JezA;404018 Wrote: > Err .. read the booklet. Ask the engineer to be sure. >
Neither of those is reliable (even if contacting the engineer were necessarily possible). There's a fairly widespread suspicion that dual-layer releases are deliberately mastered differently so that there's an audible difference, and consumers are then motivated to buy more hi-res material. Whether or not you believe that, trusting dual-layer discs introduces an unknown and uncontrollable element into the experiment, which is very bad scientific practice. It's just a bad idea, particularly when their method - which absolutely guarantees there is no difference - is simple and easily available. > > It proves no such thing. It demonstrates that the esteemed self-styled > audiophile members of the BAS cannot hear the differences, which, given > the poor way they set their equipment up and select recordings does not > exactly surprise me. BAS members, and undergrad audio engineering majors, and Boston-area audiophiles that were certain they could hear the difference easily, and music pros, and sound engineers, and dozens and dozens of more people. It's interesting - you're going through precisely the same checklist I've seen many other audiophiles go through on this: the recordings weren't good enough, the gear wasn't "resolving" enough, the listeners were deaf... and as each in turn is demolished, you retreat to the next. > And how is it one of them has spent $1000 on a single Nordost SPM > interconnect, the benefit of which we must presume he can hear, yet > they cannot hear a whole A-D/D-A signal chain, with dozens of > components and connexions in it? And why do the females score so much > worse than chance? Do you really need to ask that? The answer is blindingly obvious - -none of those things make a bit of audible difference.- > I do argue and experience that SACD and hi-res is audibly different from > redbook, and I'm sure, and glad, that the recording engineers from the > likes of Gimell, Linn, Chesky, and Tony Faulkner have the same view. I have no doubt you experience that - none whatsoever. Let me make my position clear. First off, I'm quite convinced that hi-res is audibly different from redbook only under totally unrealistic conditions. For 2-channel music, redbook is simply good enough. That said, there's nothing wrong with overkill - particularly if it's easy to do. And for mastering and recording 16/44 does -not- suffice. So there's clearly a need for hi-res standards and gear, and it's fine with me if there's a consumer market for it. It makes people happy, secure knowing they're listening to the best money can buy and technology can do - and I have absolutely no problem with that. I'd even do the same myself if it wasn't too much hastle. But I object strongly whenever anyone tells anyone else that hi-res is better for home stereo, and/or that they need to spend lots of money upgrading their system and buying hi-res versions of music they probably already own. It's BS. The correct advice is "it's almost certainly not going to make an audible difference, but you can never be sure, and if you want the absolute best and can afford it, go for it. And often when music is in a hi-res formats more attention is payed to sound quality during mastering, so you might end up with better sounding recordings." -- 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
