From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, the really irritated tonight)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD SOund QUality
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:35:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24459
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, the really irritated tonight)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1h17e4INNrkv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:

>>people can't hear the difference between 15 and 16 bit.
False.   Turn up the level enough, dither the 15 bit system
and not the 16 bit system, and the 15 bit system will sound
much better.

>But they CAN hear the difference between 14 and 16 bits...
>and I'll bet they can hear the difference between 16 and 18 or 20
>bits.
Can they?  Do I have the freedom to use the 14 bits any way I choose?
If so, and you're talking about 16 PCM bits like on a CD, you're
dead flat out wrong.  Lest this seem to contradict the statement
above, it all depends on what one uses the bits for.

Please, before you prate on the need for "bits" in such an
authoritive and absolute manner, learn a little teeny tiny
bit about what "bits" can stand for.

>I simply cannot believe that the ear, the most dynamic and          
>sensitive mike created, especially the discriminating ear,
>can be satisfied by 16 bits.
First, the ear has performance MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than the
best mike created, so we can start to refute your nonsensical
hooraw right off.  Second, the ear can, at the highest
point of sensitivity, for the 99.99%ile listener, handle
about 48/6 = 8 bits for the most sensitive signal you can provide
to it.  At all other frequencies and with other signals,
it's much much less sensitive.  For instance, using signals
within 100Hz of 1kHz to interfere with the 1kHz signal, the
ear can handle (same conditions as above) about 29/6 = 5 BITS!
No more.  Not a little tiny part of a bit (no pun intended).

An EV 635A does much better, you don't NEED a good microphone.
(Hmmm, I need to drive this nail...)
 
>I don't think 16 bits can truly represent what our ears were
>ment to hear. people aren't supposed to be able to hear
>the difference between cd and md, but I CAN on a good system
>with simultaneous a/b comparison.
Sony clearly admits that MD has less than CD quality,
especially on difficult material.  Ergo, you don't even know
what claims are made for MD, let alone anything about
auditory functions and/or perception abilities.   Were you
to try the right signal, the difference would be clear into a
set of cheap headphones, so you haven't even tried the
right material either.  Geeze, and with this level of utter incompletion,
you make authoritarian statments that you write to appear
to be based on authority.

Cut the bull, OK?

>I say lets leave it at ONE disc format for simplicity,
>and work on a 32 bit 96KHz sampling system.
I think we could keep CD and nothing else, but given
the RIGHT methods,  one might make either MD or DCC
better than CD.    CD is stuck, as it stands, to PCM signals.
This is a fundamental idiocy.  Perhaps the use for CD would
be to use a good perceptual compression algorithm to 
provide 24 bit dynamic range (that's hearing-to-pain plus in
dynamic range) and 96kHz sampling rate, all with the same
bitrate of 1.4114 Mbits/second.


>Of course i may be wrong but i'm willing to take the bet.
>any combacks?
Yeah, go read any first-semester study of psychoacoustic literature.
Go read Bertram Scharf's work in the 1940's on tones and noise,
Hellmans' work inthe 1950's on noise vs. tones, and anything
by Zwicker.  After you've done that very very MINIMAL literature
review, come back with something sensible to bet about.

> Disclaimer: the preceding dialog is simply my opinion and
>              should only be taken at face value for the pur-
>               pose of discussion. 
Then why do you so intellectually dishonestly present it
as authoritive fact?

>Flames welcome.
Seek ye, and ye shall find.

>ned.
JJ
-- 
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: rec.audio