Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kstuart]

Hi
Another link to an AES article (from Boston Audio) on above website: conclusion. More than 500 people could not tell the difference of 16bit/44.1kHz and SACD or DVDA audio quality (and these have been a lot of professional audio people!!)

Since you mentioned that article, here is a comment from another Forum on it:

The Meyer and Moran paper (M&M - the one that "proved" we can't differentiate between RBDC and SACD) did almost nothing right: it was deeply flawed from the off. See e.g. these posts:

see: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=pcaudio&n=57852

and:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=pcaudio&n=57904

from July last year where I try to explain why. (Sorry about all those ’ thingies - they turned up after a recent AA archive revamp.)

(Ironically, I was also debating with PP who resorted as readily then as now to ad hominem abuse and a mix of sarcasm and Google.)

Problem was, the researchers didn't take into account that it takes time for someone to get used to the differences. And hearing acuity can be improved with training.

M&M was flawed on several fronts, not just on "training" issues (though I'm sure you're right to raise them). The authors' competence in other fields didn't protect them from schoolboy howlers in this one.

An average person would find it difficult to distinguish between MP3 and CD, and yet people can train themselves to hear the differences. The study ignored the fact that there were at least two subjects they tested that were able to spot the differences consistently - they just brushed those subjects aside rather than investigate the reasons why these two can tell the difference and others couldn't.

Inevitably, those who wanted to believe the results did so without reading the paper with much care. Now those folk were biased . . .

[pschelbert]

yes I know these comments.
Surely it does not please a lot of people if you say there is no clue other than to make money, out of higher sampling and higher bit (24bit) etc.

And by the way, I read the paper, as I am a member of AES.

However, there is not any scientific paper I am aware of, which disapproved this paper. If I am wrong, please tell me the article.

Peter

[JimH]

i really do like your posts on this matter mister KStuart. though i always think im in some theological dispute when i read these threads.

this is sad
"anti-audiophile propaganda"
or
"audiophile propaganda"
there is logic, things we know, things we think we know, things we have no clue about. and things where later it will turn out we were so wrong..
so lets see.

enjoy the music
 
gab

Amen.  I'll close this now.