Discussion in 'DACs' started by doctor fuse, Oct 30, 2017.
You are welcome to believe whatever you please.
What’s your point, technology hasn’t changed much over the last 5 yrs... oh wait ummm
I have and 90/10 can tell the difference between high res and not high res. Not saying I have good ears but I can still hear above 18K and I am 57 - I am lucky and I know that.
My point is they understand the recording aspects and therefore are a pretty reliable source of information.
All good points, but let’s keep in mind the point here; I’m not interested as intersected in what people think they can hear but what happens when that claim is subject to double blind tests, as the Boston Audio Society did in an extensive test, which found that professional recording engineers on numerous very high end systems could not hear the difference between 44.1 and 96.
Also, the data is there that converters perform worse at ultra high sample rates than 96.
Define high res vs low res. And how was the test performed? What type of system was used?
It would be nice to have actual links, etc besides just saying so. Not trying to be combative but it is nice to have the pertinent references on hand.
Well I know how good my ears are and just had a hearing test and at 52 mine hasn’t changed much from my original base line, waiting for the day age takes over . I do A/Bs a lot, mostly trouble shooting, I hear stuff all the time in turbines and reduction gears that others don’t/can’t. Open it up and/or do a sound measurement and yep something is in the beginning stages of failure.
And my comment about measurements is spot on IMO, most of those do not matter because we can never hear it. We still do sound analysis on Navy equipment for a reason, the test equipment can hear things we as humans will never hear. It’s cool to have them when designing but those kind of distortion measurements will never be noticed.
Oh and I would love to be part of one of those A/B tests! That would be sweet
Here you go
Damn bachdube you rolled up in here like we a bunch of no hearing a-holes
I would think an oversampling DAC, which is what most people have these days, could make it more difficult to appreciate the benefits of high-resolution material as even 44.1/16 gets converted to a higher rate blurring the differences.
Kindly reference that study.
Surely, you do not refer to the farcical 2007 Meyer and Moran study where an A/D/A loop was introduced to SACD playback employing a lot of content that wasn't even high resolution. Love the primary "reference" system used. Yes, they really used a $249 Pioneer player for some of the tests.
Yes, that study is referenced above.
There were other very high end systems used that yielded the same results.
Damn it, why did you put that rabbit hole in front of me?
That has been soundly refuted over the years as unscientific in so many ways. They didn't even bother to verify that the chosen disks were actually of higher than Redbook resolution. Many weren't!
Since you were not even aware of the nature of how the study was conducted (it wasn't about 44.1 vs 96), perhaps you might want to actually read it. Quite funny.
Rather than using a Rube Goldberg-esque scheme that would never be used in any audio system, why not just compare an established high resolution source feeding through separate 88.2. and 44.1 outputs? Well, a group of AES researchers did just that and arrived at different results.
Yes, Yes, it was SACD and DVD audio. I have read it many times, have a printed out copy in my folder, etc, etc. It doesn't change a thing.
The study has not been proven to be unscientific at all. The entire test was set up in such a way, I believe to actually give every opportunity for the participants to distinguish the higher res versions and higher sample rates over the low res and low sample rates.
If the participants couldn't tell the difference between the original high res versions and the A/D/A loop version then it is highly unlikely that they would distinguish a properly downsampled and dithered 44.1/16 version. Sorry.
That they didn't even establish that the recordings used were actually of higher resolution than Redbook? And many weren't? Ever heard the term "control"?
We have very different perspectives of valid scientific process and most certainly what constitutes a "high end" system.
I'm not sorry at all.
Seriously, what is the likelihood that the SACDs and DVDs they used were defective; especially the Chesky and Telarc ones? Very unlikely. But, since I am a reasonable person, I would say that what you suggest would have been a good idea - to double check to be sure the discs are in good working order. But you are really reaching for straws here. And don't most SACD players indicate when the SACD layer is being read by the player vs the CD layer?
And what evidence do you have that many were not higher than Redbook?
A high-end system, like the mastering facility in Boston they describe? I used to live in Boston. Do you realize the quality of mastering studios that do classical work there?
Besides, as mentioned, I think there is a good case to be made that a lower end D/A converter would more likely reveal the differences between high and low res than a top end D/A.
Separate names with a comma.