most listeners, if done right. The industry, of course, monetizes this by offering 'tiers' of audio quality. If that was more widespread and quality was standardized...
  26. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    ..conclusions which are sometimes at odds with 'high end' received wisdom
  27. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Excuse me for joining the dance here late, but: it is only going to carry 'profound' implications if we can all be sure that the various test files were properly made, and properly played back, and there was no cheating . (Of course, the latter stipulation can only really happen if the test...
  28. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    I have seen audiophiles claim that 48kHz/24bit is not high rez. I'm sure numerous listeners with that opinion, could be found very easily upon visiting either the SA-CD.net forum, or AudioAsylum or computeraudiophile.com. Or the pages of Stereophile or TAS, for that matter.
  29. S

    Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

    Is anyone taking note of the Y axis here? One sideband peaking at -95dB; the rest at < -100dB Oh , such FAILS.
  30. S

    It’s All a Preference

    It's only an issue when people start explaining why something sounds better to them.....which audiophiles seem to really like doing. :D

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

Home Forums Contact us

User Menu

Login
Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing
Top Bottom