Mnyb wrote: > > So given modern studios the CD's or downloads is a mathematical exercise > so imo it is close to the theory > Maybe, but you can't argue that by referring to (only) Nyquist - the main point of my first post.
Mnyb wrote: > > And have a listen , in practice I do this now and then I must admit that > I have yet to find a definitive difference and for kicks try both > 24/44.1 and 16/44.1 of you precius 24/192 master. > "Definitive" is a strong word, but how about "maybe"...? Mnyb wrote: > > "Remastered" is usually [a label of the exact opposite...] > "Usually", but not always, and by who's count - oh my head hurts :) Mnyb wrote: > > But all this is surpased by the real world soundquality of most > recordings , hence we are all discussing the wrong problem we get back > to this topic when recording quality in general is up to it :) or even > up to lowly CD spec ? > That begs the question - suppose there *is* a difference - then how "good" does a recording have to be in order for "it" to be up to it...? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 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
