Study say No difference CD/SACD/DVD stereo streams


Anyone read the latest issue of AES? A year-long double blind study by Meyer and Moran with 554 people in the Boston Area (many from the Boston Audio Society) found that people were unable to discern when two channel digital streams were switched.

=> They can't identify high resolution audio from ordinary redbook CD stream!

This proves that either

1) CD is good enough for stereo playback
2) Boston audiophiles are not discerning

Will some people will say the test is meaningless as they can attest to having heard enormous differences themselves with their golden equipment and golden ears? If this is true then they should be able to prove this AES study and paper wrong in some sort of test...Meyer and Moran have thrown down the gauntlet to all those who claim to hear differences!

Note 1:
The authors readily admit that high resolution audio and the newer formats do have advantages in multi-channel and studio mixing applications. They also admit a lower noise floor is attainable with higher resolution formats (when volume is turned up very high and no music is playing)

Note 2:
This is the first test of this kind that I can recall. It may trigger lively debate for years to come. Obviously no audio equipment manufacturer will be pleased to see a result that claims 25 year-old technology is good enough!

I expect the audio rags to get hold of this and have a field day, imagine all those glowing reviewer recommendations and yet people can't even hear a difference.....lots of lively debate to come!

Remember you saw it first on A'gon.
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xshadorne

Showing 1 response by dpac996

The thing about redbook is, from first principles: it is an entirely appropriate/adequate format to capture the recorded event. 16 bit, 44.1kHz provides sufficient resoution to contain upwards of 95 dB dynamic range. We would be so lucky if cd's, sacd's, or dvd-a's had half that dynamic range on an average basis. It is not the process of encoding (digitizing and burning a cd layer) that is the issue. The music industry is listening to and responding with what the average human being wants: loud compressed formats. Unfortunately we are the extreme minority who want higher quality recordings.
I think only if we get the measured best (analyze the dynamic range) of redbook recordings compared to the best of pure DSD recordings would that test be more meaningful. If DSD/SACD happens to be better then perhaps it's in the post processing that manifests the performance benefit (ie the weak link of redbook is not the bits/sample rate)

I personally have several SACD's and lots more cd's. There are some SACD's that, well basically suck; otoh, there are cd's that sound about as good as my best sacd's (sheer presence/coherence and ease of sound) but are not avail on SACD. This seems to point the finger to recording technique as the limiting factor, not the "high res" format.
Unless God comes down from the heavens and charges the music industry leaders with the direction to fully realize the available dynamic range on redbook, we will remain where we are. It will probably get a whole lot worse (eg louder cd's) before there might ever be a return to high fidelity/wide dynamic range recordings.