michael123;587872 Wrote:
It is just being recorded with higher gain
[ kidding, kidding :) ]
You had me for a split second!
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter,
HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power cords,
Silver
I downloaded Band on the Run a couple of days ago from HDTracks. I know
this album like the back of my hand. First impressions - very smooth
and listenable. Dynamic with very good detail. Under Paul's supervision
the bass is superb. Hearing subtle bass notes I didnt hear before. No
compression
earwaxer9;587817 Wrote:
I downloaded Band on the Run a couple of days ago from HDTracks. I know
this album like the back of my hand. First impressions - very smooth
and listenable. Dynamic with very good detail. Under Paul's supervision
the bass is superb. Hearing subtle bass notes I didnt
Phil thanks for the files:
Are these true 24/96 or better recordings not DSD ?
Good initiative to reboot the discussion with some valid test
material.
I plan to tag the files identically so they appear the same on my
squeezebox.
Imho the base for this treads has problem as we are clearly
Stupid rapid share it's some kind of time limit I have to wait to get
the low file...
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH and
assorted amps SiriuS, Classe' Primare and Dynadio
Mnyb;586495 Wrote:
Stupid rapid share it's some kind of time limit I have to wait to get
the low file...
Sorry about that... :-(
--
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) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) +
Mnyb;586494 Wrote:
Phil thanks for the files:
Are these true 24/96 or better recordings not DSD ?
...
Well, the original recording was on analogue multi-track. This 24/96
master comes from a recent remastering by Linn for an SACD release, so
DSD was probably involved. I believe that Linn
magiccarpetride;586450 Wrote:
The fact still remains that all the naysayers who have so mercilessly
ganged up on me here are still dancing around the crucial question I've
posed above: how come these (allegedly) scientifically minded people are
so engrossed in their double standards? When I
Phil Leigh;586289 Wrote:
The Audacity spectrum plot and waveform display cannot be trusted. They
have all sorts of problems with certain combinations of file format and
sample rate/bit depth unfortunately.
Yes?
What would you recommend, Phil? (Some freeware plz :))
--
michael123
I don´t know if the spectral analysis can someone bring to any
conclusion at all besides there are high frequencies due to higher
bandwith or DSD noise.
I like the Frequency analysis in audacity more cause it tells you more
about the loudnes at different frequencies. I just select a part of the
R Johnson;586258 Wrote:
...They play fine with VLC and on the Touch. As I've learned to expect,
audible differences were too subtle for me to readily detect. ...
I wanted mention that I finally found a nice way of doing A-B
comparisons of two tracks at different quality levels.
(Probably not
tomjtx;585726 Wrote:
MCR, you ought to post your experiences over on hydrogen audio. I think
you would really benefit from that experience.
The fact still remains that all the naysayers who have so mercilessly
ganged up on me here are still dancing around the crucial question I've
posed
magiccarpetride;586450 Wrote:
The fact still remains that all the naysayers who have so mercilessly
ganged up on me here are still dancing around the crucial question I've
posed above: how come these (allegedly) scientifically minded people are
so engrossed in their double standards? When I
magiccarpetride;586450 Wrote:
When I report something (me being an outsider, a guy with no valid
pedigree here), they all jump on me and bark about my expectation bias
and how invalid my findings are
What are you on about?
You compared two different masters (Verve vs Chesky) and
magiccarpetride;586450 Wrote:
The fact still remains that all the naysayers who have so mercilessly
ganged up on me
In post #8 of this thread, I asked you whether you'd consider doing a
test to determine whether or not the staggering differences you were
hearing had anything to do with the
Phil Leigh;585939 Wrote:
Audacity is a pain sometimes... must remember to convert to WAV first...
Thanks for the sample files Phil.
They play fine with VLC and on the Touch. As I've learned to expect,
audible differences were too subtle for me to readily detect.
I looked at both in
R Johnson;586258 Wrote:
Thanks for the sample files Phil.
