pablolie wrote: > So sue me but I am perfectly happy with the SQ of the current 320k > stream. Plenty of listening tests out there show how hard it is to tell > the difference between 320k/CD quality/HighRez. There are preciously few > albums that are recorded with the required resolution, and even when > you're very familiar with them you have to listen to artifacts to be > able to tell, and that's with an amount of artificial focus for detail > that completely kills the fun of listening to the music. And anyone that > claims they can hear additional detail and "airiness" when listening to > the 24/192 version of Bill Evans' 1962 "Waltz for Debby" was dropped on > their head from a third floor as a baby, really. :-) > > I know I go against the fashionable "CD quality sucks" these days, but > the whole thing about the combined obsession of HighRez with vinyl > addiction to boot is laughable, sorry if I offend anyone. > > I spend time curating my collection and playlists, and little time > obsessing over whether the castanets in Rodriguez' Concierto de Aranjuez > sound ever so slightly more present in 320k or in the recently > discovered 1968 mastertape hidden in a deceased Decca executive's secret > closet... :-D
when the cd was invented in the 80s it offered a resolution of 1411 kbps. when you bought a computer at that time it came with a 320x240 screen. fast forward to today, and the most popular streaming service offers 320 kbps. when you buy a high end computer it comes with a 4096x2160 screen so when streaming music we are at 1/4 of where we were 40 years ago, but when streaming movies or playing games visually our screen resolution improved by a factor of 100x. so, we are told that, you can not _hear__the former, but definitely _see__the latter. by the way I never saw a test where people are shown 10 second fragments of a random movie in 2 screens of HD and UHD resolution and are asked whether they saw any differences. because it would be almost impossible to the differentiate in a rushed test but over time with different program material it would show that 2x more resolution can make for a nice and noticeable improvement. when apple and others introduced the ipods way back, the biggest bottleneck was the hdd capacity. so they compressed the music and fed us the bullshit that it was not audible anyways. one may care or not, but it is audible in the long run with the correct music and correct setup just like computer screens and tvs. remember that if we did not have better screens nobody would develop better games or better movies. likewise when we have hi-res audio, the record companies will make better sounding music. compressed music is based on a lie, but with increased bandwidth and stuff can have the highest resolution audio possible. and all of us in these forums want that ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mcduman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66702 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=114009 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
