Talk:Super Audio CD

Re this edit: the problem is that it is still giving WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as the reason for removal. Not everyone agreed with the study, but that does not mean that there is a ban on mentioning it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: SACD failed to make a significant impact in the marketplace for several reasons, not least of which being that the players and discs were very expensive for an average person to buy. Also, as the article says, by the late 2000s physical disc formats were in decline due to the rise of Internet audio and MP3 players. The combination of these factors meant that SACD never really took off.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

—- Actually, it did NOT give a “just didn’t like it” reason for removing that reference. Aside from the fact that the study is deeply flawed, polarizing, and far from conclusive or comprehensive: there’s already a lengthy discussion of it further into the article. Adding another reference to it up front adds nothing & misleadingly makes it look like it’s the reason that SACDs failed in the marketplace. 06:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.26.174 (talk)

I don't think that the text is trying to say that SACD failed because of the 2007 AES study. By the late 2000s the major record companies had largely lost interest in the format. By this stage people were downloading music from iTunes with 128k Advanced Audio Coding and were happy with it. It was the public's lack of interest that killed SACD as a major format, not the 2007 AES study.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't remove the study, which was widely cited and of course is critically important to the history of the SACD. Binksternet (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The study is discussed at length later in the article, in a more appropriate place. See discussion above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.26.174 (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've always believed that multichannel sound was the biggest selling point of SACD, not the audio quality. The 2003 hybrid CD/SACD edition of The Dark Side of the Moon had a new 5.1 surround sound mix and sold 800,000 copies in the US. Various other classic albums were remixed to 5.1 for the SACD release.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, multichannel is more attractive than reproducing frequencies upper than 20kHz. How many people living in noisy cities can perceive such range? No study is needed to guess the obvious answer.

Not every music is proper for multichannel records, Peter and the Wolf, would be great, but Simon and Garfunkel, sound great in 2 channel stereo. Also the quality of interpretation. In the 70s or 80s I bought all Beethoven symphonies in a Quadraphonic LPs edition, I can't remember which orchestra or director, but man, the Vienna Opera Orchestra performance is much more superior even in monaural recordings.

The catalogue should be adequate for multichannel and it should have an artistic, not industrial criteria. And a good taste, for example some Rolling Stones LP were digitally remastered for CDs, with very bad results, because the engineer who made the work had a stupid idea of perfection and mixed them perfectly maybe tuning them, and destroying all the spontaneity of the original record. Which audiophile can prefer such loss for the sake of a misunderstood perfection?

Maybe the price $5,000 for an audio system is too expsnsive, but the catalogue and the probable lack of artistic criteria may have counted for the unsuccessful adoption of the format too. One could buy SACDs listening them in compatible equipment and wait the prices to low, if the record has such quality that deserves it, and of course that recordings have an affordable price too.

A catalogue section should be included in the article, with comments about those attributes expressed above. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:106E:B:C6E9:DD6D:8F24:DA5A:1B5C (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We differ on that, not that that should matter. I don’t think a reference to that study should be in that particular spot in the article. It’s already discussed at length in a more logical place in the article. Placing a reference in that spot at the beginning of the article makes the article seem biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmabumstead (talk • contribs) 06:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You're trying to remove the study from the lead section in violation of WP:LEAD which says we should use the lead section to summarize for the reader the most important facts about the topic. So the 2007 study should be in both places: a summary in the lead section and a detailed description in the body. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

But who’s decided that that’s one of the most important “facts” about the topic? That study was and remains hugely controversial, and is deeply flawed. Putting it up front in the lead section is unnecessary and makes the article seem biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmabumstead (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY sources commenting on the test show it to be important.

