audio limits of hearing vs audio formats

[UFObuster]

Here is an eye-opener from the Klipsch forum. I need a link to the full article...anybody have one?

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/4/974600/CDQuality.AES.png

It's from the AES Journal (this month).
Will this info rain on your parade if you're really into the hi-def audio formats?
I've always thought a lot of my CDs still sound pretty good!

Check it out.

 

[avaserfi]

Here is an eye-opener from the Klipsch forum. I need a link to the full article...anybody have one?

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/4/974600/CDQuality.AES.png

It's from the AES Journal (this month).
Will this info rain on your parade if you're really into the hi-def audio formats?
I've always thought a lot of my CDs still sound pretty good!

Check it out.

Pretty sure this is the thread on the article you are talking about. It has a link to the article. Hope this helps .

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35803&highlight=hires

 

[Adam]

Pretty sure this is the thread on the article you are talking about. It has a link to the article. Hope this helps .

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35803&highlight=hires

Good find, Andrew. The link to the article located in the first post in that thread doesn't work for me. Were you able to get the article PDF by clicking that link?

 

[UFObuster]

Thanks for the link...I really wanted to read the whole thing.

 

[avaserfi]

Good find, Andrew. The link to the article located in the first post in that thread doesn't work for me. Were you able to get the article PDF by clicking that link?

Well, I do have the article on my computer which I downloaded from that link quiet a while ago. Since I downloaded it from AES directly I doubt there would be a problem with me sending it to someone. So if anyone wants a copy send me a PM with your email address and I will shoot it to your right away.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here is an eye-opener from the Klipsch forum. I need a link to the full article...anybody have one?

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/storage/4/974600/CDQuality.AES.png

It's from the AES Journal (this month).
Will this info rain on your parade if you're really into the hi-def audio formats?
I've always thought a lot of my CDs still sound pretty good!

Check it out.

Try this link at Boston Audio Society. After all, Meyer is the principal author of that article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

By the way, don't forget that the Hi-def audio formats are multi channel, a huge advantage over 2 ch. audio and so far, it has not succumbed to the compression rush.

I also like the last line in the comments in your link, audio/aural hallucinations.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

No surprises. I have known for years that the playback capabilities of CDs surpass the hearing abilities of the human ear, rendering "better" formats rather pointless. (In fact, cheap CDPs are already beyond that threshold, so there is no point in buying a more expensive one.)

 

[mtrycrafts]

(In fact, cheap CDPs are already beyond that threshold, so there is no point in buying a more expensive one.)

Unless you want multi channel music

 

[davidtwotrees]

Authors State That Hires Multi Is Much Better!

Sighs......we went through all this in the thread listed. The author's end the whole article by saying there was NO DOUBT THAT MULTI CHANNEL HI RES FORMATS SOUNDED BETTER THAN ANYTHING TWO CHANNEL. NO DOUBT!
""Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages
of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio,
one trend became obvious very quickly and held up
throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and
DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—
sometimes much better. "

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Unless you want multi channel music

I was, of course, referring to sound quality. Multichannel is a separate issue, and yes it requires a different format. (I love multichannel for movies, but prefer stereo for music.)

 

[3db]

David.. I remember that thread

Sighs......we went through all this in the thread listed. The author's end the whole article by saying there was NO DOUBT THAT MULTI CHANNEL HI RES FORMATS SOUNDED BETTER THAN ANYTHING TWO CHANNEL. NO DOUBT!
""Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages
of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio,
one trend became obvious very quickly and held up
throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and
DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—
sometimes much better. "

and i remember reading that line and becommong confused because it didn't say explicitly that mulitchannel....one trend became obvious...

So your take is that they implicitly implied multichannel

 

[mtrycrafts]

and i remember reading that line and becommong confused because it didn't say explicitly that mulitchannel....one trend became obvious...

So your take is that they implicitly implied multichannel

Yes, it can be confusing but, their first part ""Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages
of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio,

is clear, that high resolution is not needed for audio reproduction, at least in the consumer marketplace, it cannot be differentiated from RedBook standard, other characteristics do make a difference, be it multi channel or even high quality of mastering that can be accomplished with a CD but is now ignored for the volume race and compression but not ignored in hi-rez DVDs. That is why they sound better.