Thread: Debunking Meyer and Moran

Posts: 178
Page: prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 next

Post by david moran September 30, 2009 (151 of 178)
>> let's not forget that Mr. Moran has displayed great mastery at veering the discussion to secondary issues.
>> Either way, Mr. Moran's response shows he would prefer to keep the issue debated within the buffered confines of this forum, rather than have it questioned by his peers. His reply, "And how collegial of you to proceed in this way," expresses his view that colleagues should stick with each other, rather than seek clarification.
>> It is interesting to notice also that while Mr. Moran has admitted to negligence in the selection of the recordings, his peculiar sense of logic deems that as irrelevant because his paper had been published by the AES. Well, now the AES seal of approval is more like a question mark, although it remains to be seen whether the AES would really take action against one, or rather, two of their own. As per the reply you got later from the editor of the JAES, at least it seems like they are going through the motions.


this does it. been fun.

Post by Paul Clark September 30, 2009 (152 of 178)
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to only use SACD audiophiles as study subjects? It is we afterall, who claim that SACD is supperior.

Post by azure September 30, 2009 (153 of 178)
I wouldn't suggest that the AES intentionally publishes misleading material. Although I feel there have been enough issues raised about the conclusions drawn from this research to warrant further investigation.

It appears to me that because this research was published by the AES that it can not be criticised, especially by non-members. I would hope that this attitude is not prevalent throughout the whole organisation.

Post by flyingdutchman September 30, 2009 (154 of 178)
david moran said:

>> let's not forget that Mr. Moran has displayed great mastery at veering the discussion to secondary issues.
>> Either way, Mr. Moran's response shows he would prefer to keep the issue debated within the buffered confines of this forum, rather than have it questioned by his peers. His reply, "And how collegial of you to proceed in this way," expresses his view that colleagues should stick with each other, rather than seek clarification.
>> It is interesting to notice also that while Mr. Moran has admitted to negligence in the selection of the recordings, his peculiar sense of logic deems that as irrelevant because his paper had been published by the AES. Well, now the AES seal of approval is more like a question mark, although it remains to be seen whether the AES would really take action against one, or rather, two of their own. As per the reply you got later from the editor of the JAES, at least it seems like they are going through the motions.


this does it. been fun.

Very thin skin. Jeez! What it must be like to do actual research with the likes of you.

Post by DSD September 30, 2009 (155 of 178)
david moran said:

You can see that if it seems impossible to tell the difference no matter how hard you try, doing this repeatedly becomes fatiguing, no matter how curious you are and committed to audio science and how much you love and know the passages.

Sorry I don't see that at all as I used to own an SACD player that had TOC reading problems and sometimes played the damned CD layer!

I listen with "Audio Direct" engaged so there are no displays, I could ALWAYS tell when my SACD player was playing the CD layer within 30 seconds to two minutes as I would get fidgety and very uncomfortable and think there was something wrong with my stereo. I turn on the display and there it was clear as day, the display read CD. Damn, damn, damn I hate TOC reading errors. And more than that I prefer my SACD player to refuse to play the disc rather than giving up and playing the CD layer. Hearing the CD layer is a real turn-off and can ruin a whole evening of listening.

In short any study that dares to suggest that SACDs sounds anything whatsoever like CD I find very, very insulting. And any study that claims to show that SACD and CD sound the same is the work of the devil. There is no other possible explanation I can image!

The reason it was so fatiguing, is because A/B/X is fatiguing to human beings as they are actively looking for differences and not really listening to the music. The best way to compare is to NOT COMPARE, but relax and try to enjoy the music, then the differences come screaming at you.

If I conducted a CD versus SACD test, I would ask my listeners which one makes them feel the best, the most comfortable and which one sounds strident. These are questions they could answer, not just hunting for differences. Also I would turn off all the displays on all the equipment and either turn out the overhead lights or dim them to their lowest setting. Just my humble opinion.

