Originally Posted by Ratman
OTOH, yet another spin to justify your attempts to always be the expert and/or correct and everyone else is incorrect.
Everyone else? Nope. In this thread I was directionally in agreement with the article that it had linked to. I followed then with better research that set a somewhat higher bar. That research was done by Bob Stuart and I made little attempt to make it mine as I quoted him verbatim.
As to your point regardless, I do disagree with dumbing down audio reproduction based on superficial understanding of the science and technology. Conventional wisdom does not work with digital audio. Or else, adding "noise" wouldn't reduce distortion!
I explain the science not with pure opinion or by calling people Rookie this, Rookie that, but with authoritative third-party references. When Arny says quantization steps vanish due to reconstruction filter, I could insult him that he doesn't know the ABCs of digital audio and have it be that. But instead, I went for pages and pages of technical detail and explanation/simulations/measurements on how that was not the case.
For Arny's part, he called all of those authors names without even spending two seconds looking at their backgrounds or even carefully reading their work. That is not fair and proper in my book. I find it odd that you would choose to complain about me and not him this way. But I will live
Sadly, you are fixated on the "person" rather than great set of topics we have covered from the ins and outs of digital systems to dynamic range of music, to how quiet recording venues are. Indeed, this has been one of the most information rich threads we have had. But your commentary remains bitter even though you have not been active in the discussion at all. Instead, you kept pouring cold water on the thread as you have in others. Here is how you entered the thread on page four and post 109:
Divorce lawyers? Talk about passive aggressive! Thankfully we all ignored your post and covered other topics such as the loudness wars and how it is so damaging to music distributed. And that, more than anything else will be the reason we should move away from 16/44.1.
Simple solution: Stop criticizing every word/phrase/example that others provide. No matter how you jump or dance...
You mean how Arny objected to my fist post in this thread?
Originally Posted by arnyk Interestingly enough this paper is neither an AES conference paper or a JAES article." At least I can't find it published that way. It appears to be a rewrite of a 1988 (24 year old!) article in the now-long-departed Audio magazine. It's a corporate white paper that has no standing as an industry standard or recommendation.
This paper is arguably part of the support for SACD and DVD-A which are now known to be failed technical initiatives that failed to make it in the mainstream consumer marketplace.
The paper in question is full of unsupported assertions. Probably the most honest statement it contains is:
The above is a mixture of technical truth and opinon stated as fact (OSAF). The technical truth is that "There is very little hard evidence to suggest that it is important to reproduce sounds above 25kHz." The OSAF is that "Instead there tends to be a general impression that a wider bandwidth can give rise to fewer in-band problems." In fact many careful workers have encountered serious problems with audible artifacts due to excessive bandwidth.
The key sentence above is: "... unnecessary reproduction of ultrasonic content diminishes performance."
Enough said, eh? ;-)
I am sorry but I am not going to not answer when there is an opportunity to a) discuss something very interesting and b) someone puts down one of the experts in the industry without being able to demonstrate properly why. Whether it meets your emotional needs one way or not is not a priority for me. I am not running an election or asking you to marry me!
What makes you
the audiophile "go to guy"? Is there nothing you can contribute that is not a "passive" turnaround towards others when you are confronted?
My "contribution" to the thread started with Bob Stuart paper summary. There was no "passive turn around" nor did it sanction audiophile beliefs for maximum sampling rate and bit depth. Indeed, it advocated that even 14 bits of resolution is good enough if you know what you are doing.
I have repeatedly said that I have used that paper to argue *against* audiophiles saying they need such high resolution audio, not the other way around. But folks are so afraid of slippery slope of believing anything audiophile related that every topic is fought to death. Look at what I just went through with the lossy decoders. Any mention, even remotely in the direction of us doing better as far as fidelity is considered blasphemy.
I realize these discussions are annoying you. I get it. Honestly, I do. But you are out of order. This *is* a discussion thread. It is not a thread to ask which button does what on the AVR. A controversial article was put forth and comments were sure to come from both sides. You honestly have no business complaining why people then argue, much less doing it one sided with me. This is what we are supposed to do in a thread like this. If you don't like it, just ignore the thread!
How illogical is it that you keep up with the thread even though you are are annoyed by it???
Crossing fingers that you will not post something that is off topic and nitpicking. Your time/assistance may be better served on "your" forum.
Your "tactics" don't work well here.
Sorry to disappoint you
. I not only stayed on topic but used the "tactic" of still discussing something technical. I am pretty sure that is the way both forms want the members to discuss topics.