CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio

[Phelonious Ponk]

I never take anyone seriously, not even me. ...Just kidding. :b
{I still miss Frank.}

Now there's someone you could not take seriously.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Now there's someone you could not take seriously.

Tim

Who, me, or Frank?

Anyway, so much so that we lost him along the way.

 

[JackD201]

I got a very kind PM from Frankie when my room got water damage. He's around, just quiet.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I got a very kind PM from Frankie when my room got water damage. He's around, just quiet.

I liked Frank as well.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I liked Frank as well.

There were times I enjoyed Frank myself. The guy was nutty as an outhouse rat, but he could be fun.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

There were times I enjoyed Frank myself. The guy was nutty as an outhouse rat, but he could be fun.

Tim

I can't remember if he had a turntable, or if he was into high-resolution audio from quality music CDs?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can't remember if he had a turntable, or if he was into high-resolution audio from quality music CDs?

No, he believed that all the information was captured in every format, and that even very bad recordings could be made excellent through system tweaks. He was his own guy, that's for sure.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

No, he believed that all the information was captured in every format, and that even very bad recordings could be made excellent through system tweaks. He was his own guy, that's for sure.

Tim

He was unique. ...And a nice and friendly and polite people too, from Australia. ...With a fun sense of humor.
- If you could listen from another room than where the system and speakers were set up, and cannot tell if it was live or reproduced music,
then you were doing real good; no matter your system's level of resolution and its overall cost and size.

 

[microstrip]

I got a very kind PM from Frankie when my room got water damage. He's around, just quiet.

I am happy that everything is well with him. Although I would disagree with him in many of his points and seldom get involved debating with him, he was a source of fresh ideas and some of them were really interesting. I really miss his posts.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Hopefully he has read these posts and seen "all the love" expressed! Frankie baby....get over here!

 

[NorthStar]

Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove it!

Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

 

[Bruce B]

Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

oh geez....

 

[rockitman]

Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

That is a strange and I believe an incorrect assertion...

 

[cooljazz]

Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

It's good to see something new come to light in this discussion!

CJ

 

[Robin Hood]

That is a strange and I believe an incorrect assertion...

Not really. I'm sure that I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels that MP3s sound the same as CDs. The telling question for me is who are the listeners and how well trained are they in their listening? The reality is that for the vast majority of people such differences do not matter and in double blind listening tests the large majority will not hear differences between MP3s and CDs.

Clearly, MP3s, CDs, hi rez PCM, hi rez DSD, analog tape and vinyl all measure differently. If some cannot hear the differences the fault is with the limited hearing abilities of those listeners.

 

[Julf]

If some cannot hear the differences the fault is with the limited hearing abilities of those listeners.

Unicorns do exist. If you can't see them, it's just because you aren't very good at seeing unicorns.

 

[JackD201]

Not really. I'm sure that I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels that MP3s sound the same as CDs. The telling question for me is who are the listeners and how well trained are they in their listening? The reality is that for the vast majority of people such differences do not matter and in double blind listening tests the large majority will not hear differences between MP3s and CDs.

Clearly, MP3s, CDs, hi rez PCM, hi rez DSD, analog tape and vinyl all measure differently. If some cannot hear the differences the fault is with the limited hearing abilities of those listeners.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? It is about the training and there are many studies that show that even those with less acute hearing can do better when trained than untrained listeners with better acuity. Respondent selection is critical if what is being tested is the extreme rather than the mean in terms of audibility.

The fallacy is that so called audiophiles are stereotyped as a population composed of people that are untrained or have not developed more critical listening skills than the "vast majority". It's like saying all tennis players in a double blind can't tell the differences in rackets, string pattern, tension or even balls. There WILL be those that can, by feel alone. They will be able to tell when things just don't feel right. Whether they can identify what the causes are or not, or if they can articulate the same in a language "acceptable" to the scientifically inclined is beside the point.

 

[cpp]

Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

I guess it depends on where the old redbook CD was mastered and how accurate it is to the original music. A poor copy makes for poor sound regardless if it's Hi-rez or a CD...

 

[Groucho]

I guess it depends on where the old redbook CD was mastered and how accurate it is to the original music. A poor copy makes for poor sound regardless if it's Hi-rez or a CD...

Didn't the test just involve a 16/44.1 'bottleneck' in series with hi-rez playback, though? I think that was the idea, anyway.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Didn't the test just involve a 16/44.1 'bottleneck' in series with hi-rez playback, though? I think that was the idea, anyway.

Yes. And I like Peter Aczel, but he is a bit prone to hyperbole. No competition for many subjectivist reviewers or audiophiles in that trait, but prone. Incontrovertible evidence? No. An imperfect study? Yes. 1000% better than sighted listening with every opportunity for bias fully intact? Absolutely. The problem with discussing blind listening around here is that its detractors hold it up to the highest possible scientific and statistical standards (even when they clearly do not understand them), dismissing it completely at the discovery of the smallest flaw, while demanding of themselves and their position, no standards at all. Makes discussion circular and pointless.

Tim