On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:47:34 +0000, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system, which is why attempts at higher definition have not caught on.
Quite the contrary in fact, most recent changes in the delivery of
music have been heading towards lower definition.

d
Yes, I've got to admit that I'm sort of sceptical, but I have compared
SACD and CD with mixed results. I THOUGHT that high strings were less
harsh and that cymbals were better, but that could just be prejudice
(not a blind test) and the result of something like noise shaping for
instance.

It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD. You will hear
differences, but they are nothing to do with the medium, but rather
the mastering of the recording. SACD releases are, I'm afraid, rather
closely associated with the "smiley face" eq curve which places
greater emphasis on extreme bass and treble. The result is a sound
with a little more fizz and thump which can in the short term sound
better - it soon gets tiring though, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure how rapid the adoption of mp3 is for classical music is. It
strikes me that this is the one area where physical media might survive
longer, with the importance of the sleeve notes, particularly the
libretto. But when the CD shops go, I suppose all that will go too.
Roger Thorpe

In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.

d