Steve D

My hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res actually do sound better: I'll start with a bold statement: Hi-Res sound quality is NOT about frequency. The fact Hi-Res happens to be "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. Nobody would deny tape running at 15 or 30IPS sounds considerably better than the top consumer speed of 7.5IPS. I myself balk at "Hi-Res"...

My hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res actually do sound better: I'll start with a bold statement: Hi-Res sound quality is NOT about frequency. The fact Hi-Res happens to be "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. Nobody would deny tape running at 15 or 30IPS sounds considerably better than the top consumer speed of 7.5IPS. I myself balk at "Hi-Res"...

My hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res actually do sound better: The premise CD quality audio sounds every bit as good as analog and Hi-Res is based on one assumption: the shortest wavelength blips on the carrier audio waveform exclusively represent the highest frequencies. Ergo, if those blips get truncated, that's okay because the Digital to Analog Converter will fully restore them by way of anti-aliasing. I beg to differ. I submit those blips also represent quick transitions from one instrument to...

My hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res do in fact sound better than CD quality audio: The premise CD quality audio sounds every bit as good as analog and Hi-Res is based on one assumption: the shortest wavelength blips on the carrier audio waveform exclusively represent the highest frequencies. Ergo, if those blips get truncated, that's okay because the Digital to Analog Converter will fully restore them by way of anti-aliasing. I beg to differ. I submit those blips also represent quick transitions...