[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:31:19 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 10:14=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:10:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):



[ snipped for excessive quoting -- dsr ]



=A0I see no
evidence that was gathered with the kind of care that should be used wh=
en
trying to study this kind of far-reaching question.

That's your problem, not mine. I'm not alone in this. Many well-known
professional classical recording engineers of my acquaintance agree with =
me
on this. We didn't invent these phenomena out of thin air. The experiment=
s
that I have performed on this phenomenon are pretty valid. It's easy to h=
ear,
not subtle at all. Copy a good imaging LP or analog master tape to CD, th=
e
imaging becomes vague and the soundstage shrinks in virtual size. Copy th=
e
SAME record or master tape to 24 -bit =A0(and again, I use either 96 KHz =
or 192
KHZ for this) and the imaging firms up (you can close your eyes and point=
to
the various instruments and can even tell whether instruments are in fron=
t or
in back of the ensemble), is indistinguishable from the source and the
soundstage widens appreciably.

I'm guessing that your recorder has anti-aliasing filters on ADC
inputs that are the issue at lower sample rates.



You can also, as I said earlier, hear more
ambience (if it's there in the first place) and one can hear greater
low-level detail. =A0

What happens if you record with higher sampling, digitally filter,
and then convert to 16/44?

Does recording via DSD and converting to 16/44.1 count? I've done that with
the same result.


I'm not sure the scenario you provide is
valid to condemn 16/44 CD as
a playback medium.

Neither am I, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility out-of-hand
either. Most recordings don't have this kind of information in them anyway,
being multi-track (I'd call most commercial recordings made since the
introduction of mult-miking/multi-track recording "overproduced" at best, and
a travesty at worst.). I realize that pop music doesn't generally lend itself
to real stereo production techniques, so the things that I find "improved" by
24-bit/96 or 192 KHz simply don't exist on those types of recordings. And,
since most recording done today is pop and rock, I'd say that the improvement
over 16/44.1 would be a difference that makes no difference at all.
Therefore, CD resolution is fine for most music.