Very interesting study I think the reason SACD and other hi resolution formats did not succeed - or do as well as they could of -- is the simple fact that too many recordings that were not well mastered - were released in this format and they really should not have been. The term "polished turd" comes to mind - all in the interest of selling us another copy of a favorite recording we already own.
I understand the business side of this ---- but if there was a clear advantage that we knew for a fact we could hear -- then these premium formats would have justified their premium price tags. We all know the audible differences experienced moving from Cassette or 8 track to CD -- SD to SACD -- not so much ----- because we are now dealing more closely with the source material. I've heard hi res digital recordings that sound amazing (24/96 flac) ----- but I've also heard the exact same recordings at 320k mp3's -- that also sound amazing -- I have not a/b'd them -- but my 60 year old ears likely couldn't tell the difference even if I could. If the industry would limit the release of higher resolution product (formats) -- to recordings that were originally well recorded - we would all have an easier time understanding the benefits (if there truly are any that are audible). I still get digital material in the highest / best format I can -- just because I'm hoping one day I might get that magic component in my set up that clearly reveals the difference ( or I get whacked on the side of the head and my hearing improves to a level that I can hear a difference) Bart ------------------------------------------------------------------------ bartman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63250 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101766 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