Your viewpoint looks to me like you simply don't like the results. Wikipedia isn't going to shift facts to satisfy your preference. Binksternet (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article says "Following criticism that the original published results of the study were not sufficiently detailed, the AES published a list of the audio equipment and recordings used during the tests.^[1]

Not everyone was happy with the 2007 study, but it cannot be removed or downplayed simply on the grounds of personal preference.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing "Research" to "A controversial research study" needs to be reverted...why? Dharmabumstead (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Because it wasn't controversial unless your business model depended on SACD sales. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. The fact is that the study was hotly debated at the time it came out and remains controversial a decade later, regardless of whether or not one has a "business interest" in the SACD format (I do not). Citing the study up front is a subjective call that makes the article appear biased. Adding a few words to acknowledge that the study was indeed controversial seems like a reasonable compromise here. Dharmabumstead (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

How controversial is a carefully conducted year-long study that has not been disproved by subsequent research? It's only controversial with regard to those who did not like its conclusion. Those folks attacked its methods and everything else, but they were unable to strike down the study's determination that most folks cannot hear the difference at reasonable SPL, and that the addition of 14 dB to make it a lot louder did not make the SACD's notional audible superiority shine, it just revealed the slightly more prominent noise floor of CDs.

If you want to label the study controversial, you must find published sources talking about the controversy, published in a journal with equal authority to the AES.

Yes, I can see that the study was challenged by people with a horse in the race, for instance by Hi Res Audio Central and by Mark Waldrep of Real-HD and AIX Records. But challenges by these people were not supported by a scientific study disproving Moran and Meyer's 2007 study, so they fall flat. Their complaints cannot define the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation that I have some sort of personal bias regarding this AES study is unfounded. I have NO horse in this race at all - I don't have to have one to think the study was flawed, and that a mention of it in the lead makes the article biased.

On the other hand, the fact that you are a member of the AES would indicate that you DO have a personal bias here. Your stubborn insistence on reverting every single one of my changes - even the last one that leaves the reference to the study intact in the lead but adds *3 words* acknowledging the controversial nature of the study - seems to reinforce this idea. You've not provided any justification for these other than your own opinions, which do not deserve any additional merit on this or any topic no matter how much time you spend editing wiki articles.

How controversial was the study? Controversial enough that this article acknowledges it with the comment in the sound quality section about the criticism the study received, and the fact that the AES - the organization that put on the study - felt the need to respond to that criticism. Anyone who is a member of the audio community in some way shape or form saw the controversy unfold as it happened when the study was first published. And you've cited evidence of that in your comment above.

Where is *your* evidence that the the study was only controversial "with regard to those who did not like its conclusion"(sic)? Or that "it wasn't controversial unless your business model depended on SACD sales"?

The study was NOT about SACDs specifically, rather it was about whether people could tell the difference between high resolution audio or CD-DA. As such, this study should not define this SACD topic either.

We could debate the merits of the study all day (and it might even be fun with sufficient amounts of beer), but it's not really the point. The point is that the citation of the study 'above the fold' in the lead of the article, in the context where it was placed, makes the article seem biased and really doesn't belong there - it's clunky, it sticks out, and its proximity to the mention of the decline of the SACD format makes it look like that was one of the contributing factors. None of the other articles I've looked at on recorded sound formats (including DVD-A, which was one of the sources used in the AES study) includes a reference to sound quality comparisons in the introduction. Discussion of the AES study absolutely should be in the article, but it belongs in the 'sound quality' section, and there's absolutely no good reason for it to be mentioned in the lead. Removing the reference from the lead makes the article seem neutral; adding it makes the article seem biased, *especially* if there's no language added to acknowledge the controversy. Show both versions (my initial revision that removes the reference and the version with the reference to the study) to a group of professional writers and editors and see what they say. Dharmabumstead (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2007 Moran/Meyer study IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to the topic. It talks about SACD sources and DVD Audio sources as compared to CDs. Much of the point of having SACD is that higher resolution is supposed to sound better, and the authors tackled that very question, answering it with a resounding 'no'. I followed the drama very closely at the time, and everybody who hated the test was an advocate of high resolution audio in some fashion, for instance having an expensive high resolution sound system at home, or selling such systems, or being in the business of recording and releasing music on SACD/DVDA. I am not accusing you of bias, I am just telling you what I saw in 2007–2008. People were livid that their magic pixie dust was disproved.

The test MUST stay in the lead section per WP:LEAD. The test must NOT be labeled "controversial" because its methodology and conclusion have not been disproved by any kind of authoritative followup. However, we should certainly tell the reader that the test was challenged by this person or that group, identifying them with citations. That information is not worthy of the lead section, because none of the challenges were conclusive. They are a minor part of the story, not a major part. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's an important study. I think it should definitely be discussed in the article, and it is - down in the 'Sound Quality' section where it currently lives. I agree that many people were "livid" about the results - which precisely I why I feel it should be labeled as 'controversial' if it's going to stay reference in the lead; the reasons WHY aren't relevant. I don't agree that it's "CRITICALLY IMPORTANT" to the SACD topic - as I mentioned, the study was more about whether CD audio was "good enough" - and I don't think it ultimately made any difference to the success or failure of the SACD physical format or DSD as an audio format. Also, given the testing methodology, I (and many others) don't agree that the "resounding no" answer is definitive. A more detailed discussion of this is likely outside the scope of this dispute.

I strongly disagree that it shouldn't be labeled "controversial"...because it was. The fact that there've been no follow up studies doesn't change that a bit, and isn't really relevant. Just because that's the only widely known study that's been done doesn't make the study any less flawed or controversial. I strongly disagree that it "MUST" stay in the lead of the article; it must NOT stay in the lead of the article because leads are required to maintain a neutral point of view. Leaving it there is polarizing, it looks bad (from a writer's standpoint), and introduces a bias right up front where the reader first lays eyes on the article - especially without an acknowledgement that the study was controversial. No other articles on audio formats have a reference to sound quality studies up front, including DVD-A, which was also one of the sources used in the AES study. Leaving it "above the fold" is of questionable value...unless you're a member of the AES and it reflects *your* viewpoint. You've offered no evidence other than your own opinion that it belongs there...and as a member of the professional society that is responsible for the study in question, I hardly think you're an impartial party. Dharmabumstead (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Meyer and Moran are more connected to the Boston audiophile community than they are to the AES. The AES is simply the place where they decided to publish, and because it's the staid old AES, the paper was thoroughly reviewed by topic experts before it was allowed into the journal, which adds weight to its findings. If you are thinking to disqualify me because I'm a member of the AES, think again. The connection from me to that test is vanishingly small, basically nil. There are more than 14,000 members of the AES, and I have never met Meyer or Moran. Nor have I talked to people who published their criticisms/complaints against the test. I'm completely removed from the "controversy", such as it is.

So let's look at what the published sources say, since Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources instead of arguments from we the users. This CNet article by a senior writer says "A prominent part of the case against high-resolution audio is a 2007 study by E. Brad Meyer and David Moran of the Boston Audio Society that concluded listeners couldn't tell the difference between SACD and DVD-A music on the one hand and CD-quality versions of the same recordings on the other." So there we know it's "prominent" and should be featured here. An article in ProSoundWeb by well-respected tech expert Craig Anderton gives credence to the Meyer-Moran test results, not questioning the method or conclusion. Mix magazine published an article written by Columbia-Princeton Electronic Music Center Professor Paul D. Lehrman talking about high-rez audio and the Meyer-Moran test, emphasizing its validity. Lehrman describes the test in detail, talking about how it was thorough and complete. He said that respected audio engineer and author Ethan Winer, known for debunking audio myths, was not at all surprised by the Meyer-Moran test results – he thought they were perfectly valid. Lehrman said that objections came from people who wanted to know what audio gear was used in the tests, a tactic which Lehrman said was only for the purpose of shooting down the equipment list to make the test results appear invalid. But the gear list from the multiple test setups was pretty darn good, according to Lehrman, not a limiting factor. Acoustic consultant and author Floyd E. Toole, PhD, wrote that the Meyer-Moran test, like all ABX double-blind digital listening tests, involved two digital audio streams converted to analog for routing through the ABX switcher. From the switcher, the selected analog signal was sent to the amplifier and then to the speakers, as per usual. So Meyer and Moran, like Yang and Blech before them, paid careful attention to the D/A converters in their test, converters which were always the same make and model, able to handle either high-rez PCM or DSD. Toole dismisses the complaints against the test, writing that "advocates of the new formats" are perennially unconvinced by scientific tests, and that they fight against such tests because of the desire to sell more stuff. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

