|
|
|
Ukko said:
To test point 1) we would need "certified pure DSD" SACDs with no editing or processing.
We would also need to change the methodology, as the one Meyer/Moran used in their experiment was inappropriate for this kind of a test.
To verify whether there's a statistically important difference between 16/44 and hi-rez formats I would suggest the following methodology:
1) compare 16/44kHz audio with (for example) 18bit/44kHz, write down the results.
2) compare the same 16/44kHz material with DSD or 24/176,4kHz, write down the results.
3) Finally, compare the average scores in the two data sets and test for a statistically significant difference between them, at a given confidence level (for example 95%, or even 99%), eliminating the possibility that the difference in the averages is caused by a 5% or 1% error (attributable to measurement error, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ukko said:
Those people who debunk the M&M test by criticizing the choice of recordings apparently do not realize that at the same time they admit 99% of SACDs are junk which could as well be sold as CDs.
M&M should have compared CDs to Vinyl LPs. From the same masters of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
How many times does one have to repeat that it's a waste of time trying to discriminate between A and B, when A and B are mostly the same (i.e. low resolution recordings)? Statistical analysis becomes irrelevant when the difference between the sources is irrelevant as well.
Canonical put it mildly by saying that "... Moran's comments suggest a mind that is now in abject denial of the facts..." The reality is that this Moran guy is either engaged in professional fraud or suffers from an absolute inability to comprehend a rather basic concept of logic. Actually, it's not a question of either - it's more like both.
'Basic concept of logic' and 'denial of the facts', huh. It's not easy to understand your points through the cloud of piss you spray toward me, but are you and canonical saying it's plausible to you that, okay, non-DSD hi-rez playback may indeed be audibly identical to RBCD, but modern-day DSD is so superior (and in what ways?) to all other hi-rez that it just has to be detectable and preferable, regardless? SotA DSD will automatically pass blind testing of alleged degradation, where other hi-rez technologies admittedly would not? Is that what it comes down to for you?
(And how come you pissant guys hide behind pseudonyms, whereas many of the reasonable types here use their actual names / email?)
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 29, 2010 (54 of 111)
|
|
If one is going to test a DSD format such as SACD to hear what it is capable of, one would use PURE DSD recordings or at the very least uncompromised super high quality analog recordings such as the focused-gap head reel to reel recordings of Reference Recordings NOT something like DSOTM. I listen in 2 channel stereo and IMHO the DSOTM SACD is poor sounding in stereo, I greatly prefer the MFSL High Fidelity cassette version.
As I said in Post 60 I would use the PURE DSD SACDs from DMP, Telarc and any others I could verify as PURE DSD.
Finally with the exception of Chesky LPs from RCA Living Stereo and Reader's Digest I am not a fan of their recordings. Most of Chesky's original music I find incredibly boring and I don't think they sound very good in any format.
No Ukko I would not say 99% of SACDs are bad, it think it is more like 80%. But as I say about LPs in which I believe only about 1% are great, it is extremely rewarding seeking out and finding that 1%. Same with SACD, it is worth finding that 20% of excellent SACDs, and the 5% of fantastic SACDs IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by hanser September 30, 2010 (55 of 111)
|
|
david moran said:
... Nevertheless, to address this question we added up all the trials where the original sources were very recent recordings touted as being of demonstration quality from their labels (Chesky, Telarc, ECM, Turtle and Kimber Kable). The average correct score for this group was 45.4% (109/240), slightly lower than our overall average...
Has everybody read this sentence in Morans post? This makes the counterargument of the use of lowrez recordings moot, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hanser said:
Has everybody read this sentence in Morans post? This makes the counterargument of the use of lowrez recordings moot, I think.
Again, I think that the whole "study" is moot, not just one aspect of it. And, of course, the argument that only hi-rez recordings should be used in the study is a valid one, Meyer's counterargument - that he chose the SACDs because they had good press - is not. That's not how science is done.
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 30, 2010 (57 of 111)
|
|
Hanser were the Telarc SACD's PURE DSD or PCM? Telarc has also released 44.1kHz recordings on SACD due to the presence of Multichannel. The others on the list I am not at all impressed with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ukko said:
What M&M test showed was that commercially available SACD disks are not better than CD.
I can't draw such a conclusion based on their inappropriate test methodology.
Without comparing the result of a 16/44 vs DSD (and/or 16/44 vs DVDA 24/176) experiment with the result of a second, control experiment, lets say 16/44 vs 16/48kHz, and testing for a statistically significant difference, the result of the first experiment is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> very specific and repetitive
You have been that indeed. But you have not made the case for our low-rez sins, and simply repeating your wacko accusation over and over does not cut it, whether the hostility is modulated or not. So honestly answer my DSD question, please, or stop with the fraud charges. I know this is not a place where Brad's and my good faith and honest effort carry the day for many, but seriously. (And you didn't address the pseudonym matter either.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a precious, absolute dictatorship you run here, Arnaldo, and are allowed to run: constantly evasive, unable to engage honestly. All righty then.
|
|
