Mnyb wrote: > Other things to consider . > > HD tracks have a lot of 24/192 that actually are SACD rips ? what about > the ultrasonic grunge in those ? and how to classify that . > > More interesting why not use the intrinsic resolution in the recording > itself as a benchmark . > > Old analog 60's rock classic master 11bit 17khz yes with modern > dithering s/n ratio and bits are equivalent (for factual info about that > http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml ). then the buyer can decide for > himslef if more random noise is worth the extra $ . > > Real progress would be to have some pedigree of the master used ? so > that the situation with different masters for different "resolutions" > can be avoided .
Yup... All valid points and I wish we could just have straightforward information on pedigree. Like the SPARS code in the old days, it was all meant to be a simple designation. The Wiki notes both "Lack of detail" and "Implications of quality" as very valid criticisms as well. However, we're in the "wild west" in terms of hi-res currently and I think almost any "designation" would be better than nothing at this point even if it is an oversimplification! Dammit man, stop with the DSD crap, guys :-). So has anyone bought an actual DSD download yet?! 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=103091 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
