JezA;403598 Wrote: > The AES so-called experiment is utter tosh. 2 of the 3 SACD players used > weren't true DSD machines for a kick-off, >
What do you mean? For the record, six digital sources were used: a Pioneer DV-563A universal player, a Sony XA777ES SACD model, a Yamaha DVD-S1500, a Denon 2900 Universal Player with full PartsConnexion mods, and unspecified hi-rez digital sources in two separate mastering facilities. > many of the recordings were from 30+ year old analogue masters, > Here's a partial list. The reader can judge the veracity of your statement for themselves. Patricia Barber Nightclub (Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2004) Chesky: Various -- An Introduction to SACD (SACD204) Chesky: Various -- Super Audio Collection & Professional Test Disc (CHDVD 171) Stephen Hartke: Tituli/Cathedral in the Thrashing Rain; Hilliard Ensemble/Crockett (ECM New Series 1861, cat. no. 476 1155, SACD) Bach Concertos: Perahia et al; Sony SACD Mozart Piano Concertos: Perahia, Sony SACD Kimber Kable: Purity, an Inspirational Collection SACD T Minus 5 Vocal Band, no cat. # Tony Overwater: Op SACD (Turtle Records TRSA 0008) McCoy Tyner Illuminati SACD (Telarc 63599) Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon SACD (Capitol/EMI 82136) Steely Dan, Gaucho, Geffen SACD Alan Parsons, I, Robot DVD-A (Chesky CHDD 2003) BSO, Saint-Saens, Organ Symphony SACD (RCA 82876-61387-2 RE1) Carlos Heredia, Gypsy Flamenco SACD (Chesky SACD266) Shakespeare in Song, Phoenix Bach Choir, Bruffy, SACD (Chandos CHSA 5031) Livingston Taylor, Ink SACD (Chesky SACD253) The Persuasions, The Persuasions Sing the Beatles, SACD (Chesky SACD244) Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, DVD-A (24,96) Giant Records 9 24719-9 McCoy Tyner with Stanley Clark and Al Foster, Telarc SACD 3488 > it would be hard to set a system up worse than the one in the picture - > speakers wobbling on the floor, Wow - you can see motion in a still photo! No wonder you can hear differences no one else can... > And yet apparently female subects managed to score 37.5% - a result so > significantly worse than chance that the whole methodology has to be > questioned. On the contrary. In such a large and thorough study, one expects to find small subsets of data that exhibit mild anomalies like that. -Not- finding such things would be suspicious. > > A reasonable conclusion is, though, that self-styled audiophiles are > not very good at making musical judgements through fancy audiophile > systems. > A reasonable person can draw only one conclusion from that - that the differences are inaudible. If you wish to convince anyone of the contrary, the burden of proof is fully on you. And if you were right that the differences are obvious, that proof would be -trivial-. How odd that it always fails to show up in controlled tests! -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60973
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
