ralphpnj;473497 Wrote: > My previous post was more a swipe at Computer Audiophile than at you. I > apologize if I offended you since that was not my intent. > > Since you are very new to this forum and this particular section of the > forum perhaps you should be informed that many of the loudest voices in > this section are those of what I would call "show me" audiophiles, in > that while they are not firmly in the double blind test camp, they are > still in, for lack of better term, the scientific audiophile camp. In > other words, while many of them will not dismiss some audiophilia's > wilder claims out of hand, they will look for the scientific reason the > claim should or should not be believed. > > So in the case of 24bit/192kHz high resolution files the scientific > evidence points to the this level of resolution as being excessive. The > argument is further complicated by the facts that 1) there is so little > material of this high resolution available and 2) the ability to > properly play back this hirez material is also very limited. > > I suppose one could go even further and point out that most digital > recordings made in the past 25 to 30 years were not even recorded with > such a high sampling rate. As for the analog recordings converted to > digital I would also guess these were also not converted to such a high > sampling rate. Sure the analog masters could be used to create new high > resolution digital masters but as one can see by the new Beatles > remasters no one feels that there is any need to make 24bit/96kHz > resolution files available let alone 24bit/192kHz files. But one can > always dream.
Has science always been correct and able to explain yet undiscovered phenomenon? Does nature filter out frequencies? There is the belief that the higher frequencies, even though inaudible, still interact with the audible range and affect it. Professional Mastering Engineers, experts in the business, are hearing differences with files that are recorded at 24/192 compared to 24/96. That's not to say that 24/96 does not sound good. That's also not to say that all listeners will hear the differences. One of the most coveted pieces of equipment used by the recording industry is the Metric Halo ULN-8 which does record 8 channels up to 24/192. A record label FIM (First Impression Music) has files available encoded in 32/352.8. They are experimenting. Nothing wrong with that. Tim DeParavicini had stated a few years ago in public that to match analog master tapes, the sampling frequency of digital recording would have to be in the range of 400kHz. Some think he's a bit of a quack, yet he is respected for his equipment designs and modifications to professional tape playback systems. TV -- tv69 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tv69's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32022 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69882 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
