Archimago wrote:
Yup... All valid points and I wish we could just have straightforward
information on pedigree. Like the SPARS code in the old days, it was all
meant to be a simple designation. The Wiki notes both Lack of detail
and Implications of quality as very valid criticisms as well.
Ralph,
My apologies for asking such an obvious question about DSD downloads
here.
Of course, everyone here is too cheap to buy $100/ft USB cables and
unworthy of Chateau Petrus or Louis XIII. Clearly, you guys are not
True Believers in the Audiophile Experience (TBAE).
Heed the words of *I
Other things to consider .
HD tracks have a lot of 24/192 that actually are SACD rips ? what about
the ultrasonic grunge in those ? and how to classify that .
More interesting why not use the intrinsic resolution in the recording
itself as a benchmark .
Old analog 60's rock classic master
Archimago wrote:
You know, I would not be surprised if by doing this - suppressing
dissent - sites like this ends up shooting themselves in the foot. I
suspect a good amount of traffic was created by the debates and
dialogue. Sure, they might create some kind of oasis of audiophilic
cultish
Mnyb wrote:
Other things to consider .
HD tracks have a lot of 24/192 that actually are SACD rips ? what about
the ultrasonic grunge in those ? and how to classify that .
More interesting why not use the intrinsic resolution in the recording
itself as a benchmark .
Old analog 60's
Archimago wrote:
Dammit man, stop with the DSD crap, guys :-). So has anyone bought an
actual DSD download yet?!
Archimago you of all people should know that attempting to play a DSD
download using anything less than a $100/per foot audiophile USB cable
will result in just about the worst
ralphpnj wrote:
A classic example of what it is like when extreme cynicism matches
reality.
You know, I would not be surprised if by doing this - suppressing
dissent - sites like this ends up shooting themselves in the foot. I
suspect a good amount of traffic was created by the debates and
