Interesting article on NPR

Mark, yes, it was interesting. The comment by Bob Ludwig was absurd, though: a difference that could be clearly heard on the built-in computer speakers was the result of some very significant difference in the mixing or mastering which had been applied and had nothing to do with digital compression or the original sampling rate or bit-depth.

I would be pretty much in agreement with the three comments posted after the article by Dexter Morgan. The problem with the sound quality of much of what I term "popcrap" isn't due to digital compression(CDs aren't digitally compressed), but rather volume compression in which nearly all of the "music" is almost uniformly as loud as possible.

How much of a difference is there between CD and HD/Blu ray sound quality?

I have read some people go on and on about the new HD content, do you guys think the fanatism about it is justified?

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Bob+Ludwig

If I got a chance to talk with Bob, I would sit down and pay very careful attention to what he told me about recording and mastering.

Alex, if you didn't study the blind listening tests published in Home Entertainment magazine, which have been mentioned here a few times, here's the article . These are very subtle differences at best among the various compressed formats compared, and keep in mind that CDs aren't digitally compressed and use the uncompressed PCM format which set the standard for the comparisons. The care taken in the original recording and the mixing/mastering then applied to it is what controls, not the final format in which it's being listened to(noting the obvious difference which would exist between a stereo and multi-channel recording).

John, no.. I had not read that article.. I have been "buying" music, instead of "obtaining" music.. And wanted to know if there was a quantifiable difference between blu ray and traditional CD's....