Phil Leigh wrote: > 1) high resolution audio in the domestic replay chain appears to be a > dead duck. DVD-A and SACD have both failed
Sadly, I agree. The home theater folks have never cared about fidelity. Effects subs are often unusable for music. > Clearly domestic audio replay technology has reached the "good > enough that I don't care" tipping point for most people. Audiophiles (today's name for hi-fi fans) have always been a tiny portions of the music listening, gear buying public. > Using 24/88.2 or higher in the recording chain has benefits that > persist through to the final product even if the product is > downsampled...but only if the mastering stages are done well. Right, its easier to keep the signal 'true' for all the processing, and 99.99% of all music is highly processed, at high wide. Even the dithering process to hack off the bits to make the final result 16 bits is important. > 3) Even ignoring the resolution aspects of the trial quoted, it would > appear that the additional path length made no discernable difference > (ignoring the noise floor uplift which was apparently inaudible at > normal listening levels). While one can think that all changes in noise floor are important, once you get 70dB down, its essentially impossible to hear. Most serious recording folks try to 100db. Just to have 30db of safety. Pat _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
