Rick Vestal
Have a nice day and duck!
Appears someone just heard the term brickwall recently and now is trying to apply it. Too much misinformation in this thread. I'm outtie...
Digital Audio Explained (from an engineer's standpoint)
- Thread starter E-Stat
- Start date
- Status
Engineers do that all the time since they can do what is truly the only valid comparison - live vs a digitally processed feed. Like post# 7 from a Disney engineer who does both movie and multi-channel work.
The BAS report from several years ago, on the other hand, is truly comical with the Rube Goldberg-esque *test* they concocted.
Two AES members did a double-blind experiment in 2006 that demonstrated the exact opposite. The AES paper that reports this result, "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback," is by E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. The authors conclude that SACD or DVD-A playback that's "bottlenecked" by inserting a 16/44.1 A/D and D/A conversion between the hi-res player and the amp cannot be distinguished from a direct feed in a properly-controlled double-blind test. The listening panel correctly detected the presence of the bottleneck loop in 49.82% of the trials, which equates statistically to random chance.
Get with the times, E-Stat. Brickwall filters haven't been used in digital recording or playback for at least twenty years.
If you're going to quote me, then quote what I actually said!
Start with the first part following the hyphen.
Sorry, that statement is not supported by fact. A brickwall filter is simply one with a very steep slope. When you must suppress 100 db+ in the space of 2k, that requires a brickwall filter. Period.
What has changed is that now such is done in the digital domain as opposed to the analog domain. Which is better, but cannot avoid ringing.
That's the funny BAS test to which I refer!! Have you actually read the details of Meyer and Moron's test or what was used? It would seem you haven't. And they most certainly didn't compare a live feed vs Redbook vs. SACD.
Let me help you out! Here's the test data
While more than one SACD player was used, they employed a $300 Pioneer 563A DVD-A/SACD universal player during testing to represent the state of the art.
I simply love the pics of their reference system.
I read the entire paper back in February when I printed a copy. That's how I could provide the title and the authors' names, which is more than you did in your earlier post.
If the difference in sound quality between hi-res digital and CD is as significant as you and other hi-res proponents claim, that $300 player should have been more than good enough to make the point. The A/D - D/A conversions at CD resolution should have degraded the sound far enough that everyone on the panel could have heard it. That didn't happen in the test. After analyzing the data, the authors concluded that the panel's ability to pick out the loop in a double-blind audition did not meet the standard of statistical significance.
And you take that test seriously? Ok! I was made aware of it shortly after it came out over five years ago. And do recall one of the conclusions from the test:
"Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better."
I have no problem at all with the conclusion that mid-fi systems like the one they used are incapable of providing the highest level of audio performance.
Last edited:
So the recording companies compromised the sound quality of their CD releases to make the SACD and DVD-A releases of the same material more appealing to audiophiles. I don't find this at all surprising.
I've heard SACD, DVD-A and CD back-to-back on a very high-quality system. With the system set for two-channel playback instead of multi-channel, I could not reliably tell which player the system's owner was using as a source. I concluded that CD done right could sound superb and that the alleged sound quality advantages of SACD and DVD-A in stereo playback were no more than marketing claims. Multi-channel is another story entirely; when I heard a Philadelphia Orchestra SACD played back in 5.1-channel mode on that same system, I was stunned at how well the recording projected the ambience of Verizon Hall at the Kimmel Center (and yes, I have heard the orchestra play in that venue).
Last edited:
Nobody has to take any null result test seriously, you can always say it wasn't good enough. It's the lack of positive results from tests that are so easily performed that I take seriously. Where are the thousands of videos of geeks gleefully passing ABX tests? Seems like they should be here by now. When they show up, I'll pay attention.
Sorry to hear that.
I have several sets of music recorded on LP, CD and 24/96 FLAC and observe the contrary. While LPs and CDs each have their own set of tradeoffs, I find that hi-rez finally blends the best of both worlds.
RobInONT
Active Member
Right, i'm asking for tests that indicate 16/44.1 is inadequate.
Don't be. I get to hear live music at least once a week when I play a rehearsal or concert, so I know how it's supposed to sound. At their best, CD and LP both get me close enough to the real thing that I see no need to spend money on SACD or DVD-A. I've probably saved a small fortune by not buying more gear and re-buying my favorite recordings on yet another medium.
If you don't trust your ears and require graphs, then look at the spectral output of CD players. All steep anti-alising filters (aka brickwall) cause ringing.
You can choose either pre-ringing or limited bandwidth. Take your choice!
That's a different question. For most folks, lossy MP3s are good enough. That's not what Moron, et. al. attempted to prove.
Actually, I share that sentiment and never purchased a SACD player although I've heard exceptional EMM Labs players in an audio reviewer friend's phenomenal systems on many occasions over the years.
Almost two years ago, I sold my last CD player and moved entirely to using a music server. It's the desktop unit in my office I'm using to type this post. Touch players in multiple systems located elsewhere in the house are networked to the server. One database. All content from ripped CDs, MP3s and downloaded hi-rez files are instantly accessible to any system. I find that convenience and flexibility of a single database to support multiple formats and multiple systems was worth the effort.
RobInONT
Active Member
Measured differences =/= audible differences. You well into diminishing returns with these sort of comparisons.
I want to see level matched, double blind comparisons that demonstrate there is a statistically significant audible difference.
If 16/44.1 is "crippled" there should be ample empirical evidence.
Where is it? All you are posting are anecdotes and opinions.
I want to see level matched, double blind comparisons that demonstrate there is a statistically significant audible difference.
If 16/44.1 is "crippled" there should be ample empirical evidence.
Where is it? All you are posting are anecdotes and opinions.
See? The rest of us just listen to the passion that is music and enjoy!
To each his own.
That's all you'll ever get from the subjective side of this hobby. Indulging in confirmation bias is less work and more fun than doing a complete engineering analysis, after all.
- Status