🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard D Pierce wrote in message ...

Kent Spraggett wrote:

>>otherwise why would people bother with 96khz or hdcd and all that?
>
>Uh, lemme see: to make more money? Magic? Insecurity? Because some wag at
>a magazine who can think out of his own way pontificated so.

Interesting you should bring this up. As you may know, I've been circulating a
CD-R of some program material recorded over and over again, each time with
fewer bits.  The current edition actually starts with the material recorded at
10 bits and works its way up to 16 bits, a bit at a time. I put the worst
first, with the idea that it would be a good way to train people to know what
the sound of reducing the number of bits rather drastically, is like.

Even I've been surprised with how much trouble people have hearing the
difference that reducing 44/16 to 44/10 creates. I fully expected people to
hear clearly audible differences at 12 bits.

This does rather seriously beg the question: What are the reliably perceptable
benefits of 24/96 and HDCD?

Rather than going on record as saying that building digital equipment with
more than 10 bits is a waste of time, I've provisionally adopted the approach
that there have been other technical benefits that came with adoption of ADC's
and DAC's with higher resolution besides just raw numbers of bits.