Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

I don't know- Hfisher. Being burned a T-H-I-R-D time
investing heavily in High Resolution (SACD,DVD-Audio,
Downloads), or being burned by you? Somehow I think the
latter is a whole hell of alot cheaper. Maybe cutting my
$$$ LOSES $$$ by limiting them to SACD/DVD-Audio selection
rip-off, perhaps that might be better. You have money to
burn risking on High Resolution Downloads not becoming the
third High Resolution casualty- knock yourself out! Some
of us are just tapped out from this economy, and tapped out
from false promises of SACD/DVD-Audio Selection. Really,
Hfisher, have you learned nothing from this High Resolution
history debacle? The market doesn't really care if it is a
High Resolution Disk, or Download- they are both just as
expensive. The Audio Market has convinced everyone that
"The majority of the American Public are not interested in
higher Audio Sound Quality"- I am! That is the reason why
I try not to allow the market to create a third High
Resolution casuality out of Downloads. The Market wants
cheap, therefore low sound quality. The Manufacturers want
to produce cheap as being way more profitable. SACD, DVD-Audio, and High Resolution Downloads (Expensive) just don't fit that mold! Single Format Market solution will
only end up being the "Final Solution" to High Resolution
Downloads (It will only be SACD/DVD-Audio 2.0). Sad, but
true because you refuse to acknowledge the risk of this
happening despite history of anything High Resolution. Your denial is fuel for this self fulfilling Prophecy. Do as you wish, do your worse! I personally would have liked to have atleast just ONE High Resolution Format that didn't implode- many regrets!!! They pretty much implode
do to apathy, and the lack of any attempt to prevent them
from imploding. You want High Resolution Downloads to
succeed, you have to fight for it. That means taking on the
manufacturers desire to produce Audio cheap, and more profitable. No-one here is willing to do that! R-I-P is
inevitable now with High Resolution, it is already way too
late! Not that this would change anyone's mind here. So
yeah, Another threat, Impending Doom. The only difference
is that it is NOT what I desire, but what you are fulfilling- despite any of my attempts otherwise. So be it-
can we end this Thread now? I will volunteer to be a pole
bearer at the Funeral, if that will make anyone happy.
I kind of liked High Resolution, I am going to miss it-
Thank-you kindly for helping to preserve it. Wish that I
could LOL, really sad day for Audio. What else needs to be said??? How about "Have we learned anything yet?", the
third time around? Guess not!

PO,

In answer to "not a word in your response to music sampling rate of these files".

There seems to be little point in going into detail with you as you never seem to grasp the basics. In good faith I shall try again...

Most studio hardware is capable of 24 bit 192k. Some can go higher but not many. At some point in the production process this sample rate gets dithered down usually for your lovely "old" formats you seem so fond of. I.e stereo 44.1k 16 bit for redbook CD.

It would make little difference to the mastering guys or the artist to just upload the file at the native sample rate (the rate it was recorded at).

As I have mentioned about 100 times to you, now that you are downloading the files and playing from HD, as opposed to buying CDs or SACDs etc, the limit is down to the files original native sample rate.

There is little or no reason for high resolution files to cost much more, other than the time taken to store and download the master. Its only an export spec option out of the recording software. This is where you can choose the final outputted sample rate for the making of CDs etc. So the mastering engineer or whomever could leave it native if anyone wanted. It would take no extra process or extra time.

Please remember well recorded crap or high rez crap is still crap. It's the music that matters! Don't get too concerned about the resolution. Think of it as a bonus.

I think we should continue this thread until you grasp the original point of it.

In case you have forgotten "should sound quality of computer audio be improved?" My answer is it is improved already and will continue to improve. Now we are not slaves to robbers who want $20k for a disk reader which can only read 44.1k/16 or if we are lucky DSD. A computer treated correctly can do all that and more as long as you have a decent DAC. Fine tune software for peanuts and spend the money saved on music. Not on a guy who clads an old Philips transport in a billet of aluminium.

I could continue this thread for years. How about you PO? I hope I am being clear enough to not have to explain for years. Anymore questions?

Good points yet again Chadeffect - which will come to no avail. When in doubt, refer to the original question in the thread - "should sound quality of computer audio be improved"? The answer is actually quite simple - YES!! Sound quality of every format should be improved. All the other crap Petty has carried on in this thread is merely smoke and mirrors distracting from this focus.

But once again he has let me down! He PROMISED - oops, I mean THREATENED - to end this thread - yet there he is posting the same old thing.

Please, Petty...I implore you...PLEASE finally follow through with your threat. You made your point 2 pages ago, are not listening to a word we say, and are completely obfuscating your own tired arguments. Please give it a rest - please follow through on your own THREAT once and for all!

I expect that we have heard the last of you. Thanks for dropping by - it was fun while it lasted!

Petty reminds me of my ex wife

Bless your tortured soul Tim !!!!!