Post by ralphpnjNicely done, Archimago. I can never manage to keep my tone even remotely
civil when discussing anything written in one of the high end audio
magazines.
I also found this "As We See It" column from November 2015 to be equally
http://www.stereophile.com/content/we-dont-get-no-respect#PtOAgYWHfZzYmCm6.97
Classic straw-man argument.
For example:
Atkinson's misrepresentation:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/simple-everything-appears-simple#qTOJfKoF1IRTqTmK.99
"Harper was referring to a 2007 paper by E. Brad Meyer and David R.
Moran that "proved" that there was no sonic advantage to high-resolution
audio formats (footnote 3)
Read more at
http://www.stereophile.com/content/simple-everything-appears-simple#qTOJfKoF1IRTqTmK.99
Actual article abstract:
"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly
superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word
lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD
standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing
the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution
recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz
bottleneck. The tests were conducted for over a year using different
systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive
professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic
loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included
professional recording engineers, students in a university recording
program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the
CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening
levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The
noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels."
Actual article conclusion:
"We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music
and specific program; type of high-resolution technology;
age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and
hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have shown
any correlation with the results, or any difference between
the answers and coin-flip results
The previous work cited, some of it at the very beginning
of the CD era and some more recent, pointed toward
our result. With the momentum of widespread high-rez
anecdotes over the last decade, culminating in the Stuart
assertions, we felt the need to go further and perform a
thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening
test to determine whether 16/44.1 technology would
audibly degrade the sound of the best high-resolution discs
we could find. We used a large and varied sample of
serious listeners; we conducted our tests using several different
types of high-quality playback systems and rooms;
and we took as much time as we felt necessary to establish
the transparency of the CD standard.
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 highresolution
signals must be supported by properly controlled
double-blind tests."
It appears that the articles contents were thoroughly misrepresented by
Mr. Atkinson for fun and profit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104904