Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
And you're the one who claims that it's easy to do these kinds of comparisons, yet you're expecting a hobbyist to acquire professional level equipment. I assume that you've tried this for yourself?
I did not claim it was easy to do the actual tests(a proper perceptual test that will survive peer review is anything but easy). I was pointing out that some of the equipment(hi res pcm in this case) is not nescarrily an out of reach item. I am not a recording engineer, yet I have such equipment that could be used to do hi-res PCM recordings accurately --- my use though is for acoustics analysis/measurement in relation to loudspeaker design---not recording music.

And the inquiry had to do with SACD,
This is true -- I lost track of the specific scope of the original poster.


Your statements are theoretical, and since you're so into proposing practical approaches for testing the theory, I'm simply noting that your approach still leaves variables unaccounted for. If you use a DSD master source and convert it to 44.1/16, then you're introducing a new variable into the chain. If you use a PCM or analog source, how are you going to get it into the SACD format if the tools aren't available to consumers?
The issue is if 44.1 can retain the audibly relevant information that SACD can retain. THis does not entail converiting PCM to SACD, since SACD is the one that is being claimed as superior(not by you, but a general claim that is common and the premise of this conversation form my perspective). If a PCM 44.1 A-D-A process does not produce audibly decreased audio quality confirmable with controlled testing, then the SACD format is not audibly better. How SACD be audibly superior if a 44.1khz ADA process does not cause audible degradation?

-Chris