cliveb wrote: > IMHO he's regurgitated a number of dogmas loosely based on a distorted > understanding of the facts. > > And at the end he says he doesn't know why hi-res sounds better than CD, > when he has a trivial method of finding out. All he needs to do is take > one of his beloved hi-res files, whack it through a decent sample rate > converter (eg. SOX) to convert it to 16/44.1, and then ABX the two. > He'll find that he will be unable to tell the difference (at normal - or > indeed anything less than insane - listening levels). > > In a sense, this kind of audio journalism is more dangerous than the > sort written by the outright loonies, because it seems reasonable to the > rational but uninformed reader.
But, but, but... Neil Young said 24/192 was needed to "liberate" the music... And that we were going to be, like, hearing the music for the first time! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100892 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
