I have a few DVD Audio discs and SACDs and they are definitely superior to CDs and most digital audio files.
Here is a good example of absolutely obvious differences that vanish under blind conditions : http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/...les/23down.html
Pio that's a great new "welcome message," you should put it in the FAQ or Wiki or something so we can cut-and-paste whenever it's necessary.
I guess we lost the focus since my original post.a new generation of players that works internally at 24/96 (f.i.) and reads a lossy encoded source burned on a cd, since that source was hi-res.
All statements about sound quality must be backuped either by some technical evidence (e.g. CD having less background noise than vinyl), or by double blind listening tests (e.g. castanets being a difficult instrument to encode into MP3).
If you twiddled your volume control so that the peak signal is 100dB SPL in your living room, that means the noise floor is at 10dB, (orunder 0dB SPL with noise shaped dither). Unless you live in a sound proof room, other sounds will hide this! Anything below 0dB SPL is inaudible, even in complete silence.
Posts violating TOS # 8 by dekkersj and replies moved to recycle bin.
We need to create our own DVD-A, SACD and CD releases from an original high quality master tape/source.
in classical recordings, you have 16 bits for the loudest peak but only roughly 7 bits for the many long really quiet parts which we listen to with "normal" volume. And we all know how 8 bit recordings sound like.
The thing is this: We're talking about if DVD-Audio sounds better than CD-Audio IF bothi mediums are used to their full potential.
Making a T.O.S. #8 compliant statement about DVD-A/SACD vs. CD is insanely difficult.
Not if you have access to Philips research deparment.