Quote:
Originally Posted by severe  Why not the whole word?  "Meyer and Moran do not say that 14 or 15 bits in a truncated CD are just as good as 20. What they say is that spot-on 16-bit/44.1-kHz processing is as good as it gets, audibly."
Love that part.  |
What these tests seem to ignore (whether they are valid or not is another subject) is the cumulative losses that occur in a production chain. Using a final SACD disc as a source for their tests is potentially questionable as it is not an original source. Potentially, every step in a production chain involves losses, each one of which may be very subtle to the ear, but when auditioned cumulatively, produce an obvious loss (at least to critical listeners).
Therefore, even if for all practical purposes, a listening test seems to show that copying an SACD to a 44/16 medium seems to sound the same*, THIS DOES NOT MEAN that if you take an original recording, mix it at 4416 (dithered), send it to a mastering house, have it processed and mastered, and end up at 4416, there will be no audible degradation! There is a big difference here. And my contention (proven to me many times over many years) is that the HIGHER THE RESOLUTION OF THE SOURCE, AND THE HIGHER THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROCESSING SYSTEM, THE LESS THE PERCEIVED LOSS OVER CUMULATIVE GENERATIONS OF PROCESSING.
And the correlary to this:
Even if each step in a cumulative chain seems to pass the transparency test to the listener, it is amazing to discover that at the end of that chain, there are audible losses. This seemingly contradictory conclusion can be explained by realizing that if step 1 in the chain has a loss which is not noticeable or audible to the listener, and step 2 has a similar loss, the two together can add up to an audible loss!
This "accumulation" is the main justification for using high resolution (e.g. 96 kHz/24 bit) in the origination medium if transparency is desired for the final result. This works well for types of music (such as acoustic jazz, classical, etc.) that likes transparency and little distortion. Especially if performing any dynamics processing in the digital domain. But the same goes for analog processing. Even without any analog processing in between, around here, with matched levels, we can HEAR a subtle difference between the source and passing that source through the world's best D/A/D chain. Even if Brad Meyer "proves" that he cannot, I wager that in a cumulative chain of such "tiny" or even "inaudible" losses----there will be a meaningful audible loss at the end of that chain.
*I'm not saying I agree with this statement, not having taken the blind test, but I'm certain that if carried out properly, with matched levels, if there is a difference, it will be extremely subtle.