Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:18 am
Re: "Lossless" duplicating. Is it for real? Seriously....?
I found this looking for something else
from Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can write.....YMMV
Hey Tom, these guys have a worse batting average than you do(sorry man)
Audible differences compared to PCM/CD
In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings.[36] However, In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[37] The authors suggested that different mixes for the two formats might be causing perceived differences, and commented:
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[38][39]
This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community.[40] Some have questioned the basic methodology and the equipment used in the AES study.[41]
Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[42] DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[43] Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.[44]
FWIW
ray
from Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can write.....YMMV
Hey Tom, these guys have a worse batting average than you do(sorry man)
Audible differences compared to PCM/CD
In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings.[36] However, In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[37] The authors suggested that different mixes for the two formats might be causing perceived differences, and commented:
Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[38][39]
This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community.[40] Some have questioned the basic methodology and the equipment used in the AES study.[41]
Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[42] DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[43] Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.[44]
FWIW
ray
Magnaryder
Carver Research Lightstar Direct pre, 2 Lightstar Reference 2.0 amplifiers,No. 50 and 51 Carverfest Tube amps, Hammond M3 tube amp, Carver TX-8 & 11 tuners, Carver TD-12 & 1700 decks, Tascam CC-222mkII CD recorder, Carver C-9 & ECS-U, Carver DPL-33, Carver HR-875 & 742 recievers, DBX-3BX & 200xg & 120x, Modded Klipsch Forte Loudspeakers(Obbligato Gold Caps) Carver Silver Amazing Loudspeakers, Carver ALV prototypes, Dahlquist DQ-8 loudspeakers, a handbuilt sub with twin 18in drivers and a Carver Research DarkStar Sub.
Carver Research Lightstar Direct pre, 2 Lightstar Reference 2.0 amplifiers,No. 50 and 51 Carverfest Tube amps, Hammond M3 tube amp, Carver TX-8 & 11 tuners, Carver TD-12 & 1700 decks, Tascam CC-222mkII CD recorder, Carver C-9 & ECS-U, Carver DPL-33, Carver HR-875 & 742 recievers, DBX-3BX & 200xg & 120x, Modded Klipsch Forte Loudspeakers(Obbligato Gold Caps) Carver Silver Amazing Loudspeakers, Carver ALV prototypes, Dahlquist DQ-8 loudspeakers, a handbuilt sub with twin 18in drivers and a Carver Research DarkStar Sub.
