[DJ[_3_]]

Hi Edmund,

Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599, or 83SE for
an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps features
worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value in a true
universal player that is very well built.

You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you might save on
shipping if you buy via Amazon.

Happy listening!

-Don

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
Is there something like that that is affordable and with
real DVDA and SACD specs?

Edmund

[Edmund]

"DJ" wrote in message
...
Hi Edmund,

Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599,
or 83SE for
an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps
features
worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value
in a true
universal player that is very well built.

You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you
might save on
shipping if you buy via Amazon.

Happy listening!

-Don

The OPPO's or the other players mentioned here do NOT have
full SACD specs. Even the 83SE is castrated and has a steep
filter at 50 kHz.

I do not want to start a "yes we can / no we can not" hear that
discussion here. I just want to make very sure my new player
have the full capabilities.
My subjective experience is that there are differences between
SACD
players and even differences between SACD players within one
brand.

Edmund

[Steven Sullivan]

Edmund wrote:
"DJ" wrote in message
...
Hi Edmund,

Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599,
or 83SE for
an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps
features
worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value
in a true
universal player that is very well built.

You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you
might save on
shipping if you buy via Amazon.

Happy listening!

-Don

The OPPO's or the other players mentioned here do NOT have
full SACD specs. Even the 83SE is castrated and has a steep
filter at 50 kHz.

Most SACD players have either a 50kHz or 100kHz lowpass output filter.
That *is* an SACD 'spec' (Scarlet Book) recommendation.

I do not want to start a "yes we can / no we can not" hear that
discussion here. I just want to make very sure my new player
have the full capabilities.

You'd better make sure your downstream gear has the 'full capability'
to not distort when presented with full-bandwidth DSD, then.
That's the reason Scarlet Book spec recommends that lowpass output
filter.

My subjective experience is that there are differences between
SACD
players and even differences between SACD players within one
brand.


Well, that's not unusual, but it's not dispositive either.







--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:06:36 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Edmund wrote:
"DJ" wrote in message
...
Hi Edmund,

Oppo is the easy choice, but not necessarily the BDP-083 ($599,
or 83SE for
an even more substantial $899) unless the cosmetics and perhaps
features
worth the extra bucks. Their BDP-80 ($289) is the best value
in a true
universal player that is very well built.

You can buy these directly from Oppo on their website, but you
might save on
shipping if you buy via Amazon.

Happy listening!

-Don

The OPPO's or the other players mentioned here do NOT have
full SACD specs. Even the 83SE is castrated and has a steep
filter at 50 kHz.

Most SACD players have either a 50kHz or 100kHz lowpass output filter.
That *is* an SACD 'spec' (Scarlet Book) recommendation.

I do not want to start a "yes we can / no we can not" hear that
discussion here. I just want to make very sure my new player
have the full capabilities.

You'd better make sure your downstream gear has the 'full capability'
to not distort when presented with full-bandwidth DSD, then.
That's the reason Scarlet Book spec recommends that lowpass output
filter.

My subjective experience is that there are differences between
SACD
players and even differences between SACD players within one
brand.


Well, that's not unusual, but it's not dispositive either.

One of the techs at Oppo told me once (this was several years ago) that the
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM. But
that they will pass SACD through the HDMI output undiluted so, if you have a
receiver or outboard DSD decoder with an HDMI input (never even heard of such
a puppy), you can get full SACD from an Oppo. I don't know if this is true of
their current Blu-Ray players or not.

I do know that the Denon DVD-758 (bought mine on E-bay about two months ago,
refurbished by Denon, complete with all accessories for $55 + shipping) will
play everything (except Blu-Ray) and does fully decode SACD as well as all
versions of DVD-A including multi-channel stuff.

If you want a Blu-Ray universal/everything player, there's always the Denon
DBp-4010UDCI - if you don't mind spending two grand!

Me? I chose the $55 universal player option.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

In fact, DSD was designed to be easily and 'transparently' converted
to multiples of Redbook. DSD itself being a sample rate multiple of
Redbook.


But
that they will pass SACD through the HDMI output undiluted so, if you have a
receiver or outboard DSD decoder with an HDMI input (never even heard of such
a puppy), you can get full SACD from an Oppo. I don't know if this is true of
their current Blu-Ray players or not.

It's true of some Oppo players and not others. My old 970HD can't pass native
DSD digitally by any means. It always converts to 88.2/24 bit PCM for
digital connections, if the source is DSD. But it does 'true' DSD
playback to the analog outputs. (Unless the user activates DSP.)

Am I concerned at all about this? No. 88.2/24 is already well beyond
the limit of what I can hear.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Audio Empire wrote:

Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band
by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because
of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the
intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band.

MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower
bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given
the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands.

In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Audio Empire wrote:

Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz band
by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear because
of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the
intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band.

MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower
bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band given
the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands.

In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy compression.




Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise. On the
other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is suspect in my
view. It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain
listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much dynamic
range, but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music,
most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the
loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly often.
Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation and
I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less
annoying at 192 bps and higher).

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz
band
by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because
of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the
intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band.

MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower
bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band
given
the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands.

In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy
compression.

Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise.

They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course
that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is relatively
poor 20 KHz to say the least.

On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is
suspect in my
view.

The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of
accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal from
a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically over
the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders
varies.

It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain
listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much
dynamic
range,

The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more
dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on
the dynamic range of the recorded format.

but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music,

The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow more
discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way.

most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the
loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly
often.

The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music by
looking only at the genre.

Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation
and
I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less
annoying at 192 bps and higher).

Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more
critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.


Losslessly. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless Packaging.
As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes up less space.

//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

wikipedia:


DST
To reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital (DSD), a lossless data
compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST compression is compulsory
for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically compresses by a
factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of both 2-channel and
5.1-channel sound.[45]



//

SACD of course also copy protection that must be 'decoded' too:


SACD has several copy protection features at the physical level which, for the moment, appear
to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole, or ripping of the
conventional 700MB layer on hybrid discs. These include physical pit modulation and 80-bit
encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the disk that is only
readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on
computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication
facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[55]



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz
band
by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because
of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given the
intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band.

MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of narrower
bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band
given
the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands.

In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy
compression.

Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise.

They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course
that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is relatively
poor 20 KHz to say the least.

Oh, I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't
know that they did that with SACD.

I have a friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer. He maintains
that 24-bit/192KHz PCM sounds much better than DSD. Frankly, I haven't
noticed any differences of that nature - yet.

On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is
suspect in my
view.

The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of
accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal from
a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically over
the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders
varies.

Yes, I'm aware of that - read on...

It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain
listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much
dynamic
range,

The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more
dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on
the dynamic range of the recorded format.

No, not "taxed" , merely that the compression artifacts are most noticeable
and annoying during transitions from loud to soft and vice versa.

but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music,

The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow more
discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way.

Again, it has little to do with classical music per se, and everything to do
with the fact that classical music contains more transitions from loud to
soft and soft to loud than jazz or pop or rock are likely to have. Also,
artifacts are audible during relatively quiet passages which classical music
is more likely to exhibit than other types of music. If you want to hear MP3
at it's very worst, find an MP3 of Igor Kipnis playing a clavichord - at any
bit rate!

most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between the
loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly
often.

The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music by
looking only at the genre.

Well, in a general sense you can. Rock is unlikely to have these transitions
(or very many of them, if any) and so is jazz most pop. Of course there are
exceptions, as there are to everything.

Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation
and
I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets less
annoying at 192 bps and higher).

Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more
critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers.

MP3 is mostly used for portable music devices which get listened too mostly
via headphones. If MP3 exhibited the same types of artifacts to the same
degree in the types of music most often listened to by the "iPod generation",
they wouldn't have adopted it either. But the truth is that loud music masks
the artifacts, and softly-played music and music with complex dynamics such
as classical cause them to stick out like a sore thumb.

Maybe I'm just less tolerant of these artifacts than most people. I also
notice (and am annoyed by) the motion artifacts on HDTV too. I think most TV
stations use an unacceptable amount of compression. But nobody else seem s to
notice it or mention it.

Yes, I have an iPod, and I use it for classical music, but you can rest
assured that none of it is MP3. I use lossless compression schemes such as
ALC. I have yet to hear any artifacts with that.

I also listen to internet radio on my main stereo system - but only as
background music. Most Internet radio is streamed at 64K or 96K or 128K (with
a few at 192K) and there the artifacts are very apparent on speakers.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:21:04 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.


Losslessly. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien
Lossless Packaging.
As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes
up less space.

//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

wikipedia:


DST
To reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital
(DSD), a lossless data
compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST
compression is compulsory
for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically
compresses by a
factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of
both 2-channel and
5.1-channel sound.[45]



//

SACD of course also copy protection that must be 'decoded' too:


SACD has several copy protection features at the physical level which, for
the moment, appear
to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole,
or ripping of the
conventional 700MB layer on hybrid discs. These include physical pit
modulation and 80-bit
encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the
disk that is only
readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be
played back on
computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc
replication
facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[55]





Thanks for the info, Steve. That is very interesting. So, let me make sure
that I have this straight: SACD compression is used ultrasonically and only
for multi-channel and not for two-channel stereo. Do I have that right?

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.

Losslessly.

Actually, lossy means are used as well. Dynamic range 20 KHz is
intentionally reduced.

Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless
Packaging.
As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that
takes up less space.

Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...


Thanks for the info, Steve. That is very interesting. So, let me make sure
that I have this straight: SACD compression is used ultrasonically

Lossy compression of sorts is used 20 KHz.

and only for multi-channel

No, that part of the comments related to the use of MLP with DVD-A (PCM)

and not for two-channel stereo.

The purpose of MLP is to reduce the data rate down to something that the DVD
format can handle. It is one of many lossless data compression techniques
that are in common use. FLAC is another lossless compression method for PCM
that is in common use. MLP is a licensed product whose fees are signficiant
while FLAC does not require the payment of fees.

Lossless compression of PCM information usually gives a bit more than 50%
data reduction. The uncompressed data rate of DVD-A @ 24/192 is not an
issue for the DVD format for 2 channels, but it is an issue for the DVD
format for 6 channels and up.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to
PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless
compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.

Losslessly.

Actually, lossy means are used as well. Dynamic range 20 KHz is
intentionally reduced.

Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless
Packaging.
As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that
takes up less space.

Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium.



Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which
also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent from
SACD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz
band
by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because
of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given
the
intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band.

MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of
narrower
bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the
ear
because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band
given
the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands.

In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy
compression.

Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise.

They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course
that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is
relatively
poor 20 KHz to say the least.

Oh, I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't
know that they did that with SACD.

I have a friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer. He
maintains
that 24-bit/192KHz PCM sounds much better than DSD. Frankly, I haven't
noticed any differences of that nature - yet.

This anecdote shows that being a well-known recordist does not confer a
perfect knowlege of audio.

The correct technical approach is to ignore the means by which audio
equipment works (DSD versus PCM) and focus on what it actually does.

Sony's DSD implementation is a system with ca. 100 KHz bandpass, ca 120 dB
dynamic range up to about 20 KHz, and reduced dynamic range above 20 KHz. A
naive implementation 24/192 PCM provides 144 dB dynamic range at all
frequencies up to approximately 96 KHz. If one uses noise shaping, then
there are any number of trade-offs that are possible.

Practically, this is all moot because 44.1 KHz sampling and 16 bit samples
is exceedingly sufficient if carefully deployed.

On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is
suspect in my
view.

The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of
accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal
from
a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically
over
the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders
varies.

Yes, I'm aware of that - read on...

