Quote:
Originally Posted by frankR /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm surprised this discussion raged on as long as it did after I gave up.
A few weeks ago I got the chance to listen to a comparison of SACD and redbook from my EMU-0404 on VMPS RM40 speakers.
Bottom line. You are near as can’t hear if you can not discern the difference between high resolution audio and redbook.
|
Interesting, your results simply do not agree with a large scale carefully controlled study in a peer reviewed journal.
Can I ask you for some more details ?
How did you downsample the SACD to 16/44.1 for comparison ?
Quote:
| I also did a more careful analysis of the frequency spectrum of the high resolution audio tracks using Matlab. The results were the same. The frequency content is obviously distorted in the 16/44 audio. It is unable to resolve details in the audible spectrum that 24/96 audio can. |
Can you describe how you did this ? - what procedure did you use to get the two samples into Matlab - what were the measured distortion figures you found ? Matlab is just a computational environment and language in't it ? what audio analysing functions does it support ?
More to the point can you posts the results including waveforms and spectral analyses - what level of zoom did you have to use to see visible differences in the wave forms ?. When I compared 24/96 and 16/44.1 versions of the same track they were indistinguishable until you zoomed to sample level exactly as you would expect, zooming more made both into straight lines.
Quote:
| The science confirms what my ears hear. |
Please can you provide the data to support your assertions , so far you have just spoken in broad terms, thanks.
Quote:
| I don’t know how to make this anymore clear. As far as I’ve seen, I’m the only who has posted solid data which backs-up my assertions. |
I do not see any real data in your current post , if you are going to argue you are using data to support your case you need to provide the data.
I assume you are not referring to the stuff you posted previously.
Thanks.
Now if it is data you are interested in. In 2007 Meyer and Moran of the BAS ran a large number of blind listening tests using a variety of systems and material and listeners. Their paper is avalable from the AES at $5 (for members, student membership is $30) it is very interesting reading.
Key findings, not one subject (n = 60) was capable of detecting the difference between high res and 16/44.1 at a sufficient level of confidence (95%), the total # of trials was 554 and correct answers 276 (49.819%). Subjects did up to 10 trials. One subject scored 8/10, two scored 7/10, no others scored even 7/10, even these few high performers are results what you would expect by chance with a large enough sample. Engineers and "Audiophiles" did slightly better at 52.7%. Females did worse at 38%, those with better high frequency hearing did worse(45.3%) as did younger listeners. There was no effect due to different systems.
Now here is the kicker, Meyer and Moran did not even use noise-shaping on the A/D/A stage - this is handicapping the A/D/A stage big time, giving the High-res the best possible hand (metaphorically speaking).
