SACD vs CD's

CD / SACD Discussion
User avatar
treitz3
"Julian"
"Julian"
Posts: 7805
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: The tube lair in Charlotte, NC

Shut it!

Post by treitz3 » Tue May 05, 2009 10:07 am

robotczar wrote:It is a well known psychological principle that human sensory perception is subject to influence. We are not totally accurate perceivers, we are subjective perceivers. Expectations, for example, influence what we sense. So, "There is no better evidence than that heard by the ears, none" is a misleading statement that requires qualification and specification. The ears can be deceived by the brain. As an example using visual perception consider optical illusions. We cannot simply trust our ears unless we control for factors that could cause us to hear differences or mislead us to hear differences. That is what blind, controlled testing does. There is no better evidence that what is heard provided that evidence is done is a carefully controlled manner. When such care is taken, the ears tell us the truth and that truth is not what Bob Harley is selling. Ask yourself if you are willing to believe a person who says he hears differences but can only demonstrate his ability if he knows which device is which (e.g., he can tell the difference only when he knows which is the CD and which is the SACD, but can't if he doesn't).

So, bottom line: If you are new to the home audio reproduction hobby, know that there are two radically different view points about the reality of listening and what can be heard via our audio systems. Many quite smart people (including most scientists) do not agree with much of what you will hear from audio companies, magazines, and fans. Make up your own mind, but get all the facts, not simply opinions. That is really all I have to say in this forum.
Ok, let me make this point. Do you have scientific evidence that disputes the fact that an SACD is better than a redbook? You prove it to us. Not through opinion, but scientific fact.

Then and only then might we believe one fraction of an ounce of what you have to say. Until then, quit the psychobabble. The ball is in your court. I might also add that I'm on pins and needles awaiting your scientific, controlled, double blind response proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you aren't full of shit.

Come on, I'm waiting..........
In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence.

The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to a good analogue reproduction.

User avatar
BillD
R.I.P. Friend
R.I.P. Friend
Posts: 7126
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: The west's most mid-western town, Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: SACD vs CD's

Post by BillD » Tue May 05, 2009 11:11 am

Popcorn's ready.
It should sound like it isn't there!
There is a difference between hearing and listening...
Making life enjoyable through expensive electronics.
_________________
Carver: C-4000 & C-1 preamps, PSC-60 preamp/tuner, TX-11a tuner, M-400 (2), C-500, M-500, M-500t, M-500t Mk.II, A-500x, AL-III loudspeakers (2 pr.)
Sunfire:Theater Grand III processor, Ultimate Receiver, Cinema Grand Signature 400 ~ seven, True Subwoofer Mk. II, D-10 Subwoofer

Post Reply

Return to “CD / SACD”