They play fine with VLC and on the Touch. As I've learned to expect,
audible differences were too subtle for me to readily detect.
I looked at both in Audacity.
The spectrum plot of the high res version showed content well past
Audacity is a pain sometimes... must remember to convert to WAV
first...
I'll put replacements up soon...
--
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) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Robin Bowes;585780 Wrote:
On 29/10/10 11:31, adamdea wrote:
Hem Hem
It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over
a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement
obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might
be
better
On 30/10/10 18:57, adamdea wrote:
Robin Bowes;585780 Wrote:
The point is that if there are two variables that may affect
performance
(mastering file resolution) then you can't ascribe any performance
difference solely to just one of them - it could be either or both.
On dear. I was
OK, I downloaded 24/96 files for the 1st time. (I know, where have I
been?)
I finally got MAX and converted flac to aiff so I could use iTunes(yes,
I am lazy)
The hi-rez 24/96 version of the Brandenburg Concertos by the Audiofool
Consort was totally different from the St. Mortimers in the the
magiccarpetride;585702 Wrote:
There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a sort of
a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul and
mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab rat'
mode. I detest and resent being put into the 'lab
Hem Hem
It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over
a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement
obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might be
better off concentrating on the former
b. whether there is any appreciable
On 29/10/10 11:31, adamdea wrote:
Hem Hem
It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over
a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement
obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might be
better off concentrating on the former
b.
magiccarpetride;585665 Wrote:
Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
suck ass!
I couldn't disagree more strongly. I've listened to music on internet
radio at 32 Kbps and got caught up in it.
adamdea;585775 Wrote:
Hem Hem
It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over
a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement
obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might be
better off concentrating on the former
That is clearly
adamdea;585775 Wrote:
Hem Hem
It still doesn't seem to be clear whether the argument is over
a. whether variance in mastering quality is greater than improvement
obtainable from increasing resolution beyond 16/44, so that we might be
better off concentrating on the former
...
Well all I
On 10/29/2010 11:57 AM, Phil Leigh wrote:
Bear in mind that differences between different sample rates/bitdepths
are always going to be quite subtle...whereas differences between
masters can be MASSIVE! This thread admirably demonstrates this.
For sure, and the big difference in high/wide
I'm not sure of the lineage of the HDTracks file:
Try this pair from Linn - 24/96 vs 16/44.1:
http://rapidshare.com/files/427806892/16.wav
http://rapidshare.com/files/427807542/24.wav
Sorry about the crude edit...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a
Did i get this right. Are these diffmaker files?
I think online stores sell CD rips as the 16bit versions and get
special 24bit versions directly from the label.
I don´t think they are taking to much care about offering the best
possible 16bit version. Why should they? They can charge more for
Wombat;585857 Wrote:
Did i get this right. Are these diffmaker files?
I think online stores sell CD rips as the 16bit versions and get
special 24bit versions directly from the label.
I don´t think they are taking to much care about offering the best
possible 16bit version. Why should they?
I only can hear noise and statics with some music in it!? Files are
broken for me.
--
Wombat
Transporter - RG142 - Avantgarde based monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 -
self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile:
Ditto.
Just noise here.
--
R Johnson
R Johnson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=36462
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870
your files are corrupted, they crashed the sound on my computer, i had
to reboot - i guess this would not have occured with vinyl ...
Jean
--
zano65
zano65's Profile:
Mnyb;585510 Wrote:
Hmm sorry for being late, I'm on work and can not listen to thje files
on a decent system (they do sound different on my eepc ).
I got 100's of DVD'a , but this is a good example of a good remaster.
But not a good example of what 24/96 can do ?
Is this not an old
earwaxer9;585486 Wrote:
There is no debate that the science of audio is unsolved. Just like
chess. A person can still beat a computer. There is no perfect
unbeatable chess algorithm. If a computer could produce the absolute
best sound - audio would be solved!
