In Reply to: Re: What does all this mean? posted by Charles Hansen on April 10, 2007 at 20:23:18:
"As far as the hardware goes, the general consensus is that machines that convert to PCM don't make a really good SACD sound as good as a machine that doesn't convert to PCM."That is the consensus but I am not sure how much of it is based on comparative listening and how much is based on preconceptions. I know I have not listened to some of the high-dollar machines that convert DSD into PCM on my system, where I can make an objective evaluation.
There is little doubt, IMO, that SACD sound is far superior to 44/16 RBCD's, But high res is high res. On a theoritical basis, if the conversion from SACD to PCM occurs at a much higher resolution, say 192 Hz, should we still expect a reduction in sound quality? If so, why? Do the additional electronics required for the conversion automatically create a performance penalty or could the sound be enhanced in some way by the conversion?
I hope your rehabilitation is going well. I was in a pretty severe bike accident in 2004 (although not as severe as yours). I was in the hospital for nine days and it took me six months to completely recover. I will be setting off the alarms at airports with all the metal in my hip for years to come. But I am back riding. I hope your recovery goes as smoothly as mine.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- With that in mind..... - Pacman 07:10:00 04/11/07 (1)
- Re: With that in mind..... - Charles Hansen 10:40:00 04/12/07 (0)