Re: The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth

In article <ZO2dneTkp_Z4wbranZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"MiNe 109" <smcelroy2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:smcelroy2-ADD321.11115630102007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <fOOdnaCaJr88h7ranZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193743386.114404.323310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <K5WdnZvleYYwfrjanZ2dnUVZ_rCtn...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth

Mr. Krueger appears to be confusing the Audio Engineering Society with
the views of two authors of a specific paper.

John, the paper passes editorial review. That means something.

A lack of gross flaws.

Spoken like someone who has never submitted a technical paper to the JAES
for review.

It can contain gross flaws?

2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution
Audio
Playback: E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775

I read this when it was published last month.I was particularly
interested
as it contradicted the conclusions of a paper presented at the June
2007 AES Conference, to which I have referred before on r.a.o.

Journal papers always trump conference papers, because the former are
formally reviewed, while just about any piece of crap can be presented as
a
conference paper.

What a disappointment to all those conference paper authors.

???????????

You have implicitly called all conference papers pieces of crap, and
their authors will be sad someone of your reputation has belittled their
efforts.

"Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic
range
of
SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD
format.
A
carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced
listeners
showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
High-resolution
audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because
sound
engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no
evidence
that
perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
bandwidth."

One author:http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm

:-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)

Irrelevant name-calling.

Interesting point about drawing conclusions from blind tests.

Shows your bigotry against blind tests, Stephen.

Bigotry, logic, take your pick.

"High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format.
(It would have been easier if the big record companies had
abandoned cd just as the new format was introduced.)

Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl

That's yet another nonsense piece of fluff.

the author is waxing poetic and ignoring the relevant facts. There really
aren't that many people who are still buying vinyl - its sales were
temporarily buoyed up by dance DJs who prized it for its ability to be
scratched. However, digital scratching device that work with CDs and MP3s
are becoming popular, and its not clear how long this particular genre of
dance music will remain popular.

You missed the part about the increase including more genres than just
dance music.

No, you missed the RIAA statistics showing that net sales of LPs dropped
precipitously in the last reporting period.

You missed the part about RIAA not reporting all lp sales.

Sales of vinyl dropped down from 100% to around the 1% level for several
years, and they have resumed dropping.

Except for where they are increasing.

Niche markets within niche markets need not apply.

What was that about disregarding stuff you don't like?

Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just
didn't
come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of
the
audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right
between
the lines!
John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)

Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases are
more likely to sound good.

The authors specifically state that to be the case.

But the reason has nothing to do with increased resolution.

Irrelevant to the consumer looking for the best sound.

What would be relevant to the consumer looking for the best sould would be
the disadvantage of a format that nonsensically requires a new disc player.

Universal players go for under $200 these days.

Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple of
obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a cd; no mention of
source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.

By the time you posted this John, I had posted a response with the
details
that you are whining about:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

You even admit it:

If he admitted it, why do you need to repost the link?

Stop whining about trivial items in my post, Stephen.

Well-played! Did you even know about that before I linked the BAS?

The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on the BAS
site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer DVD
player, has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic range
that a CD player.

But, it was not the only hi-rez source that was used.

Good. Only one of the sources was fatally flawed for the purpose of
comparison.

Wrong.

They stopped using it.

Of course, it's the bargain Pioneer I have at home!

Stephen, if it is fatally flawed why do you have it?

Mine doesn't have the decoding error found in the test unit and it works
fine as a consumer dvd player.

I hope the digital outputs were disabled.

I'm surprised that you admit to having such a POS in use, Stephen.

I like it for dvd and dvd-a. Not so good for cd, but I don't often play
cds on the tv system.

I do have some new multichannel SACDs to listen to. Maybe the fatal
flaws will then present themselves.

System 3 is an auditorium PA! though probably a better one than usual.

Knee-jerk disrespect for a very high quality live sound system noted.

Isn't that a knee-jerk presumption of high quality on your part?

System 4: I have to approve of Quad 989s in general, but some do
criticize them for dynamic compression at high-ish levels and for lack
of high frequency extension.

Whine on, dude!

Just a statement of fact. I love my similar 63s despite this.

"[Arny Krueger] sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest,
tra la la..." eh.

John Atkinson does exactly the same... :-(

I've been considering putting my Pioneer in the Quad system to hear some
DSD. If I do, I'll post my useless, informal, biased opinions.

Remind me again when you ever posted anything useful here, Stephen. I think
it did happen in the distant past, just not lately. :-(

Someone wanted a dvd/receiver model just a couple of hours ago.

If you'd referred to the paper and the linked the "explanation" you
might have sparked some real discussion! Too bad you led with
"repudiation."

I'm not complaining about the response that I got.

Just strutting your stuff on a slow morning? You overplayed your hand,
to mix a metaphor!

Stephen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dinosaur needs updating - no MP3 just cds
    ... CD player that plays CD's, MP3's, and other formats. ... I bought the latest video iPod and haven't looked back. ... Quality of music is dictated by the file ... size of the ripped CD and the format of recording ...
    (rec.audio.tech)
  • Re: Ask EU: mp3 player
    ... available, which stores 40,000 songs in 128-Kbps AAC format. ... IMO the MP3 player manuafacturers are doing the usual marketing thing of trying to make you think you get more than you do. ... Not only is a MByte a mere 1,000,000 bytes, a song is only 3 minutes and it assumes an encoding bit rate that will not produce very good quality reproduction. ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: empty feeling
    ... the speakers are used to display plants and photos on top. ... Because you'll get better quality sound with headphones than with any ... The headphone output of the average amp isn't great. ... paying money for a nice mp3 player. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Paramount and Dreamworks drop Blu-ray
    ... they will either be slightly fuzzier on HD-DVD as ... The consumer loses some quality. ... |> side-by-side comparisons for most consumers to see, though, so they will ... | the phony 'format war', the actual prices of both are much less than ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Producing Home Video in HD
    ... 46 minutes of content when used with HDV encoding, or essentially twice as much if encoded with mpeg4/AVCHD compression, a somewhat less mature format with a bit more artifacts. ... In both cases, the recipient needs an HD playback device, either an HD DVD player or a BluRay player. ... You could consider replacing the camcorder first with HDV, making standard def downsampled disks for the time being, and then migrating to HD format as your recipients begin to commit to the newer players. ...
    (rec.video.production)