Peiter wrote:
Unfortunately I did not save the link to that discussion. As I recall I
found that forum via a link on Your homepage.
No prob... I'll keep my eyes peeled. Looks like something the inmates at
the Audio Asylum would be discussing. Just curious what brands they'd be
claiming to be
bakker_be wrote:
A maybe oversimplified, but at least halfway decent write-up
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-res-audio-the-science-behind-the-numbers
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
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
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
Archimago wrote:
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!
And we know that, as a 68 yr old rock musician who's been performing
live for over 45 years, his hearing acuity can only have
I do recomend trying the resample experiment for yourself its very
revealing :)
Another reason for this effect ( that only compounds it ) is that very
few recordings if any has intrisinic sq that even reaches 16/44.1 level
.
You don't need a 10 liter bucket to carry 1 liter of water
