garym wrote: > You might take comfort as well that even 24/96 is overkill as compared > to redbook CD (16/44.1). A number of tests have shown that when the > underlying mastering is the same, listeners can't tell any difference > between 16/44.1 and 24/96 or 24/192 in a double blind tests. This said, > it is true that some 24/96 albums sound better, but this is because the > underlying ALBUM has been remastered for the 24/96 version. So it is the > mastering that matters, not the 44.1 vs 96 vs 192.
I was just about to type a long ramble about me and a mate with some very expensive Linn separates but you've already summed up the point I was making. In this case he was convinced the 24/96 files of a Pink Floyd album were far better than the redbook flacs I ripped from CD. I down sampled the files and we compared them to CD and they were still better, additionally we couldn't tell the original and the down sampled files apart. His kit is way better than my 2 systems. Its just a shame the same care can't be used when mastering for CD. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jimbobvfr400's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=56857 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99460 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
