[ARSCLIST] Listening tests

[Marcos Sueiro Bal <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Goran,

Thank you for pointing to this watershed paper, which somehow I missed 
in the September AES Journal.

One thing that perhaps this paper does not address is the effect of 
digitally truncating word length (effects I believe I have heard), and 
whether this is somehow different (worse?) than using the A/D/A bottleneck.

Thanks again! We need more of these.

Marcos

Goran Finnberg wrote:
> Marcos Sueiro Bal:
>
>   
> > Even a 24-bit vs 16-bit, 44.1 vs 48 vs 96, 
> > non-multiple vs multiple rate conversion 
> > blind test would be nice (and easy) to set up.
> >     
>
> There is no need for that as it has already been done.
>
> Seems like 44.1/16 correctly done is transparent compared to 24/192,
> SACD, DVD-A etc.
>
> So no difference was heard among the various sample rates and bits.
>
> Please read on:
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm
>
> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted 
> into High-Resolution Audio Playback
>
> E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran   775
>
> Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range
> of SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD
> format. 
>
> A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced
> listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>
> High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality
> because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way. 
>
> There is no evidence that perceived quality has anything to do with
> additional resolution or bandwidth.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Additional info here:
>
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
>
>
>
>