Actually Monty (and Jean-Marc Valin of xiph.org) rebutted you over and over on your forum; you simply refused to accept it (an admitted at one point that you tend not to acknowledge error because 'it's two males') and performed your usual dance steps.

Monty nailed the fallacy in your overall thesis re: the 'need' for hi rez,  *back in 2012*:

When Neil's group contacted me, the first thing they wanted to talk about was 24/192. I replied I probably wasn't the person they wanted to talk to, because I'm a skeptic on the subject. They replied that they didn't believe in high-res either, but they couldn't sell to audiophiles unless their product was high res. So then they wanted to know what other hooks could serve the same marketing purpose. We went back and forth on that a bit, also discussed FLAC, and the conversation eventually petered out.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-12-03 16:22:31

The bad news for the Meridian boys is if the mastering people put ringing into the masters, what takes it out?  As I read their materials, their Apodizing filters span of correction is the ringing in the filters in their own equipment.

No, if the ringing is at the Nyquist frequency of the delivered digital audio, the Apodizing filter will remove it. As would any low pass filter that cuts below the original Nyquist frequency when upsampling. However, the point of the Apodizing filter is that it doesn't pre-ring itself. Most upsampling filters would.

I don't claim it's audible. I'm just explaining how it works.

It's  also around this time that Monty appears to start losing patience with Amir's shucking and jiving and shilling and threats-made-with-smileys and 'endless baiting via logical fallacy".  I notice he hasn't posted to WhatsBest since 2013...

Actually Monty (and Jean-Marc Valin of xiph.org) rebutted you (and patiently rebutted all manner of tendentious nonsense from your acolytes) over and over on your forum; you simply refused to accept it (an admitted at one point that you tend not to acknowledge error because 'it's two males') and performed your usual dance steps.

Monty nailed the fallacy in your overall thesis re: the 'need' for hi rez,  *back in 2012*:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post108311

M&M [Meyer and Moran] were using fantastically expensive equipment.  There was no audible IMD.  That's not a big surprise.

Quote

What you are advocating is being unable to sell better masters to an audiophile without the added expense of senseless recording overkill, because said audiophiles have been 'educated' that they need a gold plated Hummer with artillery mount to drive to the corner store.

Is this a benefit to the industry? to anybody?

I found your dance steps about wanting to hear the *ultrasonics-induced intermodulation distortion that was heard and approved in the studio* (!)  particularly amusing.

I did a little research and was surprised to find how sharp and severe their Apodizing filter actually is - approx 100 dB attenuation at Nyquist.  Now you and I would probably call 100 dB attenuation removing it, but I know from past experience that Amir believes that  artifacts that are 100 dB down can be serious audible problems.

It's  also around this time that Monty appears to start losing patience with Amir's shucking and jiving and shilling and threats-made-with-smileys and 'endless baiting via logical fallacy".  I notice he hasn't posted to WhatsBest since 2013...

This may sound silly..... but try putting the DAC1 upside down and have a listen.

You proved so clearly what I said before: that this is not his domain of expertise.  That you think he actually was winning some argument means you must be confused just the same.

My message to him and here have been the same: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post108430

Quote

Quote

What you are advocating is being unable to sell better masters to an audiophile without the added expense of senseless recording overkill, because said audiophiles have been 'educated' that they need a gold plated Hummer with artillery mount to drive to the corner store.

Is this a benefit to the industry? to anybody?

I found your dance steps about wanting to hear the *ultrasonics-induced intermodulation distortion that was heard and approved in the studio* (!)  particularly amusing.

This is my exact answer to that quote per above link:

I am not advocating anything. The recording world has already decided to use high sample rate and resolution. Your beef therefore needs to be with them. Go and see if the Mix magazine will take your article and "educate" that crew. Folks here have nothing to do with that. What they want is what the talent and engineer heard when the final mix was created. Nothing less, nothing more. You pushing for 16/44.1 means getting the CD masters which is post crazy loudness wars as the Meyer and Moran paper clearly articulated with listening tests.

Nothing about loudness wars is about gold plated hammers. It is about a hammer that has a head that is metal vs one that is plastic. Folks are so wrapped around the axle on the bits and bytes that they forget the reality of how music is produced. Or worse yet, don't know how the music is produced.


Please don't put such spins on my answers when they can be refuted so easily.

