firedog;619600 Wrote: > From a thread on another forum designed to show the differences between > standard CD quality and hi-res recordings (same recording at different > sampling rates and bit depth). > > To my ears, the differences are clearly there, just as described. If > you can't discern them, then either your system isn't up to snuff or > your ears need training. > > IMO, the vast majority of listeners, if played these tracks, would say > they sound "the same". They all sound good -they're from the same > master. It's just that when you know what to listen for, you can hear > the difference. > > > from Bruce Brown's (Puget Sound) thread at > http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2938-The-Art-of-Listening-Hi-rez-music > > One thread (the one with the link here) lets you compare redbook to > higher res versions of the same music. You can clearly hear the > differences, as Bruce says below in the thread: > > "Here is a file that we recorded at a native 24/352.8 It starts off > with piano/drum. Do not listen to the music! Instead, concentrate on > the sticks hitting the cymbal. Listen to the attack/transient of the > initial hit. Listen to the tone and then the decay. Focus on just this > one element. > Listen to the sound of the cymbals in the room. How big is the room? > What kind of space is this drummer in? Listen to the tone of the > cymbal. > Now... as you go down to 176.4, then 88.2 and finally 16/44.1, listen > to these elements that I talked about above. Listen how the transient > attack becomes more dull. Notice how the tone of the cymbal changes > from crisp/pristine to dull and flat. Next, notice how the decay > becomes shorter and shorter and the "room" becomes smaller and more dry > with less reverb." > > To my ears, clear proof that the improvement with hi -res is audible. > You can hear the differences in transients and decay, and you can hear > that the room "gets smaller" at lower res. To me, in spite of what > others wrote on this thread, this makes a difference in "real life". > The music sounds more realistic and differently situated in space. > Simply "better" - closer to the real thing, as you'd hear it if you > were in the room. > > And please don't start telling me I imagined it all.
I don't have a 352.8 DAC... and I have no way of knowing how the downsampling from 352-176-88-44 was done... I'll try a few things... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Belden Digital,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85879 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
