[SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....

"what euphonic distortions we prefer"
I think we are bordering on some form of concensus here, - again.
Perhaps we should add "may be/are sensitive to" also.

As to SACD sound - my Denon sounds terrific with SACD but for some
reason I cannot explain - it doesn't sound quite correct; as most
players (bar the phased out early versions that had differential DACs
with single bit DSD capability and the ultra-fi megabucks jobs) the
DACs have some form of DSP at the heart of the circuitry (and are
traditional multi-bit DACs) then we will always find it hard to know
the absolute truth.

It is one of the reasons that I stick to my HTPC now; there is less in
the way of neutrality


On Jun 20, 7:01 pm, "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > I have the Dire Straits Making Movies SACD.
>
> > Playing Romeo and Juliet at moderate volume, I can hear textures and pick
> > out instruments that I have never heard before.
>
> > In the past I have had this album on LP, half-speed mastered LP, CD, SBM
> > remastered CD and now SACD.
>
> > I don't need someone to keep telling me that there is no difference in the
> > higher resolution formats, it is obvious to me.
>
> You do need to separate out the different mastering choices before you can
> say it's due to higher resolution, though.
>
>
>
> > Additionally I have a DTS CD of Eagles Hotel California derived from the
> > multichannel SACD.
>
> > As a CD the resolution is 16/44,1
>
> > I have also recently created a DTS HD MA version from the same source at
> > 24/96.
>
> > One advantage of the new version is that I can encapsulate the recording
> > into Matroska audio container format (MKA) which  can then be played via
> > VLC
> > or via my media player via SPDIF to a home cinema amplifier. Not so easy
> > with the DTS  CD as the 44.1 khz format typically needs to be resampled to
> > 48khz on a PC..
>
> Perhaps less typical in modern times.  Bit-perfect unresampled
> transmission of standard formats isn't that hard to achieve nowadays.
>
> > Another advantage of the new version is that the sound is significantly
> > richer particularly in the rear channels.
>
> The 'new' version you made has no more information than the SACD, though.
> It can't.  So that extra richness is something else.
>
>
>
> > I have been a home cinema and hi-fi enthusiast for 30 years. I am also a
> > guitarist and keyboard player and I know what I am listening to.
>
> > For those people who still maintain that CD sounds as good as SACD may I
> > suggest the purchase of some cotton buds may be the cheapest and most
> > effective audio upgrade for you?
>
> May I suggest not insulting anyone from such a weak evidentiary position?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound