I'm not sure your citations actually prove what you claim they do.
On May 3, 10:19 am, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com>
wrote:
> Randy,
>
> > Greed. They think that the general public is dumb enough to buy into
the
> > lie that they really need such a system and would then spend lots of
money
> > repurchasing what they already have.
>
> LOL, you nailed it man. Same with music, where they hope you'll buy all
the
> same titles again to play on your new unnecessary hardware.
>
> Besides the obvious waste, as Radium pointed out, this nonsense has been
> discredited fully:
>
> Audio Critic summary of the AES hi-res fallacy
article:http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&...
This seems to indicate that the tests do show the higher formats to be
equivalent to CDs. I assume that when they refer to a "16-bit/44.1-
kHz A/D/A processor" they mean the are digitizing and then restoring
to analog a signal from a higher end system. Assuming that the tests
were done correctly, and I have no reason to believe they weren't,
this seems pretty convincing.
> More from the authors
themselves:http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
Maybe I just don't understand this report, but I see sections where
they claim that the blind tests showed 100% correct results??!!!
Doesn't that indicate that the listener *could* tell the difference?
Unfortunately the writeup is very lengthy in the description of the
systems and very, very terse in the description of what they are
actually measuring... Correct me if I am misinterpreting their
results.
> Paul Lehrman commenting in Mix
magazine:http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/ind...
This is less clear. He is just commenting on the tests cited in the
first article. The actual test report costs $20 from AES.
> Nobody can hear, or perceive, or be influenced by ultrasonic content,
even
> if they think they can. Here's my best explanation for why people
sometimes
> report hearing differences even when none can possibly exist:
The question is *not* about ultrasonic content. The question is about
recording and playback systems using different sample rates.
> http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
>
> > And even if one or two actually could hear beyond 20 kHz, they're the
> > Robert Wadlow's of the audio world - should we start building houses
with
> > 10-foot ceilings because 1 out of a billion will be over 8 feet tall?
>
> More to the point, even if a few people really can just barely detect
when
> frequencies above 20 KHz are removed, who cares? Just because someone
can
> perceive 21 KHz doesn't mean that music they hear must contain those
> frequencies to be satisfying.
You are free to buy any system you want. Why do you care what other
people use?
|
