netchord wrote:
> pleased to meet you, i think we've guessed your name; but what's
> puzzling me is the nature of your game?
I am sorry, but I am not at liberty to discuss the nature of my client.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of
sgmlaw wrote:
> I think I gave you a clue why. And I think I also identified
> specifically where in the TP corners were cut.
Can you remind me, and explain what specific aspects of audio quality
they affect, and how?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
iwalker wrote:
> I have no idea! I expected the Touch and TP to produce identical results
> when their digital outputs were connected to the same DAC.
> They certainly don't and I can very easily tell the difference.
To the same input on the DAC?
> Transformer coupled outputs? Lower jitter? I
iwalker wrote:
> This suggests that the digital output stage of the TP has been better
> engineered than the Touch, which is hardly a surprise give the price
> differential!
What actual properties of the digital output of the TP do you think
would be better?
"To try to judge the real from
sgmlaw wrote:
> If you are using either as a digital head end, the TP is a bit better in
> that role than the Touch.
In what way?
> For instance, a TP on a $250-500 DAC is likely a downgrade. But the TP
> soars to another level with a $4,000 one.
In what way would a $4,000 DAC be audibly
sfraser wrote:
> I never understood why they just can't put a decent clock and jitter
> buffer in the DAC . If they did , the jitter and clocking issues should
> disappear. A decent size jitter buffer will remove any jitter which may
> occur during the unidirectional transmission of the data
foxesden wrote:
> I suspect that it is because the old ESI device which is quite old has a
> ropey USB interface.
I find it very strange that even stereo crosstalk would be affected.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
drmatt wrote:
> So, someone needs to add a checksum field to flac headers and then you
> have "authenticated" audio of a higher standard in a smaller package..
The FLAC header already includes a MD5 checksum...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
That is a pretty good analysis. I always wonder if audio subjectivists
ever use a measuring tape, spirit level or even a car speedometer -
after all, aren't their senses perfect and absolute?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
ralphpnj wrote:
> And I stand by my assertion that a wired connection, aka Ethernet, beats
> a wireless connection, aka Wi-Fi, for any and all purposes, any day.
I think that is a bit too much of an absolutist statement. If wifi
provides enough reliable bandwidth, the portability it provides is
bluetdi wrote:
> Only drawback: they constantly draw some current.
And put a lot of HF noise into the mains.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W
drmatt wrote:
> I was assuming the volume was operated similar to Squeezebox, i.e. by
> modifying the input stream to the DAC and using its output as-is. Is
> that not what you're referring to here? I believe that's how the
> transporter works.
>
That is what I am referring to. There are two
drmatt wrote:
> Further, noting that the SNR of even a top end 24 or 32 bit DAC is
> rarely much greater than about 20 bits (making the high bit count
> designation totally pointless), it seems likely that you really only get
> about 6-8 bits digital attenuation before you lose something into
drmatt wrote:
> More comments when I have more time, but iirc the digital volume control
> is only "bit perfect" when volume is reduced by less than 8 bits. If you
> lower it further it truncates even 16 bit sources. (I forget what this
> translates to in dB.)
Yes. No. Maybe. But mostly No.
So clearly there is a reason for the audible difference. Did you make
sure the levels were matched?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch,
drmatt wrote:
> Tbh there are other reasons people want to do this; programming with a
> 32 bit word length on all your data is in some ways better and certainly
> intrinsically more efficient inside the CPU itself, though of course it
> doesn't add anything of any benefit to the content.
That
M-H wrote:
> That is something I will explore too, It might not give me the OGG
> format I love, but the few extra bits of MP3 storage do not cost much
> anymore , so is not really an argument.
Haven't looked at the code closely enough, but it should be pretty easy
to make mp3fs to use whatever
ralphpnj wrote:
> That may be the correct from technical viewpoint but to me 32 bit files
> are just pure marketing BS.
Definitely. They are basically an unnecessarily complicated way of
storing 24-bit data in a 32-bit container. Floating point makes sense
for data with a widely varying range,
ralphpnj wrote:
> Quick question:
>
> What would you do with 192kHz, 176.4kHz, DSD and 32bit files?
>
I assume the 32 bit files are 32 bit floating point - so they are
actually 24 bit files with an unnecessary 8-bit exponent field.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be
drmatt wrote:
> I wouldn't argue anything like that, personally, but I would argue that
> I can't be arsed to resample a bunch of files just to save a few MB.
Fair enough - I normally don't worry about storage space (except for the
car stereo), but I am concerned about network bandwidth.
"To
darrenyeats wrote:
> Generally, I wouldn't touch a higher rate file - it isn't always a good
> idea. Just feed to the DAC as it is.
So you would argue that the downsampling (using a high quality
algorithm) is audible?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
M-H wrote:
> 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
ralphpnj wrote:
> Smells like MQA and DSD to me.
MQA definitely. DSD at least made some technical sense 20 years ago,
when digital audio processing and storage was less capable than it is
today.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
jarome wrote:
> 16 bits gets congested.
I still haven't come across a commercial recording that uses more than
16 bits of dynamic range.
> In principle, by doing some slights of hand (interpolating -randomly-
> between bit levels) CDs claim to be able to get 19 bits, which might be
>
Great job - as usual!
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
darrenyeats wrote:
> FWIW, SoX uses 32 bit integer internally when passing data between each
> process step you specify.
Sure, and most DSP chips also use 32 bit (or more) *internally*.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
Golden Earring wrote:
> P.S. As I understand it, it's got 4 Sabre DAC chips in it
The ENOB (effective number of bits) of the sabre is 22 bits.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge
Golden Earring wrote:
> Since the DAC will accept up to 32 bit 384kHz PCM (via USB input), I
> think the latter...
Or not. "32 bit PCM" most often means 32-bit floating point (that has a
resolution of 23 bits), not 32-bit fixed point.
Anyway, 32-bit fixed point would not make any sense, as
Golden Earring wrote:
> Of course back in 2008 Sean was still singing the praises of the fixed
> point 24 bit DAC chips inside the Transporter (which were famously
> marketed as "magic") & its 20ps jitter internal clock - but then there
> weren't any 32 bit DAC chips back then.
Are we talking
Recoveryone wrote:
> my first clue about his status was his remark about the Hi Rez files not
> sounding Audiophile quality. How many years have this board and many
> others had this debate on audiophile quality, when we all know or should
> know it all starts at the master recording. Just
Wombat wrote:
> Didn't we have something similar lately with a Brokkoly DAC?
I guess the placebophile snake oil pushers are getting more desperate...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
ralphpnj wrote:
> My guess is that the OP is/was a troll trying to cast doubt on the sound
> quality of the SB Touch while building up the wonders of the "great"
> FiiO X5 Gen II
>
> Just saying.
Considering it was his only posting, I think you are right.
"To try to judge the real from the
output555 wrote:
> The main reason I bought the SB Touch was to use it as a music server
> for my Flac and AIFF high-res audio files.
As others have pointed out, the Touch was never intended as a server -
the server functionality was an afterthought and a crude extra. It is a
great streamer, so
celo wrote:
> I thought that RPi3 with Digi+Pro would eliminate the connection of the
> SBT to the server (RPi3) over the network. Thus, giving me better sound?
What makes you think it would? The network connection is a buffered,
bit-perfect path, and actually might pose less of a load on the
cliveb wrote:
> All of what you say would make sense if the OP were talking about the
> Hifiberry DAC+.
> But he's referring to the DIGI+, which is an SPDIF output board, which
> would then be used to feed an external DAC.
> Given the known flaws in the RPi's USB system, I think using a DIGI+ to
celo wrote:
> I thought keeping two units together all-in-one ( Digi Pro and
> Raspberry) would be better than SBT connecting to Rpi3 via local
> network.
