I was looking at the Philips SACD
so i read this thing says f/r = dc - 44kHz
and s/n = 115db
not only that but it is linear =/- a few db
So i am asking myself thusly
"Self, when was the last instance upon which you heard a 44kHz tone at
35db +115db? and rushes to me the conclusion that while perhaps such a
signal do indeed exist, perhaps in combat situation, or supersonic
flight, that I have never heard this such tone regards musical
reproduction.
And then I pondered, inasmuch as this is possible to record on this
SACD, how much amplifier power would i need to reproduce 5.1 channels at
this sounds pressures?
To wit i described to myself "Perhaps this SACD is a thing for which I
do not needs have?"

Carl

Carl wrote:

I was looking at the Philips SACD
so i read this thing says f/r = dc - 44kHz
and s/n = 115db

However, it doesn't do both at the same time.

The SNR of 100 dB is conditioned on a brick wall filter at 20 KHz. Above
20 KHz the noise level is allowed to increase, dramatically.

not only that but it is linear =/- a few db

True below 45 KHz or so. However, response tolerances this tight need only
be maintained up to 17 KHz or less.

So i am asking myself thusly
"Self, when was the last instance upon which you heard a 44kHz tone at
35db +115db?

The answer is never, but that is not the given pretext for response that
high. There is an easily-falsified belief that the audio CD system's brick
wall filter at 22 KHz has audible effects. A few mislead persons believe
that substituting a somewhat gentler (but by no means gentle) filter will
alleviate the non-existent audible effects of a well-designed brick wall
filter at 22 KHz.

and rushes to me the conclusion that while perhaps such a
signal do indeed exist, perhaps in combat situation, or supersonic
flight, that I have never heard this such tone regards musical
reproduction.

In fact musical instruments produce sounds at a wide variety of ultrasonic
frequencies. This is well-documented, and I documented this again a few
years ago at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
However, it is easy to show that a well-designed brick wall filter operating
as low as 16 KHz or even less, is completely undetectable.

And then I pondered, inasmuch as this is possible to record on this
SACD, how much amplifier power would i need to reproduce 5.1 channels
at this sounds pressures?

I seriously doubt that many who tout SACD or DVD-A actually have audio
systems capable of exploiting the technology. In fact the people who brag
about the extended resolution of these formats specfiically mention
recordings that unbeknownst to them were made in obsolete analog formats
that have 80 dB or less dynamic range, and have zero usable response above
25 KHz or so. In the real world, these aren't serious problems in terms of
musical enjoyment and potential realism. However, in the make-believe world
of SACD and DVD-A, they are harsh indictments of their own presumed
listening acuity.

To wit i described to myself "Perhaps this SACD is a thing for which I
do not needs have?"

The extended response and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A is audible to
creatures with ears to match, like bats. The audiophiles who fall for this
snake oil may therefore be thought of as being "batty".

Ted Azito wrote:
To wit i described to myself "Perhaps this SACD is a thing for
which I do not needs have?"

The extended response and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A is audible
to creatures with ears to match, like bats. The audiophiles who fall
for this snake oil may therefore be thought of as being "batty".


Remember the classic Rupert Neve demo? They sounded different to me
when I repeated this experiment with an HP function generator.

That just means you don't know how to set levels.

Also, SACDs to me seem to sound better than CDs-but sometimes not as good
as
vinyl or pro (1/2" 30 ips) tape.

Opinions are like buttholes - everybody has at least one.

In general, the musicians think it's
better, the engineers and mastering guys think it's better, and high
end buyers, right or wrong, think it's better.

Seeing no audited results from an official vote, that means that you are
making this up as you go along.

Therefore, DVD-A and/or
SACD will survive....as Tony Clifton would say.

I don't think Tony Clifton would say squat.

And you and Tony Clifton would get along very well.

Seems like an impossible dream.

Arny said:

Opinions are like buttholes - everybody has at least one.


Like your opinion of the Sennheiser HD-650s, which you've never heard?

Boon

Arny Krueger wrote:
Carl wrote:


I was looking at the Philips SACD
so i read this thing says f/r = dc - 44kHz
and s/n = 115db


However, it doesn't do both at the same time.

The SNR of 100 dB is conditioned on a brick wall filter at 20 KHz. Above
20 KHz the noise level is allowed to increase, dramatically.


not only that but it is linear =/- a few db


True below 45 KHz or so. However, response tolerances this tight need only
be maintained up to 17 KHz or less.


So i am asking myself thusly
"Self, when was the last instance upon which you heard a 44kHz tone at
35db +115db?


The answer is never, but that is not the given pretext for response that
high. There is an easily-falsified belief that the audio CD system's brick
wall filter at 22 KHz has audible effects. A few mislead persons believe
that substituting a somewhat gentler (but by no means gentle) filter will
alleviate the non-existent audible effects of a well-designed brick wall
filter at 22 KHz.


and rushes to me the conclusion that while perhaps such a
signal do indeed exist, perhaps in combat situation, or supersonic
flight, that I have never heard this such tone regards musical
reproduction.


In fact musical instruments produce sounds at a wide variety of ultrasonic
frequencies. This is well-documented, and I documented this again a few
years ago at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
However, it is easy to show that a well-designed brick wall filter operating
as low as 16 KHz or even less, is completely undetectable.


And then I pondered, inasmuch as this is possible to record on this
SACD, how much amplifier power would i need to reproduce 5.1 channels
at this sounds pressures?


I seriously doubt that many who tout SACD or DVD-A actually have audio
systems capable of exploiting the technology. In fact the people who brag
about the extended resolution of these formats specfiically mention
recordings that unbeknownst to them were made in obsolete analog formats
that have 80 dB or less dynamic range, and have zero usable response above
25 KHz or so. In the real world, these aren't serious problems in terms of
musical enjoyment and potential realism. However, in the make-believe world
of SACD and DVD-A, they are harsh indictments of their own presumed
listening acuity.


To wit i described to myself "Perhaps this SACD is a thing for which I
do not needs have?"


The extended response and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A is audible to
creatures with ears to match, like bats. The audiophiles who fall for this
snake oil may therefore be thought of as being "batty".



I downloaded the sax and guitar thingy
96/24
It plays and doesn't seem to be a musical challange
When I let sound forge do a spectrum of it it found (0db = 100% modulation)
-15 db at 600 or so and again at 1000 Hz
but at the ultrasonic it was -80 db at 20k and -105db at 48k on the left
channel and -110db on the right.
Why did you record this sample at such a low modulation? Wouldn't it
have sounded better had you used all the dynamic range?
Admit that my system won't play anything at those frequencies, so I
assume you mean that they somehow do something to frquencies which are
audible?
Even at 20k which is significantly higher than i can hear at my age i am
limited to 12k in the left ear and 14k in the right. (This comes from my
younger years racing SCCA mustangs and healey and years of playing bass
guitar)
Perhaps it is this hearing loss which makes it impossible for me to hear
all these tweaks and cables.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Ted Azito wrote:

To wit i described to myself "Perhaps this SACD is a thing for
which I do not needs have?"

The extended response and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A is audible
to creatures with ears to match, like bats. The audiophiles who fall
for this snake oil may therefore be thought of as being "batty".


Remember the classic Rupert Neve demo? They sounded different to me
when I repeated this experiment with an HP function generator.


That just means you don't know how to set levels.


Also, SACDs to me seem to sound better than CDs-but sometimes not as good

as

vinyl or pro (1/2" 30 ips) tape.


Opinions are like buttholes - everybody has at least one.


In general, the musicians think it's
better, the engineers and mastering guys think it's better, and high
end buyers, right or wrong, think it's better.


Seeing no audited results from an official vote, that means that you are
making this up as you go along.


Therefore, DVD-A and/or
SACD will survive....as Tony Clifton would say.


I don't think Tony Clifton would say squat.


And you and Tony Clifton would get along very well.


Seems like an impossible dream.



It seems technically impossible for tape at any speed to sound *better*
than SACD or even plain ol' CD. In some cases there may be vinyl which
exceeds CD's frequency response, but not it's S/N and certainly not it's
wow and flutter. Especially wow and flutter of belt drive TT's which are
so popular now. Aditionally, LP picks up Wow and Flutter in the
mastering process. The RIAA standard for LP w/f is awful and quite
audible. Piano on LP can be really distressing. This is the single most
compelling argument in favor of digital media for me.
That is not to say I don't play LP, reel, and cassette, because I do. I
don't believe that technical specifications and sound quality are the
only criteria for judging a recording. For me it's the music judged by
how it *works* for me. Technical specs are interesting when I'm playing
with my equipment. Digital is a great tool for evaluating analog
processes, and that is mainly what i use it for. I rely on OEM catalog
materials because I very seldom do any live recording anymore.
i was interested in transferring LP to CD but I have given up on that
idea simply because it's too much work and time. At my age there are
only so many days left... :[

Carl

Ted Azito wrote:

Using an Agilent 33120, a DC-coupled oscilloscope, a Fluke or Keithley
thermocouple (the only _true_ RMS for nonsinusoidal!)voltmeter, and a
suitable amplfier and speaker system, what test procedure would you
recommend? Do you match level peak-to-peak or RMS, and,

RMS, but the signal needs to be brick-wall filtered at 20 KHz.

even if you concede a small level matching error,

do you think any reasonably musically trained person would mistake a
clear difference in timbre for a small delta of level? (and
falsifiable-put in a pad and a switch!)

Absolutely.

Because, that's what you are saying in your criticism. I guess Neve's
a dummy and all those pro ears at AES were too.

It's not the only poorly-informed technical claim that Neve has ever made.
Nobody is perfect, not even me. ;-)

Regarding the preference for SACD over CD,no, I did not just pull it
out of my ass.

But Ted you old charlatan, you show no proof that you found it anyplace
but...

It's the most common viewpoint among professionals.

Seeing no audited results from an official vote, that means that you are
making this up as you go along. BTW shortly, I'll take up my own challenge
and provide official audited results that show that SACD and DVD-A have
failed completely in the marketplace.

And as you should have figured out a long time ago, Arny's opinions carry
little weight in the market.

My opinions notwithstanding, SACD market share is or 0.17% and DVD-A market
share is 0.065%. That includes discs that are compatible with legacy
players. In fact, both SACD and DVD-A have failed miserably in the
marketplace.

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/...dvda_sacd.html

"The RIAA has recently released a sales report for recorded music for 2003,
along with comparisons to years past, for all recorded media. CD sales still
ruled supreme in 2003, with nearly 756 million total discs sold.

"DVD-Audio sales remained stagnant in 2003, with a 0.08 percent increase in
sales to approximately 400,000, says the RIAA's "2003 Yearend Statistics"
report.

"SACD sales were tracked for the first time in 2003, showing 1.3 million
discs sold during the year.

After more than enough years (at least 3) for DVD-A and SACD to make an
impression on the marketplace:

SACD market share is 1.3 / 756 or 0.17%

DVD-A market share is 0.4 / 756 0.065%

There are said to currently be about 2000 SACD titles.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=16666776

The average SACD title sold about 650 copies, per RIAA statistics (above).

There are said to currently be about 730 DVD-A titles.

http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?fo...temaid=1935829

The average DVD-A title therefore sold about 548 copies, per RIAA
statistics (above).

Can anybody be making money with sales like these?

To put the sub-1,000 sales per SACD and DVD tiltle into perspective:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4352.cfm claims that in 2001 27,000
CD titles were released (most recent data I could find)

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/...dvda_sacd.html says that 756
million CDs were sold in 2003.

Doing the math:

About 28,000 copies per average CD title.

Reviewing, less than 1,000 copies per DVD-A or SACD title, even after what 3
or more years of trying to push the formats.

The numbers above, which are based on official published RIAA statististics
that were audited by the Price, Waterhouse Accounting firm seem to belie any
claims that SACD or DVD-A has achived anything like sucess in the
marketplace.


People are much more willing to listen to
a Neve, a Sear, a Massenburg, then Krueger.

BTW, Massenberg agrees with me when it comes to the audibility of higher
sample rates, as does Katz.

"George Massenburg" wrote in message
om

snip

Speaking of 'differences'. I hope that I live long enough to craft and
demonstrate what a scientific listening/evaluation test is and what it
isn't.
What it isn't is what you might call the [golden-ear pantload name
here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
modest differences.
The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.
An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
file (presumably rich in 20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
with differentiating between the samples. (Incidentally, this is a
test that I proposed several years ago at the AES Technical Committee
on Studio Production and Practices, and have finally implemented on
the EdNet web site. Stay tuned.)

I have no idea why-well, actually I do, but let's say I don't- but they
do.

Ted, you've been belied so many times in just this post that it should be
clear to all that you're obviously just talking trash. Even the authorities
you cite, have in fact supported the viewpoint that higher sample rates such
as promoted by the grotesquely unsucessful SACD and DVD-A formats, have no
audible benefits.

I think you need to join "Joe Borg" in his as yet unsucessful quest for his
first genuine clue.

Carl wrote:
I downloaded the sax and guitar thingy
96/24
It plays and doesn't seem to be a musical challange

Please explain.

When I let sound forge do a spectrum of it it found (0db = 100%
modulation) -15 db at 600 or so and again at 1000 Hz

but at the ultrasonic it was -80 db at 20k and -105db at 48k on the
left channel and -110db on the right.

And your point is?

Why did you record this sample at such a low modulation?

It's peak levels are about - 0.5 dB, which is hardly low modulation. It is
simply the way that uncompressed, music sometimes comes out.

Wouldn't it
have sounded better had you used all the dynamic range?

I did. You need to look at the amplitude statistics for the file, not the
spectral response, if you want to judge dynamic range.

Admit that my system won't play anything at those frequencies, so I
assume you mean that they somehow do something to frquencies which are
audible?

Please explain further?

