On 3/6/2012 11:58 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
The Meyers and Moran paper appears to have a flaw that is not really the
fault of the authors. The problem is that they took vendor claims that SACD
and DVD releases were high resolution recordings at face value. Later
investigations show that many of them were based on lower resolution analog
and digital recordings which sets a lower bar for their audible performance.
Hmmm . . . It's probably true that a lot of SACDs were
recorded before 2x and higher sample rates were available or
were at least better than standard sample rates, but as you
point out, a fresh mastering job done by or under the
supervision of real engineers and producers can indeed
provide a more musical product.
What's a "low resolution" analog recording? I would think
that what limits resolution would be the noise floor. Either
you hear it, you don't hear it, or you hear it and it
doesn't bother you (that's me).
The idea that upsampling increases resolution violates Shannon's theorem and
is the audio equivalent of perpetual motion.
I suppose that some claim that up-sampling increases
resolution but I don't think that's its primary modus
operandi. It came about before we had good oversampling
digital filters, and the idea was that by up-sampling, you
could use a gentler reconstruction filter with less group
delay than the conventional brick wall at 20 kHz.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff