Re: SACD is not quite dead
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
rec.audio.pro only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: SACD is not quite dead         

Group: rec.audio.pro · Group Profile
Author: Ben Bradley
Date: Jun 8, 2010 03:51

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:58:54 -0700 (PDT), Mark K gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 7, 10:32 am, "Soundhaspriority" nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Mike Rivers" d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:huilcn$dtl$1@news.eternal-september.org...> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know why anybody uses lossy formats in audio any
>>>> more. It's not as if 1TB HDDs are expensive.
>>
>>> Relatively, no. But until there's an iPod-sized 1 TB drive
>>> and we all have Internet download speeds 20 times what we
>>> have now, most people will continue to use compressed formats.
>>
>>> YOU are not MOST PEOPLE.
>>
>> Hearing damaged, most young people will not notice the difference.
>>
>> Bob Morein
>> (310) 237-6511
>
>Most anybody if they try hard enough,.,, i.e. set up an A B
>comparison, can detect the difference between .wav and a 128k MP3.

According to one college professor doing an ongoing study (I first
read a news story about him doing this here on RAP a few years ago),
young people CAN tell the difference, but ironically they increasingly
prefer ...

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html
>
>But that really isn't the point of listening to music is it...
>
>of those that do bother to check, many also find that the difference
>is small enough that it is an acceptable tradeoff to hold >10x more
>content.
>
>Mark
>
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!