It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain
listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much
dynamic
range,

The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more
dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on
the dynamic range of the recorded format.

No, not "taxed" , merely that the compression artifacts are most
noticeable
and annoying during transitions from loud to soft and vice versa.

I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or hear of
problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders.

but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music,

The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow
more
discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way.

Again, it has little to do with classical music per se,

Intresting that this discredits your former statement.

and everything to do
with the fact that classical music contains more transitions from loud to
soft and soft to loud than jazz or pop or rock are likely to have.

The magic word is "likely". This is about someone's personal beliefs and
experiences, not what actually happens in the real world.

Jazz, pop, and rock can be as dynamic as the musicans and arranger want to
make them be. Judging genre's by hit records is not the best idea.

Also, artifacts are audible during relatively quiet passages which
classical music
is more likely to exhibit than other types of music.

I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or heard
of problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders.

If you want to hear MP3
at it's very worst, find an MP3 of Igor Kipnis playing a clavichord - at
any
bit rate!

Unfounded assertion with zero actual reliable evidence supporting it noted.
I have no doubt that someone somewhere abused the technology and made some
bad recordings. But then that would be about someone's mistakes, not about
how the MP3 technology works. Absence of real-world examples and proper
bias-controlled listening tests noted.

most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between
the
loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly
often.

The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music
by
looking only at the genre.

Well, in a general sense you can.

"All generalities are false including this one."

Rock is unlikely to have these transitions
(or very many of them, if any) and so is jazz most pop.

Again, I see great confusion between the properties of a genre and popular
implementations of it. Just because a lot of rock is hyper-compressed to
suit the perceived needs of its marketplace says zero about the actual
musical nature of the genre. If there were hit records of classical music,
they would probably receive a similar kind of ugly treatment. That wouldn't
make classical music inherently ugly, it would just be a comment on the
process of popularizing music.

Of course there are
exceptions, as there are to everything.

Now the argument is about whether the exceptions actuall suggest a different
rule. The different rule I see is that popularizing music seems to encourage
certain kinds of technical changes to the music during production,
regardless of genre.

Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation
and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets
less
annoying at 192 bps and higher).

Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more
critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers.

MP3 is mostly used for portable music devices which get listened too
mostly
via headphones.

That would be yet another assertion based on limited evidence. MP3 is
endemic. It shows up in all sorts of places where it may not be expected,
for example in video soundtracks. MP3 is not the only form of lossy
compression that is in widespread use. Downloaded music is not hardly used
only in portable applications. There are a tremendous number of music
servers that used in stationary applications, whether homes, businesses, or
venues.

If MP3 exhibited the same types of artifacts to the same
degree in the types of music most often listened to by the "iPod
generation",
they wouldn't have adopted it either.

Yet another baseless assertion. MP3 need not corrupt music. Dynamics are not
difficult for higher-birate MP3 encoders to handle with good accuracy. Jazz
pop, and rock need not be free of dynamics or take a back seat to classical
music as regards to dynamics.

But the truth is that loud music masks
the artifacts,

But rock doesn't have to be loud. Are you familiar with the concept of the
"rock ballad"?

and softly-played music and music with complex dynamics such
as classical cause them to stick out like a sore thumb.

It seems like people need more experience running DBTs on music before and
after processing at appropriate bitrates and using quality MP3 encoders. I
see a litany of tightly-held prejudices in these comments.

Maybe I'm just less tolerant of these artifacts than most people.

Or, perhaps maybe just a wee bit biased?

I also notice (and am annoyed by) the motion artifacts on HDTV too. I
think most TV
stations use an unacceptable amount of compression. But nobody else seem s
to
notice it or mention it.

Nobody? I just don't talk about it much on audio forums. I see it clearly,
and hate it. It is espically bad during sports, especially hocky and auto
racing. The cable companies often compound this by comressing channels up
to 2:1 over the best possible with broadcast. It is video, right?

Yes, I have an iPod, and I use it for classical music, but you can rest
assured that none of it is MP3. I use lossless compression schemes such as
ALC. I have yet to hear any artifacts with that.

Is that because of problems you've had with sourcing quality MP3s, or the
residual of years of bad experiences, or tightly-held opiions?

I also listen to internet radio on my main stereo system - but only as
background music. Most Internet radio is streamed at 64K or 96K or 128K
(with
a few at 192K) and there the artifacts are very apparent on speakers.

That there are often audible artifacts with relatively low bitrates like
this is well known. That does not reflect badly on the best current MP3
technology, it reflects on the trade-offs between data rates and what modern
allegedly high speed internet connections can provide trouble-free support
of.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium.

Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which
also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent
from
SACD.

Nothing is perfect. In the case of SACD there is basically poorer dynamic
range below 20 KHz, and far, far poorer dynamic range above 20 KHz.

Comparing the pre/post ringing situation for DVD-A to that for CD-A ignores
two highly relevant facts:

(1) There are no known scientific listening tests showing that the
pre-ringing in CD-A is audible. After all, it happens at a frequency that is
normally considered to be ultrasonic which is to say inaudible.

(2) Raising the sampling rate by a factor of 4.4 makes the pre-ringing in
24/192 DVD-A 4.4 times less significant than that for CD-A.

There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD ADCs
have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES
papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a
quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a DSD
bitstream. Secondly, most modern multi-format DSD/PCM conversions to analog
are performed by chips that are primarily PCM DAC chips with a DSD
conversion facility sorta tacked on.

Long story short, SACD is quickly becoming a sort of stepchild format.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 7 May 2010 06:34:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.

Losslessly.

Actually, lossy means are used as well. Dynamic range 20 KHz is
intentionally reduced.

Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien Lossless
Packaging.
As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that
takes up less space.

Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium.

That's what a pro recording engineer friend of mine says as well. He finds
that DVD-A sounds better than DSD.

Here's a question. If SACD info is compressed to make it fit on a DVD, how
about the DSD master? Is it likewise compressed? IOW, is the compression part
of the DSD format standard or merely applied during the SACD disc mastering
phase?

