Blu-CD or SACD? (not the new Blu-spec CD, discussing profile 3.0 BD vs. SACD)

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

....riiight.

Recording Engineer & Producer... where we discuss the nuts and bolts of making records better, not just louder and cheaper. Assembled here you will find some of the brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio.

....please try to sell your point. Feel free to debate it.


"Recording Engineer & Producer"....I think these people know a little something about the audio industry...look at the credentials ....noobs they are not!

...but thanks for your oppinion...backed up by nothing.

Here we go, arguing about 192 vs 96. I don't have a point, I just don't believe in your point. There's no way I'm ever going to believe that 192KHz is not better than 96KHz. If you believe there is no difference between the two, there's something wrong.

Anyway I could slap another person's long personal post from another forum but I don't tend to do that (the whole world if high end audio is very subjective isn't it) and the point of this thread was another issue. Thanks for your opinion anyway.

Besides 192KHz is not exactly a selling point. Most receivers that have 96KHz also have 192KHz. Um, it's just kind of standard. And the only reason they didn't include 192KHz surround on DVD-Audio, was because it went over the maximum bitrate that DVD could handle (9.6Mbps).

Aaaaaaaaanywaaaaaaay......