Hey it wasn't that bad - at least he didn't mention DSD - the latest
audiophile craze.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign.
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1
I have to agree with the 16/44 vs 24/96 (and beyond) sounding the same.
I've resampled hi-res using SoX on Foobar2000 to 16/44 and also cannot
hear the difference. I've had this debate (argument?) with folks over at
AVForums who insist that redbook 16/44 is lo-fi rubbish with terrible
audio
Mnyb wrote:
.. very few recordings if any has intrisinic sq that even reaches
16/44.1 level .
i agree. i have CDs i FLAC'd to 44/16. i got curious when some of my
worshipped reordings became available at 96/20 or more on hdtracks. i
can spend $20 on the experiment. i could not hear any
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
A maybe oversimplified, but at least halfway decent write-up
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-res-audio-the-science-behind-the-numbers
Main System: Touch; Marantz SR-5004; TMA Premium 905; TMA Premium 901;
BK Monolith+ FF; HDI Dune Smart D1; Pioneer PDP-LX5090H
iPad 32GB Wifi + Squeezepad
bakker_be wrote:
A maybe oversimplified, but at least halfway decent write-up
Whether thats due to the increased bit depth, higher sampling rate or
some outside factor such as the care taken in the mastering Im not
sure. Itll be fun trying to find out though.
So why didn't they?
To try
10 matches
Mail list logo
