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

[eretsua]

Greynol is correct. What I meant is that indeed that the audio is presented with the same mastering (targeted for the lowest common denominator) on the two different media.

Very short on time so my apologies if this is a bit real world inaccurate / I'm taking a few shortcuts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to flesh it out right now so please try to think along in the spirit of what I'm saying rather than the letter of it.

Lets do a test. I'm guessing that would be a vinyl-targeted-master played back on a cd. there would of course be obvious problems to over come like pop & crackles on the vinyl playback that aren't present in the cd presentation of the material. Yes, I am aware that influences the sound and experience but what I'm getting at lies beyond those obvious real world differences. So lets for a moment to assume we can solve those / listen around them. Even it is just adding a simulated vinyl playback noises to the cd presentation. I think that if that playback "analog noise" has been solved you'd be hard pressed to hear to the differences between the two. If not, why not?

I totally agree that what I'm suggesting is more of a "which type of mastering style do you prefer?" kind of test rather than an actual analog vs digital test, yes. I am also well aware that in the real world the artifacts of the vinyl playback does have an influence on the reproduction of the material, yes. But I am not convinced that is the determining element in why some people prefer vinyl over cd.

So the point I'm getting at is this: I think it is the kind of mastering as they do for vinyl what the people really like, the people who prefer vinyl over cd, of course. Maybe it is that of the modern vinyl pressing have a greater dynamic range than their cd counterparts. Maybe it is the differences in the depth of the bass or some such. Maybe it is related to something else. But I don't think it is related to the physical medium itself and that if they are not visually exposed to the medium they'd still prefer the vinyl-style mastering over the mastering intended for cd reproduction. And I still stand by my idea that putting on a vinyl is more of an effort and that has a positive influence on the experience of music.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

So the point I'm getting at is this: I think it is the kind of mastering as they do for vinyl what the people really like, the people who prefer vinyl over cd, of course.

More likely, vinyl sells to people for whom it is new and its warts seem like beauty marks, and to people for whom it is old and its warts seems like beauty marks.

Maybe it is that of the modern vinyl pressing have a greater dynamic range than their cd counterparts.

Not a chance. They made the mistake of releasing test records on "modern vinyl pressings" so that technical types can measure its dynamic range. It's about 30 dB shy of what its CD counterparts can do.

Maybe it is the differences in the depth of the bass or some such.

The differences in the depth of bass or some such is that vinyl doesn't have greater depth, it has audibly far less depth.

Maybe it is related to something else.

Yes, naivete and sentimentality.

But I don't think it is related to the physical medium itself and that if they are not visually exposed to the medium they'd still prefer the vinyl-style mastering over the mastering intended for cd reproduction.

It is only a very tiny minority that prefers vinyl.

And I still stand by my idea that putting on a vinyl is more of an effort and that has a positive influence on the experience of music.

Good thing that you stand by your ideas... ;-)

[greynol]

Maybe it is that of the modern vinyl pressing have a greater dynamic range than their cd counterparts.

Not a chance. They made the mistake of releasing test records on "modern vinyl pressings" so that technical types can measure its dynamic range. It's about 30 dB shy of what its CD counterparts can do.

Time for my 180.

I think he means "mastering" instead of pressing, implying that usually heavy DRC is often only applied to CD releases of titles.

If you want to join in on a discussion over that subject, here's a recent one:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=98199