|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Agreed posted by Pat D on June 20, 2010 at 20:12:40:
Actually, even if you believe their tests were sensitive enough and the listeners well trained (I don't) they did not show that you could record at 44/16 and not lose anything. The reason: they did not actually record anything at 44/16, just converted data in that format on the fly.
Indeed, there could be degradations in the 44/16 equipment that they used that could have gone unnoticed in 44/16 loop back that might have been grossly audible were the device actually used to record and then play back later. For example, if the clock were very unstable it might impart a tremendous amount of jitter on record that would be almost exactly undone when playback took place with the same clock. But if the data had been stored between record and playback any clock errors would not have canceled so neatly.
IMO the entire concept that two sounds that differ by less than the threshold of hearing are somehow equivalent does not generalize in the context of a complete record-playback system. Substituting one "equivalent" component for another may result in two sounds that are equivalent, but if a bunch of equivalent components are all substituted the cumulative result may be well over the threshold. Hence, tests like those that Meyer and Moran ran are relevant, at best, to those who are willing to settle for mediocrity.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 07:22:56 06/21/10 (2)
- RE: Agreed - Pat D 12:59:12 06/22/10 (1)
- RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 14:32:01 06/22/10 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
