...A few excerpts from the INSIDER AUDIO column from the April 2008 issue of MIX magazine written by Paul D. Lehrman.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The arguments about sampling rates and word lengths in digital audio are long over with, aren't they? I mean, no less a personage than James A. “Andy” Moorer — former director of Stanford's CCRMA, co-founder of Sonic Solutions, recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the AES and now senior scientist at Adobe — wrote the following in an unpublished (but oft-quoted) paper a dozen years ago: “Let us start with observations that are largely beyond question. These observations are not a subject of debate, but they beg further discussion: Ninety-six-kHz audio universally sounds better than 48- or 44.1kHz audio” (his emphasis). The great unwashed consumer base hasn't caught on to this because we're still waiting for that new medium to come along that will prove it to them and begin a long overdue renaissance in high-end audio, right?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

THE TRIAL
The experiment was wonderfully simple: The authors set up a double-blind comparison system in which one position played high-end SACDs and DVD-As through state-of-the-art preamps, power amps and speakers. At the other position, the output from the SACD player was first passed through the AD/DA converters of an HHB CD recorder and then through the same signal chain. The levels of the two sides were matched to within 0.1 dB, with the amplifier doing the matching in series with the CD recorder so no one could claim that it degraded the SACD signal. The test subjects used an “A/B/X” comparator to switch the signals, meaning that in some of the tests, when the subjects hit the Change button they didn't know if the signal actually changed.

There were 60 subjects, almost all of whom were people who know how to listen to recorded music: recording professionals, nonprofessional audiophiles and college students in a well-regarded recording program. In all, there were 554 trials during a period of a year. The experiment was done on four different systems, all employing high-end components and all in very quiet rooms designed for listening in both private homes and pro facilities. All subjects were given brief hearing tests to determine their response to signals above 15 kHz. That data, as well as the subject's gender and professional experience, was tabulated with the results.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

MAY I HAVE THE ENVELOPE, PLEASE?
The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which system was which was 276, or 49.82 percent — exactly the same thing that would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin. Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent correct, while those who could hear above 15 kHz actually did worse, or 45.3 percent. Women, who were involved in less than 10 percent of the trials, did relatively poorly, getting just 37.5-percent right.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For the full article - http://mixonline.com/reco..._sampling/

I understand that as a science, it is the job of the audio industry to push the envelope toward achieving higher audio resolution in the digital domain. But it makes me wonder during this relatively lo-res iPod (or equivalent playback devices) revolution, if they should all just change their names to Don Quixote 1...2...3...4...etc.


After all, it appears that most folks can't hear the difference anyway.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

they should all just change their names to Don Quixote 1...2...3...4




and the little wheel on the ipod could be a windmill

IstenSzek said:

I'll let Mr. Lehrman know to hurry and get his name-change paperwork in if he wants to be "first" and get dibs on Don Quixote 1.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

I personally feel CDs are good enough. I just wish we could focus on keeping THAT level of quality in the marketplace without mp3's snuffing it out completely because I CAN hear the difference between CDs and an mp3.

theAudience said:

I believe it. Most average listeners don't have a trained ear to distinguish between different amount of sound decibels , frequencies, and distortion levels.

theAudience said:

This kind of bums me out, TA.

theAudience said:

I think CD's ARE good enough sound quality, for me anyway!

HOWEVER, I think there are two areas in which CD's are let down by the people who make them:

1. Poor transfers of old albums.

You know the ones, that sound like they could have taken the sound directly off a vinyl copy without bothering to remaster it to take into account the differences between the two media..?

I have heard some really weedy, flat, thin sounding CD's. A good ,erm, BAD example is the early AC/DC albums. There are now some vibrant sounding remastered versions but the older CD copies are terrible. Not quite as bad as listening to the album from a different room, but not a million miles away from that feeling either!

2. Poor production.

Simple as it sounds - a CD is only as good as the sound that goes onto it. If the drums were recorded badly they're gonna sound bad on the final release, be it CD, vinyl, SACD, Blu-Ray, 8 track cartridge, carrier-pigeon or smoke signal.
Garbage in=Garbage out.

Good call, rocknrolldave. Those problems aren't exactly the format's fault.

rocknrolldave said:

This is a fact. The mix in music today is really hit or miss. People don't know the difference until someone gives them the perspective. I've never really understood why a lot of mixes today are just so loud, I mean, where do you go from there in dynamics? It just makes things all sound flat to me.

My argument would be where Peter Gabriel has taken the canvas in the area of surround sound.

I think they are good enough. Vinyl is good enough too. It hink it all depends on the mixing and production. Heck we all listened to audio cassettes and really thought not too much about it. CD are obviously better that tapes.

I also think that most people would hardly be able to tell the differene,

...


Y'know, I gotta admit, I really don't know which group I would've ended up in....I mean, I appreciate really high end audio and all that, but I kinda agree with superspaceboy and others, I think it's more a case of mixing and production that I notice, rather than the kHz... folks like Stevie Wonder and Gary Katz might notice that stuff, but honestly, I don't even know if vinyl sounds better than CDs to me.....





...

I think a cd can sound great. As good as it's production & mastering.

Vinyl can sound "appropriate" for some music, but it's not necessarily better.

MP3's, however, are a huge step down, unless it's a really high bitrate.

I actually thought tapes sounded decent, better than MP3's.

Sorry The Audience, but I was trying to read that article and felt like I was listening to the professor on "Gilligan's Island". I couldn't understand a word of those technical terms.

Anyway, as far as answering the question "are CDs actually good enough", I've heard music through computers, I've heard it through someone else's ipod, and several of these other outlets that people have said "hey listen to this here" and I would do it. It didn't sound any different to me. Hell, I remember when CDs first came out, they didn't sound any different or better to me than vinyl did. The only outlet I've ever noticed a major flaw in sound is cassettes because those damn things will start sounding muffled when they get old.

NDRU said:

I try to empathize with the youth by equating slushy mp3 wobble with tape hiss. But one is destroying the music and one is just adding a layer of noise.
[Edited 4/8/08 21:42pm]

Cinnie said:

I don't know, maybe I'm being nostalgic, but something is missing from MP3's. Tapes sounded more musical, more capable of sounding good on a good system.

Of course, MP3's don't get tangled in the roller heads and capstans

NDRU said:

so true. And why was it eventual that no matter how clean you kept those parts, they eventually ate anything that came near?

NDRU said:

They just get obliterated when...



...the hard drive crashes.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

So true.

theAudience said:

Damn... exactly.

theAudience said:

And no head demagnitizer or q-tip swab will help it!

theAudience said:

That why the 500 gig hard drive is around $139, I've got back-ups of the back-ups.

Slave2daGroove said:

I saw a 750GB for $119.

That's the one thing that get's on my nerves in this digital age..
Nobody talks about the decline in quality using the mp3 format.

Ipods & the lot might look 'flashy' but they sound like fucking shit..
even with expensive headsets.
[Edited 4/9/08 14:47pm]

Martinelli said:

Ipods support WAV files, though. The problem with mine is that I don't like the preset EQ settings, and I can't create my own.

Mine is really old, they've probably changed this.

Graycap23 said:

yeah, the price is dropping every weekend, I saw a Terra byte for $218


Oh yeah, NDRU, the new EQ setting still blow in the current ipods...

NDRU said:

Even better, iPods support Apple Lossless, so you can have pristine quality at half the size if you want.

The thing I don't understand is that if you buy an mp3 album from a proper, legal source, then buy the CD of that same album and rip those files to mp3 at exactly the same bitrate, your CD rip sounds infinitely better than the one you downloaded.

Case in point: Te Amo Corazon from Prince. The initial, official download sounded just about acceptable (but with an oddly low sound volume). But when ripped from the 3121 CD, it sounded pretty much exactly the same as the CD.

Do download stores just get given crapper source material?

But to comment on the thread's subject generally - if I rip an mp3 from a CD at 256kps, I really can't hear any difference whatsoever! In fact, on in-the-ear headphones, I can even hear things that I'd not picked up on before in the music on CD.

AlexdeParis said:

it's still a compressed format.

Martinelli said:

Yes, a lossless one. Nothing is lost.