SACD Optional 50-KHz Cutoff Filter

I prefer no cutoff filter so I can have playback up to 100 KHz and hear the extra presence of harmonic overtones. I've read that if you allow playback up to 100 KHz, it could damage your speakers? If that's true, would they die gradually or instantly? What if I have a player that doesn't give the SACD specs? Should I not play SACDs on it in order to protect my speakers? I contacted Oppo about their BDP-83 and they claim that the 50-KHz cutoff filter is engaged so that DSD modulation noise won't be heard. However, I have a Pioneer Elite DV-58AV which doesn't state whether or not it uses a 50-KHz cutoff filter. If I don't get an answer to this from Pioneer, how can I tell whether or not it uses a 50-KHz cutoff filter?

My receiver's specs claim that at least its front channels can go up to 100 KHz. Yet being that my receiver is capable of downmixing when using the multi-channel analog inputs, I'm not sure if it's doing an analog-to-PCM conversion whether it's downmixing or not. Also, my speakers each have a 6&1/2" woofer and a 3/4" tweeter.

Are you saying that everything above 20 KHz would be noise whether you have a 50-KHz cutoff filter or not? If so, then DVD-AUDIO or the new Blu-ray audio would be better formats. However, the problem with those formats is that there isn't as much stuff out there as there is on SACD.

I own a Yamaha YHT-370 2006-model HTiB system which came with the HTR-5935 receiver. Its manual and specs can be found at this link.

The manual to the HTR-5935 receiver lists the stereo CD section as going up to 100 KHz in the specifications. I know that the tweeters in my speakers are only 3/4". I believe that is small. Will smaller tweeters handle higher frequencies?

That's true, but is it possible that if a system can reproduce much higher tones, it might make the tones within our hearing range sound better?

Then it is a shame that SACD prevailed on the market and that there's not a huge library of stuff on DVD-A! I understand that Blu-ray Audio is uncompressed multi-channel 192-KHz, 24-Bit PCM, which would be even better than DVD-A because of the uncompressed audio. So let's hope that Blu-ray Audio gets it right and sells tons of well-known recordings taken from the original analog studio masters, and when possible, creates multi-channel remixes of those recordings as well!

I hope I'm not being too condescending: I read Braille and use screen magnification. They say that blind people's other senses are heightened. I think what they mean is that they rely more heavily on their other senses. I have noticed subtle differences between stereo CD and stereo SACD editions of the same track. If 192-24 PCM is better than DSD, then I can imagine what I might be missing!

At least we agree that the only thing my lack of sight does is make me more aware of certain things. OK. So if sound quality doesn't make a difference beyond 20 KHz, what are the goods and bads of 1-bit 2.8MHz and 24-bit 192-KHz PCM?

So are you saying that DSD is less synthetic sounding than 192-24 PCM? I imagine standard 44.1-KHz, 16-bit ol' fashion CD is inferior to DSD and 192-24. Correct?

I guess once you go beyond 15 or 20 KHz, it's pointless to waste all that disk space on quality. Maybe the next steps should be (1) how much to compress audio data without even a good ear noticing the artifacts, and (2) releasing surround remixes in dolby digital 5.1 and/or 7.1 format. Notice I didn't say DTS? I haven't noticed a difference between Dolby Digital and DTS, except for volume, which might have something to do with how my player and/or receiver handles the formats. Now it looks like unless someone has something to say in defence of DVD-A or SACD, compressed music should be discussed somewhere else!