Monty said, as I have, that he doesn't particularly care if you or anyone offers 'hi rez'  releases.  I've bought 'em, he probably  has too.  He doesn't think they make a difference in themselves, he thinks they're wasteful container formats, but he's not calling for a ban on them.  Same here.  What he *is* against is the following , AS I AM:

1) absurd hype about hi rez sound-- that is, the sonic differences *due necessarily to hi rez* -- all out of proportion to its actual benefits.  The industry , and you, *are* engaging in this, -- you with your incessant claims that it's all about 'consumer choice', the industry with the sort of shenanigans that Monty noted in his anecdote about Neil Young's project.  About which you maintained a notable silence. 

2) diverting the conversation from the *sources of truly significant audible defects* , in either Redbook OR hi rez releases: poor mastering, and poor playback setups.  Consumers should be alerted to how their 'choice' is being restricted THERE.  We should not *have to * buy hi rez releases in order to get good mastering.  And we aren't even guaranteed good mastering with hi rez releases!

Hi rez is a sideshow. For which you are a shill.

Kurosawa said: "Once you listen to high-res audio, you won't go back to CDs." – Rappler.com

The people he is criticizing, the "Young Group," are proving exactly that.  By having a distribution channel for 24/192 Khz for Pono, they can do whatever they want as far as mastering.  How he can say he met with them and not appreciate this fact is unfathomable. ]

Quote

1) absurd hype about hi rez sound-- that is, the sonic differences *due necessarily to hi rez* -- all out of proportion to its actual benefits.  The industry , and you, *are* engaging in this, -- you with your incessant claims that it's all about 'consumer choice', the industry with the sort of shenanigans that Monty noted in his anecdote about Neil Young's project.  About which you maintained a notable silence. 

2) diverting the conversation from the *sources of truly significant audible defects* , in either Redbook OR hi rez releases: poor mastering, and poor playback setups.  Consumers should be alerted to how their 'choice' is being restricted THERE.  We should not *have to * buy hi rez releases in order to get good mastering.  And we aren't even guaranteed good mastering with hi rez releases!

Hi rez is a sideshow. For which you are a shill.

I hear you Steven. 

There is goodness to every aspect of it.  No harm comes to any of you

There is no reason to take any action against development of high resolution audio $10k ML DACs and $50k ML amplifier distribution.  There is goodne$$ to every aspect of it.  No harm comes to any of you happy with MP3 an audibly indistinguishable $150 ODAC or the CD $3k NAD M22 Hypex NCore amp.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-12-04 00:53:45

I hear you Steven.

Oh, do you now? Ok, let's dance.  Do you agree with what you hear from me? Namely :

-that oft-claimed audible improvements due to hi rez are vastly inflated;

-that a hi rez delivery format has not, does not , and without a change in industry practices, will not assure high-quality recordings for the consumer;

-and that the actual bottlenecks for good sound for the modern audio consumer are, by far, the recording/production/mastering of the product, and their own home listening setups?

No rational, objective person "takes action" against the guy buying the Rolex over the Casio watch. But if the audiomoron Rolex buyer or $cam peddler claims the Rolex "tells better time" than the Casio, well, here we are.

We are not dealing with Casio.

Perhaps you have heard of loudness compression of CD/MP3s?

The Rolex as it turns out in this situation, is indeed the more accurate clock.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-12-04 01:59:31

No rational, objective person "takes action" against the guy buying the Rolex over the Casio watch. But if the audiomoron Rolex buyer or $cam peddler claims the Rolex "tells better time" than the Casio, well, here we are.

The only moron is the one thinking your analogy is correct.

We are not dealing with Casio.

We are dealing with a Chinese knock-off that instead of a quartz oscillator, has an RC resonator because they think the customer wanted clocks that look like clock but don't keep accurate time.

Perhaps you have heard of loudness compression of CD/MP3s?

The Rolex as it turns out in this situation, is indeed the more accurate clock.  And it hardly costs the same premium over the Casio.  It is the master that was used to make the cheap knock off above.

Please demonstrate this claim with real world examples.

But as you said Amir, few understand this $cam busine$$ field.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-12-04 02:55:06

Please demonstrate this claim with real world examples.

Recording done at 24/96 Khz.  Converted to 16/44.1.  There is no way on earth the 24/96 is less accurate than the 16/44.1 as the analogy of Rolex vs Casio would tell you.

Quote from: ajinfla on 2014-12-04 02:46:42

But as you said Amir, few understand this $cam busine$$ field.

Ammar, you went to a high-end audio show and wired up your speaker this way:


Multi-thousand dollar flat ribbon cable used in parallel with yet another cable?  You have discovered something about audio science there Ammar?  Or was it a scam of sorts?