TheBatman_Yo
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
- Messages
- 18
- Likes
- 7
I know this is a little random, but I was browsing Wikipedia's pages on High Resolution Audio, DVD-A, and Super Audio CDs recently and noticed something a little interesting: The SACD page leads with mentioning the Audio Engineering Society's double blind test that demonstrated that people could not discern a sound quality difference between CD and SACD quality. Now, if you check out the High Resolution Audio page there is mention of a 2016 Meta-Analysis that demonstrated that among listeners there is a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate between standard quality audio and high resolution audio, and when subjects are trained their ability to discriminate between formats improved dramatically. And If you head on over to the DVD-A page this Meta-Analysis is once again mentioned, alongside a new reference to a paper on the "hypersonic effect", which is essentially a phenomenon where our brain is actually affected by inaudible high-frequency sounds and contributes to improving the overall perception of music.
Now, with all this in mind, I thought to myself "well wait a second, if we know that High Resolution Audio is a highly controversial subject, and there is actually a decent amount of academic content out there nowadays that proves that High Resolution Audio can be reliably distinguished by people, why does the SACD page lead with mentioning that paper? Isn't that a little biased? And why are the papers mentioned on other Wikipedia pages about high-resolution audio not mentioned here?" so I headed on over to Wikipedia's SACD discussion page and was a little amused to see this exact argument going on.
What are your thoughts? Personally I used to be a little skeptical of High Resolution Audio, but now that I've taken some courses on Media Signal Processing (currently studying Digital Media in university ), my views on the topic have changed. I'm happy to see that for the most part Wikipedia discusses High Resolution Audio in a positive light, but the introduction to that SACD page feels kind of dirty imo, and I would like to see it changed.
Now, with all this in mind, I thought to myself "well wait a second, if we know that High Resolution Audio is a highly controversial subject, and there is actually a decent amount of academic content out there nowadays that proves that High Resolution Audio can be reliably distinguished by people, why does the SACD page lead with mentioning that paper? Isn't that a little biased? And why are the papers mentioned on other Wikipedia pages about high-resolution audio not mentioned here?" so I headed on over to Wikipedia's SACD discussion page and was a little amused to see this exact argument going on.
What are your thoughts? Personally I used to be a little skeptical of High Resolution Audio, but now that I've taken some courses on Media Signal Processing (currently studying Digital Media in university ), my views on the topic have changed. I'm happy to see that for the most part Wikipedia discusses High Resolution Audio in a positive light, but the introduction to that SACD page feels kind of dirty imo, and I would like to see it changed.
Last edited: