xiphmont’s ‘There is no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz’, Article: “24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed” Options

[NullC]

Of interest, but certainly not news to anyone here is Monty's educational piece regarding the lack of value of 24/192 as a distribution format:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Some of the commentary on the internet has been not especially well informed, for example there are some crazy claims at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310. If you're in a "someone is wrong on the internet!" correcting mood, you might want to go leave some comments in furtherance of the collective intelligence of mankind.

Cheers

[wakibaki]

I thought he made good points, but he quoted Meyer and Moran. I just think it's better that we're all informed as to the counter-arguments rather than ending up with egg on our faces.

I hate the way science-based electronics has been infected by this insanity, but there was a time when audio wasn't like this, and I believe the tide will turn.

w

[xiphmont]

I thought he made good points, but he quoted Meyer and Moran. I just think it's better that we're all informed as to the counter-arguments rather than ending up with egg on our faces.

I'm actually curious as to your specific objection/concern. I've read the various critiques written by detractors of the BAS tests over the years, but too many of those arguments relied on willful obtuseness and eye rolling. I'd like to hear the methodology/implementation critiques from those who nevertheless agreed with the conclusions.

The point has also been made that [in the article] first I argue "ultrasonics hurt fidelity" and then cite M&M, which supposedly undermines the argument because no one could hear a difference. In no way does M&M rebut the assertion that ultrasonics _can_ cause audible distortion. They were using high end setups designed at expense for audiophile-grade frequency extension, and the results show they obviously weren't affected by audible IMD. Am I missing something else?

[krabapple]

I thought he made good points, but he quoted Meyer and Moran. I just think it's better that we're all informed as to the counter-arguments rather than ending up with egg on our faces.

I'm actually curious as to your specific objection/concern. I've read the various critiques written by detractors of the BAS tests over the years, but too many of those arguments relied on willful obtuseness and eye rolling. I'd like to hear the methodology/implementation critiques from those who nevertheless agreed with the conclusions.

The point has also been made that [in the article] first I argue "ultrasonics hurt fidelity" and then cite M&M, which supposedly undermines the argument because no one could hear a difference. In no way does M&M rebut the assertion that ultrasonics _can_ cause audible distortion. They were using high end setups designed at expense for audiophile-grade frequency extension, and the results show they obviously weren't affected by audible IMD. Am I missing something else?

The supposed stake through the heart of M&M is that they didn't use 'any' (later changed to 'they didn't use ENOUGH') pure DSD (i.e., not sourced from analog tape or 'standard rez' digital) recordings as test material. This ignores the fact that subjects were often allowed to pick the discs THEY thought best showed the difference. It also conveniently 'forgets' that SACDs were touted as inherently improving *even analog-sourced materials* -- and indeed, most non-classical SACDs were and are sourced from analog tapes. They're only rarely new recordings. (Some Sony SACDs were reportedly even sourced from Redbook masters. )

So 'skeptical' complaints against M&M on these fronts really just constituted moving the goalposts. Suddenly only 'pure' DSD recordings reveal the benefits of the format! (Leaving aside that the relatively large ultrasonic content of such recordings could cause distortion. Though SACD players usually have 50- or 100kHz lowpass filters after the DAC, to cut out the REALLY ultra junk.)

That said, M&M absolutely *should* have described their methods in far more detail in the original article (that information dribbled out later). And they *could* publish subset analysis of data to see if considering only the 'pure' DSD recordings made any difference in their findings. Or release their raw data and let others work it over. Or, preferably, someone could do another test and gather more data.

[xiphmont]

That said, M&M absolutely *should* have described their methods in far more detail in the original article (that information dribbled out later). And they *could* publish subset analysis of data to see if considering only the 'pure' DSD recordings made any difference in their findings. Or release their raw data and let others work it over. Or, preferably, someone could do another test and gather more data.

Excellent, thanks. I'll ask about it at this month's meeting.

[krabapple]

Excellent, thanks. I'll ask about it at this month's meeting.

No problem. Loved your article, btw.

Dave Moran addressed some of the 'skeptics' head-on in a contentious exchange on the sa-cd.net forum. Here's one possible entry point into that:

http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread.php?page=1

And from this newer thread on that forum -- about your article -- one can see right off that the True Believers already consider M&M's study to have been 'debunked':

http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread.php?page=1

This post has been edited by krabapple: Mar 10 2012, 23:15

[FreaqyFrequency]

post

For the sake of the sanity and for spared minutes of the lives of everyone reading this thread, and for the love of humanity, do not read the thread corresponding to Monty's article on the SACD threads linked. Please.

Please.

[2Bdecided]

post

For the sake of the sanity and for spared minutes of the lives of everyone reading this thread, and for the love of humanity, do not read the thread corresponding to Monty's article on the SACD threads linked. Please.

Please.

..and then of course, I had to. You ***!

Cheers,
David.