[Arny Krueger]

The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

Mix Magazine
Apr 1, 2008 12:00 PM, By Paul D. Lehrman

ARE CDS ACTUALLY GOOD ENOUGH?

The arguments about sampling rates and word lengths in digital audio are
long over with, aren't they? I mean, no less a personage than James A.
"Andy" Moorer - former director of Stanford's CCRMA, co-founder of Sonic
Solutions, recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the AES and now
senior scientist at Adobe - wrote the following in an unpublished (but
oft-quoted) paper a dozen years ago: "Let us start with observations that
are largely beyond question. These observations are not a subject of debate,
but they beg further discussion: Ninety-six-kHz audio universally sounds
better than 48- or 44.1kHz audio" (his emphasis). The great unwashed
consumer base hasn't caught on to this because we're still waiting for that
new medium to come along that will prove it to them and begin a long overdue
renaissance in high-end audio, right?

Well, SACD and DVD-A have been on the scene for some time, but haven't made
much of a splash in the consumer market.Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is being
used quite a bit as a recording format in high-end classical and jazz
circles; Telarc's doing everything in DSD these days. However, the problems
of editing, processing and mixing recordings in DSD have never been solved
well enough for the format to be adopted by the pop music world. Yet no
matter how good they sound at the mastering level, the truth remains: The
vast majority of DSD recordings are still delivered to the public on
ordinary CDs.

According to a remarkable new study, however, the failure of new audio
formats - at least the ones that claim superiority thanks to higher sample
rates - to succeed commercially may in reality be meaningless. The study
basically says that (with apologies to Firesign Theatre) everything you, I,
Moorer and everyone else know about how much better high-sample-rate audio
sounds is wrong.

The study was published in this past September's Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society under the title "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop
Inserted Into High-Resolution Audio Playback." The study blew me away for a
number of reasons.

One is that it was almost identical to a study I proposed some years ago at
the school where I was teaching, but it never got past the proposal stage.
Second, the two authors of the study, David Moran and Brad Meyer, happen to
be people whom I've known for several decades (we were all part of the crew
covering audio and other technologies at The Boston Phoenix when I was
starting out as a writer), but I had little idea what they were up to these
days.

The main reason it knocked the wind out of me was its conclusions. It was
designed to show whether real people, with good ears, can hear any
differences between "high-resolution" audio and the 44.1kHz/16-bit CD
standard. And the answer Moran and Meyer came up with, after hundreds of
trials with dozens of subjects using four different top-tier systems playing
a wide variety of music, is, "No, they can't."

THE TRIAL

The experiment was wonderfully simple: The authors set up a double-blind
comparison system in which one position played high-end SACDs and DVD-As
through state-of-the-art preamps, power amps and speakers. At the other
position, the output from the SACD player was first passed through the AD/DA
converters of an HHB CD recorder and then through the same signal chain. The
levels of the two sides were matched to within 0.1 dB, with the amplifier
doing the matching in series with the CD recorder so no one could claim that
it degraded the SACD signal. The test subjects used an "A/B/X" comparator to
switch the signals, meaning that in some of the tests, when the subjects hit
the Change button they didn't know if the signal actually changed.

There were 60 subjects, almost all of whom were people who know how to
listen to recorded music: recording professionals, nonprofessional
audiophiles and college students in a well-regarded recording program. In
all, there were 554 trials during a period of a year. The experiment was
done on four different systems, all employing high-end components and all in
very quiet rooms designed for listening in both private homes and pro
facilities. All subjects were given brief hearing tests to determine their
response to signals above 15 kHz. That data, as well as the subject's gender
and professional experience, was tabulatedwith the results.

MAY I HAVE THE ENVELOPE, PLEASE?

The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which
system was which was 276, or 49.82 percent - exactly the same thing that
would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin.
Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent
correct, while those who could hear above 15 kHz actually did worse, or 45.3
percent. Women, who were involved in less than 10 percent of the trials, did
relatively poorly, getting just 37.5-percent right.

So how did the audio community respond to this? Meyer tells me that he got a
lot of "thank you" and "it's about time" responses. He also says that the
article passed through the Journal's rigorous review process without any
argument. But some loud screams were heard from various members in the
audio-tweak community, and a number of heated and sometimes nasty flame wars
erupted on several audio forums within hours of the article's release - many
of them started by people who hadn't bothered to read it first.

Most of the objections were based on the fact that the authors didn't
include in their paper the list of equipment and recordings that they used.
Meyer explains that part of that reason was to keep the article from getting
too long. But anyone familiar with the type of debate that often occurs in
tweak circles knows that had the authors been specific about the components,
they would have immediately been attacked on the basis that their equipment
was, of course, inferior to what they should have used, and so, of course no
one would hear any difference.

In fact, Meyer and Moran posted all the information about the signal chains
and the source material within a couple of weeks of the article's
publication on the Website of the Boston Audio Society, a venerable
37-year-old, independent non-profit organization, in which both authors have
long been active.

The equipment list included amplifiers from high-end manufacturers like
Adcom, Carver, Sim Audio and Stage Accompany, and speakers from Snell and
Bag End, as well as the oft-worshipped Quad ESL-989 electrostatics, which
are supposed to have usable response up to 23 kHz - which is, of course,
above the Nyquist frequency of the HHB recorder's converters. The subjects
listened to discs that covered a wide range of material and
included classical instrumental, choral, jazz, rock and pop, from audiophile
labels like Mobile Fidelity, Telarc and Chesky.

So the objectors really didn't have much to object to. But if you think
about it, the exact equipment list is largely irrelevant. If you assume the
equipment, the listening environment and the listeners' critical faculties
are all at least good, then what's most amazing about their findings is that
the results were always the same, no matter what equipment they used or who
was listening to it or what they were listening to. Not one listener, under
any circumstances, could consistently distinguish between high-resolution
audio that was passed through the 44.1kHz/16-bit CD "bottleneck" and audio
that wasn't.

Does this mean that someone else couldn't do a similar experiment and end up
with different results? Not at all - and Meyer and Moran are urging others
to do just that. After all, this is what the scientific method is all about:
If your experiment comes up with a certain result, then by publishing it you
are inviting the rest of the world to copy (or expand on) what you've done
and to see if their results agree or disagree with yours. I would love to
see this experiment duplicated often, and I would be delighted to see
someone come up with different results.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate


http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin...ng/index1.html

At least I have put the link in so others can read the *whole* article not
just selected parts!

Now *IF* you had included this little piece below from the end of the
article you may have retained some credibility.

"Despite the fact that no one could hear the difference in playback systems,
they reported that "virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded
better than most CDs - sometimes much better." As it wasn't the technology
itself that was responsible for this, what was? The authors' conclusion is
because they are simply engineered better. Because high-end recordings are a
niche market, "Engineers and producers are being given the freedom to
produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having
to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual
listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great
care and manifest affection by engineers trying to please themselves and
their peers." "

Hence I feel vindicated in what I have said to all along to you. SACD and
DVD-A sound better to me (when compared to existing CDs)!!!!!

Also I have said to you JVC XRCDs are superb examples of what can be done
with the humble CD.

So Arny feel free to go right ahead and twist my above statements out of
context!

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message
. au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate


http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin...ng/index1.html

At least I have put the link in so others can read the
*whole* article not just selected parts!

I did not myself have that link.

I posted the entire article that was provided to me as a PDF attached to an
email.

As usual, you've rushed to judgement.

The bottom line is that the important new technology of the past decade was
neither SACD nor DVD-A, but the sum of improved production and mastering
techniques. The consumers didn't need to spend more money on new
quipment - the record production companies needed to work smarter.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"TT" wrote in message
. au...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate


http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin...ng/index1.html

At least I have put the link in so others can read the
*whole* article not just selected parts!

Now *IF* you had included this little piece below from
the end of the article you may have retained some
credibility. "Despite the fact that no one could hear the difference
in playback systems, they reported that "virtually all
of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than
most CDs - sometimes much better." As it wasn't the
technology itself that was responsible for this, what
was? The authors' conclusion is because they are simply
engineered better. Because high-end recordings are a
niche market, "Engineers and producers are being given
the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as
they can make them, without having to compress or
equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual
listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been
made with great care and manifest affection by engineers
trying to please themselves and their peers." "

This is all very self-congratulatory. The fact of the matter is that in many
cases, the original CDs were transcribed from either analog or digital media
in a slapdash manner. Even doing an average workmanlike job of remastering
would be an improvement over that!

Hence I feel vindicated in what I have said to all along
to you. SACD and DVD-A sound better to me (when
compared to existing CDs)!!!!!

When self-proclaimed golden ears say that something sounds better to them,
one really does not know what that means. Many of them have destroyed any
possible credibility they might have with all sorts of weird anti-scientific
claims and personal attacks.

Also I have said to you JVC XRCDs are superb examples of
what can be done with the humble CD.

Except that the CD format is hardly humble. Compared to the best venues and
studios, its an overkill format, and not by just a little bit.

So Arny feel free to go right ahead and twist my above
statements out of context!

Bad faith and implied personal attack noted. :-(

Arny has simply applied a little equalization,
compression, and redaction

If you had been able to read on comprehend what I posted over 3 hours ago
Robert, you'd know that I simply posted the full document that was
forewarded to me without the magic URL attached. :-(

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message
. au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate


http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin...ng/index1.html

At least I have put the link in so others can read the
*whole* article not just selected parts!

I did not myself have that link.

Steady on Yoda! I am not knowing you either were Star Wars fan :-))

BTW Even an idiot like me can use Google!

I posted the entire article that was provided to me as a PDF attached to
an email.

So too lazy to do your own research eh?


As usual, you've rushed to judgement.

As usual you have quoted *OUT OF CONTEXT*! Your selective snipping and
grandstanding never ceases to amaze.


The bottom line is

Generally speaking the hi-rez formats sound better than CD!

that the important new technology of the past decade was
neither SACD nor DVD-A, but the sum of improved production and mastering
techniques. The consumers didn't need to spend more money on new
uipment - the record production companies needed to work smarter.
Well the consumers did regardless - they bought iPods and other MP3 players!

TT

[George M. Middius[_3_]]

The Krooborg runs and hides from reality.

So Arny feel free to go right ahead and twist my above
statements out of context!

Bad faith[sic] and implied personal attack noted. :-(

Strawborg noted. You are not a person; hence no "personal attack" can
be made upon your ****ful self.

Also, please keep your ****-encrusted faith out of group. You're the
only gullible, credulous simpleton here who buys into that crapola.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"TT" wrote in message
. au...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate


http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin...ng/index1.html

At least I have put the link in so others can read the
*whole* article not just selected parts!

Now *IF* you had included this little piece below from
the end of the article you may have retained some
credibility. "Despite the fact that no one could hear the difference
in playback systems, they reported that "virtually all
of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than
most CDs - sometimes much better." As it wasn't the
technology itself that was responsible for this, what
was? The authors' conclusion is because they are simply
engineered better. Because high-end recordings are a
niche market, "Engineers and producers are being given
the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as
they can make them, without having to compress or
equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual
listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been
made with great care and manifest affection by engineers
trying to please themselves and their peers." "

This is all very self-congratulatory. The fact of the matter is that in
many cases, the original CDs were transcribed from either analog or
digital media in a slapdash manner. Even doing an average workmanlike job
of remastering would be an improvement over that!

Hence I feel vindicated in what I have said to all along
to you. SACD and DVD-A sound better to me (when
compared to existing CDs)!!!!!

When self-proclaimed golden ears say that something sounds better to them,
one really does not know what that means. Many of them have destroyed any
possible credibility they might have with all sorts of weird
anti-scientific claims and personal attacks.

Also I have said to you JVC XRCDs are superb examples of
what can be done with the humble CD.

Except that the CD format is hardly humble. Compared to the best venues
and studios, its an overkill format, and not by just a little bit.

So Arny feel free to go right ahead and twist my above
statements out of context!

Bad faith and implied personal attack noted. :-(

No, anticipation of you reverting to type!


Arny has simply applied a little equalization,
compression, and redaction

If you had been able to read on comprehend what I posted over 3 hours ago
Robert, you'd know that I simply posted the full document that was
forewarded to me without the magic URL attached. :-(

Reposting another author's work with out first checking your sources????
(Gasp, shock & horror)

Bad, bad scientist! Go straight to room with no supper and no playing with
your PCABX either!

TT

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 5, 11:06*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message







"TT" wrote in message
.au...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin...w_sampling/ind...

At least I have put the link in so others can read the
*whole* article not just selected parts!

Now *IF* you had included this little piece below from
the end of the article you may have retained some
credibility. "Despite the fact that no one could hear the difference
in playback systems, they reported that "virtually all
of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than
most CDs - sometimes much better." As it wasn't the
technology itself that was responsible for this, what
was? The authors' conclusion is because they are simply
engineered better. Because high-end recordings are a
niche market, "Engineers and producers are being given
the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as
they can make them, without having to compress or
equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual
listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been
made with great care and manifest affection by engineers
trying to please themselves and their peers." "

This is all very self-congratulatory. The fact of the matter is that in many
cases, the original CDs were transcribed from either analog or digital media
in a slapdash manner. *Even doing an average workmanlike job of remastering
would be an improvement over that!

Hence I feel vindicated in what I have said to all along
to you. *SACD and DVD-A sound better to me (when
compared to existing CDs)!!!!!

When self-proclaimed golden ears say that something sounds better to them,
one really does not know what that means. Many of them have destroyed any
possible credibility they might have with all sorts of weird anti-scientific
claims and personal attacks.

And I'm sure that this really bothers an accredited, bona fide, highly-
trained "scientist" like you. Why it should nobody knows. Some may
call it insanity. ;-)

Here is the answer: if you don't think that a piece of equipment, or
some piece of software, or anything else, is worth it to you, then
don't buy it. It's really that simple. That's all there is to it. End
of subject.

But like the wild-eyed christian on the street corner warning that The
End Is Near, you have to try to convert others to your religion. And
like the wild-eyed christian on the street corner warning that The End
Is Near, you get ignored.