firedog;464189 Wrote: > Don't agree about "problem somewhere else in the chain". From the > beginning my sole contention was that hi-res files can sound better than > standard 44k files. Yes they can, but let be show you just two examples of cases where it wasn't the recording resolutions fault:
- Studios promoting hi-res formats like DVD-A or SACD have been found guilty of using inferior mastering for the standard CD audio layer of those discs, as to promote the superiority of the hi-res format. - Soundcards/DACs with just one frequency crystal and mediocre resampling algorithms. I've come across such soundcards, which produce obvious differences for signals with much high frequency content. The first one I stumbled upon made 44.1 sound significantly different than 48KHz. Couldn't believe it myself at first, until I found that the card had only one 96Khz crystal. Must have been using simple padding/truncating to "adapt" the signal... Thats why I applauded SlimD/Logitech before for using two crystals. > Other posters disagree. The "double blind tests referred to in proving > that "people can't hear this or that" often have obvious flaws when you > check how they were conducted, so I don't take them seriously. You can't discredit a good method just because someone made bad use of it. > Filters: Read up on pre-ringing and newer players using aphodising > filters I am educated in signal processing so thank you for reminding me of pre-ringing and <buzzword>. > What system? I'm not sure why you're stuck on this and asking me about a > dollar figure for the equipment involved. I am asking for your definition of hi-end because you keep throwing the term around, as if there were consesus on what it means. Also, I am stating that, for revealing imperfections coming from lossy audio compression, the "hi-endness" of the system is not as important as you say. > The point of the discussion has been about hi-res files, not lossy > reproduction. You mean lossy coding. Every reproduction into the analog world is lossy. > You need a fairly high end system to reveal the advantages of these > files. There it is again... > If a test were conducted, we would need to agree on the playback system > used ahead of time. A typical home stereo probably isn't good enough to > really show the differences between 16/44 and 24/96. This is leading nowhere. Very probably you are never going to do a double blind listening test in your room, with your setup. And you will keep telling us you hear a difference, while everyone that can't confirm, must either be using a lesser-end system or have untrained ears. In the scientific world, for findings to get credibility, they must be repeatable by peers. If your findings work only in your room, your system and your ears, what general validity have they? (And that is assuming flawless testing method and execution). -- Raptus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Raptus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1852 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67679 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