Even at 20k which is significantly higher than i can hear at my age i
am limited to 12k in the left ear and 14k in the right. (This comes
from my younger years racing SCCA mustangs and healey and years of
playing bass guitar)

It's not a good thing when audiophiles allow their ears to be abused.

Perhaps it is this hearing loss which makes it impossible for me to
hear all these tweaks and cables.

Could be, or not.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Carl wrote:

I downloaded the sax and guitar thingy
96/24
It plays and doesn't seem to be a musical challange


Please explain.


When I let sound forge do a spectrum of it it found (0db = 100%
modulation) -15 db at 600 or so and again at 1000 Hz


but at the ultrasonic it was -80 db at 20k and -105db at 48k on the
left channel and -110db on the right.


And your point is?


Why did you record this sample at such a low modulation?


It's peak levels are about - 0.5 dB, which is hardly low modulation. It is
simply the way that uncompressed, music sometimes comes out.


Wouldn't it
have sounded better had you used all the dynamic range?


I did. You need to look at the amplitude statistics for the file, not the
spectral response, if you want to judge dynamic range.


Admit that my system won't play anything at those frequencies, so I
assume you mean that they somehow do something to frquencies which are
audible?


Please explain further?


Even at 20k which is significantly higher than i can hear at my age i
am limited to 12k in the left ear and 14k in the right. (This comes
from my younger years racing SCCA mustangs and healey and years of
playing bass guitar)


It's not a good thing when audiophiles allow their ears to be abused.


Perhaps it is this hearing loss which makes it impossible for me to
hear all these tweaks and cables.


Could be, or not.



That's not what SF 7 shows
for the whole sample max level 93% modulation and RMS =23% modulation
It also says that you highest sample is 0.07 seconds into the piece.
I suppose that is hairsplitting on my part. I might have been tempted to
use a compressor for that millisecond peak and get the overall s/n ratio
higher in real life. Of course I understand your point about keeping the
levels lower.
But still, we were talking about Ultrasonics and I don't find any
significant ultrasonics in the sample. Certainly not any that seem to
affect the sound.

Which instrument is supposed to be ultrasonic, the guitar or the sax?
How much is your real s/n above 20kHz? It sure didn't look like there
was anything there.

Also i was looking around the internet and I can't find any microphones
that go past 20kHz so what did you use to record these instruments with?
Did you DI the guitar or was it accoustic? Did you use one of those clip
on mics? How can you be sure the instrument was creating harmonics that
high and it wasn't distortion?

Perhaps my hearing is not up to standards, but that is no reason to call
me an audiophile. I certainly am not one of those. Even if i cant hear
ultrasonic that does not make me say it doesn't exist. I have seen my
own tape machine go way past 20k (seen not heard) By the way, it is easy
to record ultrasonic on tape at 25% modulation even at 7,5ips...
But you have to use a signal generator to source it and a scope to see
it. It certainly has no bearing on musical recording either in digital
or analog in my experience.

I stand by my original sentiment that SACD and the other DVDA is from a
technical standpoint overkill for recording musical performances. OSHA
says that exposure to SPL over 105 requires hearing protection even for
short periods. Add to that range the 35db background level and you come
up with airport runway SPL's or more. 70db of s/n is all thats required,
with maybe 80 or 90 in a real quiet room. Of course nobody plays music
that loud - well in some clubs they do - but they don't use the range
anyway.

I have nothing against SACD or DVDA in fact I like the multi-channel
idea.. I will even buy these things since they will be the same price,
but I won't run out and buy a SACD player with the same enthusiasm as I
did when CD, (still the best format)came out.

Carl

"Carl" wrote in message
m
Arny Krueger wrote:
Carl wrote:

I downloaded the sax and guitar thingy
96/24
It plays and doesn't seem to be a musical challange


Please explain.


When I let sound forge do a spectrum of it it found (0db = 100%
modulation) -15 db at 600 or so and again at 1000 Hz


but at the ultrasonic it was -80 db at 20k and -105db at 48k on the
left channel and -110db on the right.


And your point is?


Why did you record this sample at such a low modulation?


It's peak levels are about - 0.5 dB, which is hardly low modulation.
It is simply the way that uncompressed, music sometimes comes out.


Wouldn't it
have sounded better had you used all the dynamic range?


I did. You need to look at the amplitude statistics for the file,
not the spectral response, if you want to judge dynamic range.


Admit that my system won't play anything at those frequencies, so I
assume you mean that they somehow do something to frquencies which
are audible?


Please explain further?


Even at 20k which is significantly higher than i can hear at my age
i am limited to 12k in the left ear and 14k in the right. (This
comes from my younger years racing SCCA mustangs and healey and
years of playing bass guitar)


It's not a good thing when audiophiles allow their ears to be abused.


Perhaps it is this hearing loss which makes it impossible for me to
hear all these tweaks and cables.


Could be, or not.



That's not what SF 7 shows
for the whole sample max level 93% modulation

As they say, do the math. ]

93% modulation = -0.630 dB

and RMS =23% modulation

That would be more like the average level and corresponds to -12.76 dB

Cooledit gives about -11 dB for the sample in question.

It also says that you highest sample is 0.07 seconds into the piece.
I suppose that is hairsplitting on my part. I might have been tempted
to use a compressor for that millisecond peak and get the overall s/n
ratio higher in real life. Of course I understand your point about
keeping the levels lower.

I don't think that compression and high sonic quality go together. OTOH, I
have no feelings of compunction about using compressors when the goal is
less than perfectionistic quality.

But still, we were talking about Ultrasonics and I don't find any
significant ultrasonics in the sample. Certainly not any that seem to
affect the sound.

Why not shift your focus to some of the samples that are obviously full of
ultraonics?

Which instrument is supposed to be ultrasonic, the guitar or the sax?
How much is your real s/n above 20kHz? It sure didn't look like there
was anything there.

Why are you ignoring the samples that are rich in ultraonics?

Also i was looking around the internet and I can't find any
microphones that go past 20kHz so what did you use to record these
instruments with?

Just read the web page. All the info is there.

Did you DI the guitar or was it accoustic?

Acoustic.

Did you use one of those clip on mics?

Nope, the mic was on a regular boom stand.

How can you be sure the instrument was
creating harmonics that high and it wasn't distortion?

I'm intimately familiar with how the signal chain performs with instruments
that are not so rich in ultrasonics. Also, when you find out what the mics
are, you may have more of your concerns addressed.

Perhaps my hearing is not up to standards, but that is no reason to
call me an audiophile. I certainly am not one of those. Even if i
cant hear ultrasonic that does not make me say it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Thousands of people have downloaded these
files. I presume that if they go to the trouble to download them, they
listen to them.

I have seen my own tape machine go way past 20k (seen not heard) By the
way, it is easy to record ultrasonic on tape at 25% modulation even
at 7,5ips... But you have to use a signal generator to source it and
a scope to see it. It certainly has no bearing on musical recording
either in digital or analog in my experience.

