Blind Listening Tests are Flawed

[Overdose]

I think you are confusing the amount of data that can fit on a CD to its dynamic range.

One of the reasons they limited the resolution to 16/44 was because of capacity. If they could have gone higher they almost certainly would have.

Why bother? CD resolution fully captures the audible frequency range.

THIS link explains it well and a read about the Nyqvist Theorum would be worthwhile.

 

[BigH]

CD is not perfect but what is, vinyl no, BD maybe better but too limited at the moment, hopefully that will take off. The main problem with music quality is the mastering, why bother when most people don't care, remember hifi is for a small minority of music buyers.

 

[fr0g]

I think you are confusing the amount of data that can fit on a CD to its dynamic range.

One of the reasons they limited the resolution to 16/44 was because of capacity. If they could have gone higher they almost certainly would have.

I very recently bought Bee Gees The Record compilation, and both CDs are packed with over 78 minutes of audio. My CD player was definitely noiser than usual. This had to be down to the longer length. Also, Too Much Heaven, while not harsh, was not sounding as smooth as I expected. I'm not saying this is absolutely because of the longer length, but I'm suspecting so.

The CD medium was in no way perfect.

The CD medium is far from perfect. As you say, it's too low capacity.

However the recording standard of 16 bits and 44.1 Khz, is in fact audibly perfect. So some classical CDs sound bad because they have frigged them to fit more on...that isn't a fault of the recording format, it's a fault of the dumbasses who did the press. They should have done it over 2 CDs.

For playback purposes 16 / 44.1 is all we need and efforts to promote HD playback are merely to try and get people to repeat buy.

 

[FennerMachine]

I think you are confusing the amount of data that can fit on a CD to its dynamic range.

One of the reasons they limited the resolution to 16/44 was because of capacity. If they could have gone higher they almost certainly would have.

I very recently bought Bee Gees The Record compilation, and both CDs are packed with over 78 minutes of audio. My CD player was definitely noiser than usual. This had to be down to the longer length. Also, Too Much Heaven, while not harsh, was not sounding as smooth as I expected. I'm not saying this is absolutely because of the longer length, but I'm suspecting so.

The CD medium was in no way perfect.

If your Bee Gees compilation is the same as mine then it is HDCD.

If your CD player cannot decode HDCD then it does sound a bit noisier than a standard CD.

 

[manicm]

It does matter how much music is squeezed on to an LP for perfectly good technical reasons. It makes no difference to a CD (apart from the fact that 78 minutes is outside redbook spec and your player may not play it) and you have no reason to suspect it would do. If your Bee Gees compilation sounds awful, blame the recording,production or mastering - it is not the fault of the medium.

I maintain the medium is in no way perfect. CD was originally designed to hold no more than 74 minutes of music. That extra content places additional strain on the laser/transport - who's to say this won't affect playback??

The discs themselves play without a hitch.

 

[manicm]

Probably down to different mastering, if its recent no doubt been mastered for loudness, just check the DR database, there a USA Polydor Greatest Hits thats pretty good, others not very.

I love the common wisdom around here - when you've run out of arguments blame 'loudness', in any event you're probably talking about the same compilation I bought:

 

[manicm]

Why bother? CD resolution fully captures the audible frequency range.

THIS link explains it well and a read about the Nyqvist Theorum would be worthwhile.

All theory indeed, and Nyqvist was published in 1928!! Please!!

And the first link quotes CDs as 'bit for bit perfect' - that's absolute rubbish!!!!!! Cos if you're transferring from an analogue master but limiting yourself to 16/44 remaster how in God's name can that be 'bit for bit perfect'???? Please!!!!!!

 

[manicm]

If your CD player cannot decode HDCD then it does sound a bit noisier than a standard CD.

I meant my CD player itself was a bit noisier than usual - not the recording.

 

[BenLaw]

Why bother? CD resolution fully captures the audible frequency range.

THIS link explains it well and a read about the Nyqvist Theorum would be worthwhile.

All theory indeed, and Nyqvist was published in 1928!! Please!!

And the first link quotes CDs as 'bit for bit perfect' - that's absolute rubbish!!!!!! Cos if you're transferring from an analogue master but limiting yourself to 16/44 remaster how in God's name can that be 'bit for bit perfect'???? Please!!!!!!

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

 

[BigH]

Probably down to different mastering, if its recent no doubt been mastered for loudness, just check the DR database, there a USA Polydor Greatest Hits thats pretty good, others not very.

I love the common wisdom around here - when you've run out of arguments blame 'loudness', in any event you're probably talking about the same compilation I bought:

Thats an LP, there are about 5 different Greatest hits versions and all no doubt with different mastering and probably more than 1 diferent for each album, depending on which country they were made.

 

[manicm]

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

I will repeat it was just a theory, and nearly 90 years on no-one has done additional research??? Comparing it to Newton is preposterous. BTW just gotta love your profanity (it shows up explicitly while commenting).

 

[matt49]

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

... and that Euclid (fl. c. 300 BCE) was pretty hot with his geometry ...

 

[professorhat]

I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a [EDITED] idiot.

Einstein didn't agree on a few key things. Then of course Niels Bohr disagreed with Einstein. And then....

 

[manicm]

Thats an LP, there are about 5 different Greatest hits versions and all no doubt with different mastering and probably more than 1 diferent for each album, depending on which country they were made.

So now I don't know the difference between an LP and a CD??? Last time I checked my Arcam Solo Mini had no stylus attached. I may have also been forgetting to flip my CDs over. Oh dear have I only been listening to half of Dark Side Of The Moon all this time??? My Oh My, dear God :wall:

For Your Pleasure:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Record-Their-Greatest-Hits/dp/B00005RFGG/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1381350386&sr=1-1&keywords=bee+gees+their+greatest+hits+the+record

 

[BenLaw]

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

I will repeat it was just a theory, and nearly 90 years on no-one has done additional research??? Comparing it to Newton is preposterous. BTW just gotta love your profanity (it shows up explicitly while commenting).

Why preposterous? They've both proposed theories, which until disproved are so widely accepted as to be true. It's simply fact that the original analogue signal can be reconstructed perfectly from the digital signal.

Yes, I thought the profanity was funny too, that's why I did it.

 

[manicm]

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

... and that Euclid (fl. c. 300 BCE) was pretty hot with his geometry ...

On the same website link that was given to me, one of the chapters actually supports a higher sampling rate:

http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml

 

[BigH]

Looks like you got this one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=47200

Never mind.

 

[manicm]

Yes, I thought the profanity was funny too, that's why I did it.

Profanity on a forum like this is never funny - it's banal and inane.

BTW The very same link that was given to me seems to ironically favour higher sampling rates than standard 16/44

http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml

 

[BenLaw]

Yes, I thought the profanity was funny too, that's why I did it.

Profanity on a forum like this is never funny

On this point, as with many others, we shall have to disagree.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

If.I cant hear a difference in a blind test then the difference ain't there, to me. Those who often critisise blind tests, often hear subtle differences in equipment using comparitive memory. They have better ears and brains than I. There seems to be a fear of these trials in 'believers' and a belief in trials for the non believers. These debates are somewhat pointles zzzzzzzz

 

[manicm]

Looks like you got this one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=47200

Never mind.

Where you could have just looked it up on Amazon (I posted the link), you dug SO hard? And it was released in 2001 - doubt any undue loudness or compression was applied. May well have been before Maurice died as well.

Congratulations, or should I say 'Never mind'.

 

[fr0g]

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

I will repeat it was just a theory, and nearly 90 years on no-one has done additional research??? Comparing it to Newton is preposterous. BTW just gotta love your profanity (it shows up explicitly while commenting).

What "additional"research is needed pray tell?

You can prouduce an identical copy of a waveform from a digital copy that has twice the sample rate as the maximum frequency in the waveform. It's not like it's a tough one.

Also, it's considered a "theorem". It has been proven from multiple sources and is essentially considered "fact".

The "only" vaguely possible need for more than 44.1 KHz is the claim that people can sense frequencies above the 22 KHz limit. A claim that has never been successfully proved, unlike Nyquist-Shannon, which has.

 

[CnoEvil]

Absolutely it's relevant that's it's from 1928. I mean Isaac Newton gave us theories in the seventeenth century and everyone's realised he was a ******* idiot.

... and that Euclid (fl. c. 300 BCE) was pretty hot with his geometry ...

On the same website link that was given to me, one of the chapters actually supports a higher sampling rate:

http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_rate.shtml

This is on the same theme:

Robert Harley -- Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:14

The benefits of high-sample-rate digital audio are not conferred by extended bandwidth, but because the sampling rate determines the time-domain performance. That's because standard-resolution digital audio requires steep anti-aliasing filters in A/D conversion and steep reconstruction filters in D/A conversion. Such steep filters smear transient energy over time. The digital filters for 96kHz sampling are very different from those required of 44.1kHz sampling, avoiding this problem.
See "'Anti-Alias Filters adn System Transient Response at High Sample Rates" and "Controlled Pre-Response Anti-Alias Filters for use at 96kHz and 192kHz" by Dr. Peter Craven, along with "Coding for High-Resolution Audio Systems" by J. Robert Stuart, all available atwww.aes.org.

Also see the AES papers on this phenomenon by Mike Storey of DCS in the mid-1990s.

It's a long-established phenomenon.

I'm a bit ( a lot) out of my depth though.

 

[manicm]

If.I cant hear a difference in a blind test then the difference ain't there, to me. Those who often critisise blind tests, often hear subtle differences in equipment using comparitive memory. They have better ears and brains than I. There seems to be a fear of these trials in 'believers' and a belief in trials for the non believers. These debates are somewhat pointles zzzzzzzz

The corollary of that is that if one can genuinely and truly hear a difference during a sighted audition, then the difference is true and no blind test is required. No-one here is detracting from the merits of blind testing as I can recall, but its supporters become violently reactionary when one supposes it's not the be-all and end-all of testing.

And I repeat these days, when many dealers are just trying to shift units it's extremely difficult to do good blind testing. And after all one doesn't walk in blindfolded.

 

[BigH]

Looks like you got this one: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=47200

Never mind.

Where you could have just looked it up on Amazon (I posted the link), you dug SO hard? And it was released in 2001 - doubt any undue loudness or compression was applied. May well have been before Maurice died as well.

Congratulations, or should I say 'Never mind'.

Its is the 2001 one and its all around 7 so its has lots of compression applied, As said before their is a USA version thats around 13. NOt hard took about 20 seconds.