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:45:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:24:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:49:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


SACD performs data rate reduction in the approximate 20 KHz to 100 KHz
band
by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the ear
because
of the ear's relatively poor perception in that frequency band given
the
intensity of masking sounds in the adjacent band.

MP3 encoding performs data rate reduction in a larger number of
narrower
bands by means of dynamic range reduction. This is acceptible to the
ear
because of the ear's relatively poor perception in each frequency band
given
the intensity of masking sounds in adjacent bands.

In my book they are both examples of perceptually-based lossy
compression.

Hmm. I was unaware that DSD did any compression, lossy or otherwise.

They throw away considerable additional dynamic range 20 KHz. Of course
that's not really a problem because the sensitivity of the ear is
relatively
poor 20 KHz to say the least.

Oh, I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't
know that they did that with SACD.

I have a friend who is a fairly well known recording engineer. He
maintains
that 24-bit/192KHz PCM sounds much better than DSD. Frankly, I haven't
noticed any differences of that nature - yet.

This anecdote shows that being a well-known recordist does not confer a
perfect knowlege of audio.

Nor was it meant to. I was merely commenting that not all pros who record in
DSD think it's the best format for high-res.

The correct technical approach is to ignore the means by which audio
equipment works (DSD versus PCM) and focus on what it actually does.

I agree.

Sony's DSD implementation is a system with ca. 100 KHz bandpass, ca 120 dB
dynamic range up to about 20 KHz, and reduced dynamic range above 20 KHz. A
naive implementation 24/192 PCM provides 144 dB dynamic range at all
frequencies up to approximately 96 KHz. If one uses noise shaping, then
there are any number of trade-offs that are possible.

Practically, this is all moot because 44.1 KHz sampling and 16 bit samples
is exceedingly sufficient if carefully deployed.

As it is rarely, in my estimation. But your are right. It can be very good.

On the other hand, The idea that MP3 is acceptable to the ear, is
suspect in my
view.

The fallacy here is that all MP3 files or encoders have similar levels of
accuracy, sonic or technical. A 128 Kb MP3 is a very different animal
from
a 320 Kb MP3. The performance of MP3 encoders has improved dramatically
over
the years at *all* bitrates. The performance of various modern encoders
varies.

Yes, I'm aware of that - read on...

It might be "acceptable" with certain types of music (and to certain
listeners) such as rock-and-roll and other pop where their isn't much
dynamic
range,

The fallacies here are that the MP3 format is taxed by music with more
dynamic range, or that all music of a given genre make similar demands on
the dynamic range of the recorded format.

No, not "taxed" , merely that the compression artifacts are most
noticeable
and annoying during transitions from loud to soft and vice versa.

I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or hear of
problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders.

Then nobody does, because I've never heard am MP3 of music with wide dynamic
range that DOESN'T exhibit those characteristics.

but it is certainly not acceptable to these ears with classical music,

The fallacy here is that people who prefer classical music are somehow
more
discriminating. This is generally presented in a very self-serving way.

Again, it has little to do with classical music per se,

Intresting that this discredits your former statement.

Not in context it doesn't.

and everything to do
with the fact that classical music contains more transitions from loud to
soft and soft to loud than jazz or pop or rock are likely to have.

The magic word is "likely". This is about someone's personal beliefs and
experiences, not what actually happens in the real world.

Sure it's something that actually happens in the real world.

Jazz, pop, and rock can be as dynamic as the musicans and arranger want to
make them be. Judging genre's by hit records is not the best idea.

Well of course, but I'm generalizing here. There are exceptions to
everything.

Also, artifacts are audible during relatively quiet passages which
classical music
is more likely to exhibit than other types of music.

I'm very familiar with MP3 artifacts, and frankly I've never head or heard
of problems like that with reasonable use of fairly recent, good encoders.

I can't help that.

If you want to hear MP3
at it's very worst, find an MP3 of Igor Kipnis playing a clavichord - at
any
bit rate!

Unfounded assertion with zero actual reliable evidence supporting it noted.
I have no doubt that someone somewhere abused the technology and made some
bad recordings. But then that would be about someone's mistakes, not about
how the MP3 technology works. Absence of real-world examples and proper
bias-controlled listening tests noted.

I've made no assertion, merely a suggestion.

most jazz and even pop where there is a significant difference between
the
loudest and softest passages and where those transitions occur fairly
often.

The fallacy here is that you can characterize the dynamic range of music
by
looking only at the genre.

Well, in a general sense you can.

"All generalities are false including this one."

Rock is unlikely to have these transitions
(or very many of them, if any) and so is jazz most pop.

Again, I see great confusion between the properties of a genre and popular
implementations of it. Just because a lot of rock is hyper-compressed to
suit the perceived needs of its marketplace says zero about the actual
musical nature of the genre. If there were hit records of classical music,
they would probably receive a similar kind of ugly treatment. That wouldn't
make classical music inherently ugly, it would just be a comment on the
process of popularizing music.

Of course there are
exceptions, as there are to everything.

Now the argument is about whether the exceptions actuall suggest a different
rule. The different rule I see is that popularizing music seems to encourage
certain kinds of technical changes to the music during production,
regardless of genre.

The discussion hasn't changed, you are just showing that you are more
interested in "winning" some imagined argument than you are in discussing the
issues.

Especially on headphones, I can hear MP3 "pump" via the noise modulation
and I find it annoying (even at higher data rates, although, it gets
less
annoying at 192 bps and higher).

Finally, some truth! Listening over good headphones is generally be more
critical of sonic artifacts than listening via speakers.

MP3 is mostly used for portable music devices which get listened too
mostly
via headphones.

That would be yet another assertion based on limited evidence. MP3 is
endemic. It shows up in all sorts of places where it may not be expected,
for example in video soundtracks. MP3 is not the only form of lossy
compression that is in widespread use. Downloaded music is not hardly used
only in portable applications. There are a tremendous number of music
servers that used in stationary applications, whether homes, businesses, or
venues.

