Last Active: Apr 17, 2024
Threads:
17
Posts:
62
Reputation:
0
SACD is not a PCM format so it cannot be converted. This was intentional to keep music away from MP3 players and iPods etc.
So my media rack has no SACD and they are an unwelcome format. They are far too proprietary.
CD has been very successful and it will remain as the format for music for decades to come. The RIAA has said the CD will continue.
Last Active: Apr 17, 2024
Threads:
17
Posts:
62
Reputation:
0
My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists
If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion
Last Active: Today
Threads:
114
Posts:
4,647
Reputation:
32
The funny thing about this discussion is people still want higher and higher resolution for video. We have reached the wall of what we can perceive in terms of audio but when it comes to visuals it just HAS TO BE BIGGER AND LARGER AND FILL THE ENTIRE WALL. Guess what: your standard analog big silver screen cinema was never any better than 320p / 24fps. That shit sucks on a 60 inch flatscreen but it displays beautifully on a 22 inch B&O TV (why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?). Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?
But anyway. In terms of aliasing there will be issues no matter how high the sample rate. Only sine waves to reproduce somewhat smoothly will be the ones at frequencies by which the samplerate is divisible. This is not a question of ear. It is plain math. Then you have a shitload of ISO anti aliasing filters to reduce the damage BUT most of us cant hear the difference.
There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.