Quote without comment
"John Byrns" wrote in message
In article
. com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD.
There ain't no such thing.
But, unfortunately, there are. CD sample rate is NOT
high enough, and that's the consensus view of hundreds
of pros as well as in compliance with the generally
accepted rules of bandwidth.
Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for,
A very relevant question.
The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
opportunity.
All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of one
of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could switch
in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
available option.
If 44 KHz sampling and 21 KHz brick wall filters were the sonic problem that
Bret and so many others claim, the difference should be immediately obvious,
blind test or not.
and how do you justify that statement?
I suspect that engineers from Sony, Philips, Pioneer, and Panasonic already
did this test, at the very least. They didn't hear a difference, and hence
all the obfuscation that we've had to this day.
If the audio is
first run through a 20 kHz brick-wall filter the CD
sample rate is plenty high.
Agreed, and it takes a brick wall filter at less than 16 KHz to be audible
with a general sampling of music.
Brick-wall filters can be
built with today's digital techniques that do not
contribute phase distortion to the filtered signal.
Agreed. And converters that include these filters are a few bucks, at the
most.
Done
right CD is the ultimate format for consumer audio,
It's overkill!
|