God, I love this. I've always felt that a good CD when done properly, with the best sample rate at the front end, & good dithering, etc. can sound fantastic. Never done a double-blind test with CDs and SACDs, but I'm glad someone has given this a little kick in the butt.
I'd like to see a similar test done with AD converters. I'm guessing there's not a whole lot of difference among the few at the top teir, either.
So very much subjective stuff out there, it's nice to see some of it reigned in once in a while.
Card-Carrying AES Member.
_________________ Joe Hannigan, Producer
WestonSound.com - Philadelphia, PA
Acoustic Music Forum co-moderator.
GeorgeinFlorida Recording Org Pro Audio Group
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Posts: 24
Location: Jacksonville, FL
" Posted by Ted Smith (B) on January 02, 2008 at 16:07:12
In Reply to: RE: claiming to show a person's bias means little to data derived from DBT. posted by Duilawyer on January 02, 2008 at 15:50:42
Howdy
The only reason bias was brought up was that when people expect a certain answer they don't necessarily take care to design a fair test that might invalidate their expectations. It's precisely when tests show something unexpected that real progress is made.
In this case (among other problems) for a portion of the experiment (and not separated in the data) they used equipment that has a noise floor higher than that representable by Redbook: so one wouldn't expect to hear the additional resolution from hi-res.
Their responses to questions also indicate that the care that most audiophiles might take wasn't really considered.
When they found out that if you turned up the volume a little you could hear a difference between hi-res and hi-res trimmed back to CD resolution they changed equipment.
Their bias also shows up in the claim that this test shows something about CD players when (at best) it may show something about comparing hi-res to lower res (with a particular algo), but it doesn't address at all problems with playing CDs with real players: e.g. error handling, jitter handling, filtering with any different algo than they tested...
They even admitted that there is a difference in practice, but they attributed it to mastering differences with no supporting evidence. We know from long history here that there is little reason to believe that that is the biggest difference and we know of a lot of counterexamples: not the least of which are the many SACDs who's Redbook layer is mechanically derived from the DSD layer and hence are clearly mastered the same.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
For more information on advertising, investing ,
merging
or any other ideas you may have for this community" Feedback
Pro Audio forums, audio reviews and all the moderating here is
volunteer. Please remember no-one is being paid to be here or deliver
hot coffee. Play Fair, be polite and considerate to others. Title your
topics properly and do not slander anyone. Also, if you love Recording
Org and would like to make any donation in support of this site, please
contact the Feedback link on the side bar and admin would be more than
happy to add any contribution gift to the RO kitty. Give by becoming an
RO Club Member and get a little better RO options. Read this before your post here:Recording
Org Disclaimer
