T'weren't zoop, t'wer me
On 12/31/12 21:32, Tab Cursor wrote:
Zoop,
This thread sure took an interesting and unexpected turn. I have not read Floyd Toole's book, though I've just picked up a copy. It looks like a great read. Thank you.
I think the Meyer & Moran reference was brought up in a similar but different thread here awhile back. I find myself having more questions than answers. One link:
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1
Is it just my imagination that hi rez audio -- especially lossless bluray surround -- is better than CD audio? Does CD audio contain all we need to listen on a surroundsound set up?
I once owned a very expensive Yamaha CD player that I swore really made CD audio "all that". I'm wondering, does it take a special "high priced" CD player to get that "in the studio" feel? Looking around Crutchfield, I see some CD players go for $2,000 to $4,000 USD. Is that what it takes to get the same feel? Or is the "hi rez" stuff just smoke and mirrors?
Also, the only surround format that I know of in CD quality is DTS CD. Is that also the only format we need to fully appreciate surround?
And what about LPs? Didn't those who love their vinyl really hate the sterile digital CD?
So many questions. How do we appreciate the CD in our current set ups?
Anyway, thanks for the info. Any further thoughts are greatly appreciated.
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:46:14 PM UTC-8, zoop wrote:1) they were *recorded* at equal volume, according to Puget Sounds. Lavorgna did not verify that *play back* on his rig was in fact level matched.
2) 'taking off your glasses' is a rather casual method of 'blinding' (and at best, *single* blinding). And for all the detail Lavorgna gave about his rig, he gave very little detail about his 'blind' listening 'test'. It seemed almost an afterthought.
3) The fact that 'unscientific impressions' fall in line with Lavorgna's is no more impressive than the fact people tend to prefer the pricier of two wines even when they're in fact both the same wine. When people believe going in that one audio format is 'high resolution' and the other isn't, that is very likely to color their 'unscientific impressions' of what they hear. And those people are not using *just* their ears to judge..unless, of course, they are participating in a real blind test.
On 12/29/12 14:45, August Bleed wrote:
It seems to indicate he used test tones to ensure that the audio was at equal volume and the same equipment. I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism of an unscientific comparison of word length and sampling rates. He pretty much says this when he indicates his 'blind' testing meant he took off his glasses. It seems to be one man's opinion-and is represented as such. It's worth noting that his unscientific impressions seem to fall in line with what the vast majority of folks hear when they listen to these different versions if you use CA or this forum as small examples--with their unique equipment choices and such. Unscientific? Sure. Invalid? Only if you're not using your ears.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
I would expect small differences to be more difficult to perceive in surround, based on previous psychoacoustics work (see Floyd Toole's book)
But Lavorgna's article has basic flaws. His 'blind test' was inadequately blinded, and apparently there was no attempt to confirm levels were matched. And presto, higher numbrs = better sound. Audiophile preconceptions confirmed again! He also takes the Meridian quote about Redbook being 'inadequate' out of context. And he fails to mention that the Meridian white paper contains zero, nada, no listening test data. As a historical sidenote, when that paper appeared in JAES, it prompted as strong critical rejoinder from other AES notables in the digital audio realm, in the letters-to-the-editor section, which in turn prompted the famous Meyer & Moran DSD vs Redbook work.
On 12/29/12 13:20, Tab Cursor wrote:
This is an interesting read. He does something I never do -- compare his audio collection in 2-channel listening. Do you think his observations also apply to surround sound?
Enjoy!
http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
August
Bleed, Inc.
Selling Art Is Tying Your Ego To a Leash And Walking It Like a Dog--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
