cliveb;601345 Wrote: > WTF should we have to buy so-called hi-res releases to get uncompressed > versions? It's perfectly possible to make redbook versions without > compression, and redbook is more than adequate as a final delivery > format. > > Add to this the fact that all Beatles recordings were made on 60's > analogue gear that doesn't come even remotely close to the capabilities > of 16/44.1, what are they doing dicking around with "hi-res" at all? > (Other than to extract more cash from the already sucked-dry consumer, > of course)
Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance or lack of hearing/lack of adequate sound system. Have you listened to many (or any) recent remasters of "old" recordings? Good 60's recordings have LOTS of information and detail that is rendered more audible in a quality digital transcription. The recent Beatles remasters are a good example - lots of detail that wasn't audible on previous CD's or LPs. In addition, the fact that the 24/44.1 versions of the same digital transcriptions reveal even more detail than the CD versions, gives us every reason to think that a hi-res version would sound even better. I'm not claiming it would sound dramatically better, but yes, noticeably better. -- firedog Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running SqueezeServer; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF V DAC3, MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon 20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72852 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
