Rick,
> This seems to indicate that the tests do show the higher formats to be
> equivalent to CDs.
Yes, which is the main point of the tests.
> Maybe I just don't understand this re****t, but I see sections where they
> claim that the blind tests showed 100% correct results??!!!
That addresses background noise only, not audio quality. As I read it,
they
found only one hi-res disc that had a noise level lower than regular CDs.
And they had to turn up the playback volume way higher than normal to hear
that.
> The question is *not* about ultrasonic content. The question is about
> recording and playback systems using different sample rates.
Actually, the real question is why people sometimes re****t hearing a
change
in audio quality when no change is possible. As with tiny magic stick-on
plastic dots, replacement AC power cords, cryo treatment, and so forth.
That's the core issue underlying ALL of this stuff. Which is what my
article
addresses. Did you read my article? Most people - even many audio pros -
have no idea how pervasive comb filtering is.
> You are free to buy any system you want. Why do you care what other
> people use?
This is an excellent question. People who are already convinced their BS
tweaks are worthwhile should buy what they want and I have no objection.
But
the majority of people are seeking an honest opinion to avoid wasting
money.
I see this as a consumerist issue, so I aim to educate those who really
want
to know.
--Ethan
|
