On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:38:44 GMT, Clive Backham
wrote:

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).

I agree completely, but since I haven't heard SACD I can't say if cd is
past the limit of human hearing. However, an above-cd recording of vinyl on
my soundcard sounds no better than a cd-quality one, asthough this is more
likely to be limitations of the equipment

--
Jim