96khz?

[E-Stat]

There are no dots to connect at the CD player output, it is a continuous wave. THe Red book is sufficient.

Ah yes, the ever perspicacious comments from our resident ditch digger. I have no doubt that RB is sufficient for you.

rw

[WmAx]

Ah yes, the ever perspicacious comments from our resident ditch digger. I have no doubt that RB is sufficient for you.

rw

If this is true, I am his apprentice-in-training. He digs, I clean his shovel. :-)

Seriously, though, RB standard is adequate for me, except for that it only allows for two channels. For some music, multi-channel is very important, IMO.(New age, pop, etc. that has begun to implement such surreal sound effects in it intended to be played over multichannel as released in it's SCAD and/or DVD-A version(s) .)

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

He digs, I clean his shovel. :-)
-Chris

Great. As you can see, it meeds a lot of cleaning

[mtrycraft]

Ah yes, the ever perspicacious comments from our resident ditch digger. I have no doubt that RB is sufficient for you.

rw

Why didn't you address the issues you messed up?

[E-Stat]

Why didn't you address the issues you messed up?

I'll let Sir Terrence enlighten you instead. Good luck.

Will SACD make vinyl obsolete?

rw

[WmAx]

I'll let Sir Terrence enlighten you instead. Good luck.

Will SACD make vinyl obsolete?

rw

I am curious. Why should the opinion of this person you refer too overturn the proven acceptable bandwidth, such as the limit CD employs? I mean, their is nothing wrong with having suspicions(they may even be correct-heck, aliens may be really probing anuses!), but to go around quoting as fact is a bit silly, IMO, when you are claiming the opposite of what has been peer reviewed and accepted as the standard by AES. No one has yet, demonstrated in repeatable controlled tests, that the bandwidth used on CD format is discernable by subjects as compared to a broader bandwidth in music playback. If they had, then the current bandwidth standards accepted for playback would be rejected and a new standard adopted.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

I am curious. Why should the opinion of this person you refer too overturn the proven acceptable bandwidth, such as the limit CD employs?

He is an experienced pro with compelling evidence as to what a large number of people already hear. If mtry should decide to debate STTT, it will be interesting to see the reaction from his sophomoric comments.

If they had, then the current bandwidth standards accepted for playback would be rejected and a new standard adopted.

Two new standards have already been widely adopted.

rw

[WmAx]

He is an experienced pro with compelling evidence as to what a large number of people already hear.

You would have to define what you mean by compelling. His word, compared to peer reviewed scientific study, is certainly not 'compelling evidence' too me.

Two new standards have already been

Yes, as far as a 'format' standard is concerned. But this is not based on an audible basis. The AES [1]standard I refer to is a base minimum standard concerning bandwidth playback audibility, not a specific medium format.

-Chris

[1] "Which Bandwidth Is Necessary for Optimal Sound Transmission?" G. Plenge, H. Jakubowski and P. Schone

[mtrycraft]

He is an experienced pro with compelling evidence

I must have missed it. Please point this out. He has no compelling evidence. All experienced pros are created equal? They are immune from being mistaken, or plain wrong? Really?




as to what a large number of people already hear.

Really? Like you hear in sighted lisening? That is not evidence, not compelling. It is a good story.




If mtry should decide to debate STTT, it will be interesting to see the reaction from his sophomoric comments.

Maybe he should debate real experts then. Would that impress you?


Two new standards have already been widely adopted.

rw

And? What is that supposed to prove? Oh, aren't they multi channel formats?
I love multi channel formats. Stereo is just incapable of rendering a good soundfield. That was demonstrated by Bell Labs in 1930s, for your information.

[maxg]

I was hoping someone technical would answer my question which was:

"If I have understood what you are saying there are 65,535 different possible values a given point on a waveform can have within a range of 0(?) - 22,000 Hz on a CD. This implies to me that the accuracy of the representation of that waveform is limited.

This would mean that for 96KHz with a 16 bit word the accuracy of the representation of the waveform would be worse as the range is now 96,000/2 or 48 KHz to be represented with the same 65,535 possible values.

However if we use a 24 bit word (with 16,777,215 possible values) the accuracy of the representation of the waveform is higher.

Correct? Or am I a mile off base again?"

Anyone???

[E-Stat]

Oh, aren't they multi channel formats?

Logic would follow that if design engineers on two continents believed that the RB "perfect sound forever" standard was sufficient, then both SACD and DVD-A would simply be multi-channel variants using the same resolution with extended playing time. They aren't. With nearly seven times the storage capacity of the CD, they no longer face the same limitations.

rw

[mtrycraft]

I am curious. Why should the opinion of this person you refer too overturn the proven acceptable bandwidth, such as the limit CD employs? I mean, their is nothing wrong with having suspicions(they may even be correct-heck, aliens may be really probing anuses!), but to go around quoting as fact is a bit silly, IMO, when you are claiming the opposite of what has been peer reviewed and accepted as the standard by AES. No one has yet, demonstrated in repeatable controlled tests, that the bandwidth used on CD format is discernable by subjects as compared to a broader bandwidth in music playback. If they had, then the current bandwidth standards accepted for playback would be rejected and a new standard adopted.

-Chris

These guys should pick up THe Digital CD by Makus Erne, Amazon. It has some very interesting tests that can be done single blind between tracks Such as influence of sampling rates, number of bits, etc. But then, I am deaf with a boombox to boot

[mtrycraft]

I'll let Sir Terrence enlighten you instead. Good luck.

Will SACD make vinyl obsolete?

rw

I don't need luck at all.

I have never been a big fan of redbook CD, however I am a HUGE fan of multichannel DVD-A AND SACD because they come the closest to recreating a live event.

He is a big fan of multi channel music or movie sound. Me too. 2 channel just cannot reproduce the soundstage. I never claimed otherwise. Actually, 5.1 is not enough either. Tomlinson Holmann has demonstrated this too with his 10.2 system demo.




Two channel vinyl(or CD) fail meserably in this area because by shear fomat design they misplace spatial cues, and have problems with handling the harmonics of cymbal crashes(which have huge amounts of energy to 40khz) and percussive transients of drums, piano's chimes and glocks. Anytime a format rolls off the highest frequencies, it will have a horrible time with the leading edge of transients.


He is just absolutely wrong on the ultrasonic information having any meaning. He just cannot come to grips with that. I have cited very recent papers on it. His problem.

Enjoy your confusion.

Oh, make sure you apply your spelling criticism to all, or you have a hardup for me?

[E-Stat]

Oh, make sure you apply your spelling criticism to all

Everyone has a typo now and again. I don't exclude myself either. Yours, however, are a regular event and downright funny at times. Sorry, I have trouble taking anyone serious who demonstrates the writing ability of a high school sophomore. Articulateness is just not you. Nor apparently are your powers of musical discernment.

Can we categorize exotic cables as luxury rather than necessity?

...or you have a hardup for me?

Do you mean hard on?

My senior high school english teacher failed anyone whose paper contained a comma splice. Your sentence referenced above is an example of one.

rw