Literalization noted.

If MP3 exhibited the same types of artifacts to the same
degree in the types of music most often listened to by the "iPod
generation",
they wouldn't have adopted it either.

Yet another baseless assertion. MP3 need not corrupt music. Dynamics are not
difficult for higher-birate MP3 encoders to handle with good accuracy. Jazz
pop, and rock need not be free of dynamics or take a back seat to classical
music as regards to dynamics.

But the truth is that loud music masks
the artifacts,

But rock doesn't have to be loud. Are you familiar with the concept of the
"rock ballad"?

and softly-played music and music with complex dynamics such
as classical cause them to stick out like a sore thumb.

It seems like people need more experience running DBTs on music before and
after processing at appropriate bitrates and using quality MP3 encoders. I
see a litany of tightly-held prejudices in these comments.

Maybe I'm just less tolerant of these artifacts than most people.

Or, perhaps maybe just a wee bit biased?

Arny, that's rich coming from you!

I also notice (and am annoyed by) the motion artifacts on HDTV too. I
think most TV
stations use an unacceptable amount of compression. But nobody else seem s
to
notice it or mention it.

Nobody? I just don't talk about it much on audio forums. I see it clearly,
and hate it. It is espically bad during sports, especially hocky and auto
racing. The cable companies often compound this by comressing channels up
to 2:1 over the best possible with broadcast. It is video, right?

Yes, I have an iPod, and I use it for classical music, but you can rest
assured that none of it is MP3. I use lossless compression schemes such as
ALC. I have yet to hear any artifacts with that.

Is that because of problems you've had with sourcing quality MP3s, or the
residual of years of bad experiences, or tightly-held opiions?

I also listen to internet radio on my main stereo system - but only as
background music. Most Internet radio is streamed at 64K or 96K or 128K
(with
a few at 192K) and there the artifacts are very apparent on speakers.

That there are often audible artifacts with relatively low bitrates like
this is well known. That does not reflect badly on the best current MP3
technology, it reflects on the trade-offs between data rates and what modern
allegedly high speed internet connections can provide trouble-free support
of.

There is so much "bad" MP3 out there, that I would just as soon avoid the
whole thing. Maybe you see that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater,
but it's such a crap-shoot that it's simply not worth picking and choosing to
separate the wheat from the chaff. Have you ever downloaded MP3s from the
iTunes store? They sound bloody awful. I remember once about 5 years ago
downloading a film soundtrack from iTunes and being unable to listen to it,
it was so distorted. So I borrowed the CD from a friend who owned a copy and
ripped it myself using ALC. It sounded fine then. I haven't downloaded from
the iTunes store SINCE.

[Harry Lavo]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...



Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which
also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent
from
SACD.


This should of course read "pre-ringing". My bad - I was rushed and sloppy.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium.

Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction, which
also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent
from
SACD.

Nothing is perfect. In the case of SACD there is basically poorer dynamic
range below 20 KHz, and far, far poorer dynamic range above 20 KHz.

Comparing the pre/post ringing situation for DVD-A to that for CD-A
ignores
two highly relevant facts:

(1) There are no known scientific listening tests showing that the
pre-ringing in CD-A is audible. After all, it happens at a frequency that
is
normally considered to be ultrasonic which is to say inaudible.

(2) Raising the sampling rate by a factor of 4.4 makes the pre-ringing in
24/192 DVD-A 4.4 times less significant than that for CD-A.

There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD
ADCs
have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES
papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a
quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a DSD
bitstream. Secondly, most modern multi-format DSD/PCM conversions to
analog
are performed by chips that are primarily PCM DAC chips with a DSD
conversion facility sorta tacked on.

Long story short, SACD is quickly becoming a sort of stepchild format.

The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature, and
is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency. It is
interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high grades to for
being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros alike
for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to
eradicate this pre-ringing. I will grant you that both observationally and
aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency
filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format. But since you and
Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant aspects of SACD regarding
Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb gorilla
in the room regarding CD. Many people, myself included, believe that
pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD often
sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural. And why the absence of
such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well) is often judged as sounding
more natural and life-like.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger wrote:

There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native
DSD ADCs have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and
Lip****z AES papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced
by first doing a quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then
converting the results to a DSD bitstream.

I don't think that helps. The distortion, noise modulation, and limit
cycles are caused by the fact that a 1-bit modulator cannot be
properly dithered without overloading it, so it doesn't help to use a
multibit converter between the analog domain and the 1-bit modulator.

The proof in the appendix of http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf makes it
clear that it applies both to "A dithered 1st-order, 1-bit sigma-delta
quantizer (or the equivalent 1st-order noise shaper)".

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Agreed. DVD-A is technically speaking the more "perfectionist" medium.

Except for the "pre-echo" so readily apparent with CD reproduction,
which
also exists (although to a much smaller extent) for DVD-A and is absent
from
SACD.

Nothing is perfect. In the case of SACD there is basically poorer dynamic
range below 20 KHz, and far, far poorer dynamic range above 20 KHz.

Comparing the pre/post ringing situation for DVD-A to that for CD-A
ignores
two highly relevant facts:

(1) There are no known scientific listening tests showing that the
pre-ringing in CD-A is audible. After all, it happens at a frequency that
is
normally considered to be ultrasonic which is to say inaudible.

(2) Raising the sampling rate by a factor of 4.4 makes the pre-ringing in
24/192 DVD-A 4.4 times less significant than that for CD-A.

There are some other interesting factoids about SACD. Since native DSD
ADCs
have problems with idle cycles and such (per Vanderkooy and Lip****z AES
papers), the best quality DSD recordings are produced by first doing a
quasi-PCM conversion from analog, and then converting the results to a
DSD
bitstream. Secondly, most modern multi-format DSD/PCM conversions to
analog
are performed by chips that are primarily PCM DAC chips with a DSD
conversion facility sorta tacked on.

