Originally Posted by mastermaybe
Can anyone provide a link to an ABX of "CD vs HI Rez" that doesn't include hi rez content that isn't really high rez or is the aforementioned Meyer/Morgan effort the best we can do as of May 2012?
As near as I can tell M&M is the best that has been published to date.
No doubt it could have been done better, and no doubt better could be done
today (or back then) - if somebody was willing to fund the study, or, do it themselves.
It would take considerable work/money/time. As near as I can tell
nobody has felt it worth the effort - or if they have, they decided
to keep the results to themselves. I might be wrong, but I think
M&M were just interested amateurs. They put in a lot of time and effort into
their study, and likely more time and effort in getting it published.
Yes it was flawed by not testing the samples they used for frequencies
that could not be resolved by 44.1 sampling rate. Too bad the reviewers
did not catch this at the time. I thought I had the study on my computer,
but can not find it, if memory serves one of the authors learned to
tell the difference between raw and resampled signals by listening for noise at
very high gain/volume.
I think a little history might be in order. I'm not a historian,
and I was not involved in any way with the music industry (except as a consumer).
Also my memory is not perfect - apparently memory fades with age just like
hearing does. Basically I have no facts to back up what I'm about to say,
and likely am wrong. With those disclaimers in place here is what I remember.
The 16/44.1 standard we call "redbook" was developed in the late 70's.
It was the best that could be done at the time (the digital processing
was pushing the limits of what was practical, and it was theoretically
good enough). It took a few years to go from developing the standard
to make product available - some time in the early 80's I think. Unfortunately
back then they were still just learning - some content was not well
made - and most players were not very good. It took them a good ten
years or so to really start realizing the potential of 16/44.1.
Many people still remember those bad old days, and that memory is stuck in their heads.
Of course people were clamoring for more - they wanted digital, but
they wanted better digital. It is about that time that SACD and DVD-A
came about. Of course companies wanted to get their new product to market
asap. At the same time people were learning how to really use the
capabilities of 16/44.1. It seems many (most) people are now happy
enough with 16/44.1 for play back of well mastered material. In fact it turns
out your can further compress the signal and not tell the difference
(but that is a different conversation)
I encourage you to play with this. Try it for your self.
Can you tell the difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1?
How about the difference between "lossless" and 320 mp3?
I should probably not hit submit - since no doubt there are huge holes
in this, but I will, since it took time to type. don't take it personally if I do not reply to your reply