On the contrary, the science of
Phil Leigh;585519 Wrote:
On the contrary, the science of audio is very well understood. It is
the psychology that remains a mystery...
As with any human sensory input (except maybe touch?), we can measure
and engineer the inputs to extremely high degrees of sophistication. We
can't even
bluegaspode;585489 Wrote:
The people are trying to tell you that:
Chesky red book sounds exactly the same as Chesky hi-rez .
If you reread your first post you came to the conclusion that hi-rez
generally sounds better than red book. This assumption is wrong if
Chesky red book sounds the
magiccarpetride;585595 Wrote:
I finally got to test, side-by-side, the qualitative differences between
the red book and the hi-rez format.
No, you did not.
What you tested was a hi-res copy of one master against a red book copy
of a different master. You weren't comparing hi-res to red book,
magiccarpetride;585595 Wrote:
I'm beginning to actually like it how double standards get applied with
such emotional intensity here. So here is how things have unfolded in
this thread so far:
1. I submit it to the community of fellow audiophiles that, after
prolonged skepticism, I finally
Magiccarpetride:
The difference between you and Phil is:
Phil compare stuff being equal.
You compared two different things (and of course find differences). We
are not talking about expectation bias here. Even Phil did find
difference in your original recordings and we all believe you that for
andynormancx;585597 Wrote:
No, you did not.
What you tested was a hi-res copy of one master against a red book copy
of a different master. You weren't comparing hi-res to red book, you
were comparing two different masters.
Do you still not understand that ?
Magiccarpetride - that's
rant snipped
I see andynormancx has already replied, and I'm sure others will too.
You are totally missing a very important issue. Let's go over this again
and see if you can get it.
You made available two files, let's call them A B.
File A is redbook - 16/44.1
File B is hi-res - 24/96
Both
magiccarpetride;585595 Wrote:
I'm beginning to actually like it how double standards get applied with
such emotional intensity here. So here is how things have unfolded in
this thread so far:
1. I submit it to the community of fellow audiophiles that, after
prolonged skepticism, I finally
By the way - I still have no bouquet of flowers, and I have spent 20 odd
years+ messing around with digital recording in the studio and I know
- to my own personal satisfaction - that recording, mixing and
mastering in 24/96 or 24/88.2 is a fine idea and releasing stuff in
16/44.1 preserves the
You can download the downsample here - It's only the first 30 seconds of
the track
http://rapidshare.com/files/427655085/getzdown.wav
--
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) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) +
Phil Leigh;585517 Wrote:
Interesting point. The 24/96 does have frequencies up to 40K at
potentially audible levels (-80dB) but I suspect these are artefacts of
the DSD conversion process - .
So analog to DSD then to 24/96 ?
Master pedigree hmm .
Is not DSD 20 bit something in resolution
Mnyb;585620 Wrote:
So analog to DSD then to 24/96 ?
Master pedigree hmm .
Is not DSD 20 bit something in resolution SACD except for in the
highest treble where artifacts can creep in at higher level than 16/44,
but thats SACD . Maybe studio DSD is better ?
But I read somewhere (sorry
boring guys..
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82870
michael123;585635 Wrote:
boring guys..
because?
--
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) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1
Phil Leigh;585606 Wrote:
This fellow Phil here... :-)
You are so confused, I'm not sure where to begin!
1) The two recordings you uploaded are completely different masters.
Yes the 24/96 file sounds great and better than the redbook one.
2) The reason the 24/96 file sounds great is
I'm looking for music tracks on Linn Records that I listen in a show,
some where advertised to be new recorded in 24/192.
Since I would like to take best possible quality but as Transporter
only can 24/96, what is then best pic ?
a)Original 24/192 and down sample it myself to 96kHz once for all,
michael123;585635 Wrote:
boring guys..
because we discuss bits every Monday and Thursday :)
..and agree with you, good mastering is more important than format
[ although I have maybe 500 high-res albums digitally in my library ]
--
michael123
Robin Bowes;585602 Wrote:
Why don't you try doing that and see if you hear the same (obvious)
differences between file B file C that you heard between file A
file B?
