On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:15:47 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Edmund" <nomail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4815dd90$0$1058$bf4948fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:07:25 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Edmund" <nomail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:4815c591$0$16811$bf4948fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested. They
>>>> where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
>>>
>>> It is unlikely that there are many people who are completely deaf over
>>> 14 KHz. Hearing doesn't work that way - when there are high frequency
>>> losses, they are progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just
>>> attenuated.
>>>
>>>> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz, ALL
>>>> of them could tell the difference!
>>>
>>> I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about anybody can detect
>>> - just use a gentle roll-off that also affects lower frequencies.
>>> There are a number of anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are
>>> given, and it turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10 KHz,
>>> due to the gentle slope.
>>
>> Loss or phase ****fts/problems?
>
> Phase ****ft applied equally to both channels usually has to be
> exceedingly severe to be audible with most musical sources.
>
>>>> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD and
>>>> CD,
>>>
>>> There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a professional
>>> organization with a world-wide reputation in audio) that says that if
>>> you take recordings in a so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample
>>> them to 44 KHz, the results are no audible differences.
>
>> I have seen such a re****t, strange,.... I like to hear or not hear it
>> myself, I don't beleive in god either :-)
>
> Their procedure was pretty good, and might be helpful to your own
> personal investigations.
>
>>> However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different
>>> due to different mastering.
>
>> I assumed the mastering was the same. Why would they use a different
>> mastering if they already had one for the SACD?
>
> For one reason, because the SACD is a reissue, and the comparison is to
> a CD that was mastered some time ago.
I made a copy of the CD layer from an SACD, I read that
studio's had a new format to use the SACD master for
producing CD's too.
I could be very wrong but still I assumed that was the case.
>
>>>
>>> If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks
>>> like, check the AES web site.
>
>> I will, do you have a specific URL with this article? BTW check it
>> yourself too, I see that you are comparing SACD
>> with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9 I have seen the
>> impulse of a SACD being the best available of
>> all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?
>
> The old fa****oned way - with more bandwidth.
Yes the SACD has more bandwith but still you seem to have some
problems with the SACD format, don't you?
>
> However, impulse response is a measurement, I thought you were
> interested in listening tests?
No I am not into voodoo I am not talking in extremes,
I both do listen and like to know how stuff works.
Both SACD and DVDA seems a pretty steep step forward
to me and very interesting if in serious listening tests
nobody seems to be able to hear the difference.
>
>>>> Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl, no doubt
>>>> the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the additional vinyl
>>>> problems.
>
>>> Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still
>>> "sound better"?
>
>> I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall
>> sound was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
>
> How do you know that what you perceived as better detail wasn't
> distortion due to the LP?
That is the fun of listening, I don't know that but we all
agreed that the vinyl sounded better.
It is hard for me to believe that we where all addicted to
some kind of distortion, but who knows?
>
>> Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound
>> better all agreed that that was not true.
>
> The canonical anecdote starts out with "Even my wife in the kitchen said
> that it sounded better and she obviously didn't know what she was
> listening to".
So that could be true too.
Edmund
|
