"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
snip Arnies attempts to show off by blathering
irrelevancies
Notice that this holds
true even against 352kh/32bit DXD pcm processing. Notice that this holds
true whether or not we are speaking of
64fse DSD (SACD) or 128fse DSD (mastering). It is
inherent in the technology. Notice also that the
inherent higher noise of SACD (a so-called detriment)
takes place well above 20khz and peaks at -80db. Even Arny will have
trouble arguing that those
are audibly significant (although that doesn't keep him
from using them to belittle SACD).
Harry, where are the results of your reliable listening
tests supporting the existance of any audible
differences between any of these formats? If these
formats differ as much as you seem to claim, you should
be able to readily demonstrate the difference with your
ears, and your audio system.
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm
Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.
First, note that Arny has snipped without attribution the
very tests and comparisons that I cited the results
of...including the fact that the test recordings were
chosen especially because they were based on the
identical, uncompressed recordings in the comparative
media.
I'll repeat the answer that Harry deceptively removed from the flow of my
post:
The tests you cite Harry lack proper experimental controls.
BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to
the care with which Harry does his analysis.
Actually, Arnie, the page I cited has changed and when I
was referred to it it contained the graphs on that same
page, much smaller. Obviously a page has been added to
increase the size of the charts. Nonetheless, it is the
charts themselves that are important, not your
blatherings in an attempt to discredit me.
You've done enough butchering of posts on your own Harry. You whined and
blathered to obfuscate my responses.
I notice you have nothing to say about what lies there.
That's a lie. Here's what I said:
Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.
But once
again, you have snipped my commentary and observations to
prevent the reader from making his own judgements.
I'll repeat the answer that Harry deceptively removed from the flow of my
post:
The tests you cite Harry lack proper experimental controls.
You
continue to amaze me with your blatent dishonesty and
unwillingness/inability to engage in any meaningful
discussion of DSD as it emerges as a stronger and
stronger pro audio technology,
One product does not make a market trend.
simply because you might have to acknowledge that you were premature in
your
dismissal of same five years ago.
The market has spoken. SACD and DVD-A media sales have fallen dramatically.
The market found out that the emperor had no clothes.
snip baseless opinions