I've tried it and I hear the hi rez sounding different. Of course, that
is completely irrelevant because I WANT to hear
magiccarpetride;585646 Wrote:
OK, I did that, and if I now tell people that I still hear the
differences, I'd be flatly accused of suffering from the expectation
bias. You, on the other hand, are for some weird reason exempt from
such accusations. You claim that you can't hear the
magiccarpetride;585646 Wrote:
OK, I did that, and if I now tell people that I still hear the
differences, I'd be flatly accused of suffering from the expectation
bias. You, on the other hand, are for some weird reason exempt from
such accusations. You claim that you can't hear the
garym;585651 Wrote:
magiccarpetride: Did you do an ABX of the two samples. How many trials
and what were the results. Foobar2000 has a nice utility for doing ABX
trials. One can easily avoid the expectation bias issue with a ABX test
and enough trials. If you tell me that you could pick one
My piont was that 24/96 pcm probably is/was a better format than dsd
r.i.p dvd-a .
Hello 24/96 downloads :-) .
It works on computers and streaming music players, much more in line
what the audiophile needs 2010.
Sacd, you need a disc player ? dsd is made to tie you to a disc player,
it's copy
your momo;585648 Wrote:
I'm looking for music tracks on Linn Records that I listen in a show,
some where advertised to be new recorded in 24/192.
Since I would like to take best possible quality but as Transporter
only can 24/96, what is then best pick ?
a) Original 24/192 and down sample
michael123;585649 Wrote:
because we discuss bits every Monday and Thursday :)
..and agree with you, good mastering is more important than format
[ although I have maybe 500 high-res albums digitally in my library ]
me too :-)
Remind me - what do we discuss on Fridays? :-)
--
Phil Leigh
michael123;585649 Wrote:
..and agree with you, good mastering is more important than format
Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
suck ass!
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride;585658 Wrote:
I don't subscribe to the phony ABX methodology. It introduces its own
expectation bias into the equation, increases the stress level on the
subject, and these factors in the end skew up the final results.
Nothing solid and conclusive could ever come out of that
Phil Leigh;585659 Wrote:
Get hold of DBPoweramp... it's very good.
Thanks, so I will go for a) and down sample myself.
I realize now that DBPoweramp can also change sampling rate, I just
user it for rip and retagg until yet. A very good piece of SW.
--
your momo
magiccarpetride;585658 Wrote:
I don't subscribe to the phony ABX methodology.
I did understand in your other post, that this was because ABX couldn't
take care of magic moments. Fair enough.
But in this case where it's just about whether someone can hear a
difference in the file format or
bluegaspode;585673 Wrote:
I did understand in your other post, that this was because ABX couldn't
take care of magic moments. Fair enough.
But in this case where it's just about whether someone can hear a
difference in the file format or not ? Why not exclude the expectation
bias here
magiccarpetride;585665 Wrote:
Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
suck ass!
Total and utter nonsense - sorry. a crap song at 24/96 is still as crap
a song as it is at 16/44.1. Please don't
magiccarpetride;585665 Wrote:
Baloney. Medium IS the message. Don't matter how brilliant your master
may be, if you're delivering it on a 56 Kbps mp3 medium, it's gonna
suck ass!
That's the first introduction of a 56Kbps mp3 into the discussion.
Does that mean I should just toss my 1938
mlsstl;585679 Wrote:
That's the first introduction of a 56Kbps mp3 into the discussion.
Does that mean I should just toss my 1938 recording of Rachmaninoff
playing Rachmaninoff because it came from a '78?
I don't recall anyone in this discussion claiming a low bit rate mp3 is
the
mlsstl;585679 Wrote:
That's the first introduction of a 56Kbps mp3 into the discussion.