These are musical recordings, and some of them are rich in ultrasonic. I
don't know why you seem to think that these are the only recordings that are
on the web page, or how you missed the complete specifications of the signal
chain that was used for recording.

I stand by my original sentiment that SACD and the other DVDA is from
a technical standpoint overkill for recording musical performances.

No argument here.

OSHA says that exposure to SPL over 105 requires hearing protection
even for short periods. Add to that range the 35db background level
and you come up with airport runway SPL's or more. 70db of s/n is all
thats required, with maybe 80 or 90 in a real quiet room. Of course
nobody plays music that loud - well in some clubs they do - but they
don't use the range anyway.

No argument there.

I have nothing against SACD or DVDA in fact I like the multi-channel
idea..

Multichannel is hardly a unique feature of either.

I will even buy these things since they will be the same price,
but I won't run out and buy a SACD player with the same enthusiasm as
I did when CD, (still the best format)came out.

I have a ton of equipment that supports recording at sample rates up to 192
KHz. I've used it, listened to the results carefully, and had other people
do their own listening. There just isn't any practical benefit to high
sample rates or
bloated dynamic range specifications.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Carl" wrote in message
m

Arny Krueger wrote:

Carl wrote:


I downloaded the sax and guitar thingy
96/24
It plays and doesn't seem to be a musical challange


Please explain.



When I let sound forge do a spectrum of it it found (0db = 100%
modulation) -15 db at 600 or so and again at 1000 Hz


but at the ultrasonic it was -80 db at 20k and -105db at 48k on the
left channel and -110db on the right.


And your point is?



Why did you record this sample at such a low modulation?


It's peak levels are about - 0.5 dB, which is hardly low modulation.
It is simply the way that uncompressed, music sometimes comes out.



Wouldn't it
have sounded better had you used all the dynamic range?


I did. You need to look at the amplitude statistics for the file,
not the spectral response, if you want to judge dynamic range.



Admit that my system won't play anything at those frequencies, so I
assume you mean that they somehow do something to frquencies which
are audible?


Please explain further?



Even at 20k which is significantly higher than i can hear at my age
i am limited to 12k in the left ear and 14k in the right. (This
comes from my younger years racing SCCA mustangs and healey and
years of playing bass guitar)


It's not a good thing when audiophiles allow their ears to be abused.



Perhaps it is this hearing loss which makes it impossible for me to
hear all these tweaks and cables.


Could be, or not.



That's not what SF 7 shows
for the whole sample max level 93% modulation


As they say, do the math. ]

93% modulation = -0.630 dB


and RMS =23% modulation


That would be more like the average level and corresponds to -12.76 dB

Cooledit gives about -11 dB for the sample in question.


It also says that you highest sample is 0.07 seconds into the piece.
I suppose that is hairsplitting on my part. I might have been tempted
to use a compressor for that millisecond peak and get the overall s/n
ratio higher in real life. Of course I understand your point about
keeping the levels lower.


I don't think that compression and high sonic quality go together. OTOH, I
have no feelings of compunction about using compressors when the goal is
less than perfectionistic quality.


But still, we were talking about Ultrasonics and I don't find any
significant ultrasonics in the sample. Certainly not any that seem to
affect the sound.


Why not shift your focus to some of the samples that are obviously full of
ultraonics?


Which instrument is supposed to be ultrasonic, the guitar or the sax?
How much is your real s/n above 20kHz? It sure didn't look like there
was anything there.


Why are you ignoring the samples that are rich in ultraonics?


Also i was looking around the internet and I can't find any
microphones that go past 20kHz so what did you use to record these
instruments with?


Just read the web page. All the info is there.


Did you DI the guitar or was it accoustic?


Acoustic.


Did you use one of those clip on mics?


Nope, the mic was on a regular boom stand.


How can you be sure the instrument was
creating harmonics that high and it wasn't distortion?


I'm intimately familiar with how the signal chain performs with instruments
that are not so rich in ultrasonics. Also, when you find out what the mics
are, you may have more of your concerns addressed.


Perhaps my hearing is not up to standards, but that is no reason to
call me an audiophile. I certainly am not one of those. Even if i
cant hear ultrasonic that does not make me say it doesn't exist.


I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Thousands of people have downloaded these
files. I presume that if they go to the trouble to download them, they
listen to them.


I have seen my own tape machine go way past 20k (seen not heard) By the
way, it is easy to record ultrasonic on tape at 25% modulation even
at 7,5ips... But you have to use a signal generator to source it and
a scope to see it. It certainly has no bearing on musical recording
either in digital or analog in my experience.


These are musical recordings, and some of them are rich in ultrasonic. I
don't know why you seem to think that these are the only recordings that are
on the web page, or how you missed the complete specifications of the signal
chain that was used for recording.


I stand by my original sentiment that SACD and the other DVDA is from
a technical standpoint overkill for recording musical performances.


No argument here.


OSHA says that exposure to SPL over 105 requires hearing protection
even for short periods. Add to that range the 35db background level
and you come up with airport runway SPL's or more. 70db of s/n is all
thats required, with maybe 80 or 90 in a real quiet room. Of course
nobody plays music that loud - well in some clubs they do - but they
don't use the range anyway.


No argument there.


I have nothing against SACD or DVDA in fact I like the multi-channel
idea..


Multichannel is hardly a unique feature of either.


I will even buy these things since they will be the same price,
but I won't run out and buy a SACD player with the same enthusiasm as
I did when CD, (still the best format)came out.


I have a ton of equipment that supports recording at sample rates up to 192
KHz. I've used it, listened to the results carefully, and had other people
do their own listening. There just isn't any practical benefit to high
sample rates or
bloated dynamic range specifications.



okay
i checked and found the instrumentation mic B&K 4007. I am duly
impressed with the fact that you own these.
I stand by my assertion that the ultrasonics have little to do with
musical reproduction.
Are you proposing that these ultrasonics have an impact on the sound of
musical recordings as heard by most humans? Are you saying that being
able to record at these frequency extremes makes the recordings of
musical perfomances sound different in some way?
Carl

"Carl" wrote in message
m

i checked and found the instrumentation mic B&K 4007. I am duly
impressed with the fact that you own these.

I stand by my assertion that the ultrasonics have little to do with
musical reproduction.

The final answer comes from what you hear.

Are you proposing that these ultrasonics have an impact on the sound
of musical recordings as heard by most humans?

I provide the identical same musical sounds with and without ultrasonics and
a reliable way to tell if you are hearing a difference.

Do you hear a difference?

Are you saying that
being able to record at these frequency extremes makes the recordings
of musical perfomances sound different in some way?

The final answer comes from what YOU hear.

Do you hear a difference in a reliable listening test?

"Carl" wrote in message
m
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have a ton of equipment that supports recording at sample rates up
to 192 KHz. I've used it, listened to the results carefully, and had
other people do their own listening. There just isn't any practical
benefit to high sample rates or
bloated dynamic range specifications.

okay

i checked and found the instrumentation mic B&K 4007. I am duly
impressed with the fact that you own these.

