 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.225.52.226
"The effect was clear, and there were some indicators as to what conditions demonstrate it most effectively. Hopefully, we can now move forward towards identifying how and why we perceive these differences, and better experimental design."
AES Press release below:
=Signature=================
As audiophiles, we take what's obsolete, make it beautiful, and keep it forever.
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.ster
Follow Ups:
Mark Waldrep, who has consistently chided the industry for issuing recordings originally recorded at standard CD resolution in "hi-rez" containers (especially in the rock and pop world - I think some listeners here have posted that they've been burned by this on certain titles), doesn't seem to contradict any of Reiss's findings in this paper (at least not directly). However, he feels that Reiss should define his terms a bit (no pun intended!) better, so that we know whether or not these "hi-rez" recordings in the analyzed studies actually have actual ultrasonic content in them (!). (This information seems to appear in some of the analyzed studies, but not others.) There are some good comments at the end of the article too.
Here's the test I would say is significant:
Bunch of people listening to music. At a party, maybe. Having a drink, telling jokes, whatever. They're listening to 16/44.
Someone switches the music to 24/96. People stop and say, 'wow, what happened to the stereo, it's sounding much better'.
That would be a meaningful difference. Not a series of tests with people listening intently to sample a and sample b and saying if they think they can hear a difference.
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
I disagree. High end audio is an exercise in subtlety.
Dark energy? Ridiculous!
We live in an electric universe.
For SACD?
For DSD downloads?
Subtle does not succeed in the market.
A new format has to be obviously better than the last format to be anything but a niche product.
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
Yes it does. It didnt do near as well in digital. When you change ten things in your system that make small differences they add up to a big difference. From cables to AC delivery and cleaning, vibration isolation and so on.
I think one of the big reasons SACD didnt last is they mostly just rereleased old recordings other than classical. There were only a limited number of good non classical new recordings. None were pop mainstream large selling acts. SACD was the biggest and the other formats suffered from the same issues. Then you add the appeal was mostly to audiophiles you have too small a market. I was not surprised when they all started fading away.
ET
every Download is a DSD 128 Download with HQ.
New ones out every week.
Every good thing in Life is a Niche, unless maybe you are into Taylor Swift.
Unless Acoustic Sounds, HD Tracks, Presto Classical, Pro Studio Masters and some others all go out of business at the same time,
I'd say that things are good in the Listening World.
And there are lots of new CDs and SACDs every week, just look at Archive or CD Universe.
I don't know who is buying all of this, but there is tons of it.
I'm with you except for the DSD (although I use HQ Player sometimes too - just not set for DSD). But, hey, (as my wife always says) we wouldn't want everybody to be the same! ;-) I will say that if something really compelling comes out that's available only as a DSD download, then I may break down and put a DSD-capable DAC into my system too! (I do have the option of a direct DSD path right now, but only with SACD's via one of my players' analogue connections.)
And of course, there are downloads of Tay available too. OTOH, I think your download regimen may be similar to mine (mainly classical?) and the classical world tends not to run in to the same "CD res in high-res containers" problems which some listeners (here and on other sites) have posted complaints about. (In all my downloads over the years, I've run into it only once.)
. . . although, personally, I'm also appreciative of improvements which only reveal themselves when I listen carefully and intently.
Thanks for the link! A pretty extensive review of all the tests done.
The full paper can be downloaded for free. I will read it more closely, but I see it discusses low pass and anti aliasing filters, and the "time smearing" effect they have. I will have to look up what the definition of "temporal fine structure" is. Great paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]