AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:

It would be better to have the same performance, same mics, but
recorded by two machines (or three), analog, PCM and DSD.

Only if you believe in the universal existance of audible differences
and have the logical abilites of a turnip.

SACD and DVD-A are supposed to be superset formats as compared to
CD-A. They's supposed to always sound better when given access to
program material that is unfettered by the shackles and chains of the
earlier "obviously-flawed" 16/44 CD-A digital format.

If you believe hi-rez recording enthusiasts, then its even reasonable
to expect old 48 KHz digital masters to sound better when transcribed
to SACD and/or DVD-A.

If any of that is true, then simply transcribing any randomly-chosen
SACD to the CD format should result in a clearly audible loss of sound
quality.

You shouldn't need carefully chosen program material, a megabuck
high-end audio system, or a listening panel composed of the best
reviewers from the three leading high end ragazines. Is SACD or DVD-A
is effective for mid-fi systems, then the audible advantages of these
formats should be obvious on mid-fi systems. Its just a matter of
listening, right?

As soon as the hi-rex format clique start retrenching and saying that
SACD and DVD-A can't possibly show an audible advantage without an
endless list of careful mouth-holding exercises, then they are
basically falling in behind the critics of these formats.