The Black Hole......

Jump to Latest
#1,264
cbdb said:
Did you read the rest?
Its saying Hi res audio sounds better because they are masterd differently. If you convert those hi res recordings to Cd theres no audible difference.
Click to expand...

That’s kindly what I took away from it, but isn’t the conversion process sampled @ 44.1 a question in the discussion here?

How can comparing a track recorded @ 16/44.1 to one that’s downsampled be of any difference? They both are brick wall filtered @ 22.05 right?
 
Last edited:
#1,265
mountainman bob said:
How can comparing a track recorded @ 16/44.1 to one that’s downsampled be of any difference? They both are brick wall filtered @ 22.05 right?
Click to expand...

This conversation is ignoring the history of converter technology. You have to define what recording at 16/44.1 means, at one time it meant an A/D that samples at 44.1 and required an analog anti-aliasing filter made out of op-amps of the day.

An SD converter uses digital filters to put out whatever you want.
 
#1,268
Jakob2 said:
Further the authors did not check if the records used actually contained any ultra high frequency content and it was not tracked which records were used during the trials.
Click to expand...

The Meyer/Moran study of 2004 has been gone over and over and over ever since it was published. As I recall once the list of recordings used was published it was startling that the majority of recordings used were reissues of older analogue and 16 bit recordings. There were very very few DSD or 24 bit recordings used for the playback. At the time of the study there was a plethora of DSD and 24 bit recordings that could have been used had the authors chosen to use them.
I'm not saying that that would have made a difference in the outcome of the study, but using reissues of older material was not really the best choice of subject material for the study.

But ever since that study was published, numerous people have trotted it out to trash sacd and everything high rez, as was just done in this thread.
 
#1,272
Originally Posted by cbdb View Post
“Did you read the rest?
Its saying Hi res audio sounds better because they are masterd differently. If you convert those hi res recordings to Cd theres no audible difference.”

There’s still something about that doesn’t make sense?

Hi res sounds better than cd until you downsample it to cd resolution!?
 
#1,275
Well I hope jn’s theory helps move the chains.....I already know there’s a difference in some hi res to the better. I say some because from what I can tell it needs to be recorded that way from start to finish, not the remaster upsampled crap. Unless it’s somehow documented when you buy/stream there’s no way of knowing what your listening to even if the right lights are on front of your dac!
 
#1,276
mountainman bob said:
Ok....just re-read it, sorry for that.

Seems as it’s a irrelevant study from the tone of the following posts.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, Bob. The Meyer/Moran study was a real big deal and hardly irrelevant. It's gotten more press than all subsequent studies put together. In the days of the old sacd.net forum there was lots of discussion about this study and people later brought up other subsequent studies of high resolution recording and audibility.

I have no idea how influential the Meyer/Moran study was in the music industry but by the time the study was published sacd was starting to fall by the wayside. The Beyonce Knowles royalties lawsuit win essentially killed any chance of sacd in popular music. Universal stopped sacd releases in 2004 because they weren't selling enough of them, and that was a big deal in the classical music industry.

Now, 15 years later, there is just one sacd pressing plant producing multichannel hybrid sacd discs outside Japan. New sacd releases are all multichannel classical music from labels like Bis, Pentatone, and several small German labels. There are pop music reissues of old classics from Mofi and Analogue Productions. Sacd is still quite relevant in the Japan market but most releases are classical reissues and all are 2 channel.

Most of the high rez discussion in this thread has been about high frequency recording audibility. But in the actual music industry it is about multichannel playback. Sacd is the only current disc format that has multichannel capability. DVD-A did, but that dropped off long ago. Blu-ray does have multichannel playback, but sells even less than sacd, and they are all reissues. The redbook specs for cd did include multichannel specs, or so I once heard, but no one did anything with it.

FWIW, for me I like sacd because I am a classical music listener and the music I like is released on sacd and I like them. They are the majority of my collection. I also buy rbcd classical releases, because I just have to. They sound good too.
 
Last edited:
#1,279
Here is some reading:

First: 16 vs 24 bit:

Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part I: PROCEDURE

Spoiler alert (conclusion):

"In a naturalistic survey of 140 respondents using high quality musical samples sourced from high-resolution 24/96 digital audio collected over 2 months, there was no evidence that 24-bit audio could be appreciably differentiated from the same music dithered down to 16-bits using a basic algorithm (Adobe Audition 3, flat triangular dither, 0.5 bits)."

and: the BW issue..

Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

+

Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS / ANALYSIS: Is there any value to 176.4 and 192kHz Hi-Res audio files? A practical evaluation...

Bonus on distorsion 😉

Archimago's Musings: INTERNET BLIND TEST: Is high Harmonic Distortion in music audible? (plus Pet Shop Boys' newest, HRA needs HDR)

//
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom