Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Proven: Redbook CD Sounds the Same as DVD-Audio

So, is it also proven that my Art Pepper CD and DVD-A sound the same ?

I must be very mistaken when I listen if that's the case.

Ah, things are getting interesting in this thread now that JK has kick in on page 2 . The M word gets its first mention on page 3...

Gents,

That thread is really interesting. But I'm guessing the original article will be a paid download from the AES? (If not I'd appreciate the link!). My feeling is that I'd be suprised if this were true - for pretty much the same reasons that RHurley said. It's soooo easy for an experimental error to creep in. Any stage with less than 16bit resolution in the chain (including the 96dB dynamic range required by the analogue stages) would filter the quality.

Either way - by presenting it to the AES, they've done the right thing. That will be the ultimate peer review! I'd love to hear a recording of the questions after the presentation! (in 44kHz, obviously).

To their credit Meyer and Moran do report that the CD-quality loop is audible at high sound level due to the raised noise floor.

Their general findings are not surprising to me, given the dynamic range of our hearing. It is true that our dynamic range is greater than 96dB (the dynamic range of a 16 bits system), but the frequency resolution is highly dependent on the level. As the sound level is increased our auditory filters get wider which leads to poorer frequency resolution.

You know, these people and their tests - taking all the fun out of overpaying for stuff! Befor long you'll have folks saying you can get to the store just as well in a VW as in an Aston-Martin, or that poeple can't tell a $1,000 bottle of wine from a $100 bottle! Philistines!

MP3 Is really good you know, It could be the future of High Res audio? Perfect quality forever!!


Are we being sofened up, do you think?

Cheers, Chris

well we have to justify why we don't have a pair of 8k's

seriously though, just because it can be demonstrated that the auditory system is insensitive to an increase in word length beyond 16 bits doesn't necessarily mean that no benefit would be achieved using >16 bit processing.

If I have misunderstood what you have said then apologies in advance.

However, I think what they are saying is that there is no difference between the analogue outputs of a SACD/DVD-A player and those same outputs which have been through an A/D and D/A process at 16 bit / 44.1kHz. I probably should read the full paper and not just the (free) abstract. It's $20 for non-members of AES and my institute does not have access.

Of interest is the fact that this was a double blind listening test. I conducted double blind tests for 6 years in a previous position and sometimes found them at odds with my own subjective experience. One consistent observation I made was that it was much easier to identify the good sound source, when switching from the poor one. Switching from good to bad was less discernible.

My only explanation for the conclusion is that double blind tests are good at finding quantitative differences, whereas qualitative differences get lost in the process since you are force to rely on hearing (with your ears) rather than listening (with your brain).

This isn't a true blind AB test, and is flawed in various ways of course, but I have a recording of a Chopin recital by Roberto Prosseda, on Aix records. This contains two identical discs: except that one is a CD and one a DVDA. I put the CD in my 500/2 which is then routed via my 518 to input 1 on my DSP 6000s. I put the DVDA in my G98, which sends the 24/96 MHR signal direct to input 2. Start both discs on the same track (the beautiful Nocturne op 27, no 2) and toggle between them. The default track is 5.1, but the player converts this to 2 channel. I often find the 5.1 mixes sound better that way than if I set the menu to a 2 channel track, evn assuming there is one on the disc

The AB test is complicated by the fact that the DVDA sound level is a little lower, but otherwise its easy enough.

The result: pretty close, but I could always detect a difference. The hardes part was not detecting a diffrence but deciding which was preferable. At first I thought the DVDA version was bit clinical in comparison to the CD, but eventually concluded that it was 'cleaner' and better to listen to over a longer period, especially at higher volume settings.

As to DVDA and CD generally, my impression is that in 2 channel mode there is very little gained by DVDA, but that DVDA recordings tend on the whole to be better (perhaps for reasons suggested above) and my very best recodings are on DVDA (eg TACET recording of mid-period Beethoven quartets (not a 24/96 recording); Naxos recording of four seasons). On the other hand I have plenty of CDs that sound better than many of my DVDAs and plenty of really old recordings that sound better than many recent ones. How is it that after more than 40 years of technological progress, the 1965 Solti/ VPO recording of Die Walkure on Decca still sounds as good as almost anything else I can think of on CD?