"thelizman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
is superior to human hearing.


In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is
entirely sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter
out-of-context be my guest, but don't expect to have much
credibility.

As a generalization, I can agree that CDA is "sufficient". But the
statement was unequivocal and broad that CDA was "superior", which by
definition indicates a degree of advantage in all aspects.

The word *all* makes the question irrelevant. Furthermore, you need to
recognize that frequency-shaped quantizers enable CDA to have effective DR
that is far greater than 93 dB.

This is not the case. There are several limitations to CDA, and enough
people are
able to recognize these limitations to have justified the creation of
digital formations which exceed the Redbook CDA format.

That would be mislead. There's no practical need for a format that is has
more frequency response and/or more dynamic range than CDA. No known
commercial recording of music for entertainment comes within 10 dB of the
basic limitations of the CDA format. If you include the benefits of shaped
quantization, the margins are far greater - about 30 dB or more.

Now for me, I'll never bother with the likes of dts or SACD because to me
CDA is
good enough that on the rare occasions I notice its limitations, its
not enough to bother me.

I'll bet money you are practically incapable of actually noticing the DR or
FR limitations of CDA.

How much dynamic range you have in a
car is irrelevant to this discussion.

Dynamic range is also about noise floors.

There's less noise floor in my car than in my house (owing to the 80
lbs of damping material I've installed). This is dangerous territory
to tread on for this discussion, so for simplicity's sake lets just
assume cetaris paribus, a limited or 0 noise floor.

More practical irrelevancy.