The Best for the Least

[beerandmusic]

Just now, STC said:

 

Unless you have the means to verify that both SACD and CD were from the same master then there cannot be a firm conclusion we could draw from the observation. 

most sacds have a cd track as well on same media.

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Unless you have the means to verify that both SACD and CD were from the same master then there cannot be a firm conclusion we could draw from the observation. 

 

As published by the manufacturers of SACD:

How does High-Res Audio Compare to CDs and MP3s?

When comparing bitrate, or the amount of data transferred per second, High-Resolution Audio’s bitrate (9,216 kbps) is nearly seven times higher than that of CDs (1,411 kbps) and almost 29 times higher than that of MP3s (320 kbps). And the higher the bitrate, the more accurately the signal is measured.

 

Bitrate has a direct impact on sound quality. When an original recording is compressed into an MP3 file, a lot of information is lost. A lower bitrate could translate to a softer bass response or weak-sounding drum cymbals, or it could blur the attack and decay of a plucked guitar string. Imagine the horror of listening to a dulled-down “DARE” by Gorillaz! A lot of the details that artists and mixing engineers work hard to put into a recording are diminished or disappear entirely in an MP3 file.

 

High-Resolution Audio has the opposite effect. You could listen to one of your favorite recordings in high-resolution that you might have heard hundreds of times and still discover details that you’ve never heard before. That’s because High-Resolution audio formats are compressed in such a way that no audio data is lost

-----------

For me personally, i have a lot of high resoluton 2x and 4x DSD 11.2mhz files, and the bass and details send shivers to me that low resoluton files do not have same impact.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Implementation of the playback chain determines audible differences between, say, SACD and CD versions, if the same mastering is used. Just convert the CD quality version to SACD format, and then compare the two SACD takes - that will tell you if anything else is going on.

 

A lot of people do that with reported success....ask the hundreds of people that use hqplayer here that upsample everything via software to 4x DSD.  I, myself, have done that some, but native dsd sounds even better imho.

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

That’s same but not identical. If they are the same then why the level itself different between SACd and PCM layer?

 

they are usually from same master, not always, but predominantly...do your own research.

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

I suppose 99.9% listens to hires in audiophiles world. 

 

You said so many nonense but at least show some evidence.

 

and Yes, short wave  spectrum has been reclaimed by audiophiles to stream their hi Rez files.  Every kids oi there carry their precious hires files in their phone or iPods. 

 

Itunes is suffering business loss because 99.9% rejected the medium due to poor quality. Spotify just attended world audiophiles conference to save their business as 99.9% rejected the sound quality. 

 

Youtube is revamping their player because no one is using their medium due to poor SQ. 

 

You are obviously right!  

https://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It was a secret research somehow the university made available to the public so that expert like you can poke holes in it. 

 

Very few audiophiles here would even even dare to take a blind test in a valid experiment to determine whether they could or couldn’t distinguish high bit rate mp3 ( compressed file) and CD.  Those expert who claim they could prefer to keep their secret files secret and would not reveal it to the public. 

 

No I don’t. Google and Wikipedia are blocked so that I won’t learn some basic stuff from the internet. 

 

Sorry no time to respond further. You cannot  see the elephant in the room. 

 

I wouldn't want to take blind tests either, i have done a lot of comparative testing and it is not easy, and i also agree that it is with confidence that I am listening to the best i can does matter.  Trained listeners can and do pass testing and it is always about detail, and i may not be able to pick out specific details, but the overall confidence in "that sounds good" really does matter....jmo

If you care that you are content that your system is optimal within your budget, you should also feel the same way about the source...again, jmo.  I would say that I am 99.9% confident that higher resolution does have more detail, and that the trained and professional testers have been able to prove it.

[beerandmusic]

 

6 hours ago, mansr said:

17 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

As published by the manufacturers of SACD:

Bitrate has a direct impact on sound quality.

MANSR>>You don't suppose they might be just a tad biased?

 

Sure, i believe they are a lot biased, but a company that is as big as SONY could be sued for making false marketing claims.

If they use language like "should" or "could" that would be acceptable, but when they make a statement of fact, they need to be very careful.

It is also very LOGICAL to me that higher sampling means more accuracy.

The only question is if it is audible or not, not that it provides more accuracy.

 

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

It may seem logical to you, but it is nonetheless false.

Although you seem knowledgable at times, and not so brilliant at other times....I will always trust sony and my ears more than you. You, nor any math or science are capable of measuring "what is human".

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is still some point beyond which an increased sample rate will not improve anything whatsoever.

"To infinity and beyond"

[beerandmusic]

Just now, mansr said:

You don't need to trust me. Trusting Shannon and Nyquist is enough.

Nyquist is old school....some used to believe the world was flat too....

[beerandmusic]

20 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Dude stick to beer and get off the acid...

you are back down to a "9" (wink)

[beerandmusic]

25 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

"I will always trust" someone who is trying to sell me something.

 

I am not trying to sell anything, what i have is for free....

As long as music is deduced to binary data and reproduced by human hands, the potential for improvement is beyond understanding.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

Proof that π is irrational

 

I am glad you got that one right.....silly humans.

[beerandmusic]

 

[beerandmusic]

Just now, Spacehound said:

You said "I will always trust Sony* They make stuff, they want you to buy it, just like your local used car salesman wants you to buy one of his used cars.

1. I didn't say i trust sony, i said i trust sony and my ears more than mansr (in reference to resoluton).

2. I understood your post and responded accordingly.

 

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Sony and your ears are two unrelated things. Both are untrustworthy audiowise.

 

so they are related (wink)

[beerandmusic]

 

I never studied norquist nor do i intend to..."my logic" tells me that anything less than infinite sampling is marginal...

 

...and I am happy to agree to disagree with anyone that poses a different opinion....until the end, we will both be right, and both be wrong, until truth be known.

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Nope, it's perfect to any arbitrary limit you care to choose.

my "perfect" is better than your "perfect"  (wink)

[beerandmusic]

19 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

And N/S is a theorEM not a theorY. 

 

You or anyone can call it whatever you want, but if it suggests that anything less than infinite sampling is as accurate, then it isn't even a good theory imho.

 

Man hasn't even get the start time right yet.

 

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Infinite sample rates are impossible.. So it's a TheorEM.

 

 

maybe in your world....in my world, nothing is impossible.

[beerandmusic]

 

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I added some stuff. Read it again.

norquist is just another man....it doesn't bother me that he or anyone has a different understanding than me, and my truth is all the validity i need.  If someone is not able to reason that an infinite sampling of life will swallow any time slices, then all they need to do is dig a little deeper than to try to rationalize with "so called theorems".

 

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Some reading for the interested — and for cultists thinking about re-joining normal society.

 

Here is a study from 1971 which shows humans being able to distinguish audible clicks at 10 microseconds — which would translate into 100 kHz in the frequency domain:

 

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1912374

 

and they even missed a hundred tics at T-1.

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

If you don't understand this stuff just read up on it.

 

 

I don't need to read up on it, some things come as common sense to me.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

We sample stuff just because it's easier and cheaper and it's 100% accurate within the limits you  choose to set. EG - If you want 100% accuracy up to any given frequency you sample at twice that frequency.

There isn't any magic about it.

 

 

You just keep repeating what i already agreed to disagree with....we just have different understandings.  If I am a minority, that is fine too.  Any method of time sampling is inferior to the whole, no matter what frequency.