"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:x0zqd.156054$bk1.118227@fed1read05
Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of
hi-rez formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

What pushing of hi-rez formats?

Recall this exchange?

(begin quote)
So are you saying that we must use one of those hi-rez formats?

For experimental purposes, they seem to have some value.


But didn't you just say that those formats provide no audible improvement
over redbook CD?

Right, for the purpose of reproducing musical recordings, for general
purposes. This is a very specific application.

But if they provide no audible improvement then they
aren't audibly better and of no use in PCABX.

Wrong, PCABX is an experimental environment.
(end quote)

this implies PCABX requires hi-rez (better than 16/44).


and this blurb on your website?

"(Adequate Or Better Digital) Midiman DIO 2448, "Audiophile 24/96",
Echo "Mia", or Turtle Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card; "

Don't all these support better than 16 bit resolution?


Yet you have repeatedly stated that one cannot hear a difference
between 16/44 and higher rez recordings of the same source.
In fact when challenged to demonstrate that one can (in an
experimental environment) hear a difference you replied,

(begin quote)
I look forward to your proof that hi-rez recordings provide an
audible
difference on your test tracks.

Please hold your breath until it happens, Scott.
(end quote)


Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

ScottW