Curt962;529502 Wrote: > I for one am all for the best possible technologies to present our > favorite music, but until the record companies are?? It seems to > remain just a dream. > > As long as "focus groups" of college students find 128Kbps MP3s to > sound so good, I don't expect the labels to make the investment. If > the kids won't buy it...we don't get it. Period. Folks would rather > have it "now" via download than they would have it "good". When > your entire system costs $169...a few thousand Kbps doesn't make a lot > of difference to the masses. > > The same people who wouldn't dream of watching American Idol on > anything less than a lifesize Plasma screen, will happily listen to > their music through a 2" paper cone. > > And we want 176 what?? > > I'm done buying "audiophile" music that bores me in one or two plays. > I've found that in the meantime, there are far more meaningful aspects > of one's playback system that can be improved upon. > > I feel that my Transporter at 24/96 is the least of my challenges.
Jazz/blues was indeed boring me 15 years ago, but today I find it quite interesting. Also, since I heavily upgraded my stereo system, I can now enjoy classical recordings... Which are plenty on high-rez For some reason, maybe marketing as Pat noted, recording industry goes to 192/24. Hence, I prefer the player to handle it natively, rather than buying strong CPU for SqueezeCenter to downsample it, and create artifacts.. Transporter is a killer product, i think it deserves more attention. -- michael123 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
