In Reply to: I believe the kernel of the writers' purpose is stated by, "the CD standard is perfectly adequate". posted by clarkjohnsen on October 17, 2007 at 10:00:15:
"a given CD will sound different when played back on various transports"
This is just one of your many assertions that could be proven easily if it were true, but has never been tested by its supporters because it won't hold up.
"neither actual tape nor actual CD was employed, rather a thingamabob circuit that was said to mimic "the CD standard". This was a sonically unevaluated, hence glaringly misguided element of the setup."
We have already specified exactly what the device was. Astonishingly, given that I know you are of above average intelligence, you still haven't grasped that the purpose of the whole experiment was to evaluate it sonically. The result over 500+ trials is that it has no audible signature, an outcome you seem unwilling to consider.
"...no mention was made of acoustic polarity, which likely means that it was ignored."
I guess you really didn't read the paper after all, so maybe it will help if you run your eyes over the following very slowly: The experiment compared a high-bit source to a 16-bit, 44.1kHz encoded/decoded version of that source. The polarity of the source was whatever it was, but the recordings almost all sounded damn good (and we said so). The 16/44.1 processing loop was checked for polarity and is non-inverting, *as is stated in the paper*. (If it had been inverting, we shouldn't have gotten null results, according to your stated position, but never mind that.)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: