Consumer Reports casts shade on hi-res audio

(Kevin Roxby) #22

God bless Floyd E. Toole and his coverage of psychoaccoustics in all various forms: Way ahead of the curve.
Read the KEF blog dispelling all the bunk on cables. Golden ears my foot. Add Archimago’s Musings to the pile. Canadians see through the miasma of bull fumes.

(Richard Hernandez) #23

Wow, being able to speak for not merely a nation but a whole World of music listeners must be an awesome responsibility. I’m sure we’re all impressed.

(Joe Whitesell) #24

I believe those who say they can’t hear a difference. They can’t hear a difference.

(Fernando Pereira) #25

I’d not trust CR for skis either. CR are OK for basic wares. But audio, or sports gear, serves a very wide range of skill and expertise levels. Averages mean very little with such very skewed distributions.

(Ralph Pantuso) #26

CR most certainly does not understand high end bicycles.

(Kenneth F Krutsch) #27

Archimago did an interesting listening test, with something like 151 remote subjects, comparing MP3/320 w/ Redbook audio. One of the surprising conclusions was that there really are a small set of people with Golden Ears (i.e. people who could reliably discern lossless from lossy in a blind test).

Go to his site and read the test results and conclusions. I will let you do your own Googling.

(Tim Chapman) #28

Agreed - recording/mastering can make a far superior 44.1/16 when stacked against a poorly engineered 24/96.
Nothing changes - a good recording is a good recording.

(Ralph Pantuso) #29

And as the great Duke Ellington said:
" There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind"

Or to put it another way I would rather to less than perfect recording of Louie Armstrong than a state of the art recording of many smooth jazz artists. And of course a good sounding recording of good music is simply musical nirvana.

(Fernando Pereira) #30

You mistyped all :wink:

(Ralph Pantuso) #31

I also didn’t name names. I’m not trying to start a flame war so I was threading somewhat lightly. But yeah in this case “all” works just as well as “many”.