DeVerm;338529 Wrote: > Oh yeah I believe that in a flash and I already wrote a couple times > that I can't even hear differences between 16/44 and, let's say, > 192kBps mp3! However, I'm afraid that many audiophiles don't consider > themselves just "consumers of recorded audio". The last sentence in > that report (differences audible at very loud volume setting) will add > to their conclusion and they will buy high-def whenever they can get > it.
The test included many audiophiles. No winners. And the differences were audible even at high volume on only a very few discs - most SACDs had a noise floor above -96dB. As others have said, hi-rez had its chance and failed miserably. I'm not holding my breath for it to come back. > Now follow me here: They stopped developing analog techniques and all > but stopped distributing analog media (some vinyl still, but it's > content probably went through digital somewhere in the line and vinyl > is inferior anyway). If they would have developed analog techniques > (mostly at the consumer side as studio was pretty good already) to the > same level that they did for digital, incl. a better distribution > medium, analog could have been on par or probably better than digital. I follow you, I'm not sure I agree, but even if that's true, so what? Digital is far superior to analogue in many ways that have nothing to do with audio quality per se (like reproduction, storage, ability to transcode, etc.). So if analogue could equal digital in SQ, it would still be pretty useless. And since digital appears to be good enough, even if analogue had better resolution in some sense, it would -still- be useless. > The deep dark part you detected is that analog recording does provide > better accuracy by nature, without the need for fiddling, while for > digital it is an approximation by nature and they need fiddling to make > it good. That's just not true. Part of what Shannon showed is that noisy analogue channels with limited bandwidth have a calculable - and finite - information content, -just like digital-. A digital stream that exceeds capacity that can carry more information per unit time, and hence can be a more accurate representation of a physical sound. There is absolutely nothing inherent in digital that makes it less accurate than analogue. > Well, it's mine too! What's your favorite? Me: Bowmore 18yr old, > Tallisker and Lagavullin at a good 3rd place. I have 22 different ones, > most bought at the actual distilleries in Scotland! > > cheers mate, > Nick. My all-time favorite was a cask strength Caol Isla (Gordon and MacPhail's, maybe?) I bought once in London. Sadly it's long gone, but I currently have around 15 bottles - so I lose :-). Probably my all-around everyday favorite is Talisker, but I love both Bowmore and Lagavulin as well. I've never been to Scotland (or Islay even better) to tour the distilleries, but some day for sure... -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51021 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
