On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:45:48 +0100, Jim H
wrote:

I am yet to hear a SACD, but the reason they supposedly sound better is a
higher sample frequency, bringing the digital waveform closer to the
analogue ideal. Its similar in some ways to having an raster image use more
pixels.

Are you prepared to acknowledge that beyond a certain pixel density,
there is no point in adding more pixels to an image because it will be
beyond the eye's ability to distinguish the improvement? (I'm no
expert in imaging, but suspect that there would be no discernable
difference between 10,000dpi and 20,000dpi).

If you agree with that, can you also appreciate that in the case of
audio, there will come a point where further increasing the sample
rate is pointless because it is beyond the ear's ability to
distinguish the improvement?

What's left for debate is whether the sampling frequency used for CD
is already at or beyond the limits of human hearing - if it is, then
the higher sampling rate used in SACD is redundant.