Quote from: board on 07 January, 2017, 05:16:05 PMPerhaps also the Jackson paper from 2016, if possible.Thanks :-)!Please consult the relevant threads here that were posted at the time. It is easier than having us all rconstruct them for your benefit just because you don't want to do a few minutes research.
Perhaps also the Jackson paper from 2016, if possible.Thanks :-)!
Theiss' paper is the one with the highest score
The two Jackson papers
Quote from: board on 11 January, 2017, 02:02:45 PMTheiss' paper is the one with the highest scoreOf what?Quote from: board on 11 January, 2017, 02:02:45 PMThe two Jackson papersOf what relevance?Scores?
Anyway, it said 74.51 % correct answers in differentiating hi-res from CD quality.
REISSIn summary.... the causes are still unknown
Quote from: board on 11 January, 2017, 02:42:53 PMAnyway, it said 74.51 % correct answers in differentiating hi-res from CD quality.Nope, not what Theis Hawksford paper said.But since you like keeping score:QuoteREISSIn summary.... the causes are still unknownScore: Zero
it says 74.51 % in the table on page 5
I suppose there's nothing wrong with adding supertweeters.
As for the question marks
REISSIn summary.....the causes are still unknown
I thought it was common agreement here that supersonics should be handled by separate [call them supertweeters if you may] so that IMD does not creep into audible frequencies?
I wonder how many times I have seen "BS" here, only to ask myself whether it's supposed to read as "B for bull" or "S for Stuart".
AJ, Reiss has replied to your AES commenthttps://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=591
Well. unless I can't see it, his only response to my question, was the next day....in 2016.Even if it in no way addressed what I actually asked.