"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"R. Stanton" wrote:

..

Agreed. If we value the sound of real, we had best support it.

We can do that by buying more classical music and jazz, and
differentiating
between those that are better-recorded (i.e. more natural). And whereever
possible, supporting those labels/reissues that do the same. Pop is
another
story, although even here there are better and worse recordings.

We can also do that by stopping the dissing of hi-rez formats and starting
to support them.

Even if they are in no audible way superior? What's the point of supporting
something that costs more and sounds the same?

The companies issuing in this format by and large pay much
more attention to "natural" recording/mastering.

But do people hear it differently than they would the same recording done
with lower resolution, such as a standard CD? I know of no evidence that
says they do. In fact the evidence says that what's called "high rez" is
not audibly superior, or even different than the same recording in a lower
rez.

wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"R. Stanton" wrote:

..

Agreed. If we value the sound of real, we had best support it.

We can do that by buying more classical music and jazz, and
differentiating
between those that are better-recorded (i.e. more natural). And whereever
possible, supporting those labels/reissues that do the same. Pop is
another
story, although even here there are better and worse recordings.

We can also do that by stopping the dissing of hi-rez formats and starting
to support them.

Even if they are in no audible way superior? What's the point of supporting
something that costs more and sounds the same?

The companies issuing in this format by and large pay much
more attention to "natural" recording/mastering.

But do people hear it differently than they would the same recording done
with lower resolution, such as a standard CD? I know of no evidence that
says they do. In fact the evidence says that what's called "high rez" is
not audibly superior, or even different than the same recording in a lower
rez.

So, if you want to get a version that is well-mastered, not overly
'clipressed', you have to buy into a new format that costs more too...even
though the well-mastered recording could have been released as a
plain old CD, with no audible difference.

Brilliant strategy, except it turns out that most people don't give that
much of a damn about whether a disc is 'well mastered' in this sense. So
SACD and DVD-A aren't succeeding on that basis.

Which leaves surround mixes...which can also be released on plain old DVD,
without most people noticing or caring about a sonic difference between
that and 'hi rez'. So SACD and DVD-A aren't succeeding on *that* basis
either.

--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

In article ,

In fact the evidence says that what's called "high rez" is
not audibly superior, or even different than the same recording in a lower
rez.

What evidence is that?

" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"R. Stanton" wrote:

..

Agreed. If we value the sound of real, we had best support it.

We can do that by buying more classical music and jazz, and
differentiating
between those that are better-recorded (i.e. more natural). And
whereever
possible, supporting those labels/reissues that do the same. Pop is
another
story, although even here there are better and worse recordings.

We can also do that by stopping the dissing of hi-rez formats and
starting
to support them.

Even if they are in no audible way superior? What's the point of
supporting
something that costs more and sounds the same?


No hard evidence that they are audibly superior, or that they are the same.
Just judgements by people (the way most audio decisions are reached). And
there are a substantial number of us who believe it does sound more
analog-like than digital. As did the Sony engineers who made the original
decision to use it for archiving the catalog.



The companies issuing in this format by and large pay much
more attention to "natural" recording/mastering.



But do people hear it differently than they would the same recording done
with lower resolution, such as a standard CD? I know of no evidence that
says they do. In fact the evidence says that what's called "high rez" is
not audibly superior, or even different than the same recording in a lower
rez.

No evidence either way...no definitive testing done. Why don't you just
state it as a hypothesis, rather than fact?