2. misc-audio
  3. 158341-132356

You didn't hear it here.

Dr.Aix strikes again.

"Additionally, the guru behind MQA — Robert Stuart — wrote in another AES paper, “... there exist audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD; and second, an audio chain used for such experiments must be capable of high-fidelity reproduction.” His position is untenable if the results of my survey are true. If real world audiophiles cannot hear a difference then there is no audible difference."
128x128fuzztone
fuzztone's avatar
fuzztone OP
5,633 posts
 
@robertdid   

No link.
It was pulled from an email that went out to all participants. You found it easily enough.Dr. Waldrep was open to input last year when he designed the challenge if you wanted to "prove" anything to/for yourself, you COULD have showed that you can hear the difference better than chance guesses.Most didn't even though they thought they could, going in. Ito
Now you are just a Monday quarterback.
Mark produces and sells HiRez recordings so he has reverse incentive for the findings.

roberttdid
534 posts
 
Don't think you refuted my statement if you intended to, "He does not prove conclusively that some people will not be able to detect a difference, at least if I am interpreting his study correctly. "   There are experiments that have shown ability to detect slightly beyond Redbook, experiment that were tighter controlled.
fuzztone's avatar
fuzztone OP
5,633 posts
 
Didn't have to refute. This study was public enough that you COULD have had some input. That's all I said.
You can pick on this one without citing?
roberttdid
534 posts
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627214255.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285336/

There are many others, but the point is proven.

ebm
9,311 posts
 
Hearsay and junk.HELLO!!!
More to discover