In Reply to: RE: Better duck under that desk; posted by Phelonious Ponk on August 1, 2009 at 09:11:52:
Phelonious Ponk wrote:
I'm sure you'll find it yourself.
Obviously, I did (eventually) as I posted a URL and quoted it at length.
On the subject of redbook fidelity, I'll take the two journalists' study over Kurchner's work . . . any day.
Such is, of course, your right but my scientific training convinced me many moons ago that an experiment with faulty kit, bad sampling technique, shoddy procedures and the like is inherently flawed. It is no more a partial truth than a near miss with a rifle is a partial hit.
. . . and the huge leap of faith and logic required to relate it to digital audio . . .
Maybe it is difficult for some though it seems fairly straightforward to me. Perhaps that's because it's my field. Whatever, Kurchner's experimental work is unarguably very fine and in a different league from Meyer & Moran's "study". We shall just have to disagree on how we interpret his results.
Meanwhile, to tidy up loose ends, if you explain to the Hi-Res aficionados on this list why they're deluding themselves, I'll drop a line to Sony's SACD people making it clear how they've been wasting their time. They'll appreciate it.
Dave
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 08/1/0910:13:02 08/1/09 (28)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 20:01:03 08/1/09 (27)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 06:00:31 08/2/09 (26)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 06:48:18 08/2/09 (25)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 07:16:17 08/2/09 (24)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:22:52 08/2/09 (23)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 01:05:50 08/3/09 (22)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 04:06:20 08/3/09 (21)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 04:40:30 08/3/09 (20)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:53 08/3/09 (19)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:56:07 08/3/09 (18)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 12:09:11 08/3/09 (17)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 14:42:51 08/3/09 (16)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 18:27:33 08/3/09 (15)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 19:46:06 08/3/09 (14)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:24:51 08/4/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 02:55:41 08/4/09 (12)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Tony Lauck 17:29:58 08/5/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 05:05:49 08/4/09 (7)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 19:12:49 08/5/09 (4)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:46:58 08/5/09 (3)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 20:00:35 08/5/09 (2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 03:56:22 08/6/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - riboge 07:50:41 08/6/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Tony Lauck 17:40:32 08/5/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Phelonious Ponk 19:17:37 08/5/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 04:13:36 08/4/09 (2)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 07:59:20 08/5/09 (1)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 23:19:23 08/5/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Ryelands 06:26:29 08/10/09 (0)
- RE: Better duck under that desk; - Werner 06:50:25 08/10/09 (0)