"Mike Caffrey" wrote in message
oups.com
Doc wrote:
I've read where supposedly those who are accutely sensitive can hear
deficiencies in 44.1 /16-bit CD's. If so, how do those with "golden
ears" deal with eternally wallowing in inadequately reproduced sound?

I believe that Ruper NEve's comment on Fletcher's site adn Dr
Oohashi's research which people have refered to hear are the tip of
the iceberg in proving that digital audio is responsible for the
dismal record sales that we've seen lately.

In fact Oohashi's research is irrelevant to any general presumed failings of
digital audio because the whole context of the paper is digital audio.
Basically, the paper is about comparing between one flavor of digital to
another.

As far as Rupert Neve's comments on the Mercenary site goes, how about a
URL? I just spent 10 minutes fruitlessly going through it.

People listen to music for a reason, and digital audio doesn't deliver
as completely as analog audio.

Mike, there you are provably wrong. There never was an analog format with
the bandpass and dynamic range that we can easily obtain digitally.

Apparently you don't know that analog tape has its own brickwall filter due
to the width of the head gap. Good high speed analog tape has a brick wall
in the 22-28 KHz range, always did, still does. SACD and DVD-A
transcriptions of the best analog tapes give a clear picture of this
limitation.

(And yes, I use ProTools [through and analog board] becuase I have no
choice these days)

But you do have the choice to record at 192/24 which gives about 4 times the
bandpass of the best commercial analog tape, not to mention about 20 dB or
more dynamic range. I'm not saying you should do this as a rule, but
perhaps you should stop claiming that digital audio has limitations that it
clearly doesn't have.

I'm not saying that analog tape and digital audio sound the same, but the
reasons are due to things analog tape adds, not things that digital
necessarily takes way.