Re: [ARSCLIST] Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)

[Rod Stephens <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And I'm sorry, Mike, if you think I was not agreeing with your original
premise of  having the digital/analogue blind test; I think it would
take a bit of time with multiple sessions and listeners whose hearing
had been tested, but it probably would show that a "high fidelity"
(still a very pertinent phrase) to the original recording is perceived
with both sources (analogue/digital).

Perhaps this discussion is much tempest in a teapot when I would guess
that all the members of this list own a good number of CD's and other
digital recordings themselves unless they're true analogue purists.  So,
the seeming technical lacks of digital hasn't stopped us from accepting
it as one of the better current recording techniques.   And, it's
getting better to my ear.

Rod Stephens
Family Theater Productions

Mike Richter wrote:

> At 09:58 PM 1/17/2005 -0800, Rod Stephens wrote:
>
> > I think the basic problem is that we have no "perfect" listener, no
> > matter how "golden" his or her ears are.  Everybody hears things from
> > their subjective standpoint (or sitpoint).
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I believe you are overconstraining the problem. I suggest
> that determining which is better is a secondary issue. What we need to
> determine first is whether they are perceived as different. If a system
> with enough frequency response can be invoked, then any listener can be
> asked to determine same / different. (Well, I suppose it takes someone at
> least up to Sesame Street level - they have a program or two on the
> subject.) Some may be insensitive to the differences (if any); others may
> be too discriminating; but my guess is that there will be a substantial
> consensus.
>
> If we find that they cannot be made to sound the same, then the
> question of
> which is more accurate becomes relevant. For that, 'golden ears' or
> objective measurement will be needed. But why not try taking an easy
> first
> step first? It may turn out that we don't need a second.
>
>
> Mike
> --
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/