One writer on CNet claiming the study is "prominent" makes it so? Really? Hi Res Audio Central says that the study was "controversial" in this published article (so there, we know it's controversial) and they reference this series of articles questioning the methodology of the study written by Dr Mark Waldrep. Does the CNet author have some sort of credibility that Dr. Waldre doesn't?

Anderton also wrote: "Tellingly, Meyer-Moran noted the hi-res versions often did sound better because more care was taken in the production and mastering. If 24/96 does nothing more than convince record companies they don’t have to compress everything down to 6 dB of dynamic range, then hi-res will have value— nevermind CDs could be prepared with equal care."

All of that aside: my concern here has less to do with the study than it does with the necessity (and the motivation) of placing that sentence in that specific place in the lead of the article. Leads are supposed to have a neutral point of view; having that sentence there makes the article seem biased and sets up the (faulty) implication that SACD failed due to a lack of sound quality, when in fact physical formats were starting to die out around that time. You've provided no proof at all that this study had *any* effect on the success or failure of the format, and try as I might I've not found a single article citing the study as a reason for the failure of SACD (and DVD-A) in the market. There's simply no purpose to having that reference in the lead of the article. None of the other Wikipedia articles on audio formats have that sort of statement on sound quality embedded in the lead. Why does this one need it? Dharmabumstead (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to tell the reader that SACD failed because nobody could hear the difference between it and CDs. The sources say that people were simply going another direction, toward lower bit-rate audio, and SACD failed because it was ignored by the market. But we must continue to tell the reader about the prominent Meyer-Moran test because of WP:LEAD. It's perfectly fine to shift the sentence about the test to somewhere else in the lead section that makes sense.

Did you notice that hiresaudiocentral is biased? That realhd-audio.com is biased? That Waldrep is biased? They all have a financial interest. And despite Waldrep's audio credentials, he has never mounted a test of his own that would disprove Meyer-Moran. He's smarter than that... Such a test could very well cause his viewpoint to be disproved, and his career would suffer. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course I noticed. It's hard to find someone in the audiophile world who doesn't have some sort of angle.

Back to this: why is it necessary that this is included in the lead? Aside from the fact that it offends me as a professional writer (it kind of hangs there awkwardly like a non-sequitur), it seems to violate the neutral point of view that a lead is supposed to have (see WP:UNDUE). None of the other articles on audio formats have anything like this. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No, really - read this paragraph:

"By 2007, SACD had failed to make a significant impact in the marketplace; consumers were increasingly downloading low resolution music files over the internet rather than buying music on physical disc formats. A small market for SACD has remained, serving the audiophile community."

Now read this one:

"Research published in 2007 found no significant difference in quality between SACD audio and CD audio at ordinary volume levels. By that time, consumers were increasingly acquiring music via internet downloads of files lower in resolution than either disc format, and SACD had failed to make a significant impact in the marketplace. A small market for SACD has remained, serving the audiophile community."

Honestly, which one seems to have a more neutral point of view? Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD section is a summary of the article, and it is worth mentioning the AES study briefly as it is discussed in more depth later on. BTW, I am not a member of the AES, or sell audio equipment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many things discussed in more depth later on. Why single the AES study out for mention in the lead? For example, I would argue that SACD's strong copy protection is significantly more important to the SACD story than the AES study, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be in the lead, any more than the AES study. Dharmabumstead (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The obvious thing for the critics of the 2007 study to do would have been to conduct their own blind test of SACD versus CD. But they didn't, and simply criticized Meyer and Moran's results. I'm always wary of people who claim that audio cables costing thousands of dollars sound so much better, when this claim would probably not survive a blind test.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit runs into problems with WP:LABEL and introducing an unsourced assertion. Please find reliable secondary sources describing why there is a controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

OK.

"...results have been disputed, both in online forums...and in research publications." Reiss, Joshua D., "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 64, No. 6, p. 367, June 2016"

"This is a contentious subject. On the Stereophile website forum last summer, reader David Harper wrote, 'Humans do not hear any difference between 16-bit/44.1kHz and any higher bit/sampling rate. This is established fact.' Harper was referring to a 2007 paper by E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran that "proved" that there was no sonic advantage to high-resolution audio formats (footnote 3). Their conclusion ran counter to the experience of many recording engineers, academics, and audiophiles, but other than doubts over their methodology and the fact that their source material was of unknown provenance, Meyer and Moran's paper seemed to be the final formal word on the matter. Until now. Atkinson, John, "To The Simple, Everything Appears Simple", Stereophile Magazine, 12/15/2015.

Meyers and Moran responded to the criticism in the AES's Journal by admitting the study was flawed and not rigorous: "...there are issues with their statistical independence, as well as other problems with the data. We did not set out to do a rigorous statistical study, nor did we claim to have done so..." J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 58, March 2010. Dharmabumstead (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There have actually been many other studies done since the Meyer-Moran paper. A meta-analysis of 20 of those studies shows that for trained listeners, high-resolution audio can be distinguished from CD: "The AES workshop in which Bob Katz was taking part also featured presentations by legendary recording engineer George Massenburg (now a Professor at McGill University, in Montreal) and binaural recording specialist Bob Schulein. But it was the first presentation—by Joshua Reiss, of Queen Mary University, in London, and a member of the AES Board of Governors—that caught my attention. Some 80 papers have now been published on high-resolution audio, about half of which included blind tests. The results of those tests, however, have been mixed, which would seem to confirm Meyer and Moran's findings. However, around 20 of the published tests included sufficient experimental detail and data to allow Dr. Reiss to perform a meta-analysis—literally, an analysis of the analyses (footnote 4). Reiss showed that, although the individual tests had mixed results, the overall result was that trained listeners could distinguish between hi-rez recordings and their CD equivalents under blind conditions, and to a high degree of statistical significance." Atkinson, John, "To The Simple, Everything Appears Simple", Stereophile Magazine, 12/15/2015. Dharmabumstead (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested WP:DRN on this. Dharmabumstead (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Meyer and Moran explained in March 2010 JAES that their test was designed more as a "scattershot" exploration opportunity than as a rigorous statistical study. It was not known at the time which sorts of high resolution albums might be more or less distinguished from CD resolution playback, and the test was designed to discover any differences. They say that critics should not dismiss the test because of its casual design, as the flaws were all skewed in favor of someone detecting a difference. Their relaxed test method allowed more leeway for listeners to detect a difference, but nobody did – nobody passed the 95% criterion. Critics should have jumped on Meyer and Moran if they were trying to hide the differences, but the opposite was true. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a detailed and sourced explanation of why Meyer and Moran's study ran into criticism, but describing it as controversial has problems with WP:LABEL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So we agree that the study was flawed, not scientifically rigorous, and not definitive, then?

A study described as a "scattershot exploration opportunity" with a "relaxed test method" is exactly why a reference to it in the lead of the article is inappropriate. It doesn't fit there, especially without some acknowledgement of the - yes - controversial nature of the study. See WP:UNDUE.

Agreed that a detailed and sourced explanation of the Meyer and Moran study "controversy" should be added...to the High-resolution audio topic, where all of the discussion regarding any studies on sound quality should probably live. Meyers and Moran were trying to compare 16/44 audio to higher resolution audio, not compare physical formats. SACD and DVD-A just happened to be the only two high res physical media formats available at the time. It doesn't belong in the SACD article at all, much less in the lead. Again: no other audio format article includes anything regarding audio quality studies in the lead (including the articles on CD and DVD-A), as they shouldn't. This article should be no different. Dharmabumstead (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the Meyer-Moran focus being only high resolution audio. They tell us in March 2010 that they wanted to find some SACD (and DVDA) albums that could be distinguished by their high resolution content, and that they did not know at the outset which ones might filter through. They would have been delighted to find an SACD offering that could be used as a high bar, as a standard for listening tests. It turned out that none filtered through their procedure, and that no participant could consistently hear the high resolution stream as being different than the CD resolution stream of the same album.

Their findings do not fall down upon examination, so there's no reason to get rid of Meyer-Moran. The folks complaining about statistical method were looking for more ways to slice the data, so they could analyze it more rigorously; they were not saying that any of the test sequences was faulty of itself.

Everybody in the industry had to take a position vis-a-vis Meyer-Moran, so it was incredibly important to the topic. It stays. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A blanket statement like "Everyone in the industry had to take a position" offered without evidence is your opinion, and is not relevant to this discussion.

Why is it that you demand I provide multiple secondary sources for all of my assertions (which I have, most of which you've conveniently ignored), but you feel that a bunch of unsubstantiated statements (read: your *opinion*) coupled with a flat out assertion of "It stays" from you is sufficient argument to settle this?

Once again: there's no good reason to leave a reference to it in the lead, for reasons stated above. It's pretty simple: leaving it there biases the lead; removing it improves the article in several ways and gives the lead a neutral POV.

Show both versions (my original edit and the one with the reference to the study intact) to any 10 neutral editors who don't know an SACD from a hole in the ground and I'm willing to bet 10/10 would agree that that reference slants the article.

This is precisely why I've asked for WP:DRN on this. Dharmabumstead (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Dharmabumstead here. There's no reason for it to be in the lead because, as said, it's NOT IMPORTANT to the medium of SACD as a whole. It's only tangentially related -- it's about high resolution audio, which is in fact NOT inherent in the SACD format (there actually exist some SACDs with 16bit audio that use the larger size to fit more music, as well as some where the only factor is multi-channel). It's honestly boggling why this is even an argument. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The study was not about ‘high resolution audio’ (in fact I don’t think that term was even in use then); it focussed on SACD: what, if anything makes SACD sound better—many at the time believed that it did sound better, so the study had significant impact.—Aquegg (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely did not "focus on SACD". Please go read the report. Aside from being in the title of the report ("Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback"), the words "high resolution" appear many times, starting with the second sentence. Dharmabumstead (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've said it before... They were focusing on the search for SACD and DVDA albums that could be distinguished by their high resolution qualities, and found that none qualified. The whole focus was on SACD albums and DVDA albums. They didn't give a hang about high resolution per se. The tested albums ran the gamut, with some of them not really high resolution. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeating the same unsubstantiated opinions here isn't going to get us any closer to a resolution. Ascribing motives to the authors of the report without offering a shred of evidence to back those assertions isn't either. And adding a link to an AES-paywalled site that only paid AES members can read isn't really productive.

For convenience, let me add the intro to the actual paper here...which, lest we forget, is entitled 'Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback':

″Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz 'bottleneck'."

DVD-A and SACD happened to be the only two forms of media delivering high resolution audio content that were widely commercially available to consumers at the time of the report. If there had been some other viable media with high-resolution audio content available at the time, they probably would've used that as well. The report was not about the delivery format; it was about the high resolution recordings vs. CD audio; it's right there in the intro. Notice that they *never* mention DSD in the entire report? That they never mention SACD by itself? It's always mentioned alongside DVD-A.