Check the rest of the equipment list Carl, it's all first rate. BTW,
doesn't this all make pathetic liars out many of my detractors, here or
what?

I know of only one person who posts here who has comparable gear, and that's
John Atkinson. I made and published my hi-rez versus traditional CD
recordings in March of 2001. He's just getting around to doing it. I give
mine away. He has his hand out, asking for contributions. In my value
system, the richest man is the one who can afford to give away the most.

"JBorg" wrote in message


So there you said it, SACD and DVD-A formats have no audible benefits.

Nothing new.

You also said that it would be a very stupid thing to interpret
any audible diff. heard through redbook CD's to be relevant to this
format.

No, I said it is something that doesn't happen.

So, does redbook CD's makes audible benefits compare to
SACD and DVD-A formats?

In English?

Please give me first genuine clue.

Your first clue Borg is that you need to learn how to write.

"JBorg" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg wrote





So there you said it, SACD and DVD-A formats have no audible
benefits.

Nothing new.

You also said that it would be a very stupid thing to interpret
any audible diff. heard through redbook CD's to be relevant to this
format.

No, I said it is something that doesn't happen.

What doesn't happen? Any audible diff. heard through typical redbook
cd's isn't relevant to its format?

You're changing what I said.

End of discusion.

"JBorg" wrote in message
om

He was talking about distribution format. He had said that sound
differences heard among various format cannot be attributed and
interpreted directly as relevant to their respective format.

That is something that I have said from time to time.

Do you hear sound differences when listening to, say, between ordinary
cd's against, say, sacd's ?

Those sound differerences can only be reliably attributed to the format if
you know for sure that the two pieces of different media were made in such a
way that the limitations of the respective mediums is the only cause for
there to be any audible differences.

The major record companies have gone out of their way and remastered all of
the recordings available in the SACD format, in an effort to make honest and
fair comparisons impossible.

AFAIK, there are zero examples of matched SACD and CDA media like that on
the market today. John Atkinson was bragging here, in the past week or so,
that Stereophile will offer the first known example of such a thing later on
this year.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 2:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"JBorg" wrote in message
. com

He was talking about distribution format. He had said that sound
differences heard among various format cannot be attributed and
interpreted directly as relevant to their respective format.

That is something that I have said from time to time.

Do you hear sound differences when listening to, say, between ordinary
cd's against, say, sacd's ?

Those sound differerences can only be reliably attributed to the format if
you know for sure that the two pieces of different media were made in such a
way that the limitations of the respective mediums is the only cause for
there to be any audible differences.

The major record companies have gone out of their way and remastered all of
the recordings available in the SACD format, in an effort to make honest and
fair comparisons impossible.

AFAIK, there are zero examples of matched SACD and CDA media like that on
the market today. John Atkinson was bragging here, in the past week or so,
that Stereophile will offer the first known example of such a thing later on
this year.









OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest offerings from Audio
Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD layer? They were mastered by the
same guy with the same equipment in the same mastering suite during the same
mastering sessions.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest offerings
from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

They were mastered by the same guy with the same equipment in the same
mastering suite during the same mastering sessions.

Irrelevant.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest offerings
from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

You mean you can? Cite any differences in the layers besides the format.



They were mastered by the same guy with the same equipment in the same
mastering suite during the same mastering sessions.

Irrelevant.

Wrong.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest offerings
from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

You mean you can?

I don't own any of them, and see no compelling reason to invest in them or a
player for them. Given that the history of SACD is technically so dreary
vis-a-vis gratuitous sonic differences, some interesting claims would have
to be made to raise my personal interest in them above zero.

I just took a look at the Audio Fidelity web site, and it looks like
business as usual. IOW, a continuation of the long-standing practice of
separately mastered and therefore different-sounding SACD and CD layers. If
you have some contrary evidence, be sure to provide it.

Cite any differences in the layers besides the format.

Since this is your area of interest S888wheel, cite any evidence that you
might have indicating that they differ only in terms of format.

They were mastered by the same guy with the same equipment in the
same mastering suite during the same mastering sessions.

Irrelevant.

Wrong.

Prove it.

"JBorg" wrote in message
om
Arny Krueger wrote:


AFAIK, there are zero examples of matched SACD and CDA media like
that on the market today.

Since you have not attempted to compare different media that was
remastered and processed on equal basis, how did you support your
claim that there will be no audible differences ?

Interesting approach, asking a question about a situation that was precluded
in the previous paragraph.

So JBorg, your goal is further demonstrating your illiteracy?

John Atkinson was bragging here, in the
past week or so, that Stereophile will offer the first known example
of such a thing later on this year.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest offerings
from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

You mean you can?

I don't own any of them,

Obviously.

and see no compelling reason to invest in them or a
player for them.


Of course not. youv'e never really shown any interest in good music or better
sound. Why change now?

Given that the history of SACD is technically so dreary
vis-a-vis gratuitous sonic differences, some interesting claims would have
to be made to raise my personal interest in them above zero.

Your claim was that all SACDs had different masterings for the different
layers. So far, you have offered no evidence that the SACDs from Audio Fidelity
have different masterings for the different layers. You really have no idea do
you?



I just took a look at the Audio Fidelity web site, and it looks like
business as usual. IOW, a continuation of the long-standing practice of
separately mastered and therefore different-sounding SACD and CD layers.

I anything on the website that claims or even suggests that the mastering was
any different for the different layers of any of their SACDs. If I missed
something feel free to cite it. Otherwise you have nothing but your own
posturing.

If
you have some contrary evidence, be sure to provide it.

You are the one claiming the different layers were mastered differently you
prove your assertion.



Cite any differences in the layers besides the format.

Since this is your area of interest S888wheel, cite any evidence that you
might have indicating that they differ only in terms of format.

Your claim, your burden of proof.



They were mastered by the same guy with the same equipment in the
same mastering suite during the same mastering sessions.

Irrelevant.

Wrong.

Prove it.

Prove the obvious? Why? You really can't figure out why it is more likely that
the mastering is the same if it was mastered by the same guy in the same room
with the same euipment during the same sessions?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest
offerings from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD
layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

You mean you can?

I don't own any of them,

Obviously.

and see no compelling reason to invest in them or a
player for them.

Of course not. youv'e never really shown any interest in good music
or better sound. Why change now?

Of course you've never hesitated to descend into lies and personal attacks
when cornered, S888wheel.

End of discussion.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest
offerings from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD
layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

You mean you can?

I don't own any of them,

Obviously.

and see no compelling reason to invest in them or a
player for them.

Of course not. youv'e never really shown any interest in good music
or better sound. Why change now?

Of course you've never hesitated to descend into lies and personal attacks
when cornered, S888wheel.

Interesting claim given you have never had me cornered.



End of discussion.


You loose, again.

S888Wheel a écrit :

You loose, again.

You are the "Howard Ferstler" of the lawsuit.
*You* loose, again

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


OK what are the differences in the mastering of the latest offerings
from Audio Fidelity between the CD layer and the SACD layer?

You mean that you can't hear them?

You mean you can?

I don't own any of them,

Obviously.

and see no compelling reason to invest in them or a
player for them.


Of course not. youv'e never really shown any interest in good music or
better
sound. Why change now?

Given that the history of SACD is technically so dreary
vis-a-vis gratuitous sonic differences, some interesting claims would
have
to be made to raise my personal interest in them above zero.

Your claim was that all SACDs had different masterings for the different
layers. So far, you have offered no evidence that the SACDs from Audio
Fidelity
have different masterings for the different layers. You really have no
idea do
you?



I just took a look at the Audio Fidelity web site, and it looks like
business as usual. IOW, a continuation of the long-standing practice of
separately mastered and therefore different-sounding SACD and CD layers.

I anything on the website that claims or even suggests that the mastering
was
any different for the different layers of any of their SACDs. If I missed
something feel free to cite it. Otherwise you have nothing but your own
posturing.

If
you have some contrary evidence, be sure to provide it.

You are the one claiming the different layers were mastered differently
you
prove your assertion.


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of all the
AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a *split feed* coming
out of the mastering console which feeds *two* different A/D converters. So,
as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put it, "A mastering chain that bifurcates
at the A/D stage is no longer the same chain." Any comparisons between the
two layers have to take this into account and it then becomes quite
difficult to pin the differences down to the individual formats.

I believe he uses the Meitner stuff for SACD but I am not sure what
converter he uses for the 4416 layer.

Over the last months I have invited over 20 self-proclaimed audiophiles to
bring their hi-res players to my home and record the analog output from
these players to my DAW at 16/44.1kHz inorder to perform comparative
listening tests.

Most of the discs that we have used for these a/b tests have been good old
classics from the analog era remastered again for SACD, DVD-A or vinyl.
Among these discs were some AF Creedence SACDs as well.

My recording and playback equipment consists of

DAW with a LynxTwo soundcard
NAD amplification
B&W Nautilus 805 speakers
Sennheiser 650 headphones.

The equipment that we have tested so far a

Digital:

Sony DVP-NS900V
Denon 2900
Pioneer DV-868
Philips DV-963SA
Linn Unidisk 1.1

Analog:

VPI Scout w/ Shure V15VxMR
Thorens TD-850 w/Ortofon 540 MK. II
both through a Gram Amp 2 Special Edition phono preamp

The conclusion to all of these tests have been consistent:

When level-matched, *no one* has yet been able to reliably tell the original
from the copy.

I have heard audiophiles talk about the "day and night" differences between
Redbook and SACD/DVD-A but they simply do not manifest themselves on my
equipment and the ears that have listened.

Steve Hoffman has said the following:

"The boundaries of Digital PCM have already been pushed to their limit if I
play back a master tape vs. the PCM copy and hear things like echo fall off
on the digital. If they sounded the same in an A/B all our problems would be
over and my job would be so much easier."

In our testing we tried hard to listen for these lost echo trails and other
subtleties but failed to notice them.

Will I continue to buy hi-res / vinyl after this? Yes, for two reasons:

1. More care seems to be put into the mastering of most of the SACD/DVD-A
releases and the price is about the same and
2. I am a self-confessed vinyl fetichist.

But I simply cannot hear any magic from 2-channel hi-res / vinyl that does
not translate well to Redbook under semi-controlled listening tests.

Thom

"thomh" wrote in message
...
Among these discs were some AF Creedence SACDs as well.

The CCR SACDs are, of course, from Analog Productions. Sorry for the
confusion.

Thom

"Lionel" wrote in message

S888Wheel a écrit :

You loose, again.

You are the "Howard Ferstler" of the lawsuit.

*You* loose, again

Note that S888wheel won't admit how much his failed lawsuit has cost him to
this point.

thomh a écrit :

[snip]


2. I am a self-confessed vinyl fetichist.

This is a position that I perfectly understand. Lamartine, one of our
French poet wrote :

"Objets inanimés, avez vous donc une me qui s'accroche à notre me et
la force d'aimer ?"

Grossly translate it means : some objects have a soul which force our
soul to love the life.

Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message


S888Wheel a écrit :


You loose, again.

You are the "Howard Ferstler" of the lawsuit.


*You* loose, again


Note that S888wheel won't admit how much his failed lawsuit has cost him to
this point.

Not enough in my point of view. ;-)

"thomh" wrote in message


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of
all the AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a *split
feed* coming out of the mastering console which feeds *two* different
A/D converters. So, as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put it, "A
mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no longer the
same chain." Any comparisons between the two layers have to take this
into account and it then becomes quite difficult to pin the
differences down to the individual formats.

Where did Steve Hoffman say this?

I believe he uses the Meitner stuff for SACD but I am not sure what
converter he uses for the 4416 layer.

Over the last months I have invited over 20 self-proclaimed
audiophiles to bring their hi-res players to my home and record the
analog output from these players to my DAW at 16/44.1kHz inorder to
perform comparative listening tests.

Most of the discs that we have used for these a/b tests have been
good old classics from the analog era remastered again for SACD,
DVD-A or vinyl. Among these discs were some AF Creedence SACDs as
well.

My recording and playback equipment consists of

DAW with a LynxTwo soundcard
NAD amplification
B&W Nautilus 805 speakers
Sennheiser 650 headphones.

The equipment that we have tested so far a

Digital:

Sony DVP-NS900V
Denon 2900
Pioneer DV-868
Philips DV-963SA
Linn Unidisk 1.1

Analog:

VPI Scout w/ Shure V15VxMR
Thorens TD-850 w/Ortofon 540 MK. II
both through a Gram Amp 2 Special Edition phono preamp

The conclusion to all of these tests have been consistent:

When level-matched, *no one* has yet been able to reliably tell the
original from the copy.

Obviously, your system lacks resolution. ;-)

Seriously though, nice job!

I have heard audiophiles talk about the "day and night" differences
between Redbook and SACD/DVD-A but they simply do not manifest
themselves on my equipment and the ears that have listened.

Good show, but nothing new. Over 20 years ago we did level-matched,
time-synched listening tests where we took the output of a high end 2 track
high speed analog tape deck, and sent it through either a short piece of
wire, or a pair of good-quality converters back-to-back.

More details:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_digi.htm

No audible differences were found.

I also made some of my own "high res" reocrdings with a high quality
recording system based on the Card Deluxe. Test files based on these
recordings have been downloaded from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm by the thousands over
the past three years. No reports of anybody hearing differences under blind
test conditions.


Steve Hoffman has said the following:

"The boundaries of Digital PCM have already been pushed to their
limit if I play back a master tape vs. the PCM copy and hear things
like echo fall off on the digital. If they sounded the same in an A/B
all our problems would be over and my job would be so much easier."

Steve Hoffman has a very large psychological and financial investment in
hearing those echoes sound different.

In our testing we tried hard to listen for these lost echo trails and
other subtleties but failed to notice them.

