Dear Sonic Foundry, Having just installed a new 12x CD-RW drive, I discovered that CD Architect is no more. That's a real shame, and greatly frustrating, because it is truly the only program of its type out there (I've been searching now for about 48 hours for something comparable -- or even close -- with no luck). Numerous professionals rely upon your program because it is powerful and very easy and quick to use (like your other software). I am one such professional who has used CD Architect to create masters on about a dozen projects for paying clients over the last two years.

But since you have decided to abandon this wonderful product, please do not leave us hanging. You owe your loyal users a couple of things: 1) Create one last legacy upgrade which will ensure detection of and compatibility with MMC-compliant drives. This will allow many newly-introduced drives to be recognized and used without further development on your part. 2) Create an interface and/or publish specifications so that third parties (or manufacturers) may begin writing drivers for other new non-MMC writers as they become available.

3) Publish a detailed description of the CDP and/or CD Image file formats so that conversion utilities may be properly written by third parties to allow other burning software to utilize project files created by CD Architect. 4) In lieu of the above, provide detailed help in the FAQ on using CD Architect to create projects which can then be burned by other commercially-available burning software. Finally, if you are going to replace CD Architect in your product line with a new CD-creation tool (as hinted at in one message), announce it now and let us help beta-test it.

Dawn Of Fantasy Crack And Serial Keygen Plural Eyes ->>->>->>youcam 5 deluxe crack download hide my ip 5.2 crack file download registry. [url=cd architect 5 0 keygen music[/url]. Abvent builds up and makes available the Abvent Artlantis Studio 6.5.2.14 Crack, a group of unique applications created exclusively for architects and designers. Because of the built-in iVisit 3D technology, Artlantis Studio lets you create panoramas or perhaps VR objects. Driver Easy 5.1.3 Full License Key with Crack is.

You may save some customers that way. As you can tell from reading messages on this board, there is a devoted group of users who want to continue to use this product, and will do so by any means. And the number of those who become angry and frustrated with Sonic Foundry is only going to grow as more people replace 1x and 2x drives with 12x and 16x drives. It is in your best interest to satisfy the users you have orphaned.

Thank you for your consideration. Rick Prescott +. Rick, I'm not a Sonic Foundry employee, but I'll respond anyway. 1) CD Architect does support all new MMC compliant drives. However, not all manufacturers are truly MMC compliant. Even though they may say so.

2) A driver API or SDK? How will they pay for this? CD Architect was losing money (otherwise they wouldn't have dropped it). Sonic Foundry is losing money!! Doesn't anyone know this??

They are desperately trying to turn this around and putting scarce resources into unprofitable products won't help. I truly believe the people at Sonic Foundry love CD Architect. But their jobs are on the line. 3) The CDP is Sonic Foundry's intellectual property. Would someone be willing to pay for this?

What if they decide to come out with a new CD Architect type program, or add all of CD Architects functionality to a future product? Publishing the CDP would only support a competitor? What if they decide to sell CD Architect to someone like Adaptec?

Wouldn't releasing the CDP format lower the value of CD Architect to potential buyers? Molly, Good points all. In fact, I have since gotten my drive to work with CD-A by implementing the work-around I found on this board. (Luckily, my new drive did turn out to be fully MMC compliant as promised, and the CD-A generic drivers worked. To see how, go to: www.rixware.com/cdarchitect) But I think the original points stand, with perhaps one clarification drawn from your post.

CD-Architect is an amazing product which was, perhaps, poorly marketed. Selling it to another manufacturer would solve Sonic Foundry's problem (making money) and ours (burning CDs). If this is their intent, or if they plan to roll CD-A's feature set into another product, great! That solves our problem without releasing any proprietary information or going through any further development. In fact, publish the beta and I'll gladly help test it. But if they are NOT going to do this, and are planning to simply shelve the product (as they have indicated repeatedly), then they have nothing to lose and much to gain by making it possible for current users to keep using it. That's really the point of my original post.

