[lamode]

  OH - then we must have been reading two different forums called head-fi .
 
Or have you forgoten how many times bigshot has stated all amps sound the same, CD redbook is enough for music, dynamic range of CDs should be limited to 40-50 dB - and that anything beyond that makes no sense and is waste of resources ? Or to the same effect, with variations on the wording ?
 
According to him, no advance over what was basically available in 1980, is not only not required, but is unwelcome and detrimental. 
 
The only thing I agree with him is that transducers (microphones, headphones, speakers ) should be improved - and within 20-20 kHz  at first.
 
Other than that ...- he is for maintaining comfortable status quo - I am for pushing the envelope.

 
So now you are generalizing about the whole forum based on what one member (allegedly) posted? Hardly the 'landscape' of the forum. I think we all want the boundaries pushed... where it will actually make a difference.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
True, but irrelevant. You illustrated a point about the ultrasonics of cymbals with an example that had none. All it shows is that you don't need the ultrasonics to reproduce a realistic cymbal sound.

Ever listened to a real drum kit ? Live, acoustic, not over speakers - not a recording over youtube ?
 
Then try to squeeze that into CD redbook ... - and see if it is still "realistic". 
 
DSD128 comes close - but even more would be required for the sound that no longer can be discerned from live. CD has absolutely no chance with percussion, cymbals being only the most problematic/critical part.
Rise times on say a rim shot are extremely fast - CD can NEVER reach the proper amplitude of this pulse, it is simply too slow.

 

[threephi]

With all this back and forth I'm curious if we can perhaps establish some common ground and work our way up.  Putting aside for the moment the question of whether expectation bias applies to hi-res vs. redbook under scientifically identical playback settings, do the hi-res believers accept that expectation bias or other non-audio-related factors can ever influence what we hear at all?
 
Hearing is a human sense, and it can be tricked just as our other senses can.  Watch this video, which illustrates a few classic audio illusions.  The first example is particularly interesting as it demonstrates that what we SEE can significantly change what we HEAR. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzo45hWXRWU

The existence of audio illusions is why rigorous scientific methods are required in order to distinguish whether X (where X=hi-res, CD mat, cable burn-in, etc. etc. etc.) actually improves the raw audio, or instead only tricks our brains into perceiving that it does.  Maybe X does improve it, maybe it doesn't.  Until a scientific test is performed that isolates that one factor by itself and controls for the relative ease with which humans can be tricked by external visual and social cues, it's not proven.
 
I think one thing that should also be kept in mind in this discussion is that it is incorrect to describe someone who is affected by an audio illusion or expectation bias as "wrong".  It's not crazy, it's human.  We are all subject to it and we all experience it in different ways.

 

[lamode]

CD can NEVER reach the proper amplitude of this pulse, it is simply too slow.

 
How would you know? Every transducer you might be using is a lot slower than CD

 

[lamode]

 
I think one thing that should also be kept in mind in this discussion is that it is incorrect to describe someone who is affected by an audio illusion or expectation bias as "wrong".  It's not crazy, it's human.  We are all subject to it and we all experience it in different ways.

 
Sounds like double speak to me. If you're wrong, you're wrong. People need to man up and admit it.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Or have you forgoten how many times bigshot has stated all amps sound the same, CD redbook is enough for music, dynamic range of CDs should be limited to 40-50 dB - and that anything beyond that makes no sense and is waste of resources ? Or to the same effect, with variations on the wording ?

 
Too much is never enough! We all need ear upgrades to appreciate all the hypersonic goodness.

 

[bigshot]

  I think one thing that should also be kept in mind in this discussion is that it is incorrect to describe someone who is affected by an audio illusion or expectation bias as "wrong".

 
Solipsism rears its ugly head!

 

[analogsurviver]

   
How would you know? Every transducer you might be using is a lot slower than CD

Get real.
 
ANY decent phono cartridge is at least twice faster than CD. Some go beyond 100 kHz.
 
ANY decent microphone is faster - and there are mics, capable of being used for audio, that go beyond 100 kHz.
 
Quite a few headphones are faster - Stax being the most prolific and known, with the response at very least to 30 kHz. Usually more. There are others that go at least to 40 kHz.
 
There are MANY loudspeakers capable of approx 40 kHz - and there are designs that reach 100 kHz and beyond. 
 
And I am not only familiar with them, I own at the very least one from the above - so I DO know, and can  record and reproduce faster than CD. And plan to go faster than my current capability - MUCH faster. 

 

[bigshot]

 

[threephi]

   
Sounds like double speak to me. If you're wrong, you're wrong. People need to man up and admit it.

 
 

   
Solipsism rears its ugly head!

I hope you guys read my entire post, and watched the video.  I'm trying to establish a common point, and a way for both sides of this argument to understand the other--that as human beings, our senses lie to and fool all of us all the time.  Including our sense of hearing.  Ever seen an optical illusion?  Are we "wrong" when they make us see something that isn't actually there?  Are people who respond positively to placebos "wrong"?  Or are you both claiming that these universal illusions and sensual tricks don't apply to either of you?  This is a subtle but important point: there is a tiny space between "wrong" and "factually incorrect" in this context, where the fallibility and malleability of our human senses come into play.
 