Long story short, SACD is quickly becoming a sort of stepchild format.

The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature,

Other than the many situations where ringing starts slowly, builds up, and
then decays.

and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency.

Interesting idea - that an idea should or even would be disproven. The
situation with the audibility of pre-ringing related to CDs is that there is
an absence of proof or even proper experimental support. I

It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high
grades to for
being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros alike
for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to
eradicate this pre-ringing.

Audio buffs excited about some new expensive technology with absolutely zero
support from bias-controlled listening tests? Whoda thunk? ;-)

There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one right
here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101!

I will grant you that both observationally and
aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency
filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format.

Letsee: Moot with 44.1 KHz sampling, about 4.4 x moot at 192 KHz sampling.
Works for me!

But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant
aspects of SACD regarding
Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb gorilla
in the room regarding CD.

As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of the
CD format.

Many people, myself included, believe that
pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD often
sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural.

And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well)
is often judged as sounding
more natural and life-like.

And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:30:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
snip
And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are
meaningless.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:30:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
snip
And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests
supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have
used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in
Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are
meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:21:04 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:47 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
Oppo players don't actually decode SACD, but rather convert it to PCM.

Well, that means they decode it first. SACD is a 'lossless compressed'
format.

SACD is data compressed? This is the first I've heard of it.


Losslessly. Similary, DVD-A has a lossless compression scheme,Meridien
Lossless Packaging.
As with SACD, it's not necessary for two-channel material, since that takes
up less space.

//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

wikipedia:


DST
To reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital
(DSD), a lossless data
compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST
compression is compulsory
for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically
compresses by a
factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of
both 2-channel and
5.1-channel sound.[45]



//

SACD of course also copy protection that must be 'decoded' too:


SACD has several copy protection features at the physical level which, for
the moment, appear
to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole,
or ripping of the
conventional 700MB layer on hybrid discs. These include physical pit
modulation and 80-bit
encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the
disk that is only
readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be
played back on
computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc
replication
facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[55]





Thanks for the info, Steve. That is very interesting. So, let me make sure
that I have this straight: SACD compression is used ultrasonically and only
for multi-channel and not for two-channel stereo. Do I have that right?

No. Please reread the first wiki quote , on DST, again.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

snip for brevity

The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature,

Other than the many situations where ringing starts slowly, builds up, and
then decays.


You know darn well that I am speaking of transient behavior.

and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency.

Interesting idea - that an idea should or even would be disproven. The
situation with the audibility of pre-ringing related to CDs is that there
is
an absence of proof or even proper experimental support. I

And this changes what I said how?

It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high
grades to for
being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros
alike
for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to
eradicate this pre-ringing.

Audio buffs excited about some new expensive technology with absolutely
zero
support from bias-controlled listening tests? Whoda thunk? ;-)

Oh, I see. They are "scientific" when you like what they do/say, and
charlatans when they do not?

There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one
right
here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101!

Bullroar!

I will grant you that both observationally and
aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency
filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format.

Letsee: Moot with 44.1 KHz sampling, about 4.4 x moot at 192 KHz sampling.
Works for me!

A moot and trivial response as well.

But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant
aspects of SACD regarding
Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb
gorilla
in the room regarding CD.

As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of
the
CD format.

This is a cop-out. Is a feature of virtually every filter used in a CD
player since they were introduced. Some have tried filter designs that
ameliorate it to some degree. But that certainly wasn't true of the
CDP-101, among others.

Many people, myself included, believe that
pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD
often
sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural.

And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests
supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

Would you define what "believe" means to you, in conjunction with "has not
been proven nor disproven"


And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well)
is often judged as sounding
more natural and life-like.

And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests
supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

Once again, would you please define what "believe" means to you, in
conjunction with "has not been proven nor disproven"


One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

They were listening for noise, using what protocols or source materials they
or you do not say, and presumably using a symetrical A/D/A conversion which
is not typical of the real world. What you listen "for" is what you "hear"
in ABX type tests (assuming this is what they were using). Perhaps if the
challenge was "which sounds more real" the response would have been
different. Not enough info here to even decide if you have a case.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:43:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:30:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
snip
And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests
supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have
used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in
Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are
meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!


Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that
because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for
their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's.

So without more info, I'd say that your post fails the common rules of
evidence.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:51:24 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

snip for brevity

The fact is, the pre-ringing is a phenomenon totally unknown in nature,

Other than the many situations where ringing starts slowly, builds up, and
then decays.


You know darn well that I am speaking of transient behavior.

and is neither proven nor disproven to be audible....at any frequency.

Interesting idea - that an idea should or even would be disproven. The
situation with the audibility of pre-ringing related to CDs is that there
is
an absence of proof or even proper experimental support. I

And this changes what I said how?

It is interesting that Meriden, a firm you normally give very high
grades to for
being "scientific," is winning kudos from audio buffs and audio pros
alike
for their new flagship model whose new filters claim to be the first to
eradicate this pre-ringing.

Audio buffs excited about some new expensive technology with absolutely
zero
support from bias-controlled listening tests? Whoda thunk? ;-)

Oh, I see. They are "scientific" when you like what they do/say, and
charlatans when they do not?

There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one
right
here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101!

Bullroar!

I will grant you that both observationally and
aurally the extended frequency response and more gradual/higher frequency
filters of DVD-A make it a moot problem for this format.

Letsee: Moot with 44.1 KHz sampling, about 4.4 x moot at 192 KHz sampling.
Works for me!

A moot and trivial response as well.

But since you and Dick are being so critical of rather insignificant
aspects of SACD regarding
Audio Empire's test, you fail to mention pre-ringing as the 800 lb
gorilla
in the room regarding CD.

As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of
the
CD format.