Back to the main argument: A reference to this study certainly doesn't belong in the lead of this article...WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE. I'm not even sure why the report is discussed in this article at all. If anywhere, it's probably best moved to the High-resolution audio topic. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not my problem that you aren't reading the AES link from March 2010. It's where Meyer and Moran talk about how they were looking for SACD and DVDA albums that had a distinguishing sound traceable to higher resolution delivery, but nothing surfaced. Wikipedia doesn't require everyone to read every reference. Paywalled references are accepted. Binksternet (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read and respond to my points addressing this above. Dharmabumstead (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also: I *have* read pages 173-174 of the March 2010 issue of the AES Journal. I'd like you to quote verbatim the part where Meyer and Moran talk about "looking for SACD and DVDA" albums. You can't, because they didn't. The term "SACD" appears once in their response, and only when they quote Dranov about an SACD web site. The term "DVD-A" isn't used at all. DSD is mentioned once in the closing, and that's to say that perhaps followup tests should include DSD recordings.

They do say this (emphasis mine): "We again invite academic statisticians, and all others who are certain that high-resolution audio is audibly superior to Red Book CD audio for domestic playback, to devise and carry out their own, more robust tests".

Where's the part about SACD? Or DVD-A? They're not there, because again: it's about high resolution audio. Please cite sources that say otherwise. Dharmabumstead (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

So the new edit says that the 2007 study "downsampled to CD quality in some listener populations". It's unclear -- does this mean that some populations couldn't hear the difference, some populations got a downsample and others didn't...or what? If everyone was comparing downsampled audio to original CD quality audio....how the hell is this study worthwhile, at all? Like, I can't imagine any actual legit scientific stufy would be that dumb, so I'm assuming it's just badly worded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See page 776 of the 2007 AES paper. Various SACD and DVD-Audio discs were placed in a randomized double blind loop. I've removed this from the History section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

—— ¡for bats! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:E3E0:1C6A:9E75:5833:6D1B (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't. Bats can hear up to 100kHz so they would probably be disappointed by the 50kHz top end of SACD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly wrong. A standard CD holds 74 minutes worth of 16-bit, stereo, 44.1 kHz audio. If you do the math, 74 * 60 * 16 / 8 * 2 * 44,100 equals 783,216,000 bytes ≈ 783 MB or 747 MiB. The cited source says "700 MB" in the context of "CD, CD-R, CD-RW" which seems to refer to data mode (mode-1) which only uses 2048 usable data bytes for every frame of 1/75 second or 2352 audio bytes or 2336 mode-2 bytes. Since this page is about the Audio CD we should state the audio capacity, not the data capacity. --Zac67 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Compact disc, "Standard CDs have a diameter of 120 millimetres (4.7 in) and are designed to hold up to 74 minutes of uncompressed stereo digital audio or about 650 MiB of data. Capacity is routinely extended to 80 minutes and 700 MiB by arranging data more closely on the same-sized disc".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"or 650 MB of data" refers to mode-1 data usage. Audio CDs use the full raw capacity 2352 bytes for each 2048-byte sector in mode-1 – see CD-ROM#CD-ROM format: "a CD-ROM sector contains 2,352 bytes of user data". --Zac67 (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You can call it unneeded, but without a number most people are going to need to go look it up elsewhere. I know I did. That is why I improved the article afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.76.228 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Re this edit: different sources give the dynamic range of human hearing as 120-140dB. However, it has to be said that 140dB is very loud indeed and would be capable of causing pain and hearing loss very quickly. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I imagine that workplace safety guidelines would use a different maximum than listening for pleasure. Levels above the pain threshold are not relevant for a consumer listening to recorded media. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources describe 120 dB of dynamic range, for instance the textbooks Introduction to Circuit Analysis and Design by Springer Science & Business Media, and Foundations in Sound Design for Linear Media: A Multidisciplinary Approach by Routledge. The context for these is listening to music and speech, not workplace safety. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

OP, your comment seems to conflate dynamic range caputred in a recording with absolute intensity of ambient sound. Regardless of the dynamic range - decibel differential - of a recording, it can be played back at any level of amplification from near-silent to deafening. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)