"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fFQqd.156697$bk1.116981@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" wrote in message
om

Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions,
Scott.

Alright, let me try to summarize.

1) PCABX is a listening test.

2) As a test, all steps in the test chain must not audibly mask the
source.

3) You claim to manage masking in PCABX buy using hi-rez
sources and playback devices.

I'm not managing proven masking with hi rez formats. Instead, what I'm
managing is the *possibility* that masking might take place.

As the results of the tests actually come out for *everybody*, one of the hi
rez formats that I successfully use to show where masking takes place, is
16/44. However, I use 24/96 to answer questions about the 16/44 format.
Whether the tests for masking are done with 16/44 files or 24/96 files, the
point of zero audible masking by the format is something like 14/32. I'm
under the impression that the BBC chose roughly this format over 20 years
ago for their own digital networks.

So 2 and 3 must be true or the concept of PCABX will be flawed.

That's because you misunderstand the purpose the use of hi-rex formats
(ironically 16/44 is one of the hi rez formats that actually works for the
purpose of avoiding masking) of item 3.

4) But you also claim that hi-rez formats are snake-oil as they
cannot be shown to have any audible improvements over 16/44.

This is true.

But if 4 is true then 3 cannot satisfy 2 and PCABX is flawed.

That's because you misstated my goals in item 3.