"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 May 2005 03:13:28 GMT, Russ Button wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.

I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?

No, but the market doesn't care, and that's what really counts.


They are better, but were so badly marketed that it is hard to tell whether
the market cares, since the market doesn't even know. Without awareness,
there can be no acceptance *or* rejection.

Bummer.

I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
channel if I can get it.


You are missing one great potential improvement in pop enjoyment and
classical realism.

16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD listening test results suggest that CD is
as good as you'll ever hear.


Simply not true.

Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
surround sound?

That's it's only *audible* advantage, as with DVD-A. But used
properly, multichannel sound is definitely an improvement in fidelity.


Simply not true.

And this is at the same sampling rate as
conventional CD.


No, the surround is usually 96/24 on DVD-A (some at 48/24). And it is pure
DSD on SACD, which is roughly equivalent to 192/24. This gives superior
results with analog transfers, high-res PCM recordings, and especially pure
DSD recordings. Some releases have been made from 48/24 digital
masters...and generally are "caught out" by sharp-eared audiophiles because
of it.

Essentially, although with SACD it's a sliding scale that gets a lot
worse as frequency rises.


But is much superior to ordinary CD PCM in the critical lower, middle, and
mid-range areas, an area where the ear is most sensitive.

Geez. We should pay more for more of the
same? Bleah...


First, the hi-rez's really are better despite the contrary commentary here.
Second, the disks don't cost much more than ordinary CD's. And with SACD's
especially, you get a CD layer (almost all SACDs have been hybrids for about
three years), a stereo layer, and a multichannel layer. Well worth the few
extra bucks. Especially since they are almost always remastered with great
care.

Hey, it worked for LP, with DMM and half-speed mastering, it worked
for CD with 'digital remastering' and gold CDs, why shouldn't it keep
working? How many versions of DSOTM do *you* have? :-)

Cynicism becomes you.....not!