Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ink.net

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:22:21 GMT,
wrote:

Perhaps the most straight forward reason why SACD is a
bad idea is that it is perhaps not needed at all. Blind
listening tests tell the average consumer has a fair
bit of difficulty telling 24 bits at 96kHz from properly
implemented 16 bits at 44.1kHz. Considering the
numerical differences between these formats the
question of whether we really need accuracy beyond
the level of CDs becomes quite acute.

Except that your dude, jj says this in the very thread
that you noted:


"Is 16/44 enough? Not clear, and maybe not".


Which is precisely why I also noted that the thread was
from 2004, and that maybe there was new better info.


It's all about how you read what JJ said.

As usual people like Weil and LeGal would like to represent what JJ said as
an indictment of 16/44. It's an article of religious faith for many that
the CD format is inherently flawed.

I have been away for months, and do not plan on coming back
for many more. Anyway, I just dropped in to see what is
going on and am floored as I have been many times in the
past when dropping back by to see that this debate about CD
sound (and other RAO inanities) continues to rage.

Heck, why in the world cannot the debaters giving you a hard
time just do a serious DBT and get it over with? Oops,
doing that would end the "debate" and the people involved
would then not have anything to do.

Good luck to you, Arny. Frankly, I do not know why you hang
around this group, but I suppose it has to do with you
needing to keep your name out there for economic reasons. Me
and my name? Well, as a "retired" audio writer I am happy as
hell to no longer have to worry about my status or assorted,
tweako tempest in teapot audio controversies.

Again, good luck. You'll need it.

Howard Ferstler