Thread: 24/192 is a waste of time

Posts: 44
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by lennyw March 6, 2012 (1 of 44)
apparently:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

There was this section, though I'm not sure I understand, and if I do, I can't say that I agree:

"The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording often does sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because of the better mastering of the SACD. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and much better than the CD release."

Could those in the industry enlighten us as to whether there is a difference in the mastering process, or whether, when producing a Hybrid-SACD, the signal is converted from DSD back to PCM16/44.1 and put onto the CD layer, in which case the assertion above would be false...I think.

Post by hiredfox March 6, 2012 (2 of 44)
Sorry but Y_A_W_N!

(:-o)

Post by Nagraboy March 6, 2012 (3 of 44)
The real question is, would any "proof" that things sound the same, actually change my buying habits re. SACDs? I'd say NO. The same goes for many things in audio - there are plenty of people who say SACD/CD/DVD-A sound the same, all amplifiers sound the same before clipping, all cables, all stands and racks etc. The list goes on and frankly I think everyone posting here is of the opinion that SACD sounds better than CD because it sounds better to them, or they find the multichannel experience far better than plain old 2ch CD.

Let the geeks with oscilloscopes carry on - I've got some music to listen to.

Post by Iain March 6, 2012 (4 of 44)
lennyw said:

apparently:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

There was this section, though I'm not sure I understand, and if I do, I can't say that I agree:

"The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording often does sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because of the better mastering of the SACD. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and much better than the CD release."

Could those in the industry enlighten us as to whether there is a difference in the mastering process, or whether, when producing a Hybrid-SACD, the signal is converted from DSD back to PCM16/44.1 and put onto the CD layer, in which case the assertion above would be false...I think.

First thing author of article needs to learn is how to write properly; second is how to stay on topic.

I lost interest after the first sentence. Yawn indeed!

Post by audioholik March 6, 2012 (5 of 44)
lennyw said:

"The BAS test I linked ...

I can't believe someone is still using the BAS study to form his or her opinion on the subject. The study was debunked last year.

Post by Euell Neverno March 6, 2012 (6 of 44)

Post by Polarius T March 6, 2012 (7 of 44)
audioholik said:

The study was debunked last year.

Yeah, right; on these very pages by Canonical and Arnaldo, the two tech wizards of the audio world.

This thread threatens to once more become an arena for those wishing to forever recycle all the old misconceptions, nonunderstandings, and prejudices about the study. The reason why its authors thought SACDs tends to sound better is that they are recorded and mastered with greater care, since all those involved in the production know very well it's going to go for specialist audiophile-audience consumption and that this is their chance to show what they can accomplish.

(That's the bit about the "better mastering," which, quite correctly, has less to do with any numbers magic than pure human skill and ambition.)

PT

Post by audioholik March 6, 2012 (8 of 44)
Polarius T said:

Yeah, right; on these very pages by Canonical and Arnaldo, the two tech wizards of the audio world.

Polarius T, the study doesn't follow the scientific method and hence no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it.

>This thread threatens to once more become an arena for those wishing to forever recycle all the old misconceptions, nonunderstandings, and prejudices about the study.

The study was debunked with solid facts and evidence. No prejudices were involved. You may not like the fact but you have to accept it.

Post by DSD March 6, 2012 (9 of 44)
Polarius T said:

The reason why its authors thought SACDs tends to sound better is that they are recorded and mastered with greater care, since all those involved in the production know very well it's going to go for specialist audiophile-audience consumption and that this is their chance to show what they can accomplish...

Complete and utter hogwash! Audiophile companies such as Telarc, Chesky and others have NEVER compromised their audiophile CDs, indeed many of them have sounded better than many believed possible for CDs to sound and have pushed the SOTA in CD sound.

Just listen for yourself! Audiophile SACDs sound better than audiophile CDs by a wide margin because SACD is a superior sounding format. Just compare the CD layer to the SACD layer and if that is not good enough for you many SACDs also have CD versions released at the same time (dual inventory) using the same mastering. OPEN YOUR EARS! Do not fall for the close mindedness of the scientific community who would not know good sound if it bit them on the ears!

Post by Polarius T March 6, 2012 (10 of 44)
audioholik said:

Polarius T, the study doesn't follow the scientific method and hence no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it.

...

The study was debunked with solid facts and evidence. No prejudices were involved. You may not like the fact but you have to accept it.

Says you. :-)

We've had this discussion before, with same results: you say: "It's debunked! It is; it really is! There -- now I too have debunked it, once more!"

Some scientific method.

Don't want to get to that same old, same old again with you, of all people. There are separate threads where this was discussed, with some relevant links posted (the one to Hydrogenaudio by the way is way more informative than anything that can be found here by the usual suspects), so those actually interested will look them up.

If at least you'd have actually read the paper so you'd have a basic idea of what it's about. I don't care about the numbers hysteria one bit (pun intended), but I do care about misrepresenting a serious piece of work (which this one is), whether it's because of some quasi-religious faith in something that requires rejecting everything out of hand that sounds even remotely out of line or because of one's simple inability to read.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next

new post