This is a cop-out. Is a feature of virtually every filter used in a CD
player since they were introduced. Some have tried filter designs that
ameliorate it to some degree. But that certainly wasn't true of the
CDP-101, among others.

The CDP-101 was an early Sony, correct? I'll guarantee that their filter
design did not ameliorate pre-ringing as it contained a multi-pole, analog,
brick-wall filter. Those units not only exhibited pre-ringing, but the
multi-pole filters had gobs of phase shift, so much so, that they affected
not only supersonic frequencies, but frequencies in the passband as well,
IIRC.

Some more modern CD decks use Digital Signal Processors to effect
pre-cognitive filters in an effort to reduce or eliminate pre-ringing. Some
are obviously more successful than others.

On the other hand, I've never seen any definitive evidence that pre-ringing
is an audible artifact. But as a worthless, anecdotal aside, I use my Sony
XA777ES SACD player as my CD deck and it sounds better playing Redbook CDs
than any other CD player I own or have reviewed. Because the SACD player
up-converts 16/44.1 PCM to SACD before outputting it as audio, it's not
supposed to pre-ring. Whether or not is does, I have no way to tell. Like I
said, that's a worthless anecdote but the XA777ES does make an excellent CD
player.

Many people, myself included, believe that
pre-ringing may explain why cymbals and other high frequencies on CD
often
sound raw and splashy, and very, very un-natural.

I suspect that this has more to do with the way CDs are mastered than it does
with any of CD's inherent characteristics. I say this because I have some CDs
(mostly those I have burned myself from my own masters) that don't exhibit
this "raw and splashy" high-frequency content at all, but I have heard it on
lots of commercial releases.

And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests
supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

Would you define what "believe" means to you, in conjunction with "has not
been proven nor disproven"


And why the absence of such may be the reason SACD (and DVD-A as well)
is often judged as sounding
more natural and life-like.

And the bias controlled, statistically signficant listening tests
supporting
this contention may be found exactly where?

Once again, would you please define what "believe" means to you, in
conjunction with "has not been proven nor disproven"


One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

They were listening for noise, using what protocols or source materials they
or you do not say, and presumably using a symetrical A/D/A conversion which
is not typical of the real world. What you listen "for" is what you "hear"
in ABX type tests (assuming this is what they were using). Perhaps if the
challenge was "which sounds more real" the response would have been
different. Not enough info here to even decide if you have a case.

Agreed. And of course, Mr. Kruger has not provided us with a URL so that we
might read this entire paper for ourselves. Although I suspect it's probably
from the AES (or JAES) archives, in which case they will want an exorbitant
amount of money for the privilege of reading what may well prove to be an
irrelevant citation (as you point out, it seems, from what's written in the
quoted text, that Mssrs. Meyer and Moran have restricted their investigations
to noise content in the different resolution samples as opposed to actual
sound quality).

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:51:24 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

As I have pointed out before, pre-ringing is not an inherent feature of
the CD format.

This is a cop-out. Is a feature of virtually every filter used in a CD
player since they were introduced.

I sense quite a bit of confusion about pre-ringing.

Pre-ringing is a consequence of the use of acausual filtering. It is not
written in stone that a CD player must use acausual filtering. For example
a number of CD players have been built that used causual filtering, more
specifically minimum phase filtering.

Some have tried filter designs that
ameliorate it to some degree. But that certainly wasn't true of the
CDP-101, among others.

The CDP-101 was an early Sony, correct? I'll guarantee that their filter
design did not ameliorate pre-ringing as it contained a multi-pole,
analog,
brick-wall filter.

Those units not only exhibited pre-ringing, but the
multi-pole filters had gobs of phase shift, so much so, that they affected
not only supersonic frequencies, but frequencies in the passband as well,
IIRC.

Measurements of real hardware tell all.

I have in my posession a working CDP 101, and I have measured it. You can
IIRC all you want and I can look at my measurements. ;-)

Some more modern CD decks use Digital Signal Processors to effect
pre-cognitive filters in an effort to reduce or eliminate pre-ringing.
Some
are obviously more successful than others.

I don't know how to descramble the above to respond to it, but I can comment
on modern technology.

Transient response of filters is uniquely determined by the combination of
their steady-state phase and amplitude responses.

Practicality puts certain limits on the amplitude and phase response
characteristics of analog filters. In principle a wider variety of response
characterics can be achieved in the analog domain than has generally been
actually implemented in the analog domain. Analog filters have tended to
stay close to being minimum phase because that is easiest and cheapest to
obtain with them.

Minimum phase filtering is by definition causal.

In fact all real world filters are causual in the sense that their output
*always* starts some time after the stimulus is applied to them. The filters
we call acausal are in fact limited in this way due to our current inability
to reliably foretell the future, even with elaborate hardware.

However, a filter that has time delay at low and medium frequencies can
appear to be acausal if you reference its performance to its output at low
and medium frequencies. This is where pre-ringing comes from - some high
frequencies show up at the output before most of the low and medium
frequencies do.

Digital filtering makes it relatively cheap and easy to provide a wide range
of combinations of phase and amplitude characteristics. The usual extreme
cases are minimum phase response which by definition has no pre-ringing, and
linear phase response which has a great pre-ringing.

A steep slope low pass minimum phase by definition has a great deal of high
frequency phase shift. A linear phase filter with a similar amplitude
response by defintiion has the same phase shift at all frequencies as a
simple delay line.

This is where a great deal of poorly-informed audiophile myth and fancy
rears its ugly head.

Some early CD players were built with analog filters and some of those
analog filters were minimum phase. Therefore, they had a lot of phase shift
at high frequencies if you looked at the numbers. Confusing the matter were
a number of other irrelevant problems. Some of the same players had only one
DAC, and therefore had a 1/2 sample delay between their left and right
outputs. The nature of complex analog filters is that they are difficult and
expensive to implement with exact consistency, so some of the filters had
frequency response errors that were due to production variatons. Due to
production costs, there was a desire to minimize the designs, and this led
to a few frequency response errors of their own. Finally, the application of
bias-controlled testing to both professional and consumer audio gear was
incomplete in those early days. So, prejudice and anxiety was a factor in
many listening evaluations.




