Computer, CD transport or Network Player?

[firedog]

You will not get any consensus on this.

I'd look at it differently. What method makes the most sense for how you listen and how you want to interact with your music collection?

Then get the best setup you can afford for that method. 

For exmple, if you don't want to deal with discs, then don't get a disc player, even if it is "superior": because you won't really enjoy your collection that way.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

some of the streamers offer high bitrates etc.

 

but... carefully done studies show there is very little actual SQ improvement

 

I have between 1500 and 2000 redbook CDs (all ripped onto a mac mini), a dozen or so SACDs, and am about to buy an Oppo 205 partly to play SACD, partly for video - I will also use it as a DAC for the mini

 

the trick is to find high quality recordings and you often get that on SACDs

 

 

When you find the "carefully done" study that actually shows that, let me know. There are studies, none of them large enough or well done enough to prove anything.

And please don't trot out the Meyer-Moran study from 10 years ago. It's been shown to be fundamentally flawed. They used SACDs sourced from upsampled Redbook as  "high-res" to compare to Redbook of the same album.

[firedog]

16 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I posted a meta-analysis previously.  You can find it with a search.

 

You have stated the Meyer-Moran study was fatally flawed before (and maybe it is) but have not produced anything to support your assertion.  I understand that we all have time limitations, but...

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I posted a meta-analysis previously.  You can find it with a search.

 

You have stated the Meyer-Moran study was fatally flawed before (and maybe it is) but have not produced anything to support your assertion.  I understand that we all have time limitations, but...

 

 

The only meta analysis I found in a search was one showing that hi-res is distinguishable from Redbook.....

 

 

And again, as far as the Meyer-Moran study the Boston Audio Society  confirmed they used SACD's based on upsampled Redbook. AFAIR, few or none of their SACDs were sourced from a high res master. They were all either sourced from tape, or from non-high res digital recordings.

A  quick search found this, from the BAA, listing the SACDs used in the test. Just with a little knowledge and a glance, you can tell that many of these predate digital recording, hi-res recording, or both:

 

Patricia Barber – Nightclub (Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2004)
Chesky: Various -- An Introduction to SACD (SACD204)
Chesky: Various -- Super Audio Collection & Professional Test Disc (CHDVD 171)
Stephen Hartke: Tituli/Cathedral in the Thrashing Rain; Hilliard Ensemble/Crockett (ECM New Series 1861, cat. no. 476 1155, SACD)
Bach Concertos: Perahia et al; Sony SACD
Mozart Piano Concertos: Perahia, Sony SACD
Kimber Kable: Purity, an Inspirational Collection SACD T Minus 5 Vocal Band, no cat. #
Tony Overwater: Op SACD (Turtle Records TRSA 0008)
McCoy Tyner Illuminati SACD (Telarc 63599)
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon SACD (Capitol/EMI 82136)
Steely Dan, Gaucho, Geffen SACD
Alan Parsons, I, Robot DVD-A (Chesky CHDD 2003)
BSO, Saint-Saens, Organ Symphony SACD (RCA 82876-61387-2 RE1)
Carlos Heredia, Gypsy Flamenco SACD (Chesky SACD266)
Shakespeare in Song, Phoenix Bach Choir, Bruffy, SACD (Chandos CHSA 5031)
Livingston Taylor, Ink SACD (Chesky SACD253)
The Persuasions, The Persuasions Sing the Beatles, SACD (Chesky SACD244)
Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, DVD-A (24,96) Giant Records 9 24719-9
McCoy Tyner with Stanley Clark and Al Foster, Telarc SACD 3488

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

 

So basically, M&M confirmed that listeners can't differentiate between playback  of a  Redbook/analog source played back as a CD, and that same  source converted/upsampled to hi-res, and then played back as analog from an SACD player. But of course, with proper conversion and playback there is no reason to think they would hear a difference. 

 

If you want to know the recording provenance of each one, it's now time for you to put in the effort.

[firedog]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the proponent of a claim has the burden of showing that claim - but I understand your position

 

Here is the latest on the audibility of high res AFAIK

 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

You've more than once doubted my statement that the MM study used Sacd from fake hires, and now that I've shown it to be true, no comment from you?

 

As far as the meta analysis, it's been well publicized since the day it came out. It indicates the audiability of hires, not the opposite, as you claimed.

So what claim haven't I backed up?