? You cannot hear digital. Ultimately it has to be converted to analogue doesn't it?abacus said:The affects you mention, relate to analogue sound, not a digital stream, so don’t confuse the 2, (The digital domain is a completely different kettle of fish compared to analogue) hence 24/96 offers no advantage over 16/44 for playback.stereoman said:No , I think you are not correct. It is scientifically proved that although human hearing spans from 20 Hz to 20 Khz , the much higher frequency range has enormous impact on the whole spectrum. First of all dynamically. So, the higher the tweeter goes up ( look at the supertweeters for example ) twice above human hearing limit, the lower is the resonance impact on the lower frequencies. Similar thing with 16/44 and 24/192. 24/192 maybe sounds not better but definitely different and definitely the difference can be heard.Gazzip said:+1. I think Bill is correct.abacus said:CD (16/44) is beyond what the ear can differentiate, therefore going higher is pointless, (It is only higher in studios for easier mixing & mastering) as to the final sound, then it will be a combination of the mastering process and the quality of the users DAC.
SACD allows multi-channel audio, whereas CD does not, thus allowing a wider more involving sound stage to be created with multiple speakers, (Just like the difference between a stereo system and home cinema) although not all SACD provide this.
If they made the CD layer sound as good as the SACD layer, (Assuming using just 2 speakers) then people would soon ditch SACD and stick with CD, so comparing them has no relevance.
SACD (like other high def systems) is a niche market and difficult to sell, hence minimal popularity.
Hope this helps
As far as I have read around the subject the only benefit of so called hi-res is increased dynamic range. Great, you may be thinking, so hi-res is better then. Unfortunately not as the "available" DR in 16/44 recording is more DR then you would ever need outside of a military facility. Said increase in DR would in all probability kill you if you ever heard it.
I understand that SACD are expensive to make and I would like to only state that they make a difference ,and yes, for many people whether it is worthy to pay for this difference is a personal question. I think they might be overpriced but they serve really good sound.
Also, mind please that the 20 - 20000 Hz of the human hearing is also not a matter of fact. Exactly like with people who have better or worse senses ( sight, hearing, smell ). For example , it is said that the lower limit for human hearing is 20 Hz. The other day I did a subwoofer test from a site. With samples from 20 Hz down to 4 Hz. I could ( hardly ) but I was able to hear the sound 12 Hz and 16 Hz. So please mind that those limitations are not innate to everyone. I'm not saying that there are some people there who have a sense of hearing like a dog but they might hear a bit more than standards for humans. In case of SACD , everyone should hear the difference straight off without super keen senses.
Hope this clarifies