I want my SACD! A Plan of action to make this happen.

[Daverz]

mono recordings, I didn't enjoy them.

Well, it's nice that you admit this is a personal preference.  But that's not what you have said in the case of RBCD where you have made it clear that those of use who enjoy it have inferior hearing. 

I found this reference to a study where they ran SACD output through a 16/44 A/D/A loop.  No one could tell the difference from the original.

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

I don't think this means that DSD or 24/96 processing isn't of benefit in recording and mastering, just that the final result doesn't need to be more than 16/44.

[Teresa]

Well, it's nice that you admit this is a personal preference.  But that's not what you have said in the case of RBCD where you have made it clear that those of use who enjoy it have inferior hearing. 

I found this reference to a study where they ran SACD output through a 16/44 A/D/A loop.  No one could tell the difference from the original.

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

I don't think this means that DSD or 24/96 processing isn't of benefit in recording and mastering, just that the final result doesn't need to be more than 16/44.

Malarkey! Peter Aczel is know for not hearing differences in anything!  And the The Audio Critic is a complete joke in the audiophile community.

This says nothing about the software or equipment used.  My guess is they purposely used SACDs from 16 Bit PCM masters into order to null any difference to prove their point and likely played on a $100 universal player. 

Peter Aczel also said he could not hear the difference between SACD and CD on the $5,000 Sony SCD-1 when it came out.  This just proves he has complete tin ears, of course most of us already knew that!

Here are the notes some tests I did comparing low-rez and hi-rez PCM: the test selection was RIMSKY-KORSAKOV's Dance of the Tumblers from "The Snow Maiden" from a Reference Recording 24 Bit 96kHz download from HD Tracks http://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD030911107123
The 24/96 FLAC music files from HD Track were converted to WAV using xACT as iTunes cannot play FLAC.

Three samples were used:
1) The Original 24/96 WAV 
2) downsampled to 44.1kHz WAV
3) 44.1kHz WAV upsampled to 24/96 WAV

Listening Test 1 through my two floor standing speakers with the lights turned out:

I played the samples all the way through twice.

1) The 24/96 WAV original had a huge deep soundstage with lots of sound on the sides of the room.  Indeed some of the large percussion instruments were several feet outside the boundaries of the speakers with many of the instruments filling up the side walls almost in front on my face.  We are talking huge sound here.  All the instruments sounded very real, the violin tone was sweet and there was lots of ambiance.

2) With the 44.1kHz music file and the soundstage shrunk considerably and sounded one dimensional, there was almost no sound at all from the side walls.  The instruments retreated to about several feet further back making the perspective more distant.  The violins sounded slightly dry and strident but much better than CD, most of the ambiance was gone.  The larger percussion instruments still had most of the impact but a curious thing with the tambourine I could no longer "see' it's shape just hear the notes played.

3) Finally the 44.1kHz upsampled to 24/96 basically sounded much like the 44.1kHz but some of the ambiance was restored.  It is definitely better than the raw 44.1kHz but not by a much. 

Listening Test 2 through my Sennheiser headphones:

I played the samples all the way through once as I didn't want to play the 2nd and 3rd samples again as they were uncomfortable

1) The 24/96 WAV original was very ambient, airy, very "goosebump" type exciting, with deep bass and a nice smooth high end, lots of impact with the percussion.

2) The 44.1kHz music file was very dry and uncomfortable, even more than it was earlier through speakers.  The percussion sounded muffled and it had audible distortion.

3) Finally the 44.1kHz upsampled to 24/96 basically had just a shade more ambiance, percussion was not so muffled but overall it still sounded too much like the 44.1kHz music file.

Anyone except Peter Aczel can hear the vast differences for themselves.  To really help with attentive listening turn out all the lights and set in the sweet spot.

Good luck and happy listening,]
Teresa

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Malarkey! [yadda yadda yadda, etc.]

All the above post proves is that people's sense of hearing differs according to each individual. We knew that already. Teresa hears a big difference, Peter Aczel doesn't.

The most important audio equipment is permanently attached to the sides of your head. 

