Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Oct 2012 00:05 UTC
Multimedia, AV "On October 1 1982, Joel's sixth studio album, 52nd Street, was the first commercially released CD album... Which means CDs are 30-years-old today. It's worth noting here that 52nd Street wasn't a new album - it was launched initially in 1978, but it was selected for relaunch on the new digital audio disc, rolling out alongside the first CD player - the Sony CDP-101 - in Japan. But of course, the CD didn't spring up overnight - the road to launch started long before 1982." I'm still 100% CD when it comes to music. The act of physically holding a new album in your hands for the first time and gently placing the disk in the tray can't be matched by pressing a download button behind a computer.
Thread beginning with comment 537550
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by kwan_e
by Richard Dale on Thu 4th Oct 2012 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by kwan_e"
Richard Dale
Member since:
2005-07-22

"But he's hardly the best guy to have an unbiased opinion about HiRes uncompressed digital audio.

That's news to me. So I guess we have to rely on the objective opinion of recording companies and Monster Cable Inc.

The are plenty of good technical reasons to believe why Red Book 16/44.1 isn't good enough and why 24/192 is better.

And you are prepared to prove that in an ABX test?

For example, CD needs a 20Khz brickwall filter to work which has side effects well into the audio band at half the frequency.

You didn't read his article, did you? He addresses this issue specifically: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_o
As anyone with half a clue about CDs will tell you, brick wall filters were not used in CD players since 80s.
"

Well, at 20KHz you want all of the signal and at 22KHz you don't want any of it. Whether you do the filtering in the analogue domain or in the digital domain or a combination of both, you still need to solve that problem. It is true that today it is possible to do much more powerful signal processing, upsampling, apodizing filters to remove some of the ringing that is inherent in the 16/44.1 signal. You don't have the same problems with 24/192 because where you filter is well above the audio band and you don't have to have such a sharp filter.

Did the article have a practical tests with modern recording and playback of 24/192 signals? It didn't as it was all 'theory'. Nothing wrong with a bit of theory of course. Why would you not rely on the opinions of recording engineers with practical experience? Engineers like Barry Diament (http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/), and other well regarded engineers think that high resolution digital is significantly better the 16/44.1.

And no I don't use Monster Cables, and wouldn't touch them with a barge pole - they are not an audiophile brand in case you didn't know.

Reply Parent Score: 1