Double-blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. Redbook 16/44 in JAES Septembe, (hint: no surprises!) (bumped from 2007 in post #35) Options

[Axon]

"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback". E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran. JAES 55(9) September 2007. It's worth noting that members of the BAS wrote the paper and performed in the tests. You'll need an AES membership to access the article, so no link.

Abstract:

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

This post has been edited by Axon: Sep 10 2007, 04:13

[2Bdecided]

It implies the best and most convenient content available to consumers would be the SACD / DVD-A versions, recorded onto CD-R!

(because of the "well-known mastering reasons" - i.e. commercial CD releases are trashed with too much DRC, SACD/DVD-A sometimes are not)

I like the implication (which I agree with entirely) that you can make a better CD at home (using a good source, and a CD recorder's analogue input) than you can buy in a shop. It's quite sad.

Cheers,
David.

[user]

I think, the result of this paper and tests are clear and not surprising due to previous experiences, knowledge and tests.

Maybe you wonder about their "final conclusion", that DVD-A/SACD offer quality benefits compared to corresponding CDs, due to mastering reasons.
Well, simple answer: Though the AES is more or less independent and working scientific,
it is with every science, science needs money from the industry (and vice versa the industry needs sometimes researches by scientists), so the performers of that study have printed this sentence to their paper, to have something compromising sounding towards their industry... (without changing facts, truth etc. !), though Joe Average and the mass-magazines might focus only on this sentence, and change it only a litlte bit to "DVD-A/SACD proven to be superior to CDs !"


Don't laugh, a writer for HiFi-magazines in Germany has done already this in past, he conducted (a very poor conducted) similar test, and though his results, which he published as some kind of diploma work, indicated that CD and high-rez are on par,
but he managed to cite his diploma thesis falsely in magazines he wrote later for, writing to the audiophile masses, "a" diploma work had shown, hi-rez is superior (without mentioning, it was his own crappy diploma work/thesis) lolololol.

In audiophile internet forums, this guy, his diploma thesis, and his magazine articles were torn "in the air", even by audiophile guys !!

At least, this episode has shown to me, that even "audiophiles" (nothing wrong with being audiophile, we all are!) know about the marketing crap written in certain HiFi-magazines, if they are informed eg. by internet. Not everybody buys, what's advertized in those magazines.

This post has been edited by user: Sep 11 2007, 13:57