"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:35:01 GMT, wrote:


"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.

So why quote it in the first place? If THIS can be wrong or off-base
simply because it's less than 2 years old, then the rest of it could
very well be wrong as well. Face it, you're just doing more
cherry-picking again.


That yo choose to misinterpret the written word is not my problem.

It is certain that it is not enough if you want to do any noise shaping or
any sort of tweaking, for that you need a higher rate as has been noted
elsewhere, but it is not by any means certain or even likely that 16/44 is
insufficient for transparent playback of CD's at home.

Well, that statement implies that it's not any means certain or even
likely that 16/44 is *sufficient* for transparent playback of CDs at
home.

That you misinterpret the written word is not my problem.