Anyway, I don't even know why we're having this argument. If a product hasn't taken off after 10 (count 'em) years in the marketplace, it never will.

[DavidW]

Malarkey! Peter Aczel is know for not hearing differences in anything! 

Irrelevant, the article merely reports on another article.  Aczel could be deaf and it wouldn't matter, the reasearch is done by Meyer and Moran in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in case you can't read.

This is not about one critic, disagreeing with you, this is about a carefully done study of double blind tests.

[71 dB]

3) Finally the 44.1kHz upsampled to 24/96 basically sounded much like the 44.1kHz but some of the ambiance was restored.  It is definitely better than the raw 44.1kHz but not by a much. 

Upsampling can't "restore" anything. Theoretically upsampling retains the original quality 100 %, in practise there is very minor quality loss. What your listening tests tells is that your system (DA-converter) has better sound quality when it uses 96 kHz sampling frequency.

Do blind tests and the differencies will be smaller.

[Daverz]

My guess

Your guess is completely irrelevant.  You'd have to read the study to make any judgments on the protocol they used.  You don't judge it based on what you imagine they might have done.  At least an honest person doesn't.

[Teresa]

Your guess is completely irrelevant.  You'd have to read the study to make any judgments on the protocol they used.  You don't judge it based on what you imagine they might have done.  At least an honest person doesn't.

I am sorry I have not read the study nor does it interest me to do so.  A response was required and I can only guess how they got null results as it is usually the test conditions, connecting devices, hardware and/or software that causes null results.  If there was a difference no matter how small I might look at the study.  But because there was no difference where differences clearly exist, it means it has to be a poor test.  So many blind tests are poorly done that for many of us, it causes us to ignore them especially when there is a null result.

Did you know in a blind listening test a coat hanger sounded the same as an expensive speaker cable?

Did you know in a blind listening test a defective malfunction amplifier sounded the same as one working perfectly?  This amp was clearly audibly defective, to anyone listening to it outside of the test.  This proves that test conditions CAN null the results.

So if you want to spend your time reading the test conditions and results go ahead, I've read too many of these null test fiascos before.  Plus Peter Aczel provided no link and no details so good luck in finding it.

[Daverz]

I am sorry I have not read the study nor does it interest me to do so.  A response was required

One should respond if one has an argument, not just because one wants to argue.

and I can only guess how they got null results as it is usually the test conditions, connecting devices, hardware and/or software that causes null results. 

This is assuming beforehand what you wish to be true.   Classic pseudoscientific thinking.

If there was a difference no matter how small I might look at the study.  But because there was no difference where differences clearly exist, it means it has to be a poor test. 

Because it doesn't reach the conclusion you wish to be true does not make it a poor test.

Again classic pseudoscientific thinking.

So many blind tests are poorly done 

Which blind tests were poorly done?  How many badly done vs. how many well done?  That's a rhetorical question; I know you're just making this factoid up.

that for many of us, it causes us to ignore them especially when there is a null result.

Especially when there is a null result?  So you ignore it because it doesn't reach the conclusion you want.  Again, classic pseudoscientific thinking.

Did you know in a blind listening test a coat hanger sounded the same as an expensive speaker cable?

And you know this can't be so because...why exactly? 

Did you know in a blind listening test a defective malfunction amplifier sounded the same as one working perfectly?  This amp was clearly audibly defective, to anyone listening to it outside of the test.  This proves that test conditions CAN null the results.

Hadn't heard that one.  Got a source for it?

Plus Peter Aczel provided no link and no details so good luck in finding it.

True.  Not everything is on the internet.

[DavidW]

So many blind tests are poorly done that for many of us, it causes us to ignore them especially when there is a null result.

Do you mean you found the results disagreeable so you concluded it was done poorly?

Plus Peter Aczel provided no link and no details so good luck in finding it.

He said exactly where the article was.  If you have a college degree, then you have enough experience needed to track the article down.  No scratch that, even in elementary school I had to go to the library and find books and magazines for reports that I had to write.

