Julf wrote: > Good point. And the point I was hinting at is that the current "hi-res" > download services are a great big double blind test. How many golden > ears have actually reported cases of upsampling or "fake hi-res" based > on actually hearing a difference (as opposed to "Audacity Cowboys" > detecting the upsampling by analysis)? This reminds me of the alleged flaw in Meyer and Moran that some of the "favourite sacds" were actually upsampled red book. Ok so hirez may actually be distinguishable from 16/44 because some of the files which were thought to be hirez, but were actually indistinguishable from 16/44 were actually 16/44 but no one noticed at the time. And why weren;t they noticed to be upsampled 16/44?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105413 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
