AndyN wrote:
If I understand correctly; for the Nyquist sampling to result in a
perfectly reconstructible waveform (at the receiving end) the sampled
waveform must be repetitive and the waveform must be sampled for a
period that is long in comparison to the waveform.
The requirement for
darrenyeats wrote:
Common sense at last. Funny how red book keeps on getting better as you
add room treatments and better loudspeakers...16/44 is by far the
smallest problem, if problem it is, in even the very best
installations.
Probably the biggest barrier to realism is the way music is
magiccarpetride wrote:
I would much rather listen to a well recorded, well mixed and mastered
mp3 than to a shoddily recorded/mixed/mastered 24/192 FLAC.
+1
Try the recently remastered Blue In Green from Kind Of Blue - Miles
Davis
(Of course, I'm not listening to an MP3 version)
SlimChances wrote:
Yet My Golden Ears require at least 24/196 to listen to Muskrat Love
The Captain and Tennille (1976)
Love your pic. Now I know how some here hear so well. I wasn't away of a
Beats version.
bfl
+---+
magiccarpetride wrote:
I would much rather listen to a well recorded, well mixed and mastered
mp3 than to a shoddily recorded/mixed/mastered 24/192 FLAC.
life's too short to listen to mp3, who records/mixes/masters in mp3 ?
The amount of reviews of digital music reduces the chance of having
cfraser wrote:
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
SBGK wrote:
life's too short to listen to mp3, who records/mixes/masters in mp3 ?
I doubt that any audiophile type would save their own personal
collection to MP3. That said, when I want to discover new music (and
who doesn't?), I listen to internet radio, which is almost exclusively
MP3.