Does that mean I should just toss my 1938 recording of Rachmaninoff
playing Rachmaninoff because it came from a '78?
I would venture out to say that the 1938 recording at 78 rpm sounds
wy superior
bluegaspode;585691 Wrote:
Why didn't you feel the same pressure, when you listened to Phils
example ?
I guess you started both streams as well so where is the difference ?
The nice thing is that with Foobar you can do it all alone (no
spotlights involved).
No need to ask a friend for
On 28/10/10 21:54, magiccarpetride wrote:
Robin Bowes;585602 Wrote:
Why don't you try doing that and see if you hear the same
(obvious) differences between file B file C that you heard
between file A file B?
I've tried it and I hear the hi rez sounding different.
Great!
Of course,
On 28/10/10 23:27, magiccarpetride wrote:
There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a sort
of a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul
and mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab rat'
mode. I detest and resent being put into
Robin Bowes;585704 Wrote:
I care not.
Good riddance.
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863
View this thread:
magiccarpetride;585706 Wrote:
Good riddance.
MCR, you ought to post your experiences over on hydrogen audio. I think
you would really benefit from that experience.
--
tomjtx
tomjtx's Profile:
Robin Bowes;585704 Wrote:
On 28/10/10 23:27, magiccarpetride wrote:
There is a difference between me listening to the recording in a
sort
of a 'gestalt' way (where I'm listening with my entire body and soul
and mind open to bask in the music), vs listening to it in a 'lab
rat'
mode.
earwaxer9;585730 Wrote:
... Vinyl is superior to digital in some areas due to the non step like
nature of analog vs. digital...
I trust you realise this is simply not true?
Information Theory explains the maths.
The fact that a good needle-drop is possible proves it. Nothing
essential is
On 27/10/10 18:24, magiccarpetride wrote:
All I'm asking here is for people to stop, have a listen, and see what
they think. Salient points notwithstanding.
It's like wine tasting. Different people will have different
expectation bias in that regard, but after all is said and done, all
Phil Leigh;585408 Wrote:
This is really completely wrong. Yes of course the file is 4 times
bigger. That does NOT mean that the extra information held in the extra
75% is useful or can be heard. For a start, it will mostly describe
sounds that are too high pitched or too quiet to be heard...
OK - I have listened to the files. The 24/96 version sounds way better -
even though it is 3+ dB quieter!
The reason has nothing to do with it being 24/96 and everything to do
with the fact that the 24/96 file has been massively (and very well)
remastered.
If you downsample the 24/96 file to
Phil Leigh;585419 Wrote:
OK - I have listened to the files. The 24/96 version sounds way better -
even though it is 3+ dB quieter!
The reason has nothing to do with it being 24/96 and everything to do
with the fact that the 24/96 file has been massively (and very well)
remastered.
If
tomjtx;585422 Wrote:
Thank you ,Phil for making that point.
But it seems that Magiccarpetride just doesn't get it or doesn't want
to get it.
I am confident he will get it ... eventually :-)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd
Phil Leigh;585419 Wrote:
OK - I have listened to the files. The 24/96 version sounds way better -
even though it is 3+ dB quieter!
The reason has nothing to do with it being 24/96 and everything to do
with the fact that the 24/96 file has been massively (and very well)
remastered.
If
tomjtx;585422 Wrote:
Thank you ,Phil for doing that test.
But it seems that Magiccarpetride just doesn't get it or doesn't want
to get it.
You guys are being very patient :-)
OK, so now you're contradicting yourself. First, you claim that the
comparative listening is meaningless unless
Robin Bowes;585428 Wrote:
You really haven't understood anything about what Phil, I, everyone
else is saying, have you?
Those two tracks you posted - they clearly sound different. FWIW, I
also
prefer the hi-res version.
