and the other question is...
has listening to a good 16/44 recording ever imposed a limit of my full
enjoyment of a great performance?
there are several recordings i own in two versions: the first ripped
from the original CD i owned (16/44 flac), the second the HDtracks
version at 24/192, and
pablolie wrote:
(3) John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman - one of my favorite recordings of
all time. i prefer the 16/44 rip, the 192/24 seems artificially sharp at
worst and pointlessly volume boosted at best, sounding a bit like a DDD
CD from 1990AD (shiver).
I see there are two releases
And there are still a few pairs of rosewood AVI DM5 left (might be more
made in the future, might not ...).
http://www.avihifi.com/shop.html
On the cheaper active side, I can recommend the Yamaha HS5.
snoogly's Profile:
Of the 20 or so albums I was potentially interested in from HD Tracks,
most had actually a -worse- DR than the best CD available according to
DR Database! Obviously I can only go by the albums I was interested in.
There were a couple that seemed to offer a superior DR, these were
American Idiot
Ralph: Indeed the high resolution audio stuff has become heated of late.
But in this activity and interest, hopefully reasonably rational
discussion can take place so as to at least nudge towards change that
could be beneficial.
Plus there's *no way* I can honestly let Michael Fremer and
pablolie wrote:
(2) Grover Washington - Winelight. i actually seem to defualt to the
192/24, seems an ounce better, perhaps a better master tape or a little
volume boost.
...
Interesting you mentioned this one in 24/192. One of the few 192kHz
DVD-A rips I've actually kept in the native
Nicely done Archimago
I'm always amazed at the tempest in a teapot that high resolution audio
has become. I say this because the vast majority of people listen to
their music with those freebie headphones that come with their smart
phones. That is when they are actually listening to a song or
darrenyeats wrote:
If I were at some point to hear a convincing demonstration (probably
also involving sighted and blind) of an audible difference between 16/44
versus hi-res, then I'd change my position. Simples.
Indeed. The only people I'll chat with about this stuff now is friends
and
These internet arguments are tiring. I just take a personal approach. So
far I've decided through my own listening (some sighted some blind) that
lossless 16/44 is better than Spotify (albeit slightly) but I've not
heard any convincing demonstration of an audible difference between
16/44 versus
darrenyeats wrote:
These internet arguments are tiring. I just take a personal approach. So
far I've decided through my own listening (some sighted some blind) that
lossless 16/44 is better than Spotify (albeit slightly) but I've not
heard any convincing demonstration of an audible
10 matches
Mail list logo