There is no logical reason to believe that a high quality 16/44 system would
audibly diminish them.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"thomh" wrote in message


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of
all the AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a *split
feed* coming out of the mastering console which feeds *two* different
A/D converters. So, as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put it, "A
mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no longer the
same chain." Any comparisons between the two layers have to take this
into account and it then becomes quite difficult to pin the
differences down to the individual formats.

Where did Steve Hoffman say this?


Here in a discussion concerning the mastering of his Creedence SACDs:

1. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=174

2. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=181


In the same thread, when preaching to his flock, he comes out with this
statement regarding the benefits of hi-res:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=166

IOW: more points = more accuracy.

Here is the whole thread (WARNING: It contains a lot of audiophile
techno-babble and a bunch of ignorant people thanking each other). BTW, I am
the thomh in this thread whose ass was banned for causing too much trouble
and not following the party line. Steve Hoffman enters the discussions on
page 9.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...5&page=1&pp=20


The conclusion to all of these tests have been consistent:

When level-matched, *no one* has yet been able to reliably tell the
original from the copy.

Obviously, your system lacks resolution. ;-)


Yeah, and I have been told by Steve Hoffman that my ears are probably not up
to the job as well. So what is a middle-aged man to do?

Seriously though, nice job!


It was quite fun. Some of the audiophiles came back for a second test but
this time armed with their own *very* expensive interconnects. No
difference.

I have heard audiophiles talk about the "day and night" differences
between Redbook and SACD/DVD-A but they simply do not manifest
themselves on my equipment and the ears that have listened.

Good show, but nothing new. Over 20 years ago we did level-matched,
time-synched listening tests where we took the output of a high end 2
track
high speed analog tape deck, and sent it through either a short piece of
wire, or a pair of good-quality converters back-to-back.

More details:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_digi.htm

No audible differences were found.

And this was 20 years ago? Good to see that digital was pretty mature even
then. I have heard others that have done similar listening tests with the
same outcome.

BTW, I got the LynxTwo based on your enthusiastic endorsements and
evaluation. It has served me quite well.

Thom

"thomh" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"thomh" wrote in message


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of
all the AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a
*split feed* coming out of the mastering console which feeds *two*
different A/D converters. So, as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put
it, "A mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no
longer the same chain." Any comparisons between the two layers have
to take this into account and it then becomes quite difficult to
pin the differences down to the individual formats.

Where did Steve Hoffman say this?

Here in a discussion concerning the mastering of his Creedence SACDs:

1.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=174

2.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=181

So, his comments about how he mastered this SACD applies only to this one
specific title.

Furhtermore, there could have been any kind of processing you can think of
between the studio and the recorder(s).

In the same thread, when preaching to his flock, he comes out with
this statement regarding the benefits of hi-res:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=166

IOW: more points = more accuracy.

Does this mean that Steve Hoffman thinks he knows more about digital
resolution than Nyquist and Shannon? Is there a "Steve Hoffman" theorum
related to digital resolution that I don't know about? What issue of the
JAES or the relevant IEEE transactions, or even perhaps the JASA; has
Hoffman's landmark article about digital resolution, and his disproof of the
theorums of Nyquist and Shannon? ;-)

Here is the whole thread (WARNING: It contains a lot of audiophile
techno-babble and a bunch of ignorant people thanking each other).
BTW, I am the thomh in this thread whose ass was banned for causing
too much trouble and not following the party line. Steve Hoffman
enters the discussions on page 9.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...5&page=1&pp=20

It turns out that the perceptual coder group at Phillips are pretty
sophisticated about reliable subjective tests. Too bad that this Bruno
Putzeys hasn't taken their work to heart. There is something ironic about
the sound of Bruno Putzeys last name...

The conclusion to all of these tests have been consistent:

When level-matched, *no one* has yet been able to reliably tell the
original from the copy.

Obviously, your system lacks resolution. ;-)

Yeah, and I have been told by Steve Hoffman that my ears are probably
not up to the job as well. So what is a middle-aged man to do?

The trick would be to rope Steve Hoffman into showing you how level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests are done, with some positive
results of his own.

.....sort of a later-day Steve Zipser fiasco, may he R.I.P.

Seriously though, nice job!

It was quite fun. Some of the audiophiles came back for a second test
but this time armed with their own *very* expensive interconnects. No
difference.

Doooooooooooh!

We've got our share of interconnect true believers here on RAO.

I have heard audiophiles talk about the "day and night" differences
between Redbook and SACD/DVD-A but they simply do not manifest
themselves on my equipment and the ears that have listened.

Good show, but nothing new. Over 20 years ago we did level-matched,
time-synched listening tests where we took the output of a high end 2
track
high speed analog tape deck, and sent it through either a short
piece of wire, or a pair of good-quality converters back-to-back.

More details:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_digi.htm

No audible differences were found.

And this was 20 years ago?

Late 70's, getting onto 30 years ago.

Good to see that digital was pretty mature
even then. I have heard others that have done similar listening tests
with the same outcome.

But of course.

BTW, I got the LynxTwo based on your enthusiastic endorsements and
evaluation. It has served me quite well.

IMO it's a very SERIOUS piece of work, and doubles well as audio test
equipment when mated with the right software. I do most of my audio
production work with a Delta 1010 and a pair of Card Deluxe, but I trot out
the LynxTWO A when it really matters.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"thomh" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"thomh" wrote in message


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of
all the AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a
*split feed* coming out of the mastering console which feeds *two*
different A/D converters. So, as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put
it, "A mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no
longer the same chain." Any comparisons between the two layers have
to take this into account and it then becomes quite difficult to
pin the differences down to the individual formats.

Where did Steve Hoffman say this?

Here in a discussion concerning the mastering of his Creedence SACDs:

1.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=174

2.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=181

So, his comments about how he mastered this SACD applies only to this one
specific title.


No. AFAIK, this is the usual practice for all the SACDs he's mastered, i.e.
two distinct conversions. No downsampling.

Furhtermore, there could have been any kind of processing you can think of
between the studio and the recorder(s).


Yes, that is true. However, he has stated that the two layers always match
up tonality wise and the difference is only in the resolution where,
according to him, the SACD layer has more. Apparently he has found some old
analog tapes which somehow manages to outperform 4416.

In the same thread, when preaching to his flock, he comes out with
this statement regarding the benefits of hi-res:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...&postcount=166

IOW: more points = more accuracy.

Does this mean that Steve Hoffman thinks he knows more about digital
resolution than Nyquist and Shannon? Is there a "Steve Hoffman" theorum
related to digital resolution that I don't know about? What issue of the
JAES or the relevant IEEE transactions, or even perhaps the JASA; has
Hoffman's landmark article about digital resolution, and his disproof of
the
theorums of Nyquist and Shannon? ;-)


Shannon and Nyquist has no place on that forum. Nor does double blind
testing, ABX testing or Objectivity vs. Subjectivity.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ad.php?t=11234


Here is the whole thread (WARNING: It contains a lot of audiophile
techno-babble and a bunch of ignorant people thanking each other).
BTW, I am the thomh in this thread whose ass was banned for causing
too much trouble and not following the party line. Steve Hoffman
enters the discussions on page 9.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...5&page=1&pp=20

It turns out that the perceptual coder group at Phillips are pretty
sophisticated about reliable subjective tests. Too bad that this Bruno
Putzeys hasn't taken their work to heart. There is something ironic about
the sound of Bruno Putzeys last name...


