SoftwireEngineer wrote: > I have heard 16bit/44.1Khz that is as good as any other high-resolution. > I think it all depends on the mic'ing techniques and the equipment used > to record. To actually, compare low vs hi-res it is always good to > downsample the high-res to low-res and then compare (instead of using a > different low res recording). Usually, the high-res recordings are made > with more care, better equipment and that is where the improvement comes > from usually (my opinion). Quite likely beyond 24bit/48Khz there is any > improvement. If at all there is, it is probably due to implementation > reasons (the high-res bits taking a different path in the system than > the low res) vs actual improvement from real resolution changes.
Yep i've done a lot of that downsampled hirez ,but I've used modern 24/192 /96 recordings so that is reasonable possibility of it making a difference ,sorry even if I'm a fanboy of the DVDA format ( have hundreds ) no difference . A good master is good master , the reality is that in some cases a much better version/master can be sold under the hirez moniker. This is apparently a needed marketing gimmick as the record companies have destroyd " remastered " as a quality seal . Nowadays "remastered" usually means crap , they tried to make it sound modern with digital clipping and squashed dynamics etc the late 80's early 90's CDs's of some stuff is usually the best bet . Like a coincidence , if DVDA or SACD has a cd quality layer ,this layer always sounds worse than the hirez ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97950 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
