Originally Posted by Dionyz
So if things don't fit the discussion lets just ignore them.
I am have said all there is to be said, as it is clear that no amount of information presented will convince you.
I've proven that so much of what you have said is wrong, and you have provided no effective defense.
You will always have "but" or "ignore" to justify yourself and ignore realities of how dynamic music truly is
How can you seriously say that about someone who has made over a thousand live recordings?
and in incapability of CD format to capture those transient peaks (even if they are milliseconds in duration)
Ironically, more than half of those thousand recordings were made on a CD recorder. I've examined 100s of those recordings in a wave editor and found no clipping, and lowest level signals that were 20 dB or more above the noise floor.
and ignore how reproduction equipment limitation of most testers
I've also tested dozens of CD players using test equipment running @ 24 bits with > 110 dB dynamic range and 192 KHz sampling with > 90 KHz bandwidth.
(and probably yourself) limit your ability to hear the difference between CD and hi-res formats.
Two words - Meyer and Moran.
"With the help of about 60 members of the Boston Audio
Society and many other interested parties, a series of
double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were held over a period
of about a year. Many types of music and voice signals
were included in the sources, from classical (choral,
chamber, piano, orchestral) to jazz, pop, and rock music.
The subjects included men and women of widely varying
ages, acuities, and levels of musical and audio experience;
many were audio professionals or serious students of the art."
This isn't about my personal hearing limitations, its about tests involving large groups of individuals, including dozens of serious audiophiles.
I have wasted way too much time with you two.
Still waiting for a relevant response based on other than your personal unsupported assertions.