However, they are different masterings. As Phil has said, if you
magiccarpetride;585425 Wrote:
(Phil here claims that it's a more sophisticated ability to master the
raw recordings if done in the 24-bit/96 kHz medium; maybe that's it,
maybe not, I'm not so sure).
I don't believe there is much dispute within the recording industry
with this thought,
magiccarpetride;585432 Wrote:
But that's my point exactly -- they DO sound different. I wasn't
debating why is that. For one reason or another, we end up with
different versions that sound drastically different. Regardless of the
causes and reasons governing those differences, when you get
I think you need to go back and read what you originally wrote - your
memory seems to take a revisionist approach.
You concluded your original post with:
I promise you, you'll be shocked and enthralled at how much better the
hi-rez music sounds
You have since claimed:
I never said which master
tomjtx;585443 Wrote:
You are still missing the point. The difference you heard has NOTHING to
do with one file being hi-res. It is the mastering process.
Your original point was that hi-res files sound better.
When Phil downsampled the hi-res file it sounded the same as the hi-res
because
Robin Bowes;585446 Wrote:
I think you need to go back and read what you originally wrote - your
memory seems to take a revisionist approach.
You concluded your original post with:
I promise you, you'll be shocked and enthralled at how much better
the
hi-rez music sounds
You have
magiccarpetride;585451 Wrote:
Some of you guys seem to have serious psychological problems related to
someone's individual, intimate subjective experiences. You just seem to
deeply mistrust those types of experiences. Why do you act like
computers? Why don't you just relax, fully experience
On 27/10/10 20:53, magiccarpetride wrote:
Something sounding better and me actually preferring it are not
necessarily one and the same thing. I thought I've made that amply
clear in my previous elaboration.
Now you're just trolling. I defy you to find *anyone* who would read I
promise you,
magiccarpetride;585077 Wrote:
How would one go abut this upsampling?
I rip using dppoweramp. Set the sample rate to 24bit at frequency of
96khz.
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter,
HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs
The other important points to remember here, is that we are talking
about complex algorithms that take the digital data and process it.
These algorithms are not perfect at this task.
Its just like in digital photography. I have old raw files (raw data
off the sensor) that I now process with
magiccarpetride;585451 Wrote:
Here, by 'better' I mean less harsh sibilances (which I think most
people would agree is better). And, as I've already explained, I
personally sometimes prefer a bit harsher sibilances, same as I may
prefer my wine to be a bit more on a harsher, than on a
magiccarpetride;585450 Wrote:
OK, but let me ask you this: if, after hearing this track, you were to
get intrigued enough that you'd want to purchase this album, which
format would you go for? Verve red book, or Chesky hi-rez?
The people are trying to tell you that:
Chesky red book sounds
magiccarpetride;585432 Wrote:
Regardless of the causes and reasons governing those differences, when
you get your hands on a hi-rez master, you will hear that familiar tune
in a different light, offering you a different quality, a different
experience, maybe even an epiphany. You may or may
Hmm sorry for being late, I'm on work and can not listen to thje files
on a decent system (they do sound different on my eepc ).
I got 100's of DVD'a , but this is a good example of a good remaster.
But not a good example of what 24/96 can do ?
Is this not an old old getz/gilberto ? tune
Upsampling CAN have some merit with certain DAC's - mostly older ones
that do not internally upsample/oversample. However, it can't (and
doesn't) regenerate missing information out of thin air.
If you take a REAL 24/96 recording (Linn for example), downsample it to
redbook, upsample it back to
Phil Leigh;585096 Wrote:
If you take a REAL 24/96 recording (Linn for example), downsample it to
redbook, upsample it back to 24/96 and compare with the original it does
not sound the same...
Is the difference audible under normal listening conditions, in your
opinion? Do you think you
opaqueice;585128 Wrote:
Is the difference audible under normal listening conditions, in your
opinion? Do you think you would be able to succeed at the challenge in
my last post?
No - I do not believe I could tell them apart on a quick A/B... (I've
just tried and failed). They ARE very
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
