...I have to agree. The old adage "your system is only as good as the weakest link" still holds, and as we all have high quality equipment/cables the need for the source, the original mastering, to be better is probably more important than most of the other things we spend our time worrying about (i.e. 16/44.1 v 24/96 etc.). If the mastering is poor, then no amount of $$$$ of equipment will make it sound perfect.
I think the 24/48, 24/96 issue is just "progress". I have listened to a dem on a transporter comparing CD 16/44.1 v 24bit sources of the same material and it is better... or was it just "different"...?! But progress is progress and that just means that as Internet download speeds improve and storage get cheaper, then recording studios will start making 24/96 the defacto, and that will one day mean that everyone will end up needing to upgrade their equipment (including everyone with SB2 or SB3!) which will in turn drive the future audio market. If this didn't happen we'd all get bored!! ;o) (but if they make the cost of a 24/96 even 10% more than a 16/44.1 then I for one won't buy it -- it isn't that much better). Technically, 24/96 is *different* to 16/44.1 -- that can be proved (one file is 20Mb and the other one is 80Mb)!!! Whether you can hear the difference, and whether it is better, is just down to your ears... (just hope all that extra HF doesn't upset pets!) -- swarduk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ swarduk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20371 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57413 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