It becomes a question of customer relations. Just look on this board to see how many people are frustrated and confused by this decision and are punishing Sonic Foundry by not buying the new products. And for every one that actually posts their dissatisfaction, there are probably a bunch more that make the same decision and say nothing. Sonic Foundry is a great company with great products (I also use Acid and Vegas). They shouldn't abandon the folks who have already paid for CD-A. And they definitely shouldn't orphan a product that so many people like and use, and would certainly pay money to upgrade.

I appreciate where you're coming from. I agree, Sonic Foundry shouldn't just let this program die. However, just a few points - You say CD Architect was poorly marketed.

I remember seeing ads for CD Architect in all the major MI magazines, it was promoted and sold to the same distribution channel as Sound Forge, ACID and now Vegas. What more could they do?

Especially when you see the sales numbers. CD Architect simply did not sell very well. Maybe it was priced too high, but it had a lot more functionality for mastering audio CDs than generic CD burning apps like Easy CD Creator or Nero. So I think it was worth more. I'm sort of bummed because I know how many of my fellow musicians are using warez copies of their software. It is a problem with musicians and artists -- a lot of people using free copies of Photoshop, Sound Forge, Cakewalk, etc., etc. I know a lot of people use free copies of general office applications, but their market is so large that it doesn't have as much impact on them.

But for companies like Sonic Foundry it's a big problem. They can't expand their market as easily -- there are only so many musicians that are willing to PAY for their software. So they have to expand into consumer markets or services for the masses (there media services efforts). Excellent points, Molly. Sonic Foundry certainly did promote CDA right up until last summer. I'm guessing it's exotic feature set was just too sophisticated for the general public (like me) to appreciate.

When I first started burning disks I used the free software bundled with my burner and made perfectly respectable disks. Being curious I bought CDA when it came out, installed it, stared at it, and closed it. I had bought it but it was beyond what I needed. About a year later, when I decided to learn how to do my own editing instead of paying someone else $100 an hour to do it, I finally began to appreciate--and need--CDA's features. CDA is/was a professional tool, the best of the best. I hope against hope that someone will rescue it and update it at some price. So, if I'm not using SF5.0, will CDA work for me, where can I purchase it, and, would someone tell me all about this exotic feature set?

My mind (yes, my mind) is salivating to know what features, other than simply burning the plastic, are included in this program that you are all so dedicated to it. Then, again, I drooled over the web pages describing VegasVideo, and finally purchased it. So, I would expect that SF would be consistent in making a CD burning program that is more appealing than other programs available. Thanks in advance for the info. Caruso, CDA's interface is very much like a single track version of Vegas in terms of editing. You can have multiple files on the time line (or a single file), and do volume envelopes, fades, crossfades, etc.

All similar to Vegas. And you have complete control of the position of track and index markers, unlike other software. Like Vegas, you can preview the results of your edits in real time and all the edits are non-destructive. The beauty of this is that it's super fast and all in one piece of software from edits to final burn. Without CDA it would take more steps and more software applications to achieve the same results -- and a lot more time. That is why CDA users are so upset that CDA is gone. I've been a loyal user of SF products since 1996, with a bundled version of XP, and have been using CDA since 1998, and have charted numerous times with it, including A #1 for harpist Lisa Lynne.

After waiting, IMHO, too many years for you to upgrade Sound Forge to 24-bit, you dispose of the the best CD authoring program ever, without any notice of it, and replace it with a joke. Perhaps Sonic Foundry has no concern for those of us who make our living as audio engineers, since you obviously make your money selling ACID to DJs. The least you could have done is allow those of us who have PAID for it to continue to use it as a plugin. I agree completely with Rixware, if you're not going to continue the product, at least TELL US about it, and release the file spec so that those of use who use it can continue to do so. Without Regards, faderboy. I am also a CDA user since day one and a Logic Platinum user on PC.

( I have SF 5.0 and ACID pro 2.0)I am extremely disappointed that SF did not continue this, it just leaves the door open to go look at other venders. Steinberg has something which will do great CD burning (I am told) but they have a competive product to Sound Forge.

I'm tempted to look at the whole bundle. I think that it would be wise for SF to offer the suite of products that will assist with our editing, mastering and finish the job with CD burning. Camps De Maduixes Llibre Pdf Converter. I will begin to bug the higher ups at SF. I will look at wave burner also, but it was nice that CDA launched right from SF.

By the way, did you really hear that SF may be offereing some upgrade in the near future? Actually Molly, if there's anyone who's behavior has been suspect, it's you. Why so defensive? Worried about your stock price? Sonic Foundry screwed their users bigtime when they dropped CD Architect support from SF5. They could just as easily have allowed the current version of CDA to run in SF5, but they chose to do us dry instead. The product that I'm going to use from now on, and that I recommend to all CDA users is Steinberg's GetItOnCD 2.0.

Read about it at Steinberg.net. Just because I recommend other products doesn't mean I work for Steinberg.

I'm just pissed at the latest of Sonic Foundry's bad moves. (Going public is always the beginning of the end for a good company) And since it was a huge problem for me to figure out how to replace CDA, I figured I'd help some of my comrades by passing on the info. I'm not a stock holder. You have an interesting bias, though. Many speak about how Sonic Foundry has screwed them.

That they have an obligation to support them, etc. Where does this come from? Like any business, Sonic Foundry has to make money to survive. This means, they have to generate more revenue than they spend. If the costs of a product are higher than the revenue it generates, there is a problem. These costs include development costs for new updates (drivers, etc.), technical support, etc. I'm just speculating, but maybe, CD Architect falls into that category.

It just doesn't generate very much revenue. Would you be willing to pay a lot more for it, so that it would at least break even?

I really wish they would continue support for CD Architect. I would prefer to see a version that is not tied to Sound Forge. A stand-alone version that could work with any editor would be great. Your bias is at least as interesting as his.

You are correct that a company is not obligated in any way towards its customers beyond any contractual obligations created by the initial purchase of the software. By this same token, we are not obligated to continue to purchase their products nor recommend them to others.

So does Sonic Foundry deserve the flack their getting? Maybe, maybe not.

Doesn't matter and here's why: The discontinuation of product that we use will force us to invest additional time and money in another product. Most people dislike learning new software, and it takes time. And to use the most business-like phrase around, 'time is money'. So the discontinuation is literally costing us money. So if a company is going to abruptly discontinue a product for financial reasons and force its users to likely incur a finincial loss because of it, the customers would have to be idiots not to take that into account in their future dealings with that company, and not let the company know of their displeasure, lest they do it again.

And most companies count on customer loyalty to move their products. Upgrades, new products, etc. Rely on sales forecasts that include 'loyal customers' desiring to upgrade or buy new products based on a previous relationship with the company. Don't expect customers to be loyal if you're not going to show them the same.

And it's likely we could count on one hand the number of small companies that succeed without customer loyalty. And yes, I would be willing to pay more for a product that continued to surpass what was available elsewhere, like CD Architect did, and didn't force me to waste time learning new software. But I wasn't given that option. Hex 'Deserves ain't got nothing to do with it' -Clint Eastwood in _Unforgiven_.

I guess what confuses me about dropping CD Architect is that right after Sonic Foundry did this they started supporting TAO recording with ACID and now with Sound Forge 5. So if Sonic Foundry can support newer CDR drives with these apps, then why not with CD Architect? If Sonic Foundry didn't make enough money with CD Architect, then maybe dropping the price down (to $99 for example) would help sell it. I certainly would assume that they would sell a billion copies of it if it were in the same price range as Easy CD Creator Pro.

Up until now, I have never been able to fork out enough money for CD Architect, but I recently picked up a Microboards bundle with a burner, SCSI card, and CD Architect for $90 on e-Bay, so I'll finally be able to use it on my own machine. But I can guarantee you that had Sonic Foundry sold CD Architect for less than $300 that just about every musician would have bought it by now.

Not that I agree with people using cracked copies because they can't afford to buy the software, but unfortunately, most people expect to pay very little money for software these days. IMO, Sonic Foundry did a great thing when they sold Sound Forge 5 for only $100.

Selling large quantities of software for less is unfortunately the only way that most software companies can stay in business these days.

Click to expand.Jim, I have Sony DVD Architect Pro 5.2 and DVD Architect Pro 6 mounted. Though I don't think I can find time much before Monday, maybe I can take a crack at helping you. In the meantime, if you can give me some specifics. - Exactly what version of DVD Architect are you running? - Are you trying to autorun a single file, a chain of files, or maybe some other configuration? - Is the (leadoff) file High Def, or maybe DVD definition.or is it a pure audio file? - If pure audio, maybe resolution and bit depth don't matter much, but I'd still appreciate particulars.

- Does the 'auto track playback' imply you are running with no top level menu? - Anything else you'd like to add? Now I'm no Pro when it comes to DVD Architect, in fact I consider it rather a bear to get it to do what I want. Truthfully, I've had to sometimes reduce my wants. But I don't mind challenges, and I'm in all this to learn what I can.so just maybe I can get you the answer you need. I'll see if I can construct a case parallel to yours.

Jim, I have Sony DVD Architect Pro 5.2 and DVD Architect Pro 6 mounted. Though I don't think I can find time much before Monday, maybe I can take a crack at helping you. In the meantime, if you can give me some specifics.

- Exactly what version of DVD Architect are you running? - Are you trying to autorun a single file, a chain of files, or maybe some other configuration? - Is the (leadoff) file High Def, or maybe DVD definition.or is it a pure audio file? - If pure audio, maybe resolution and bit depth don't matter much, but I'd still appreciate particulars. - Does the 'auto track playback' imply you are running with no top level menu? - Anything else you'd like to add? Kurban Said Ali And Nino Pdf Editor.

Now I'm no Pro when it comes to DVD Architect, in fact I consider it rather a bear to get it to do what I want. Truthfully, I've had to sometimes reduce my wants. But I don't mind challenges, and I'm in all this to learn what I can.so just maybe I can get you the answer you need. I'll see if I can construct a case parallel to yours. Click to expand.---------------------- I have the $39 version that is the newest 5.0, build 178. I never had a problem with all my tracks of 2496 wav files playing in sequence before with the older build. I take my files from the left hand top Menu box and click on the tab in the lower right box playlist box.

Across the bottom are tabs that read timeline, playlist, and compilation. At the top corner of that box is has tabs for 'Insert Playlist';: 'Delete Playlist'; or 'Insert Playlist Items'. Once I have Inserted my playlist from a new pop up box I can select all and hit OK and they are added. In the top right corner a new box opens up as 'Playlist Properties' and it shows play mode' 'sequential' as the default. There must be some 'flag' missing that is not allowing the tracks to play in sequence that it never did before in the old build.

They sent me a download to the old build, but that did not fix it as the old version was now doing the same thing. In that top right tab, in the end action tab at the top I can choose Link or stop. In the Destination Item I can only choose one of the tracks individually, but the Destination Button I have no options.

These are the things Sony told me to check on, link is there. If I hit the Make DVD tab, a window opens; Review Message List and it states that, 'Play List one is orphaned and not reachable'.

Below that: 'One or more menu links overlap in Menu 1'. I am at a loss as I have done everything that Sony has told me to do. Thanks for your help. Click to expand. Great article, but he lost me at the 'double blind is the gold standard'. Double blind is ok IF THE LISTENER CONTROLS THE SELECTION. Switching back and forth randomly between two sources totally OBSCURES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

The ear/brain just does not do the 'switching' thing well. If I can say, 'put this song on for five minutes', then 'play it again', then 'ok, play the other version' then I can tell you if I can hear a difference. But me sitting while someone else clicks a little switch and says 'this is a', 'this is b', 'this is a', that's a complete joke and that's how 99% of 'double blind' tests are done.

Funny, this bad process gives a 'selection bias', in other words the 'double blind' proponents LIKE THE PROCESS THAT REWARDS THEIR EXPECTATIONS. They think people can't hear things and use a process that guarantees PEOPLE CAN'T HEAR THINGS. Click to expand.Okay, Jim, I think I can get you there. (Note that I am most certainly covering many things you already know, but I'm trying to write something fairly comprehensive. No slight on your knowledge is intended whatsoever.) I used DVD Architect Pro 5.2 (included as part of slightly older Sony Vegas Pro versions) since I thought that would probably be most similar to the DVD Architect Studio 5.0 you are using. I located and downloaded the manual for your DVD Architect and the screen layouts look like mine. Perhaps the only significant difference is that I can also author Blu-ray discs.

Vegas Pro can edit HD video, the reason I first purchased it, so it makes sense that the included DVD Architect version can also author Blu-ray discs. Anyway, I found your directions very useful. I set up four 24/96 wave files, and I was able to define a playlist in DVD Architect just as you described. Okay, here are the things I can add to the description you passed on. (Oh, right now I'm using my Oppo 93 to listen to the autoplay DVD I built.

The remote's 'display' button shows it is in fact 24/96 audio that's playing.) The first thing is the selection bar that appears immediately above DVD Architect's central display window.the first page of the manual's 'Chapter 2' shows it with the text 'Cable car turnaround on it'. Now you may know about this bar, but since you didn't specifically mention it, I'll outline the way I found to use it. DVD Architect is a menu building system, and there's an implicit menu involved even in a case where you want nothing more than to have it build a DVD that will automatically play a sequence of audio files from start track to end track.and then stop and just sit there.

If you don't explicitly define and build a top level menu, you get 'Menu 1'. 'Menu 1' automatically includes text and button spaces for each element in the play list, but for your purpose nothing on-screen for 'Menu 1' needs to be defined at all. Nevertheless, for the 'End Action' button under 'Menu Page Properties' on the far right, you might as well set 'Command' to 'Hold' so should the menu page be reached (it shouldn't be), the player will just sit there. But the 'Menu 1' selection bar also allows you to set up actions for each item in the playlist, and this is important stuff. Let's say you have four audio files you are including, and for the example they are named 'audio1', 'audio2', 'audio3', and 'audio4'.

If you click on the downward pointing triangle on the far right of the 'Menu 1' bar, it should pop down and show the names of each of the four audio files. Select 'audio1'. The only useful button on the far right under what is now labeled 'Media Properties' is the 'End Action' button. For 'audio1', the 'End Action' 'Command' should be set to 'Link'and the 'Destination' should be set to 'audio2'.the other items can be their default values of 'No change'. (You have just set things so what happens at the end of 'audio1' is that the menu system will link playback to 'audio2'.) Then click on the upward pointing triangle just to the right of the 'audio1' selection bar and you'll be taken back to 'Menu 1' so you can now select 'audio2' on it. Once 'audio2' is selected, you can again set 'End Audio' to 'Link', but this time set 'Destination to 'audio3'.

Go to 'audio3' now and carry out the same type actions. Finally, use the selection bar to go to 'audio4', but this time set the 'End Action' button 'Command' value to 'Stop'. This is assuming you want the disc to play through once then stop. You've now defined the basic playback structure of the disc. Starting with 'audio1', each track links to the next track once it completes, then when the last track completes everything comes to a stop. We're just about to get to the autoplay part, but before that, you might go to the lower 'Playlist 1' window and click on each of the audio files in turn. When one of them is selected, say 'audio3' as an example, go to the right hand 'Playlist Properties' window and under the 'Playlist Item' button set 'Set audio track' to '3'.

Now the one thing I've completely failed to do is have the Oppo display the actual track number when a given selection is playing. '1' always shows for each track. Using the 'Set audio track' may work on some systems, I don't know. Okay, let's do the autoplay. In the left hand top menu box, the audio files will be listed, as you know. Right button mouse click on '1:audio1', in our example, and using the pop-up set it to 'Navigate Into'.

(You'll probably notice that the top 'Menu 1' bar also now takes on the 'audio1' setting and the right hand 'Media Properties' takes on the corresponding setting as well. This is another way to navigate to each playlist item.) Once more, right mouse click on '1:audio1', but this time on the pop-up select 'Set Start Item'. You should now see that '1:audio1' has taken on a small purple-surrounded star. You've now told the implicit menu system that it shouldn't start at the top menu page (which has been left undefined anyway), things should be kicked off at 'audio1'.

Now it's burn time. When you do the 'Make DVD' tab, you'll see all the messages you saw before, and maybe more. These are warnings, not errors, and they are essentially telling you that you did a poor job of building the menu.the menu that serves no purpose for what you wish to do. There are menu buttons overlapping each other, nothing in the menu connects to your playlist--just ignore all that and continue with the DVD burn process. I think you can take things from there. Click to expand.---------------------- I am not getting that nutty about this.

My personal comparisons of my own recordings are easy to do. I do three set ups of my concert recordings with 3 pairs of mics. Two are ORTF at redbook and 2496 and a third 2496 in spaced omni's.

We all know mastering does make a huge difference and that is why when the conversation about Diana Krall's Love Scenes that was started interested me. I was not going to buy the 2004 SACD, but wait for the availability of the SHM SACD version to hit Amazon. Or one could take the Original Norah Jones CD that was the master for her first SACD and compare that, it that is the kind of science project one might want. Their slight of hand was soon discovered. I don't understand how some say they can't hear the difference, as even with my ancient ears, I can easily do it even to just 2496.

I am not getting that nutty about this. My personal comparisons of my own recordings are easy to do. I do three set ups of my concert recordings with 3 pairs of mics. Two are ORTF at redbook and 2496 and a third 2496 in spaced omni's. We all know mastering does make a huge difference and that is why when the conversation about Diana Krall's Love Scenes that was started interested me.

I was not going to buy the 2004 SACD, but wait for the availability of the SHM SACD version to hit Amazon. Or one could take the Original Norah Jones CD that was the master for her first SACD and compare that, it that is the kind of science project one might want.

Their slight of hand was soon discovered. I don't understand how some say they can't hear the difference, as even with my ancient ears, I can easily do it even to just 2496. I am not getting that nutty about this.

My personal comparisons of my own recordings are easy to do. I do three set ups of my concert recordings with 3 pairs of mics. Two are ORTF at redbook and 2496 and a third 2496 in spaced omni's. Or one could take the Original Norah Jones CD that was the master for her first SACD and compare that, it that is the kind of science project one might want. Their slight of hand was soon discovered. I don't understand how some say they can't hear the difference, as even with my ancient ears, I can easily do it even to just 2496. Click to expand.Your comparing different technologies.

SACD and CD are totally different, so not a single setting in your player will be identical. It's obvious that your hear differences. The only way to compare it, is to resampling every thing to the same sample rate, and compare blindly.

So take a 192 KHz recording, downsample to 48 and 96KHz. Upsample the 48 KHz recording again to 96KHz.

And then compare both versions of the 96KHz recording. And do this via a randomized and double blind test.

I'm pretty sure you won't hear any differences anymore! Your comparing different technologies. SACD and CD are totally different, so not a single setting in your player will be identical. It's obvious that your hear differences. The only way to compare it, is to resampling every thing to the same sample rate, and compare blindly. So take a 192 KHz recording, downsample to 48 and 96KHz.

Upsample the 48 KHz recording again to 96KHz. And then compare both versions of the 96KHz recording.

And do this via a randomized and double blind test. I'm pretty sure you won't hear any differences anymore!

I think all these '192 Khz stuff' is about threshold, space, having a limit well beyond human hearing and available analog equipment (analog master tapes, microphones, mic amps and analog mixing boards.), something that surpasses them (theoretically) all. It's like driving in a motorway, it's not same driving a Chevrolet Spark, which can get to 70 mph, than an Honda Civic, or a Mercedes SLS AMG, they all can get to 70 mph, but the Spark is pushing or next to pusing its limits, the Civic is underusing its engine and the Mercedes, well, with the the Mercedes you know you have almost unlimited threshold to do what you want and drive like you like and laws let you, but the potential is there just in case is needed, and with a regular 70 mph use the engine is not near to be stressed, that is what 192 Khz in my opinion is about. I think what confuses me, is that all the potential benefits of going beyond 16/44, im pretty sure I understand them somewhat at least. The benefits that many claim to hear, never seem to be related to what is different about 'Higher resolution'. At least in the way most describe what they think is better sounding or different, doesnt relate to actual things that would benefit as far as actual built in 'improvements' going from 16/44 to something Higher res. In other words, Ive not seen much to convince me that what is changed in so called 'Hi Res', actually makes an audible improvement.

Im not saying its not better per se, but based on typical human male hearing, and typical most pop/rock recordings, the claimed benefits either wont be heard, will never be put to actual use, or will actually create other issues, that arent even being addressed.. Such as increased intermodulation distortion, when really high frequencies are present, and the issues of really high frequencies, possibly not even being reproduced by many or most systems, the potential advantages seem to be unrelated to extended response and increased dymanic range. Just saying.. I think what confuses me, is that all the potential benefits of going beyond 16/44, im pretty sure I understand them somewhat at least. The benefits that many claim to hear, never seem to be related to what is different about 'Higher resolution'.

At least in the way most describe what they think is better sounding or different, doesnt relate to actual things that would benefit as far as actual built in 'improvements' going from 16/44 to something Higher res. In other words, Ive not seen much to convince me that what is changed in so called 'Hi Res', actually makes an audible improvement.

Im not saying its not better per se, but based on typical human male hearing, and typical most pop/rock recordings, the claimed benefits either wont be heard, will never be put to actual use, or will actually create other issues, that arent even being addressed.. Such as increased intermodulation distortion, when really high frequencies are present, and the issues of really high frequencies, possibly not even being reproduced by many or most systems, the potential advantages seem to be unrelated to extended response and increased dymanic range. Just saying.. Click to expand.I agree in theory. The question is whether we are going to allow theory to dictate what we will allow ourselves to distinguish.

As discussed a few posts back, I think the double blind testing with the signal switching back and forth from A to B seems like a very disagreeable kind of test to me. When I was testing high bitrate MP3 (which some claimed was transparent) versus the mother WAV file, I would play the song twice, one would be MP3 and one would be WAV, but I didn't know which. If there was doubt, I might go to one file and play a section, then go to the second file and play the same section. Doing it this way, I was pretty accurate in distinguishing between the 'totally transparent' MP3 and the uncompressed original. So if any of you want to 'try this at home' testing 44.1 versus 96 or 192, I believe this method of sequentially playing the two tracks with different sample rates is superior. If you can reliably distinguish between the two, then this effect is real, no matter what your theory may say.

This is the essence of science. If reality invalidates hypothesis, throw it out. Back to the drawing board.

Or, as an alternative, just don't worry your head, sit back and enjoy the benefits of a higher sample rate. I agree in theory. The question is whether we are going to allow theory to dictate what we will allow ourselves to distinguish. As discussed a few posts back, I think the double blind testing with the signal switching back and forth from A to B seems like a very disagreeable kind of test to me. When I was testing high bitrate MP3 (which some claimed was transparent) versus the mother WAV file, I would play the song twice, one would be MP3 and one would be WAV, but I didn't know which. If there was doubt, I might go to one file and play a section, then go to the second file and play the same section.

