On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:21:33 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
It is - when digital was in its infancy I and many of my colleagues
had an opportunity to play with different sampling rates on a wide
variety of material. And the point where any difference is detectable
is below that of CD - *that's* why it was chosen - although the exact
rate was down to TV video parameters so video recorders could be used.


Is it possible that, back then, the DACs were only effective up to a
certain rate, at a lower rate than for the ear? If, say the DACS showed
no improvement in sound past 44kHz, your experiment would always show
cd to bo optimal. Just a thought.

Err, no. The comparison included switching between the original
(including analogue) signal too.


Ok, I was only pondering.

I suppose I could suggest that MAYBE improvements in speakers in the last
20 years would now allow you to hear the difference

I'm not defending SACD, personally I doubt it is any better than cd, other
than the 5.1, for some music. I agree with what you say, that we are
unlikely to be able to hear past cd quality, but I'm not sure your
experiment really proved this.

--
Jim

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
I suppose I could suggest that MAYBE improvements in speakers in the
last 20 years would now allow you to hear the difference

The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its
limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today.

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:42:16 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its
limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today.

What are these 'limitations'? Being made a long time ago?
If so are you saying that no recent speaker made a long time ago could beat
it? If so I guess that's kinda true.

I'm not sure what 50s limitations have to do with the abilities of today's
amps and speakers to show finely differentiate between high resolutions.
Maybe the ESLs, or whatever your experiment used, couldn't show the
difference, doesn't mean nothing ever will.

Again, I'm not arguing that there IS (or isn't) an advantage of SACD over
CD, only that your experiment isn't really as conclusive as you seemed to
sugest.

I'm certain CD resolution was influenced by what equipment then was able to
reproduce. Therefore, since we now have better digital equipment, maybe we
also need a higher res.

Personally, I'm quite strongly against SACD (I tried to not let it colour
this thread) on the grounds that, IMHO, a future-facing digital standard
doesn't need the limitations of physical media.

--
Jim H

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its
limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today.

What are these 'limitations'? Being made a long time ago?

Its limitations are a lower than perhaps what some want maximum SPL. Lower
cutoff point of 40 Hz. Extremely directional. Room and position sensitive.
Difficult load for an amplifier to drive.

But within these parameters, it will sound better than the vast majority
of modern speakers.

If so are you saying that no recent speaker made a long time ago could
beat it? If so I guess that's kinda true.

I'd suggest you try and listen to a pair.

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn