Re: [LAU] Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?

Thanks for this one. I had been looking for this type of more scientific information with tests about something I've personally been going a long for ages against the statement that "CD is technically crap", that is: do some bloody blind tests! Do you have the reference for this paper? I can't seem to find that exact report through google.

Point 2 makes me think of the fact that someone discovered [citation needed] that many so called CD "remasterings" of '70s and '80s records have actually been compressed (as in using an audio compressior), in turn creating a belief in 'nostalgia audiophiles' that "the vinyl sounded better than CD", were probably what is sounding better (despite noise and annoying clicks and crackle) is a better S/N ratio which was 'killed' (or at least strongly reduced) by the compressed ("remastered") version (and of course it wouldn't surprise me that "remastering" may also have involved some eq etc, but one should do a more scientific analysis).

Something else (not related directly to the topic and, again, I would be happy to learn if tests exists). One could argue that "some" noise could actually make a recording subjectively more pleasing/interesting due to the fact that we are immersed in a background noise in everyday life and that hearing some of that noise makes us feel more "reassured"... But I can see how I'm probably drifting a little too far here :)