Doing it this way, I was pretty accurate in distinguishing between the 'totally transparent' MP3 and the uncompressed original. So if any of you want to 'try this at home' testing 44.1 versus 96 or 192, I believe this method of sequentially playing the two tracks with different sample rates is superior. If you can reliably distinguish between the two, then this effect is real, no matter what your theory may say. This is the essence of science. If reality invalidates hypothesis, throw it out. Back to the drawing board.

Or, as an alternative, just don't worry your head, sit back and enjoy the benefits of a higher sample rate. Click to expand.Because it is a chore.

It's an unnatural act. Why would anyone do this, unless they were trying to prove, or disprove a point? Music is about enjoyment, not about nailing down the specific merits of recording technologies. Then, it becomes work. If it really does become hard to tell, then I'd say the differences are small. Then you have to determine how much value you place on those small differences. That's a value judgment that no test can ever nail down.

It's personal. If you value those subtleties, then the small difference become subjectively large. I personally am not sold on the use of high sample rates. I don't have much experience with them. But I'm not going to let theory stand in the way of making my own judgment -- with my ears. If the ears contradict someone's theoretical assumption about what is or isn't audible, guess which judgment I am going to throw out. I think all these '192 Khz stuff' is about threshold, space, having a limit well beyond human hearing and available analog equipment (analog master tapes, microphones, mic amps and analog mixing boards.), something that surpasses them (theoretically) all.

It's like driving in a motorway, it's not same driving a Chevrolet Spark, which can get to 70 mph, than an Honda Civic, or a Mercedes SLS AMG, they all can get to 70 mph, but the Spark is pushing or next to pusing its limits, the Civic is underusing its engine and the Mercedes, well, with the the Mercedes you know you have almost unlimited threshold to do what you want and drive like you like and laws let you, but the potential is there just in case is needed, and with a regular 70 mph use the engine is not near to be stressed, that is what 192 Khz in my opinion is about. Click to expand.This all very vague. The fact is that analogue systems do not theoretically surpass digital at all. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, if you have a signal that is band-limited to 22.05 kHz, sampling it at 44.1 kHz mathematically captures the signal exactly.

It is only the quantisation that creates noise. However, 16 bits of quantisation provides far more dynamic range than even the best analogue systems, particularly if dither is used, so the argument is that any more bits are a waste of time (except during recording and mixing of course). The only real suggestions in this thread for reasons this might not be the case in practice were implementations in DACs and anti-aliasing filters not being perfect (although I haven't read the last few pages). I think all these '192 Khz stuff' is about threshold, space, having a limit well beyond human hearing and available analog equipment (analog master tapes, microphones, mic amps and analog mixing boards.), something that surpasses them (theoretically) all. It's like driving in a motorway, it's not same driving a Chevrolet Spark, which can get to 70 mph, than an Honda Civic, or a Mercedes SLS AMG, they all can get to 70 mph, but the Spark is pushing or next to pusing its limits, the Civic is underusing its engine and the Mercedes, well, with the the Mercedes you know you have almost unlimited threshold to do what you want and drive like you like and laws let you, but the potential is there just in case is needed, and with a regular 70 mph use the engine is not near to be stressed, that is what 192 Khz in my opinion is about.

Click to expand. To use your analogy, I'd like my music recorded like A F1 car on the best race track. If you have to dumb it down from there then so be it but let's use the best possible recording from the start. There are several good reasons for this: • We don't know what playback technology and advances are going to be available in the future. CD and hirez playback has made leaps and bounds improvement in just the last 5 years. What limitations will be revealed by such mid-rez nonsense as 24/44 or 24/48 by then?

• It's always easier to downrez from a source than upsampling to make guesses. • Technology exists now for recording all sorts of high quality sound using ribbon mics or modded condensers to great recording boxes from Korg to Sound Devices to Sonoma workstations. I may have only moved up from a Civic to a Porsche Boxster in terms of playback technology but I still want my source material to come from technology equivalent to a Lamborghini Aventador.