Eric Seaberg wrote:
IMHO, 88.2 is a stupid SR to use anyway and it's only because of
laziness on the original mix engineer thinking conversion from 88.2 to
44.1 is easier. That may have been the case 6-7 years ago, but not
anymore. There is no reason higher SR recordings shouldn't
In the audiophile world (parallel universe...), ASRC is kin to satan.
Just kin though. i.e. 88.2kHz-96kHz sample rate
If somebody sold 96/24 downloads that had ASRC previously applied to
them, they'd sure hear about it, and so would just about everyone else.
It's not easy to hide if you look.
TheOctavist wrote:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/1410
I would be more persuaded by this torchured logic if the main proponents
immediately saw the error of their ways and sold off their multi
thousand
SBGK wrote:
I have never used blind testing because I believe humans are best suited
to A/B testing
How's that? Given that blind testing is typically A/B done by humans
aubuti's Profile:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700
View this thread:
