[jwvm]

On Oct 13, 9:07=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:03:18 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):









On Oct 11, 6:31=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

The question is simple enough. I've asked not for evidence, but rather=
fo=3D
r an
explanation. How do YOU know that none of these amp designers, men lik=
e
Nelson Pass, John Curl, Jim Di Paravancini, William Z. Johnson, et al,=
=3D
=3DA0NEVER
SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY TRIED A RELIABLE EXPERIMENT?

Are we supposed to be impressed with this list of names? Building high-
quality amplifiers these days is not very difficult. Again, of course,
without proper unbiased evaluation, all sorts of claims are likely to
be made about their designs.

On the other side of the fence, we have people like you and Mr. Kruger=
wh=3D
o
seem to be content to take the word of more-or-less anonymous, but pub=
lis=3D
hed
DBTs that support your assertion that there is no difference. Never on=
ce =3D
I
have seen either of you assert that YOU have partaken of these tests (=
and=3D
=A0if
I have misread that, I humbly apologize), known that they were properl=
y
set-up and conducted, or that you have personal experience that tells =
you
that there is no difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192.

You are misconstruing things here. Arnie et al are not claiming there
is no perceptual difference. They are merely asking for properly
documented evidence that what you claim has a basis in fact.

I'm misconstruing NOTHING, my friend. Both Mr. Kruger and Mr. Pierce have
stated flat -out that there is no statistically meaningful perceptual
difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 192 audio. I have outlined a numb=
er
of experiements that will show the difference WITHOUT needing an elaborat=
e
DBT set up. The easiest is to take an LP that images very well (The Mercu=
ry
recording of Stravinsky's "Firebird" Ballet with Antal Dorati and the LSO=
is
a good example here) and quantize it with both 16/44.1 and 24/96 and then
listen to the LP - noting the soundstage and instrument locations in spac=
e,
then play the 16/44.1 copy of the record, and listen for same things. The
image specificity will be much less thre-dimensional and less palpable.
You'll be a lot less able to close your eyes and point to each instrument=
in
space. You will also notice that the soundstage will seem to collapse and
won't be a wide. Now, play the 24/96 of the same record and everything is
back where it should be. Try the same experiment with a record or analog
master tape of solo piano of perhaps a clavichord (which plays very softl=
y).
notice the ambience and low-level detail on the analog recording, then li=
sten
at both 16/44.1 and 24/96 (or higher) notice the truncated ambience and l=
ack
of low level detail on the 16/44.1 recording and how it's back at the
24-bit/96KHz playback. These results are very unambiguous. The cues we ar=
e
talking about are either there are they aren't.

Then how do you discount this AES paper that has proper controls and
every effort was made to eliminate bias:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3D14195