Phil Leigh;689696 Wrote: > It's an opinion backed-up by many people's practical experience. The > only real push behind 24/96 or 24/192 as a playback format in the home > comes from: > > 1) the hardware industry who want to sell the "latest and greatest" > must-have upgrade > > 2) the software industry who want to (re)sell us the same old stuff > again and again, usually at inflated "high res" prices. > > In controlled listening tests it has proved simply impossible to > reliably or accurately discriminate between the SAME 24/96 or 24 /192 > MASTER played back at 24/96 or 24/192 or correctly downsampled to > 24/44.1 or 24/48. > > If you can find proof otherwise then I'd be delighted to examine it, as > I'm sure would plenty of other folks around here. > > I fully appreciate that a lot of people simply don't believe the above > statement. That doesn't make it untrue. > > 24/96+ has many benefits during recording/mastering. As a home > delivery/playback format... none have yet been identified by anyone > other than hardware/software manufacturers and some self-appointed > "golden-eared" journalists.
I have in some cases 2-6 different versions of favourite albums. Have reached the opinion that mastering variation rather than resolution is where I find my aged ears can detect the 'better sound' This can be easily demonstrated with the beatles remasters comparing the 24 bit with the 16 bit releases. I.e. There is no audible difference on blind A/B listening. -- bigblackdog ------------------------------------------------------------------------ bigblackdog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37719 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74688 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
