|
|||||||||
|
User Details - dkdc
Name: |
Don Kelly | |
Details: |
||
Location: |
||
HiFi: |
||
Email: |
||
Web: |
||
Posts: |
6 |
Reviews |
Found: 0 |
April 4, 2008
|
|
Hmmm - well thanks for all the responses. And all civil! Well done! A lot to mull over. I suppose there is no definitive proof of either position at present. At least with SACDs and DVD-As you do usually get well done production/engineering and true surround sound. So, it ends up sounding better if only for those reasons. I have seen some other ... more | |
April 4, 2008
|
|
Thanks for your response What I hear? Or what I think I hear? Or want to hear? Studies based on more data yeild more accurate results, I would think. I do have an SACD machine - the old Pioneer 563A that is supposed to be good aside from bass management issues. --- On a tangent - I suppose, though, that if one bought into what Lofft is saying - ... more | |
April 4, 2008
|
|
Higher resolution - that is particularly what I asked Mr. Lofft in my email - and he said - those two panels could hear no difference. But, as they say, one study is as good as no studies. And to establish something scientifically you need repeated studies all finding the same result. ... more | |
April 4, 2008
|
|
Point taken - I should have said buy the best sounding version. ... more | |
April 4, 2008
|
|
And later Alan Lofft said in an email to me: "I do believe that the multi-channel recording capabilities of the high-resolution formats, SACD and DVD-Audio, are highly worthwhile and do enhance musical realism. But the higher sampling rates don't seem to yield any audible benefits when they're carefully compared to the standard CD rates." So, ... more |
|