darrenyeats;353012 Wrote: > I haven't heard it (with music at normal volumes). In fact the opposite > - I heard CDs played on a Marantz CD-94 sound noticeably better than > SACDs on the SACD player to hand. This shows how much reliance can be > placed on subjective, uncontrolled listening tests for either equipment > or formats.
huh? Did you use full response 2-100kHz audio kit from media to speakers? Did you verify that the phase response through-out the spectrum was within reasonable margins etc? Did you use the same "master" for both versions? Are you sure the SACD disc was okay. Didn't it have a hybrid red book track that you could have used for the CD player, or even play that in the SACD player too? Isn't it so that by far everyone agrees that most SACD's sound better than the CD-versions because they used better mastering instead of compressing the CD master to death? Okay, you win, it's red book "uber alles"! You know I'm just having some fun here but I really think your test has some flaws and can't be used as an example that all tests are flawed. > If I can have all those higher frequencies without sacrificing universal > compatibility, dealing with DRM or paying extra then why not. These are > three areas in red book's favour IMO. I hope this explains why some > objective evidence is warranted to move from red book. Ah, DRM. I didn't know that it creeped into flacs already, did it? I think that hi-res can be done without any of that so it shouldn't be an argument against hi-res or pro red book, just an argument against DRM. But why would it be unreasonable to pay more for hi-res? I mean, if both versions are available you can choose which one you want. It would depend on your hifi kit and your wallet and your personal listening experience. If they would only release hi-res for more money you have no choice but would that mean that red book is better? Japanese pressings of vinyl were always better and cost more, it's nothing new. > I think the instruments were chosen because their sound is (...and I > quote...) extremely rich in HFCs. > Another point is about how representative these instruments are of > music in general. But again I read the same text as you and reach a > different conclusion. By its very definition "extremely" means far away > from the norm. > If you want to find out if HFCs matter, it's little use and even a bit stupid to select music that is extremely low in HFCs, wouldn't it? For the choice of instruments, yes it matters. If you listen to electronic instruments that have no HFC output, you're not gonna profit from the demonstrated phenomena no matter which speakers etc. you buy. But a violin is also extremely rich in HFC harmonics. An electric distortion guitar (saw tooth stuff!) too but it's amp will probably cut-off the HFCs so when you use that you would end up with no results. Basically, it's the same for all electric instruments: the instruments themselves, or the equipment that they are connected to, will do away with HFCs so are not suitable for the test and that eliminates all "representive" instruments for many, many listeners. But I do believe that when you listen to a live performance of a classical piece, you will hear lots of HFCs so they could have recorded that too. If you only believe the results when do use that, someone else will come up saying he will only believe it when they use the Gipsy Kings and another one wants to have Iggi Pop checked out. Nothing of that indicates that the study presents us with invalid results. > And as for the general debate...I'm happy to agree to disagree. :) Agreed. Not much fun discussing it otherwise ;-) ciao! Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
