jaysung;236423 Wrote: > Hi, > exciting idea. How will you cope with copyright protection? wma with > drm? Then I wouldn't be interested. BTW.: All the fuzz about 24bits and > 96khz is to be considered with caution. There is a quite lengthy thread > here and it basically states that it is hard to hear the differences. > Sure a pulse/square wave at 20000hz is being degrated to a sine wave > for lack of samples but again who cares. I would be happy (or perhaps > not) when I'd hear that ultra high frequencies. My hearing maxis out at > 15khz and I am 24 years old. Imagine being 50 or 70... I sell my hifi > stuff at some point in the future ;). But for now I think if you offer > 48khz and 16 or if you like 24 bits I would be up for a beta test. > Ah, yep. FLAC!!! I wouldn't want any windoze codecs to polute my > archive! ;) > And I would like to throw a glance on your web site and check if it is > readable by blind persons. It is (yes indeed) possible to do an online > shop without flash and even javascript mouseovers and animated gives > that do reapoint GWB. > Cheers > Jeronimo > PS.: Web site looks OK for an initial glance.
>From my experience of recording, the 24 bit part (vs 16 bit) is FAR more important than the 96kHz (vs 44 or 48) part of the specification upgrade. I can certainly hear the bit depth improvement but have trouble hearing the sample rate improvement - it's a waste of storage space in most cases. The majority of wiser heads (and ears) than mine are in agreement, I believe. Andrew -- Andrew B. ========================================================= SB3-> Benchmark DAC1 -> ATC CA2 pre -> ATC SCM50ASL active speakers... nice! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew B.'s Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2619 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34870 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles