darrenyeats wrote: > In terms of published evidence I've not read a shred of evidence that > hi-rez is audibly better than red book as a format, and there is at > least one study I know of that suggests there is no audible difference. > That's why I believe hi-rez formats are all about DRM and I don't worry > about red book when I sit down to play some tunes.
Back when SACD and DVD-A were alive, Stereophile did a spectral analysis of the music, and most (all?) of the 'high res' recordings had no content above 22kHz or 24 kHz, which implies that they were recorded initially at 44.1 or 48 kHz. In practice, all of the steps in the recording chain, from mic to preamp, to 2" tape machines are not designed to deliver much about 20-20kHz. I too am convinced that Sony's push for SACD was purely for DRM, all the claims about DSD being superior just marketing spin. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
