arnyk wrote:
> Open source = no royalty payments.
>
> Who cares since we know that so-called high resolution audio has no
> audible benefits?
>
> I can't say that I'm against physical media, not with a personal library
> in excess of 1,000 discs.
On Open Source - many companies make nice profi
drmatt wrote:
> So I see, a pity the commercial world doesn't like open source.
>
Open source = no royalty payments.
>
> I believe FLAC achieves better compression, no?
>
Reference?
>
> I understand blu ray, at least, does also support up to at least six
> 24/96k pcm audio streams (which
arnyk wrote:
> A lossless compression technique was desired because the DVD format
> lacked the data capacity required to put uncompressed hi rez
> multichannel PCM on a DVD disc. The methodology chose by the DVD forum
> was called MLP and is the piece that Meridian owned.
So I see, a pity the
cdmackay wrote:
>
>
> I fear that the intention was nothing of the sort. I believe the
> intention was nothing more than an attempt to hood-wink people into
> spending money on something they don't need, to solve a problem that
> doesn't exist, using a mixture of pseudo-science, unscientific te
arnyk wrote:
> Some references:
>
> http://www.mixonline.com/thewire/new-subjective-tests-challenge-claimed-benefits-high-resolution-audio/426946
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQzNPAdF4aI
>
The files that you can download to do your own listening tests can be
downloaded (full set for 3
