John Duncan said:
When everyone was loving everyone else's posts........It now seems a long time ago. 🙁
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
fr0g said:
Aye. Though tbf, by the time you did they'd probably have moved to v7 which might fix everything. And most issues would be dealt with if they installed the latest version of TinyMCE anyway. I may have mentioned this.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
chebby said:
Here's my favourite recent one (click for bigger).
/sites/whathifi.com/files/images/IMG_3914.jpg
Andy Madden said:
That's a shame, because as much as Sony wants to promote their new kit, there is loads of equipment able to play/process HD files, but there isn't that much HD music actually available.
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
I'm not sure if this is related... however...
I've run some matched volume level, A/B's between the RB CD track, and the Two channel DSD track on some of my hybrid SACD's.
As such, there is a difference - advantage DSD - BUT, it's subtle to say the least, and I would not fancy my chances of picking the difference in a blind ABX at all.
Discs which have been originally mastered in DSD generally show a slightly greater advantage, than discs which have been mastered in PCM and then converted to DSD.
However, the BIG advantage is discrete, multi-channel surround sound, which for classical and jazz, knocks 2 channel stereo (be it RB CD or SACD) into a cocked hat if we're talking a sense of realism and that elusive 'the closest approach to the original sound'
If these new discs offer MC surround sound, I'll be buying without hesitation - and to my mind based on my experience of discrete surround sound music, that will be the biggest advantage of the new format IMHO.
Regards
JMac.... 8)
I've run some matched volume level, A/B's between the RB CD track, and the Two channel DSD track on some of my hybrid SACD's.
As such, there is a difference - advantage DSD - BUT, it's subtle to say the least, and I would not fancy my chances of picking the difference in a blind ABX at all.
Discs which have been originally mastered in DSD generally show a slightly greater advantage, than discs which have been mastered in PCM and then converted to DSD.
However, the BIG advantage is discrete, multi-channel surround sound, which for classical and jazz, knocks 2 channel stereo (be it RB CD or SACD) into a cocked hat if we're talking a sense of realism and that elusive 'the closest approach to the original sound'
If these new discs offer MC surround sound, I'll be buying without hesitation - and to my mind based on my experience of discrete surround sound music, that will be the biggest advantage of the new format IMHO.
Regards
JMac.... 8)
JMacMan said:
As previously mentioned, I cannot tell any difference on the two channel recordings, but I am in complete agreement about the superiority of multi channel sound if it is done properly. The work of Steve Wilson on the King Crimson DVD-A reissues is a particularly fine example.
- May 31, 2007
- 275
- 16
- 18,895
fr0g said:
Yes, we're being honest... but thanks for checking!
It's clearly a subject of interest so we're talking about it. If we don't think something is good/better, then we say so, as we have always done with any product – that's what we do. And in our high-res audio guide we clearly say, if you can't hear a difference, then it's not for you. We'll keep reporting on developments as clearly many people are interested.
Only audiophiles spend their money on foo - they know what they're getting into. Why be concerned how they spend their money?
byakuya83 said:
Because it isn't only audiophiles. Most people in my situation have previously been led up the garden path by claims that certain things are better.
People trust advice from magazines such as this, and while (as stated above) they say "try for yourself"...People will often "not" hear a difference, but buy anyway because they feel shamed into it.
I challenge anyone to pass a blind test of a 24/96 recording compared to the same recording properly downsampled to 16/44.1. They won't.
Joe Cox said:
The "problem" for me is that 24/96 recordings ARE often better, but not because the format makes them so.
The same mastering could be done with the CD, but it isn't
That's where the dishonesty is.
I agree about the mastering, I have played some well recorded jazz on sites like spotify and deezer and the sound quality even at 160khzs is better than many cds.
If you play samples from sites like High Res Audio over the internet what is it being streamed at 320kbps? Some of those sound excellent but are they 24 bit?
If you play samples from sites like High Res Audio over the internet what is it being streamed at 320kbps? Some of those sound excellent but are they 24 bit?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram