renaud wrote: > Today I see more and more records in 20 or 24 bits and frequency from 88 > to 192, so maybe it is time for me to have a look on these formats. I > just have one record in 24/96, Return to Ommadawn and two records in > 24/192 (can't listen these 2 for the moment). With the Touch, yes Mike > Olfield sounds better in higher quality.
I realize this discussion probably belongs in the audiophile section too. The problem is that it is usually impossible to tell if the improvement is thanks to the format, or thanks to a different master/eq/whatever. Only way to really tell is starting from the hi-res version and then converting that to a lower sample rate version, so that you know you are comparing apples to apples. Year in year out I keep asking (and looking) for examples of commercial recordings that would use a range of more than 16 bits, but so far I haven't been successful. I can understand the argument that a higher sample rate might allow for less steep filters, but the incremental improvement from 96 to 192 would be tiny compared to 44.1 to 96. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94512 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list Touch@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