[jlaurson]

Did you know in a blind listening test a defective malfunction amplifier sounded the same as one working perfectly?  This amp was clearly audibly defective, to anyone listening to it outside of the test.  This proves that test conditions CAN null the results.

I absolutely love this. Popper would kill himself, of course, but this warp of the mind is borderline unintentional genius.

"The results of a test are not in accordance with what my faith tells me, therefore the the TEST must be faulty." Wow.
Why are we still discussing this?

[Gurn Blanston]

...Why are we still discussing this?

Um, because we are endlessly fascinated with the brain's capacity for self-deception?



----------------
Listening to:
Quartets & Partitas - Krommer Quartet #2 in Eb for Bassoon 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato

[millionrainbows]

I have Elliott Carter on a MODE DVD audio, at 24bit/96 kHz, and it sounds superb.

Also, I have some Wagner by Zubin Mehta as DVD audio, DTS, which is 48 kHz. In surround, it sounds fantastic.

I think some of the people can't hear the difference because of headphones/earbuds, or in stereo it's harder to tell. Even if it's a stereo recording, I listen to it in a surround mode, or 4-ch stereo, and it's much easier to hear the big difference.

[71 dB]

I have Elliott Carter on a MODE DVD audio, at 24bit/96 kHz, and it sounds superb.

It sounds superb beause it is a brilliant recording, not because it's 24bit/96 kHz. If the recording is downsampled to 16bit/44.1 kHz you are probably not able to hear the difference. If you are, the reasons are:

(1) Placebo-effect.
(2) Your DA-transformer is optimized to 96 kHz and it's sound quality is compromized at 44.1 kHz.
(3) Reconstruction filter at 44.1 kHz isn't the best one for your system.

Placebo-effect is dealt with knowledge and understanding. DA-transformers can be optimized for 44.1 kHz and there can be selectable reconstruction filter for different systems so there's no reason for higher than 44.1 kHz sampling rates.

As for the dynamic range, the almost 100 dB provided by 16 bits is enough at home. The signal to noise ratio of audio gear is similar and limits any potential benefits of a larger dynamic range. Typical noise level in a living room is about 30 dB. Also, noise-shaped dithering increases subjective dynamic range 10-20 dB. You can record a signal at level -110 dBFS at 16 bits using noise-shaped dithering* and it can be heard (if the volume is REALLY turned UP!) together with some noise the same way analog recordings sound. So, a piano sound really decays off smoothly becoming more and more masked by the dither noise (these is hardly any quantization noise, because dither has eliminated it more or less). So, CDs isn't actually 96 dB dynamic range media. Thanks to dithering it is about 110 dB dynamic range media.

* Anyone can test this with a sound editor such as Audition. Create a sound at -110 dBFS using 24 or 32 bit modes. Then downsample it to 16 bits using dither. Amplify the result by 50 dB so you can hear it anything because the signal is so damn quiet! You have the sound you created together with dither noise. Try again without dithering and you'll hear how the quantization noise masks and granulates completely your signal. Dither makes a BIG difference and is used on every CD. That's why 16 bit is enough for consumers and. Higher dynamic ranges are important in studios.

I think some of the people can't hear the difference because of headphones/earbuds, or in stereo it's harder to tell. Even if it's a stereo recording, I listen to it in a surround mode, or 4-ch stereo, and it's much easier to hear the big difference.

Yes, surround sound is THE THING with these audio formats. Even with headphones surround sound can be awesome if one has a player that downmixes multichannel sound into stereo using Lt/Rt - matrix and crossfeeding is used. Listening to stereo recordings in surround modes can also be a good idea depending on the recording (microphone set-up, acoustics etc.). Surround sound "masks" a bit the acoustical characteristics of one's listening room and "forces" the acoustics of the recording into the room.

[Todd]

I'm guessing most claims that high res recordings sound better is due to placebo effect.  Besides, my understanding is that the maximum practical resolution that can be achieved is 21 bits, due to thermal and electrical noise in circuits.  Higher resolution recording may or may not have other technical benefits, but human ears will not be able to hear what's happening and existing gear can't reproduce it.