I think it should be clear that I am firmly on the anti-hi-res (etc.) side of this question since there is so much scientific evidence that contradicts it, and only anecdotal, speculative, or fuzzy evidence to support it.  But I hope that everyone on both sides of this argument are man (or woman) enough to admit that as humans, we are all subject to audio illusions, and being influenced by one isn't a character flaw or defect.  

 

[wakibaki]

  OH - then we must have been reading two different forums called head-fi .
 
Or have you forgoten how many times bigshot has stated all amps sound the same, CD redbook is enough for music, dynamic range of CDs should be limited to 40-50 dB - and that anything beyond that makes no sense and is waste of resources ? Or to the same effect, with variations on the wording ?
 
According to him, no advance over what was basically available in 1980, is not only not required, but is unwelcome and detrimental. 
 
The only thing I agree with him is that transducers (microphones, headphones, speakers ) should be improved - and within 20-20 kHz  at first.
 
Other than that ...- he is for maintaining comfortable status quo - I am for pushing the envelope.

 
 
Did he say that? If he didn't he should have. Every now and again you pushers push the envelope out of shape. We need an antithetical model to put up against the barrage of senseless crap based on the necessity for recording sounds that nobody can demonstrate they can hear. There's a lot to be said for the status quo. In this instance.
 
You're just another new-is-good vandal hacking away at anybody you can find who you think understands or otherwise represents a technology you don't understand, a technology you think has been superseded. There are dozens of guys like you out there all peas in a pod, all pushing the envelope, questioning assumptions, reading up little bits on google, all thinking you're God's gift, trying to rewrite stuff I learned at my mammy's knee, for no better reason than that you swallowed some advertiser's soft soap. One of the things I learned was:- if you swap the cow for some magic beans, don't come home.
 
Don't you get it? We're all pushing the envelope, but some of us know where to push.

 

[dazzerfong]

  First of all, bad recording can not be "mastered" into a decent one. Better yes, good enough - no. Regardless in which format it appears. Skill and abillities of the music producer will always be the limiting factor - there is no way in the world to make a multimiked recording sounding realistic.

 
OK, record better. Poor choice of words. Also, heard of binaural? Pretty damn realistic to me.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by analogsurviver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
  And the inability of the laser optics to read the CDs well enough. Which has to be helped by a mat... - remember, you have to rip CDs somehow to get them on the hard disk - it applies here too, regardless if you no longer listen to a CD player.

 
Beauty of digital is that it's either all right or all wrong. Your CD mat might help with making it all right, but that's provided there's something wrong to begin with.
 
------------------------------------
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the burden of proof was necessary here? If you challenge what is established, get proof.

 

[bigshot]

  Did he say that? If he didn't he should have.

 
Here is what I said...
 
Redbook audio is able to capture everything humans can hear. The frequency response is stone flat. The range of frequencies exceed the range of human hearing. The levels of distortion are inaudible. The dynamic range is broad enough to cover stone silence to the threshold of pain. The differences between Redbook and higher bitrate/sampling rate audio all lie beyond the range of human hearing.
 
Once mixed properly, music doesn't generally exceed a dynamic range of 40dB. Redbook far exceeds that.
 
Every properly designed solid state amp should sound the same... flat frequency response and inaudible distortion levels. If you come across one that doesn't achieve audible transparency, there is probably something wrong with it... either by design or it is defective and is performing out of spec.
 
The areas where the most benefits to "pushing the envelope" lie is in the transducers and room acoustics. It is counter productive to focus on frequencies you can't hear and not equalize the ones you can. Better speakers and better room acoustics give better sound. Bigger file sizes don't.
 
All add this one free of charge... Inaudible frequencies are INAUDIBLE. They are not necessary (or even desirable) for the purposes of listening to music in the home.

 

[lamode]

  Get real.
 
ANY decent phono cartridge is at least twice faster than CD. Some go beyond 100 kHz.
 
ANY decent microphone is faster - and there are mics, capable of being used for audio, that go beyond 100 kHz.
 
Quite a few headphones are faster - Stax being the most prolific and known, with the response at very least to 30 kHz. Usually more. There are others that go at least to 40 kHz.
 
There are MANY loudspeakers capable of approx 40 kHz - and there are designs that reach 100 kHz and beyond. 
 
And I am not only familiar with them, I own at the very least one from the above - so I DO know, and can  record and reproduce faster than CD. And plan to go faster than my current capability - MUCH faster. 

 
Nice try but no cigar (and obviously I was talking about speakers not cartridges...) . Frequency response is NOT the only factor in determining how quickly a system can start and stop, and a fast tweeter is not enough if the other drivers are slower. Even a high-end speaker's (JMLab Utopia, $30K) step response looks like this:
 

 
A Stax headphone is faster but not faster than the CD format itself. Top-of-the-line SR-009:
 

 

[lamode]

  Are we "wrong" when they make us see something that isn't actually there? 

 
Yes, and the same goes for audio illusions. Luckily we can take measures to eliminate human error.