One of many examples of counter-evidence might be found he

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.

"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.

Here we have contradicory opinions:

They were listening for noise, using what protocols or source materials
they
or you do not say, and presumably using a symetrical A/D/A conversion
which
is not typical of the real world. What you listen "for" is what you
"hear"
in ABX type tests (assuming this is what they were using). Perhaps if
the
challenge was "which sounds more real" the response would have been
different. Not enough info here to even decide if you have a case.

In fact they were not listening to noise, and nobody who is not familiar
with the paper could possibly definitively say that they were listening to
noise.

Either people have read the paper and know that the listening tests involved
commercial recordings of music, or they can admit that they just don't know.


Agreed. And of course, Mr. Kruger has not provided us with a URL so that
we
might read this entire paper for ourselves.

It's against forum policies to break the copyright law. The paper is
copyrighted by the AES.

Although I suspect it's probably from the AES (or JAES) archives,

The abstract I posted clearly and explicitly says as much. No suspicions
needed - just ordinary reading skills. ;-)

in which case they will want an exorbitant
amount of money for the privilege of reading what may well prove to be an
irrelevant citation (as you point out, it seems, from what's written in
the
quoted text, that Mssrs. Meyer and Moran have restricted their
investigations
to noise content in the different resolution samples as opposed to actual
sound quality).

This is a very strange interpretation of the abstract.

Some details about the Meyer and Moran JAES paper can be found he

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

This is BTW the third response from the following Google seach:

Meyer moran high resolution

[John Nunes]

On 5/10/2010 8:51 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny wrote in message

There's nothing new about CD players with no pre-ringing - I have one
right
here that was sold in 1983. It is called a CDP 101!

Bullroar!

No, Arny is correct. Pre-ringing in CD players is caused by the linear
phase reconstruction filters that are used in the vast majority of them.
The CDP-101 did not have those, which came out before they were
implemented in consumer audio.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have
used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in
Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are
meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!

Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that
because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for
their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's.

$20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever
so much more accurate.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:02:39 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this paper as some have
used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the methodology used in
Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their so-called results are
meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!

Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and only have that
because you posted it. Last I checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money
for
their articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's.

$20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP these days...but ever
so much more accurate.



Sorry, I'd rather spend that $20 on an LP or CD.


[ Back to audio, everyone, rather than meta-issues. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Audio Empire wrote:
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated
levels.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this
paper as some have used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the
methodology used in Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their
so-called results are meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!

Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and
only have that because you posted it. Last I checked,
the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles
and I haven't been a member since the 1980's.

$20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP
these days...but ever so much more accurate.

Moot given that I've provided a link to a full PDF of the article.

Here it is again:

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Audio Empire wrote:
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated
levels.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this
paper as some have used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the
methodology used in Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their
so-called results are meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!

Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract, and
only have that because you posted it. Last I checked,
the AES wants quite a lot of money for their articles
and I haven't been a member since the 1980's.

$20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP
these days...but ever so much more accurate.

Moot given that I've provided a link to a full PDF of the article.

Here it is again:

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Thanks for the article....seems fairly complete, but some omissions raise a
couple of potentially important questions:

1. Why did the test ignore normal ABX testing proceedures of at least
17 -20 tests per subject in order to get individual results as well as group
results? No mention of the number of individual trials other than "10" for
one tester. Did it vary? If listeners were allowed to "give up" finding
identification difficult, this could influence results. A bit strange to
have excluded this part of conventional ABX thinking.

2. Were the musical samples used tailored to the main musical preferences
of the listener, thus breeding genre familiarity? No mention of this in the
article.

3. Were the listeners told what to listen for....i.e. what the aspects
ascribed to high-definition recordings might be (e.g. better defined bass,
more relaxed sounding strings, etc.) as based on the non-biased controlled
comments cited early in the article. If not, why not, as conventional
wisdom for abx dbt's is that listeners must be "trained" as to what to
listen for in order for the tests to have any validity? Just seems to be
a strange and possibly very important omission...no mention of this in the
article.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Audio Empire wrote:
CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated
levels.

I'm going to use the same rules of evidence for this
paper as some have used
to reject my double-blind test findings.

Without a detailed description and analysis of the
methodology used in Meyer
and Moran's "series of double-blind tests", their
so-called results are meaningless.

You have to do more than just read the abstract!

Well, I don't have access to more than the abstract,
and only have that because you posted it. Last I
checked, the AES wants quite a lot of money for their
articles and I haven't been a member since the 1980's.

$20 for an article. About what you'd pay for a new LP
these days...but ever so much more accurate.

Moot given that I've provided a link to a full PDF of
the article.

Here it is again:

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Thanks for the article....seems fairly complete, but some
omissions raise a couple of potentially important
questions:

1. Why did the test ignore normal ABX testing
proceedures of at least 17 -20 tests per subject in order
to get individual results as well as group results? No
mention of the number of individual trials other than
"10" for one tester. Did it vary? If listeners were
allowed to "give up" finding identification difficult,
this could influence results. A bit strange to have
excluded this part of conventional ABX thinking.

2. Were the musical samples used tailored to the main
musical preferences of the listener, thus breeding genre
familiarity? No mention of this in the article.

3. Were the listeners told what to listen for....i.e.
what the aspects ascribed to high-definition recordings
might be (e.g. better defined bass, more relaxed sounding
strings, etc.) as based on the non-biased controlled
comments cited early in the article. If not, why not, as
conventional wisdom for abx dbt's is that listeners must
be "trained" as to what to listen for in order for the
tests to have any validity? Just seems to be a strange
and possibly very important omission...no mention of this
in the article.

All questions and comments should be routed to the authors.

I believe that if you email the Boston Audio site
, they can route mail to them for you.