Marsbar wrote:As for the 128k - it's what most people can readily access.
This has turned into a gratifying discussion. I want to reply to several points here, Man I feel like the gummint hiding stuff in an "omnibus Bill", but that's not the intent.
First, to David's point re: 128k stream: Yes, 128k is the best stream quality moist people can readily access. There's a typo there that I'm not going to correct.

If you offered a 320k stream, I'd try to use it, or upgrade my internet access til I could, if available. But, there enters the cost of content delivery bandwidth vs. perceived benefit and subscription support. 128k is the sweet spot for now. My comment about faerie-dust applied is intended as the highest compliment to the engineering decisions made at nythespirit.com regarding dynamic-range compression, and "sweetening" eq. It works. Most listeners of commercial music are dismayed when they hear true high dynamic range programme in a domestic environment, and it doesn't exist in most of our available source material anyway.
More Flash and the Pan just came on, so I'm smiling as I type.
Big Ears Teddy wrote:I've heard there are situations where a couple of inches can make all the difference, but I suspect the Carver/Monster Cable relationship was rooted in pure marketing bumph.
If you've heard of situations where a couple of inches can make all the difference, it had nothing to do with wire/cable connections in competently engineered audio equipment. Your observation about marketing bumph is 100% astute.
Big Ears Teddy wrote:Hmm... and what do you suppose is the frequency response of your aged ears? None of us can hear the highs any more anyway. Well, none of us who met David on CHUM-FM anyway. We are too old. There might be some whippersnappers around who can still hear 15K. It must be nice.
This old saw is well worn. I'm sure that a clinical hearing test would show serious loss of acuity in the upper registers of my hearing. I'm sure doctors/scientists would conclude that anything above 10k is a waste of time on me. Yet, when doing speaker design work, if I sub in different tweeters in a system, carefully level-matched in the main part of their range, I can still hear differences in the response in the 15k-30k region, especially peakiness anywhere in that range, and establish preferences with blind/ABX testing.
Further, the anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters, unless impeccably designed, will cause potentially audible phase errors a decade down from the cutoff frequency. Does a 96k sampling frequency mean I think I can "hear" differences at 48k? No. It just means that I think the phase errors caused by the filters in a 96k sampling system will be audibly negligible by the time you get down to 5K.
I don't believe that conventional hearing tests accurately indicate our ability to sense differences in frequency ranges beyond what we can supposedly perceive, by their standards.
A lot of beliefs here, eh? Mine are based on things that can be measured, even if measurements say I shouldn't be able to perceive them.
That aside, high-end cables are snake-oil, of the purest form. Resistance, Inductance, and capacitance can all be measured, and characterised in application.
Cheers