In reply to the post questioning my statements on digital audio, well performed double blind tests prove what can be heard and what cannot. Typically the claim about a given audio issue is that someone can hear something that someone else cannot. A DBX box with a double blind test can determine whether or not this claim is true. The problem is that most people making those claims don't want to take these tests to prove their assertions are true. That creates a simple opinion versus opinion situation that cannot be resolved definitively. I've seen reasons given (e.g. the DBX switch somehow magically obliterates just those differences they claimed to hear in the signal, etc. or that there's not enough time to decide, the latter of which isn't an issue. Take all the time you want.)
Digital sampling theory is well understood (frequency is controlled by the sampling rate and dynamic range by the number of bits used) and only people that believe they can hear things others cannot buy into more bits and higher sampling rates are needed. A human cannot hear beyond 20kHz. A human would not want to hear much more than 96dB dynamic range (very bad for your hearing) and most recordings don't even come close, even many of the ones praised by high-end music rags as being the best recordings ever made. More dynamic range means quieter on the bottom end, which means you have to crank the volume to hear it and that means the louder sounds are VERY loud indeed. It's why they squash the crap out of most recordings to play on the radio (and then later with CDs too) as people get angry when they cannot hear anything in the car and other loud locations (wearing cheap earbuds in crowds/outside for example). Less dynamic range means less differences in volumes which makes it easier to hear in poor environments. Hence why so many CDs are so loud and the records sometimes sound better (you can only squash it so much before a needle will jump out of the groove, limiting how much damage these people can do to records a little bit). Those are the real reasons we have poor CD recordings.
SACD gives the impression of being better sounding because they often go back and remaster to higher quality level. They then pretend it's the higher bit rates, etc. that made the difference. It's pure BS. Take the SACD "hires" recording and sample it at CD rates and even burn a new CD with it. It will sound IDENTICAL. You can do the same thing with vinyl records. Take the best record you have and sample it and play back the digital version. You will not be able to tell the difference other than any new dust/clicks/pops that the record keeps acquiring. This has been shown with double blind tests to be true. Don't believe it? It's easy to reproduce at home with a DBX box. Sony pulls another fast one and outputs the SACD signal on double-sided discs LOUDER than the signal from the CD side and this is Psychology 101. If it sounds slightly louder, humans tend to associate it with "more detail" rather than volume level as you can hear more detail coming out of the noise floor. It proves nothing, but it's a good way to fool people. It's the same reason during the Pepsi vs. Coke challenge that Pepsi used to do at malls they'd give you Pepsi FIRST every single time. Why? A less sweet drink tastes even less sweet or "odd" after drinking something more sweet. Since Coke has less sugar in it than Pepsi, this made Coke taste bad/off to most people and thus most people would pick the first drink and they'd reveal it to be Pepsi! They would then think, gee, I should give Pepsi another try! It's dishonest and it's deceptive.
I find most people who would rather believe 24/96 sounds better think that "stair step drawings" show the problem with digital audio and that more steps means getting closer to that nice analog curve. But that's 100% fallacy. THAT is the LIE that poor magazines have put out for some time to make you think that's how digital works. It does NOT work that way at all. There are no "stair steps" in digital audio. Sampling when put through the reconstruction filter outputs a perfectly reproduced and smooth sine wave. There are no "steps" to it. All audio is comprised of well understood wave theory. A transfer function at any moment in time can perfectly describe any electrical signal. People need to read less Stereophile fairy tales and read some actual scientific papers on digital audio.
So why do they try to sell a format like SACD? Money. It's the same problem the movie industry is having now. How do we keep selling the same movies to people over and over again? VHS tapes would wear out. DVDs would scratch (bad). Blu-Rays hold up much better against scratches and are pretty high resolution. So, let's go to 4K! Can't see a big difference on TV screens under 100 inches? Well, let's invent HDR (trick method to make contrast situations most cameras cannot capture without multiple exposures at once). You can see that even if you sit 20 feet away! Let's put Atmos only on 4K discs so they think it's part of the 4K format (when it's not). What are they going to do next? Even people that know little about the formats know that 8K is total overkill unless you have a giant screen or sit inches away from one. This is a real problem for the industry as their money grab for older material is going away. So the solution long term is STREAMING. Don't SELL movies. RENT them. Rent them en masse even (Netflix). They need a steady stream of income that never ends. The music industry has already figured this out and hence Apple Music, Spotify, etc. You're paying a rental charge that never goes away. Stop paying that fee and you have NO music library whatsoever. They got you. Perpetual lifetime payments for something that most people only like a limited number of music titles. But they'll tell you it's selection and convenience and a tiny fee compared to buying all those titles. Yes, like cable. That got up to $123 a month for me and most months I didn't want much TV at all (filled with commercials to boot). It's a really GREAT value alright...if that's all you do is sit there and watch TV all month.
Click THEATER (Updated: Oct-19-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube
: Props (Updated 10-13-19)
Last edited by MagnumX; 07-22-2019 at 10:25 AM.