Post by michi September 30, 2009 (156 of 178)
david moran said:

michi ---

>>> (Remember, the S/N ratio and dynamic range and other specs of the DAC are higher than the actual player will be capable of outputting (above), dependent on design of the analogue output stage)

Thank you very much for posting all of the equipment information you did, and your parens point above is taken, although competent analog electronics can be *extremely* quiet. (Has been the case for over 30 years, since the Apt preamp.) I fear now that discussion might turn to inexperienced and uninformed speculations and claims about noise floors (mikes, rooms) and dynamic range and the actual spls of performed music, which are a little tricky to understand unless one has made actual measurements repeatedly. As just one occult example, the famous 96dB figure for RDCB is not only an ideal but referenced to 2V output (= 90dB at one volt), and two volts in will make any power amp, consumer or pro, hit its max, at which point with any speaker you will not care about DR or anything else!

It might help (if we perhaps are randomly turning this 'discussion' from ultrasonics to extreme quietude) to start to express the S/NR and DR of amps and rooms and recording venues in bits, too, noise shaping aside, so that some of the enthusiasts here could understand that their entire chain, from the background of the very best hi-rez disc they own to their room via their beloved gear, is many, many bits less than 24.

David-

I'm sorry, I tried to just give some points of comparison; I wasn't aware at that point that you guys did also use an XA777ES (108dB, 0.0012%; BB PCM-1738 [117dB theoretical], does not convert to PCM) and DV-563A (108dB, 0.0014%, BB DSD-1791[113dB theoretical], does not convert to PCM) - but this wasn't a "the study was flawed" sort of statement.

I gave some references to some more recent players... which I do realize, essentially top out at around 18 bits (19 if you're lucky.)

I'm not sure if it 'means anything' besides food for thought.

I haven't been trying to jump on this and say "The study must be flawed!" - I just wonder if there's more here.

I -have-, repeatedly, had situations where I was saying to myself, "Hmm - do I have this playing the CD layer or something?" -- and sure enough, I was.

I'm a skeptic. I really am, and I don't believe in green pens or expensive power cables or isolating pyramids and the like.

But, as much as I've tried to convince myself otherwise, I keep on finding - in my opinion - that SACD does deliver an audible difference, to me - and I do agree with other posters that sometimes it does have to do with specific passages...

I've seen the DIRAC graphs and the square wave graphs comparing DSD to PCM 44/16, and that tells me that something *can* be going on. (Doesn't neccessarily mean it is, but it can.)

I think something else may be involved than "indentifiability".

That said, I'm not putting a dog in this fight, but figured I could at least provide some info there.

As I've said, worst case, I've got some well mastered recordings and well built equipment.

Post by cacophony September 30, 2009 (157 of 178)
DSD said:

Sorry I don't see that at all as I used to own an SACD player that had TOC reading problems and sometimes played the damned CD layer!

I listen with "Audio Direct" engaged so there are no displays, I could ALWAYS tell when my SACD player was playing the CD layer within 30 seconds to two minutes as I would get fidgety and very uncomfortable and think there was something wrong with my stereo. I turn on the display and there it was clear as day, the display read CD. Damn, damn, damn I hate TOC reading errors. And more than that I prefer my SACD player to refuse to play the disc rather than giving up and playing the CD layer. Hearing the CD layer is a real turn-off and can ruin a whole evening of listening.

Not that I disagree with you, but you should consider that sometimes the CD and SACD layers of a hybrid disc are mastered differently.

Post by audioholik October 1, 2009 (158 of 178)
azure said:

I wouldn't suggest that the AES intentionally publishes misleading material.

maybe it wasn't intentional but personally I find consulting a mathematician, two years after publishing the study, far from best practice.

Post by audioholik October 1, 2009 (159 of 178)
Paul Clark said:

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to only use SACD audiophiles as study subjects?

or to divide the subjects into two groups: "SACD audiophiles" and "people who don't hear the difference or simply don't care" and then check whether the differences in mean scores achieved by these two groups are significantly different?

Post by flyingdutchman October 1, 2009 (160 of 178)
No, you simply bias the sample by creating your study from such a demographic. Audiophiles or not, a demographic made up of SACD audiophiles makes your study invalid.

Control group should be those people who have never heard of SACD and have no real interest in listening to music.

The study group would be made up of people who simply listen to all varieties of music on all formats and have no bias one way or the other. In other words, no stake in the game.

Page: prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 next

Closed