No reason why it should be better - the higher clock rate processor in
the RPi probably generates more noise than the one in the SBT (for
cliveb wrote:
> We know that the LP system is a complete dog's dinner compared to CD,
> and yet it can give just as much enjoyment. I think this probably says
> more about the limitations of the human auditory system than it does
> about the engineering achievement.
Indeed. Under the right
Golden Earring wrote:
> I hear that. I took it to imply that there *-might-* be an advantage
> going further than 16/44.1, although Nyquist-Shannon would still apply.
And if Nyquist-Shannon does apply, there is no advantage of going
further than 16/44.1 from a *timing* point of view.
"To
Golden Earring wrote:
> True, but I thought the Sony engineers enjoyed a challenge! You could
> say that 44.1kHz is an odd choice of sampling frequency, but they stuck
> with that one...
Well, yes... The 44.1 kHz stems from video technology, especially
Betamax. 44.1 kHz happens to be a
Golden Earring wrote:
> I thought that there was an implication that human hearing might have
> more discriminatory ability than previously suspected.
Yes, that is a possibility. But my point is that there is nothing really
mysterious (or anything that breaks current scientific understanding)
Morning, Dave,
Golden Earring wrote:
> This is presumably why Sony increased the projected resolution of its
> new CD format from the originally proposed 14 bits to 16 bits during the
> development phase...
Might also simply be because of the easier processing of word lengths
that are a
Golden Earring wrote:
>
> It was this paper
> https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
> that I was seeking your view on actually...
>
I think all that that paper shows is that the human ear doesn't perform
a fourier transform, but uses discrete, parallel sensors
Golden Earring wrote:
> I'm a little surprised by the dynamic range you ascribe to an orchestral
> concert performance, but again you've probably got more experience of
> measuring it than me. I'll put it down to the bloke with the cough 3
> rows back. Why they don't issue cough pastilles at the
arnyk wrote:
> About 10 years later, this guy did an even better job of it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
>
> Actual files to download and use for software ABX:
>
> http://ethanwiner.com/aes/
Yes, Ethan's stuff should be mandatory reading/viewing for all
audiophiles.
"To
Golden Earring wrote:
> This does not necessarily imply that high sample rates are bad per se.
> I'm still trying to catch up on the theoretical stuff, but I've had a
> hint that there may be frequency domain vs. time domain issues in
> establishing the best size box to stick a genuine recording
arnyk wrote:
> I've examined a number of high sample rate recordings from vendor's
> sites and they all appear to have been upsampled from lower sample rate
> files. IOW, they are fraudulent.
Yes, I have made pretty much the same observations. The worst ones are
CDs resampled to DSD, and then
Golden Earring wrote:
> I was however under the impression that some amplifiers don't like
> ultrasonic frequencies & that sticking them in can induce non-linearity
> audible as IM distortion. Is this not correct?
Yes, that is correct. Also applies to loudspeakers.
"To try to judge the real
Golden Earring wrote:
> Well I haven't got one so I don't know, but I suppose some electronic
> gizmo capable of summing a fundamental tone with specific amplitudes of
> its odd harmonics up to the 9th would get close in practical terms if my
> textbook is correct. My point is that 9th harmonics
Golden Earring wrote:
> OK, but what are you subjecting your amplifier to if you stick an actual
> square wave from a signal generator through it?
A slightly rounded square wave.
> BTW, I don't actually like the sound of square waves myself!
Does it matter? You never find a pure square wave
Golden Earring wrote:
> So far I've learnt that you can regard a square wave in terms of the
> fundamental frequency sine wave + an infinite number of odd harmonic
> frequency sine waves each at a defined amplitude. And that for an
> acceptable working approximation you need to go as far as the
Golden Earring wrote:
> I don't know myself but he's been at it since 1992 & apparently his
> professional range sells well to studios. His studio design prototypes
> were used to record artists including Bowie, Lou Reed & Maria Carey, so
> I suspect that at least he's not inept.
