Steven Sullivan wrote:
willbill wrote:
Also discussed on AVSforum
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=953640
I'm kinda guessing it WON'T be hashed over in Stereophile, though
even thougb John Atkinson is citing this paper as proof that
Redbook sample rate is inadequate for home audio.
'"In October I will write more on Peter's ideas about why this should be. I will end this month's essay by quoting, from
a paper given at the conference, the results of experiments on the audibility of high sampling rates: "To achieve a
higher degree of fidelity to the live analog reference, we need to convert audio using a high sampling rate even when we
do not use microphones and loudspeakers having bandwidth extended far beyond 20kHz. Listeners judge high sampling
conversion as sounding more like the analog reference when listening to standard audio bandwidth." (footnote 2)
So that's that, then. "
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
i've got the hard copy but hadn't thought
to look at the on-line, which makes it easy
to look at his refs in earlier editions
Atkinson used to post here, maybe he can be induced to comment?
fwiw, he did some minor posting in one of
the other rec.audio... newsgroups a week
or two ago
of course SACD doesn't have video, but is the
multichannel sound on Magic Flute comparable
to SACD?
all ears, bill
Surely DVD-A is comparable to SACD (I'd wager that in a blind test, DTS 24/96 is
indistinguisbale form them too). So why not the new 'hi rez' formats?
i've got the player (OPPO), but so far have
only bought SACD disks
bill