garym wrote: > Noticed on another forum; this might have been posted here before, but > worth repeating: [edit: Mynb has had this reference in his signature for > a while; I thought the reference looked familiar] > > http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html > > a sample: > > "192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral > either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a > liability during playback."
But but but they're BIGGER and cost more so by every audiophile law in existence they HAVE TO be better! Example: HDTracks: Eric Johnson - Ah Via Musicom - Audiophile 192kHz/24bit $24.98 HDTracks: Eric Johnson - Ah Via Musicom - Audiophile 96kHz/24bit $17.98 Obviously the 192kHz is at least 39% better! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98044 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