Bruno is one of the developers of this piece of equipment:

http://www.grimmaudio.com/ad1grimm.htm

This is a quote from him from a discussion on the Web Mastering Board
http://webbd.nls.net:8080/~mastering/login concerning Dan Lavry's paper on
192k vs. 96k. It is under the section titled 'The Big Controversy' in a
thread called '44.1k vs 48k'.

The second paragraph is pretty interesting in that he obviously thinks DSD
is a waste of time but reckons there is money to be made from it.

QUOTE

Among other things I design discrete AD/DA converters (discrete=consisting
of
standard op amps and logic parts) based on variations of deltasigma.
Recently I've
joined up with three friends to form Grimm Audio (www.grimmaudio.com). The
first product uses a 1-bit modulator operating at 2.8224MHz to put out DSD.

Before anyone cries out "what's a DSD fella doing in this discussion?" I'd
best
explain my position. The existence of DSD as a release format is
unfortunate. My
opinions on the existence of DSD as a production format is such that my
daytime employer
has asked not to proclaim it as openly as I have done earlier. However, SACD
as a
release medium appears to be a commercial success so we should reckon with
it. That's
why I want to provide the best performing tools for people who master
analogue to SACD,
where the only conversion to 1-bit sits at the end of an analogue chain. The
data from
the converter can be spliced together (with only the crossfades reprocessed)
and
otherwise get pressed onto the disc without alteration.

The next logical step for Grimm is also to provide the "best tools"
(converter-wise)
for PCM audio production. Since I expect to be capable of building a
modulator
achieving 120dB over 80kHz, a 192kHz output will be available. In this way I
can
cater for the commercio-emotional needs of the clientele without delivering
a signal that is
degraded compared to what it'd have been had I limited myself to 96kHz
sampling. Decimating
to 192kHz while leaving a noise shaper tail from 40kHz upward would be such
an
instance. Not because of what it sounds like in loop-through mode (=no
effect), but because
of what it'd do to subsequent processing. In that case I'd be compelled to
offer no
higher than 96kHz sampling. Personally I wouldn't waste a tear on it - my
opinions line
up well with Dan's. Of course I could simply cheat like one well-known
high-end
converter supplier, who bluntly quotes a 55kHz bandwidth for 196kHz or DSD
output modes (amidst a total lack of other performance specs).

Digital Filters.
For antialiasing and anti-imaging filters the least bit of sanitary sense
would
dictate the use of filters that properly cut off before nyquist. If everyone
did this,
the move from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling wouldn't have been half as spectacular
as it was.
Also a matter of cleanliness is the use of filters with very low inband
ripple. Inband
ripple translates 1:1 to "echos" at either end of the impulse response. This
is
often tolerated for reasons of group delay (musician's foldback). A reduced
requirement for phase linearity above 20kHz (96kHz assumed) can get you much
lower group delays than allowing pre- and post echos.

"Early roll-off filters"
(Peter Craven calls them Apodising filters) could be seen as the cherry on
top for
those who cringe at the sight of the ringing on the impulse response. When
you realise
that the transmission chain (mic-speaker-ear) is already rolling off quite a
lot,
you'll see that the ringing is already gone.

UNQUOTE

Thom

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/23/2004 12:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

You loose, again.

You are the "Howard Ferstler" of the lawsuit.
*You* loose, again








Try to stay on your feet when you dance for me little monkey. You are not
making sense....again.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/23/2004 4:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Lionel" wrote in message

S888Wheel a écrit :

You loose, again.

You are the "Howard Ferstler" of the lawsuit.

*You* loose, again

Note that S888wheel won't admit how much his failed lawsuit has cost him to
this point.









What failed lawsuit? You were just too ****ing stupid to know when to shut up.
It is no big deal to have you served again.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/23/2004 4:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"thomh" wrote in message


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of
all the AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a *split
feed* coming out of the mastering console which feeds *two* different
A/D converters. So, as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put it, "A
mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no longer the
same chain." Any comparisons between the two layers have to take this
into account and it then becomes quite difficult to pin the
differences down to the individual formats.

Where did Steve Hoffman say this?

That just kills your position don't it.

Like I said, you loose. Thanks for playing.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/23/2004 4:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"thomh" wrote in message


As you well know Scott, Steve Hoffman is the mastering engineer of
all the AF SACDs and he has said on his website that he uses a
*split feed* coming out of the mastering console which feeds *two*
different A/D converters. So, as Steven Sullivan so succinctly put
it, "A mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no
longer the same chain." Any comparisons between the two layers have
to take this into account and it then becomes quite difficult to
pin the differences down to the individual formats.

Where did Steve Hoffman say this?

snip copious evidence that Steve Hoffman is afraid to put his bogus
theories and self-serving claims to any kind of a reliable test

That just kills your position don't it.

Not at all.

The fact that Hoffman forbids discussion of ABX shows his interest in
honest, fair debate of the relevant issues.

Let's face it S888wheel, Hoffman is just another snake oil salesman of many
that you worship.

Like I said, you loose. Thanks for playing.

The fact that this sort of smoke convinces you S888wheel is one reason of
several, that you are forced to resort to childish posturing like this.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


For those who believe that the formats do not matter like Arny.

Unlike you s888wheel, I've made a sincere effort at collecting reliable
evidence that is relevant to this question.

Your approach seems to be to search out gurus who tell you what you want to
hear.

They tend to also believe that the converters also don't matter.

Yet another gernatlization that is false.

They are claiming things are being altered before the A/D conversion.

Fools that we are, we think that microphones, musicans, rooms, and recording
techniques actually matter.

Clearly Steve is *not* doing this.

He's banned discussion of ABX - he seems to be a man after your own heart,
s888wheel!

So thanks for clearing things up. The
*mastering* is the same for the two layers as far as the art of
mastering goes.

Except that once the details are known, its all still up in the air.

I think it is quite obvious that two different
digital formats will *require* two different A/D converters.

However, what other processing that is involved is unknown. And, we now know
for sure that Hoffman would not be caught dead auditioning his work with
bias controls in place.

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/23/2004 12:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


You loose, again.

You are the "Howard Ferstler" of the lawsuit.
*You* loose, again









Try to stay on your feet when you dance for me little monkey. You are not
making sense....again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :Lionel )
Objet : Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life.
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-10-17 06:37:39 PST

S888Wheel wrote:

You do have way too much spare time. Ironic though. This time you
found the
truth sort of.

I'm spending my "too much spare time" to laugh at you. It doesn't cost
me one cent.
You're spending your free time to sue one guy, you are sad and exposed
to other's sarcasm. Moreover this costs you money.
Ooops ! I forget that you do that for nothing because you will fail.

Who is wrong ? Who is right ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------