Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

Bless your tortured soul Tim !!!!!

This thread is like my wife's people magazine. You know it is plain stupid, but when it is right in front of you, you sometimes can't help opening up a copy to check on the status of Tom Cruise's divorce.

They still sell cheapo record players at Target for about $100.

Should those be improved? Or should those who can afford better just look elsewhere?

Do you tend to think red or blue on such things?

Same with computer audio. There is some really bad lots of mediocre and some very good! Something for everyone!

So many distortions, so little time. I will save the response to personnal attacks, Chadeffect, and go to the
heart of the matter. Recording Studios ARE using a higher
Sampling Rate TO RECORD. A higher sampling rate than even
DSD. The cost of this (Software, with mixing capability
for many multi-channels) is NOT something that you can just
whip up on a small laptop. It is not inexpensive- must you
always think small (Oooops! my bust). Some of the "Lovely
Old Formats" that I am fond of happen to be Meridian Lossless Packing Multi-Channel 24/96, 24/192 Disks. Also
SACD Disks, and I hear that Blue-Ray Audio Disks don't
sound too shabby either. High Resolution Files DO cost alot
more to MIX and MASTER using higher than DSD Multi-Channel
Format. Remastering isn't cheap either! Convenient for you
to be selective in only refering to just storing, and
Downloading the Final Master. Not one word about the
Mastering process itself- the biggest cost! Every word in
your response is a complete distortion- I call that a little more than a grasp!
Hfisher- more distortions! Your own response on 06-19-12
"Wow, Thread Resurrected.....! Are you rewriting history?
I was DONE with this Thread until one of you clowns dug it
back up. I have been trying to bury it again, except you clowns keep on coming up with a new whole set of distortions!
Mapman- you are harping about Record Players, and I don't
even own one! I would be happy with SACD, MLP, XRCD, and
even High Res. Downloads.
You guys can't even shoot straight, no wonder High Res.
keeps failing over, and over again. Like I have said many
times before, if High Res. Downloads/Computer Audio falls flat on its face it will be because of you clowns!
"Please remember that well recorded crap, or High Res. crap
is still crap. It is the Music that matters". Wasn't I the one who claimed access to many Formats desirable so that
one can cherry pick the high quality sounding ones from the rest in each Format? I have been preaching "It is
the Music that Matters" more over limiting everyone to "Soon all New Music will ONLY be available as Downloads"! Obviously, you have finally got it!!! Please
don't be stupid in not realizing it. If everyone is finally through tripping over their own feet, I will make this my last response. Dog pile with a whole new set of
distorted responses- all bets are off! Ball is in your
corner if you never want to see me on this Thread again.
Do you guys just like digging up corpses so you can torture them? GROW UP!!!

PO,

I must protest! Distortions indeed.

Just so you know I spend most of my time in various recording studios. Some high and mighty and some not so high and mighty. I think you may underestimate some of the members here and what they do for a living.

The number of studios using higher than 192k is very very small. For a start most studios use protools for tracking. Look at their hardware specs.(192k)

So it costs lots more to record hi Rez does it? Have you seen the price of HDs recently?

Don't you understand that whatever SACD or whichever format you like, the music for it, if recent, was probably recorded in protools. If not then the other usual suspects like Steinberg Nuendo/cubase or Digital preformer or Logic etc.

Take a look at their specs too. They will only handle 192k. So where are all those recordings done at much higher rates? Trust me they are far and few between.

You may find some DSD recorders, but show me a normal piece of music recorded that way as a multitrack, not just as a transfer to stereo for mastering.

You are very mistaken. Please see the logic. The file you download is closer to the original studio master than ever before.

Come on PO, come back with something better.
But I must apologise for my rudeness in the earlier post. There was no need for it.