"The Beginner’s Guide to Hi-Res Audio"

I am not saying that current hi-res recodings are better sounding than CD-quality!

I am just saying that current 2D recordings in CD-quality are not adequately capturing/reproducing the binaural experience in a conert hall. You may come to the conclusion that for 2D audio formats, CD quality is as good as it gets and no further improvements are possible from there, fine. But this is also just an opinion based on the negative results of studies perfroming fromal listening tests. As stated above, negative results deliver no proof for the non-existence of some phenomenon. They just prove that in this case CD-quality could adequately capture what’s in the corresonding hi-res recording under test. 

I for one belive that even for 2D audio there are advances to be made which are related to the reproduction of the phase spectrum as “the human hearing system will resolve small time differences which might imply a wider bandwidth in a linear system”.

It’s prefectly fine if you have a different opinion

Please cite an academic reference supporting this thesis, and not one from any individual with a commercial interest.

Those of us that have been to live gigs in even small venues know that home audio today is a very limited version of that experience, and not just for reasons of the sound of the music. But Hi Res 2 channel audio that is presently being marketed as such does not change that situation at all, in coming any closer to the real thing than where CD takes us.

Will that change in the future? I don’t know. What is visible of course are the changes being brought by Atmos/Spatial audio and similar, but that isn’t 2 channel audio as is commonly understood.  

Software Engineers think of this kind of stuff all the time.  It’s what they do.

Example:  The most efficient file sorting technique is to sort the files by dividing them up into separate files following the Fibonacci Sequence.  There’s also a search technique based on the Fib.  Both are proven to have a Log n algorithmic complexity, which is as good as you can get.

That AES Fellow has an direct financial relationship to the promotion of high resolution audio formats.  You might as well consult Dr. Daffy on whether his Magic Elixir cures all ails. 

Are you actually trying to use Meyer and Moran’s results to suggest SACD and DVD-A recordings are superior to CD, when their results showed all differences were due to mastering and not higher resolution formats?  Pretty freaking bold move!  But as before, your bluster doesn’t work here.

And until your opinion is backed up with scientific experimental proof, I’ll continue to laugh at it, no matter how much BS cut-and-paste word salad you spew.

It sounds more like you’re saying that listening to a live acoustic performance is not accurately reproduced by a 2 channel recording at CD quality.  I would agree with that.  However, that does not mean that hi res  audio is the solution, particularly when  it’s tested and failed.  The factor that seems to be forgotten is that room acoustics, reflections, absorptions, direction of audio, and likely visual ques, come in to play to effect what we hear.  While you could reproduce some of that with pyscho accoustic effects, timing modifications, etc, you still can’t quite reproduce it with 2 channels.   Even then you brain is still aware that what it’s hearing is a recording rather than a live performance, and that surely factors in to some extent.

So it seems logical to me that instead of pushing higher resolution, it would make more sense, to me anyway,  to work on improving room acoustics, additional audio channels, speakers that operate closer to how instruments actually produce,  sound, etc.  That’s not even realistic though, since environments are created for purpose beyond mimicking the acoustics of a concert hall.   But sure, there is room for growth in audio reproduction, but saying that it needs to occur with higher resolution rather than other issues, doesn’t make a ton of sense.

And your statement “Yeah, internet formus seem to attract those flat-earthers who use negative results to prove the non-existence of any given phenomenon.” is just silly in this context.   You can absolutely prove that A doesn’t cause B when you repeatedly demonstrate that A doesn’t cause B.   Negative results don’t prove anything when we do not have the testing capability to examine an entire sample.  For example, just because we have not seen life on other planets does not prove that there is no life on other planets because we can not test the entire population of planets.  Flat earth is very different as we have proven that the earth is round, and flat earth believe that those that did the test are lying about their results.

Indeed. On the other hand sales folks concentrate on not leaving any money on the table. They are good and have no shame… 

So you get: 1.5-meter Ethernet cable for $499.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2281260/denon-s-outrageous-price-for-ethernet-cable.html

“The manufacturer is Denon, and the target customer is the "audio enthusiast." Apparently "audio enthusiast" is Denonese for "sucker."”

https://web.archive.org/web/20100410235208/http://www.cs.ucc.ie/~ianp/CS2511/HAP.html

“...Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. Humans can discern interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or less.”

https://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/cipic/spatial-sound/tutorial/psychoacoustics-of-spatial-hearing/#azimuth

“...under optimum conditions, much greater accuracy (on the order of 1°) is possible...This is rather remarkable, since it means that a change in arrival time of as little as 10 microseconds is perceptible. (For comparison, the sampling rate for audio CD’s is 44.1 kHz, which corresponds to a sampling interval of 22.7 microseconds. Thus, in some circumstances, less than a one-sample delay is perceptible.)”

The accuracy with which this can be done depends on the circumstances. For speech in normally reverberant rooms, typical human accuracies are on the order of 10° to 20°. However, under optimum conditions, much greater accuracy (on the order of 1°) is possible if the problem is to decide merely whether or not a sound source moves. This is rather remarkable, since it means that a change in arrival time of as little as 10 microseconds is perceptible. (For comparison, the sampling rate for audio CD’s is 44.1 kHz, which corresponds to a sampling interval of 22.7 microseconds. Thus, in some circumstances, less than a one-sample delay is perceptible.)

The underlined text is what you removed from your quote. The context matters quite a bit.  Obviously, the vast majority of homes, where Sonos speakers live, are not optical conditions.  As well, the greater accuracy is useful for determining whether the sound source moves, which is very debatable as being useful information when listening to music. And it’s not like that motion can’t be simulated at greater time intervals, as that certainly can occur in with 2 channel audio even in SD.  So this could only be possible when in a highly controlled environment, maybe headphones, and where the audio source is trying to give the impression of movement.

And of course, your quote is from a footnote, and timing is not the only factor  the ears/brain use for determining the location of sound source, as the article states. ILD seems rather important to me.  If you artificially modify timing in order to create a spatial illusion, how do you account from the difference in volume and frequency shift that each ear hears (especially without headphones)?