On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:53:17 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master.

that's because they *are* indistinguishable.

the differences are well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. cds
already reproduce *more* than what humans can hear.

Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

that's possible, but it's not a function of the format.

if the same remastering was also done for a cd version, then it would
sound the same as the sacd.

That was my point.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

that's a very simplistic view.

You have a better way to describe it in a single post? I didn't mean
that the middle is empty.

there can be a difference with crap and non-crap (i.e., 64kbps mp3
versus aiff or $2 headphones versus $200 headphones), but when the
differences are beyond what humans can hear, it's all in their heads.
dogs might enjoy the difference though.

Yes, when they are beyond what humans can hear they can't be heard.
Your point? What they can hear depends on the source material, the
reporuction system, and the person.

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?