Understanding what I do about bias, I have my doubts. But I don't know that I care enough to do the experiment myself.Do you think if you were blinded to the source you might still have the same feeling?
Understanding what I do about bias, I have my doubts. But I don't know that I care enough to do the experiment myself.Do you think if you were blinded to the source you might still have the same feeling?
Hmm…OK, what then accounts for diff? BTW, did you try the listening test?
As an example, try listening to the BVS version of Mozart’s Piano Sonata No. 7, then compare w/ the Ushida version at 16bit as an example…hear a difference?
If I did “believe” it, it would be just that: a “belief”.I know this subject has been debated, ad nauseum, before here but I would like to see a vote on this here. How many here believe they hear a sound quality difference between CD and "hi res"?
As far as I can tell, humans are incapable of hearing anything over 20khz and most music is deliberately compressed because uncompressed music is pretty useless in most settings where music is reproduced. I've made uncompressed recordings and needed to do a little compression in post. However, speaking from experience, higher bit rates makes post-production a lot easier, as that noise floor will come up in passages requiring a boost in level. I'm not aware of any audible differences involving sample rates higher than 44.1khz, though 48 khz makes more sense as regards anti-aliasing filters.I know this subject has been debated, ad nauseum, before here but I would like to see a vote on this here. How many here believe they hear a sound quality difference between CD and "hi res"?
Since when?I'm not aware of any audible differences involving sample rates higher than 44.1khz, though 48 khz makes more sense as regards anti-aliasing filters.
So far, your posts are incoherent.Since when?
A myth.
The belief are coherent in audiophile world.So far, your posts are incoherent.
Did you miss this one ? https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993Dr. AIX Mark Waldrep has elucidated pretty much all of these things. I refer you to his many writings. I think I am done arguing here. .
It is clear to everyone who understands information theory that hi res is a superior delivery channel. It has more information content and higher dynamic range, better frequency response.
It is clear to everyone who understands information theory that hi res is a superior delivery channel. It has more information content and higher dynamic range, better frequency response.
Link with the audibily?You did notice that bandwidth and storage capacity keep going down in price ,right? You did notice that? Kind of like power amp watts.
You did notice that bandwidth and storage capacity keep going down in price ,right? You did notice that? Kind of like power amp watts.
Read the red book and search the arbitrary.No I didn't miss it. In fact I have his book , bought (all high res) program content from him, met him at Axpona and corresponded with him several times.
Please review my posts. I never said there are audible differences. But 16 /44 is arbitrary and there are better things now. Dr. Mark does not deliver any of his content at CD quality except if there is a hybrid CD layer on SACDs (I'll let you check that one).
The red book was published in the 1980s iirc.
Dither down your favorite hi-res tracks to 44.1/16 and then try to ABX them in Foobar2000 ABX and see if you can tell them apart. I have done so and can not and it has saved me a lot of money and worry.I have a limited number of hi-rez tracks. I believe they sound superior, but I also believe they were better recorded/engineered. They are not mainstream artists.