* Master tape vs. CD and/or hi-res (failure/success - I assume failure. I know of Bruce Botnik doing such a blind test (at 24/192) with other people present, and I know of mastering engineer Dave Collins doing it as well (at 24/88.2). I've also heard of someone in the 90s who offered a million dollars if someone could tell a master tape apart from a CD (Michael Fremer should be a millionare by now ), but if you know of any "proper" studies, then please share a link )
* Master tape vs. vinyl (probably where vinylphiles preferred the vinyl transfer and/or succesful/unsuccesful blind tests between the two)
* Null-test between digital audio with and "without" ringing (I found this on Archimago's Musings. Someone said this in a comment: "There is also little evidence of this ringing being present in the audio signal with null tests using actual music signals. The only eveidence you will find is a small 'peak' at the filter's cut-off frequency in the 'difference file' in this case. Any (small) differences in the audible band will be caused by phase or amplitude (FR) differences or distortion. Small FR and phase differences are not audible BUT very measurable by the way and caused by the filter or coupling capacitors in the chain." According to Archimago's images, a higher sample rate removes ringing in the audible spectrum, although Archimago himself seems to downplay any audible effects of this ringing)
- less important sub-request: vinyl vs. digital recording of the LP. I know of two good cases: One is the Spanish website Matrix Hi-fi, which actually also exists in English (the page with links to blind tests says Spanish only) as well as the one from Audio Asylum conducted by Mike Lavigne and John Elison. The latter was a blind test, but I don't know if everything (e.g. volume level) was controlled. The former didn't say if it was blind, but everybody agreed that the two sounded the same.)
You have the ringing at Nyquist. What is the news?If you post here things about what he said, she said i have the feeling it is what YOU say trying to dance round our TOS.
I don't understand what you're trying to get at?
Quote from: Wombat on 07 March, 2017, 01:54:17 PMYou have the ringing at Nyquist. What is the news?If you post here things about what he said, she said i have the feeling it is what YOU say trying to dance round our TOS. I don't understand what you're trying to get at?Do you think I'm an audiophile trying to persuade everybody that analogue tapes are closer to what is being played in the studio, or that $25,000 speaker cables will sound lightyears better than Monster cables?If so, think again. I'm genuinely confused about the matter and I'm trying to learn from people who know more about the issue than I do - nothing else. I read the silly audiophiles' monstrous claims, and therefore I would like a technical explanation to what is actually facts.As for ringing, I was asking for links to null-tests and subsequent listening tests to show if actually music contained ringing, and if it did, if the ringing was only present at the Nyquist frequency, and if so/if not if it was at all audible, or if it created audible effects. That's all. I haven't been able to find these studies on my own.Personally I don't think it's audible, but it's nice to be able to read proper studies on the matter.
Come on! Now you guys are jumping to conclusions. I said in my original post that I hadn't been able to find any studies, and in my last post I, again, wrote "I haven't been able to find these studies on my own."I'm asking you guys because you can usually point people towards these things. I've already searched around with your best friend, Google, to no avail. If it is so incredibly easy to find these things I would be happy if you could post a link.That's all I'm asking :-).I already read the xiph article two years ago, and there's nothing in that one about my specific requests. The Meridian link contained in there is not available anymore (nor on Meridian's webpage), and the Dan Lavry paper I tried to read two years ago, but found it to complex + when I search now ringing is mentioned several times but not explained further.As mentioned, I find this matter very complex, which is why I'm asking for people who know more about than I do. So if you can explain the matter to me rather than link to research that would be very welcome too.And Ajinfla, if you think I'm faking my interest, then you're wrong. I don't think ringing is a problem, but it would be nice to see actual studies saying the same thing, so my suspicion turns into certainty. I'm not an analogue fan boy who thinks ringing is why digital audio sounds so "wrong", if that's what you're trying to get at.If you can't explain these issues to me, or you don't have any links, then there's no harm done in simply saying "I don't know" :-).Edit: I fairly easily found a forum post that enlightened me a bit:http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/audibility-digital-reconstruction-filters-19921/As for the preference test of vinyl vs. master tape, a guy in an old discussion on another platform said that blind tests between the two had shown that the vinylphiles preferred the vinyl disc. I suppose that's not surprising, but I would like to read it if proper studies have been done.
I'm responding late here, as I've been absent for a while. Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and links, Arny. The link you provided to Carlstrom's site I already knew of. Unfortunately that's analogue tape vs. an analogue tape copy ABX, and not analogue tape vs. digital ABX.
In the Meyer and Moran paper of SACD vs. CD they also mentioned blind tests vs. CD, but if none of you here know of any such studies, I suppose I will either have to keep searching or give up searching :-).
As for vinyl vs. master tape, maybe the person mentioning those tests was just repeating a rumour, or maybe the tests were just done privately and not put into print. In any case, I think I will have to give up searching for this test.
I sense a strong misunderstanding of the concepts of null hypothesis and burdon of proof.
this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A proper study with many blind tests that SHOWS that a digital copy is audibly indistinguishable from the analogue tape it was copied from.
Quote from: board on 16 April, 2017, 07:47:40 AMthis is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A proper study with many blind tests that SHOWS that a digital copy is audibly indistinguishable from the analogue tape it was copied from.Apparently no one has felt burdened to run your pointless wild goose chase. So run your own analogue tape output simultaneously through an ADA and compare switched level matched outputs in real time as the tape degrades. Post the results under Unicorn found.
Quote from: ajinfla on 16 April, 2017, 10:24:45 AMSo run your own analogue tape output simultaneously through an ADA and compare switched level matched outputs in real time as the tape degrades. Post the results under Unicorn found.Your attitude is starting to tire me. You have nothing to add, no answers to concrete questions
So run your own analogue tape output simultaneously through an ADA and compare switched level matched outputs in real time as the tape degrades. Post the results under Unicorn found.
Just to clarify in case my post further up was a bit unclear:If the Carlstrom one was done with music rather than white/pink noise (or test signals for that matter), then that would be exactly what I was looking for, and we can consider my request fulfilled :-).Looking at this does make it seem like it could only be music:"The audio source was a master 2-track 15 IPS tape on a Scully 280. This master tape had been mixed from a 24-track master tape on an Ampex MM-1000. The mixdown and playback was through an API console."What I was essentially asking for was the material transferred to a digital file or a physical CD, but an A/D/A chain like the one here should be the same I suppose.I know I might seem dim, but I just wanted to make sure I fully understand what this test was :-).