Andrew B.;260257 Wrote: > This is EXACTLY right! I feel like posting it every time someone gets > excited about high sample rates and ignores the fact that what is > really important is the bit depth, not the sample rate... >
Do you mean important as an end-user format, or as a recording/mastering format? Because if you meant the latter I'd agree, but as for the former... Meyer and Moran recently did a pretty thorough study of the audibility of SACD (24/96) versus CD (16/44.1). They took an SACD player, and either piped its output straight to a preamp (option A) or through an A->D->A chain at 16/44.1 resolution (option B). After about a year of running listening tests on multiple systems with many different listeners, no one could tell the difference between A and B (blind of course). You can read about in the JAES publication, or here: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=41824 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
