Jphilips, bravo for doing your comparison and telling us the results. As you know, you are not the only one to have done such a thing--UHF magazine comes to mind, and also a German researcher who additionally used tubes vs transistors as a parameter. And many of us have done it too.
These comparisons are all needed, because of the snap judgements we humans like to impose based on what we think is consensus. In other words, we don't trust our own ears, and the proof needs to be demonstrated. I am sure nobody who has heard such a shootout goes away unchanged, but you have to hear the difference, not just hear about it.
Bravo for doing such a public demo.
If I were newly dissatisfied with CD ( maybe after Jphilips' demo ), I would be looking into vinyl and SACD as alternative sources. I would like to say that my own experience with hi-res digital, both SACD and DVD-audio, has not convinced me to add yet another source.
What surprised me the most was the relatively small difference between first-class CD and hi-res. I conclude that vinyl can remain a priority for me, because it's better than both when all three are done right.
Two questions arise about high resolution digital audio, of course.
First, is hi-res digital being done right, that is, to or near the limit of its potential? Both vinyl and 16/44 digital needed twenty years to reach theirs.
Second, if it is not yet being done right, what should be corrected? Perhaps the recordings chosen for issue on SACD don't offer genuine high-res, or higher-res than what you can get on vinyl and CD. Perhaps the playback technology has trouble extracting part or all of the extra info.
I have been told that both are quite likely. And this, plus my small listening experience, plus my own nature which is excessively prudent, leads me to conclude that I should not bother yet with SACD.
These comparisons are all needed, because of the snap judgements we humans like to impose based on what we think is consensus. In other words, we don't trust our own ears, and the proof needs to be demonstrated. I am sure nobody who has heard such a shootout goes away unchanged, but you have to hear the difference, not just hear about it.
Bravo for doing such a public demo.
If I were newly dissatisfied with CD ( maybe after Jphilips' demo ), I would be looking into vinyl and SACD as alternative sources. I would like to say that my own experience with hi-res digital, both SACD and DVD-audio, has not convinced me to add yet another source.
What surprised me the most was the relatively small difference between first-class CD and hi-res. I conclude that vinyl can remain a priority for me, because it's better than both when all three are done right.
Two questions arise about high resolution digital audio, of course.
First, is hi-res digital being done right, that is, to or near the limit of its potential? Both vinyl and 16/44 digital needed twenty years to reach theirs.
Second, if it is not yet being done right, what should be corrected? Perhaps the recordings chosen for issue on SACD don't offer genuine high-res, or higher-res than what you can get on vinyl and CD. Perhaps the playback technology has trouble extracting part or all of the extra info.
I have been told that both are quite likely. And this, plus my small listening experience, plus my own nature which is excessively prudent, leads me to conclude that I should not bother yet with SACD.