Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 18:58:21

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-11-19 18:47:13

THAT was M&M 's point.  That great and obvious difference did not require >44kHz sampling or >16 bits  in the delivery medium, to achieve.

It did from business point of view.  What enabled labels to dump millions of dollars into new masters was the advent of new formats with strong copy protection.  If you stayed with the CD you wouldn't get it.

Good lord, this is a weak and weasely argument, even for you.

Hi rez is not marketed as 'better copy protected!'  No one reviews the copy protection of hi rez releases.  Its not what you and your ilk rave about.

Here's the facts:

Sub-audiophile mastering was not a development *necessitated* by the CD format. (It's actually a perversion of the original intent of CD)

And you didn't *necessarily* avoid it with 'hi rez' either.  I have hi rez releases that are as 'smashed' as their 'modern remastered' CD counterparts.  TAKE A LOOK

So even you can see, surely, how mendacious it is to ascribe 'better sound' to the *hi rez format* ?  That's what magicians call *misdirection*.

The fact is, we play the odds when be buy music.  The odds of getting an audiophile mastering might be *better* for 'hi rez' but it's  still a gamble, and it still just shows how contemptuous the industry is of us --  when the same mastering could be offered on CD or 16/44 download, for less $$.

We are *talking about*, at root, the overblown claims for hi rez audibility that have accompanied it since at least the late 1990s.  The sequence of reports since then about hi rez sound from Stuart, from Oohashi et al, Meyer & Moran, from Monty, and everyone in between, have *all* been about that, in essence.

*You* don't get to dictate what *my* thread is about, Dancing Man.

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-11-19 19:15:45

*You* don't get to dictate what *my* thread is about

I tried to make this point earlier.

There was no 105 db tone hitting the tweeter at 30 Khz.  The music signal is down to 20 db SPL at that frequency.  Any intermodulation would be at far lower level.

You would be saying that...

With respect, the only thing you are trying to do is fan the flames of personal battles.

So let's leave such arguments to AJ, mzil, Arny's of the world and keep the level of discussion at high technical level.

The only BS test I know is the Meyer and Moran where they had not even heard of BS116 it seems

When did you learn to measure stuff AJ? You didn't go and learn something about audio in the last year or two, did you?


Post after post is full of derogatory terms, personal insults, and you go on to praise them as being right?  Is this what this forum is about?

You left out his  po-faced concern trolling when a response to him get too 'personal'.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 21:37:58

With respect, the only thing you are trying to do is fan the flames of personal battles.

Because you're being called out on multiple occasions for not honoring the topic, I'm fanning the flames of personal battles?

Meanwhile you keep flogging the same chart and tired unconvincing arguments and you wonder why there is a lack of technical discussion?

Can't you ever post something without personal remarks Steven?  It gets tiring to sift through them.

Quote

Hi rez is not marketed as 'better copy protected!'  No one reviews the copy protection of hi rez releases.  Its not what you and your ilk rave about.

Re-read my post.  I said that both high resolution formats came about not because of consumer demand but business need.  The labels needed better copy protection.  Hardware companies wanted to sell new gear and make money from patents.  These business motivations funded spending money to remaster content in those formats.

Quote

Here's the facts:

Sub-audiophile mastering was not a development *necessitated* by the CD format. (It's actually a perversion of the original intent of CD)

It certainly was.  CD did not have copy protection.  Labels wanted to get rid of the format so supported two new ones that had such.
So you have full context, what I am positing comes from direct and personal interactions with music labels and CE companies.

And I don't care what *you * think the topic is, so stop whining about it.  What I've seen 2bdecided (David) write here is an eloquent affirmation of what I'm writing too.  He too wonders strongly at the disjunction between the 'obvious' sonic difference (improvement!) promised for hi rez by the cheerleaders, and the paltry reality indicated even by the new Meridian report.  THAT is the topic.

So there is no hope of you contributing technically and constructively, taking the high road and encouraging members to act professionally?

I heard about the DSD hype at the time. I spoke to some folks at Sony about the Sonoma system and the theory behind the whole 64fs 1-bit miracle that was going to bring new levels of “analog like” fidelity to the digital world.

No, I started up pretty "deaf."  I remember being shocked that I could not hear much difference between 128 kbps MP3 and the source.  That bothered me .  So I started on a path to become a trained listener and after literally hundreds of hours of testing, and tons of education learning about psychoacoustics and algorithms in audio processing, all of a sudden found myself in a super unique situation of outperforming everyone else around me in such tests.  I have never liked the phrase but everyone would call me the "golden ear."

The experience taught me to use my ears as an instrument and separate it from enjoyment of music.  Today I can't let go of that skill.  It seems to be with me forever.  For that reason US DBS broadcasting (eg. XM) bothers me to no end.  I love the content but can't listen to it.

And let's distinguish between hearing and listening.  My hearing is shot due to age.  I am embarrassed to say that I can't even hear 12 Khz well.  The reason I do well still I think is that I focus on what I think technically matter and combine that with my training to look for small differences.  I suspect people with my training but intact frequency response will be able to do a lot better.  I actually ran into one such person at Microsoft who was working with a partner of ours.  He was hearing high frequency distortions I could not.  We hired him immediately .  And I moved off from doing a lot of the listening tests myself.

Let me confess.  I had no idea I could do this after so many years after retirement.  I just ran the tests because people like Arny kept egging me on so I gave it a try.

Having read the Stuart paper and prior citations, I am starting to think this may be due to time domain impact.  It certainly is not frequency domain since I can't hear the ultrasonics. Just as pre-echo is a very audible time domain artifact (although created in frequency domain), maybe these filters act the same way.

Quote from: krabapple on 2014-11-19 22:28:54

And I don't care what *you * think the topic is, so stop whining about it.  What I've seen 2bdecided (David) write here is an eloquent affirmation of what I'm writing too.  He too wonders strongly at the disjunction between the 'obvious' sonic difference (improvement!) promised for hi rez by the cheerleaders, and the paltry reality indicated even by the new Meridian report.  THAT is the topic.

Greynol, so I am calibrated, would you kindly advise if Krab is right and this is the topic?  What cheer leaders say, what the industry promised, wondering about sonic difference, etc?  I am happy to have this discussion but don't want to get told I am being off-topic.

Greynol, so I am calibrated, would you kindly advise if Krab is right and this is the topic?

The idea that DSD wasn't intentionally pitched to the end user as delivering a sonic improvement is ludicrous.

You say that the quality difference was incremental/tiny.  Not at all.  Music that we remastered for these formats sounded far better than the CD.  You can read this in Meyer and Moran report:

[color="#0000FF"]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. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.

We have already discussed to death that NO ONE says there cannot be audible difference.  So it does really all come down to a matter of degree.  The industry has claimed for well over a decade now that hi rez, in itself, produces an inherent and *not subtle*  audible difference -- regardless of source (the first SACDs were all analog/PCM sourced, for example).

Now we have this new report,  the latest eruption of a long-bubbling vein, offering mildly positive statistical evidence that 'typical' digital filters used to render 'hi rez' down to Redbook rates can produce audible artifacts under highly specified conditions.

I guess others (perhaps c|net, Wired, New Scientist, etc.) will report on the Meridian paper's significance (if it has any significance at all, that is).  Anyone seen any reports?

To be fair, the earliest mainstream-ish reference to M&M I can find is Mixonline's "The Emperor's New Sampling Rate", a good 6 months after M&M published.

I guess others (perhaps c|net, Wired, New Scientist, etc.) will report on the Meridian paper's significance (if it has any significance at all, that is).  Anyone seen any reports?