pablolie wrote: > Yes 16/44 is plenty, and we deserve more recordings that... uh... > deserve it. > > Based on my reading, even the best human platinum ears can not hear > beyond 20/44. Again, in some extreme border cases arguably the > quantification error is the issue, and not the sampling frequency > (Nyquist nailed that one). > > But I have not EVER heard of ONE scientifically conducted test that ever > remotely indicates any human on the planet would benefit from anything > beyond 20/44... and most stuff we get in 16/44 doesn't remotely deserve > it, thanks music industry...
Gents, Thanks! Based on the info from this discussion I will stop my HD audio experiments, or at least suspend them. ( streaming them through wifi caused more troubles than benefits anyway. ) For one notoriously bad recorded commercial CD ( and worse SACD ) , I had a HD sampled vinyl replacement. This copy really sounds better than the original released digital versions, but probably it has nothing to do with the quadrupled size of the digitised info, but with the CD master production. What software and method would you recommend to bring this back to from 24 bits to 16, and from 96 or 192 KHz to 44 , and maintain the audible improvements I got over the original ? I would not need any post recording filtering like RCA compensations , but do not want to introduce new conversion flaws that could become an argument that more bits + Khz are better. Perhaps dividing sample rate in 2 or 4, and maintain a rate my DAC can handle is the best ? Let me know your advise... Greetz M-H ------------------------------------------------------------------------ M-H's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=66156 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106935 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
