Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

PO I think you spent too much time on the quarterdeck with rum rations!

No one is denying you any format. But what I am saying is each format has a master which is a computer file (probably a WAV file)which they make disk format from. I.e CD/SACD/Blue Ray/DVDA etc. So why bother with the disk medium? why not just take the master file instead?

Don't you see? It's not a case of limiting your choice. You have the same music at the same sample rates available on all your preferred formats. It's the same thing. Understand? This IS the point! The file makes your preferred format.

This is why at some point the physical disk becomes unnessassary. You have the file that made it any way!

Again I repeat myself. I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. Sample rates do make a difference. But(!) once you get to 192k and above other issues step in. And the difference at really high sample rates (way above CD quality) is a bonus, not the reason to buy it. The recording quality is far more important.

If you don't believe me regarding really high sample rates we can do an experiment. I could send you a short recording of the same thing recorded at different very high sample rates and see how much different they sound between lets say 24/96 and upwards to 24/192. Something real simple like an acoustic guitar miked up with a very nice mic and mic preamp straight into a AD DA interface.

Unfortunately I cannot record easily above 192k and I doubt you will be able to playback a file higher without technical problems yourself. Hopefully then you will understand.

I think timlub hit the nail on the head - Petty give the impression of arguing for the sake of arguing. What's that that someone said on an earlier page about reminding him of an ex-wife...?

You are suggesting that Joe the Plummer [sic] can do better Remastering in his garage, on his laptop?

Is PO confusing file conversion with mastering? That could be part of the problem.

I can't believe I am about to give PO some ammunition, but I have to tell it as it is. Deep breath...

PO, your post to Timlub 07-20-12 raises a few points (sorry everyone else!)

If you downloaded the identical file the mastering guy used. I.e the raw recorded file, then yes you could remaster on your laptop yourself. Now whether you have the ears, talent, skill, decent monitoring, and the right software to do a good job is another question. Some of the software is very intuitive and extremely powerful.

Only if you had a dithered down or bad low res copy would you immediately struggle with the quality. Crap in crap out for sure. You could not do it with a low res mp3 to a high standard. But if you were good you could make it sound better than the mp3! There is some amazing software out there to repair and manipulate sound.

As you go on in that post to Timlub though you do start to lose the plot. Or at least I lost the will to live. You are struggling with some dull windows issues which with a small amount of effort will go away. About a million posts ago I tried to help with that. So don't let that color your judgement. You not being able to set up your own computer is no reason to put down all technology. If my tracking was out on my TT would I blame vinyl for being crap?

Chadeffect- here is the reason for the Disk. Say you have
a Surround Sound Mix of Dianna Krall-"The Look Of Love".
Say you have one copy processed in Advanced Resolution
Surround Sound 24/96 Multi-channel Meridian Loss-less
packing.
Say you have another copy available as a two Channel WAV Download Music File (16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192). Wait!
The 24/96, 24/192 Versions are not available yet due to
limited selection of High Resolution Downloads. You say
it doesn't matter, toss the MLP Disk production, Download the 16/44.1, and wait until 24/96-24/192 versions become
available as Downloads. This maybe a hypothetical proposition, but it cuts across many High Resolution Disks
vs "not available for prime time yet" High Res. Download
of the same Release. How is a Two Channel 16/44.1 WAV
Download File a step up in sound quality from a High Res.
Multi-Channel MLP Disk? This is your "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". I say "Hold
on just a cotton picking minute here". Not until you have
adequate High Res. Download Release content to match the
quality of existing MLP, SACD, DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24,
K2 HD CD, Blue-Ray Audio Disks. 16/44.1 WAV Music Downloads only thing available to replace specific Releases on these Disk Formats? Atleast until we have to
wait for 24/96-24/192 Download Releases of our favorite Music to become available in High Res. again- for the
second time around? How long are we supposed to wait for our Music- 2 years, 10 years, 20 years? You can't say the
Recording Quality is separate from the Sampling
Rate, when the Sampling Rate of all New Music Digitally
Recorded has a direct corellation with sound quality.
You want us to go back to the "16/44.1" Digitally Recorded
Music of the 1980's, and how it was Digitally Recorded? This is your "Sampling Rate makes no difference", as you try to sell Higher Sampling Rate High Res. Downloads on the
Internet? Kind of absurd, don't you think? I am going to need a whole Barrel of Rum to swallow this "Whale of a Fish
Story! If you are Digitally Recording at a higher Sampling
Rate- this captures more of the acoustical event. Higher
Sampling Rate IS the Recording Quality, they are not separate entities. Again, no guarantees of High Sound
Quality; but, a little harder to do without.
I don't preach to you to not buy the 24/96-24/192
Music File Downloads off of HDTracks. I don't try to limit
selection with 16/44.1 Download Market with High Res. Selection waiting in the wings. Don't try to preach the elimination of my High Resolution, and I will listen to it. I will also listen to yours, but not stepping down to 16/44.1. Been there, done that for thirty years- don't tell me it doesn't make any difference! Naaahhh- what else have you got?