He certainly
Golden Earring wrote:
> I would entirely agree with you that it is not obvious how any quantum
> effects would manifest. My point is that taking "objective" measurements
> inside the electronic processing chain may not be a completely reliable
> guide to determining what is happening when you
Golden Earring wrote:
> Whether any of the above will have a significant effect at a real-world
> level will depend upon the precise circumstances of each "objective"
> measurement we seek to obtain, but when we are dealing with gear that's
> purpose is to apply a significant amplification to a
Golden Earring wrote:
> Doesn't this mathematical theory enable you to predict how many
> lampposts you may expect a "close encounter" with on your journey home
> from the pub? :D
>
> It's been a while, sorry if I've got that wrong...
See 'Mark V. Shaney'
Golden Earring wrote:
> Before anyone jumps to a prejudicial conclusion regarding my
> rationality, may I respectfully suggest the application of a "Turing
> test" to the content of my previous posts?
>
Didn't I make a comment about markov chains quite a while back? :)
"To try to judge the
arnyk wrote:
> Trouble is, this good effort does not address the other problem, which
> is that the audibility of various differences varies tremendously.
Sure. Just because nulling shows differences doesn't mean the
differences are audible - but if the nulling shows no differences we can
be
arnyk wrote:
> My own take is that measuring gross differences is, well gross. One
> serious problem with gross differences is that their size can be huge
> when there is actually no audible difference, just a slight difference
> in timing.
Indeed. Bill Waslo's 'slides'
Golden Earring wrote:
> Does this directly impact on the problem summarised in my previous post?
Yes. It provides a pretty good tool to determine what, if any,
differences there are between two recordings (that could be recordings
of the output of two different devices). It allows you to hear
Golden Earring wrote:
> Don't leave us yet! This topic is the precise point of the ABX test that
> I'm attempting to organise!
Are you aware of 'Audio DiffMaker'
(http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm)? There is an interesting
'AES paper.'
drmatt wrote:
> If it means anything to anyone here, despite the rage and the bitching
> directed at me (and that I've responded with) I have changed my approach
> to some audio aspects. I would not have ever described myself as a
> hard-core audiophile (despite what some people here probably
Golden Earring wrote:
> I have never encountered any discs cut from inside to out
Long ago the band of the student union at my university did one with the
groove going from inside out. If you started at the outer end, the
needle got stuck in the secret backwards-recorded message "you are
Golden Earring wrote:
> If this is true, why do stand-mount loudspeakers not include a steep
> high-pass filter at 30Hz or so, to divert this power from the drivers
> unable to turn it into sound, and presumably simultaneously reduce the
> load on the power amplifier by increasing the impedance
arnyk wrote:
> Knowing when to be loud and when to be quiet was a survival skill in
> those days. My children learned some things about that in modern times,
> if you catch my drift! ;-)
I hear you... :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
cliveb wrote:
> People are always banging on about how evolution has operated to protect
> humans from predators, but it has always struck me as a somewhat lazy
> assumption.
It is of course a gross simplification. Evolution has operated to ensure
human survival and reproduction. Whatever
Golden Earring wrote:
> I'm most interested to hear Arny's take on solid-state Class A with
> regard to IM. I know that most recording studios use Class A amplifiers
> in their monitoring chain.
As one part of the monitoring chain, yes, but it is becoming less
common. For near-field monitoring,
Golden Earring wrote:
> Still catching up here. I hear you about Bell Labs, they were a big
> outfit. I believe it was 2 of their engineers who inadvertently
> discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation that resulted in the general
> acceptance of the Big Bang hypothesis for the origin of the
Golden Earring wrote:
> I know that there is a small contingent of technophiles who actually
> have little appreciation of music & select their recordings to "show
> off" the capabilities of their equipment. I am firmly in the opposite
> camp, I would prefer not to "hear" my system at all, just
Golden Earring wrote:
> All that I am trying to point out is that our appreciation of music is
> itself subjective - otherwise we would all like (& dislike) the same
> things.
Appreciation of music is subjective. Even appreciation of various form
of coloration and distortion is subjective. But
darrenyeats wrote:
> I would have voted Hilary, and I voted Remain, but I'm worried about
> polarisation in society.
So am I. And it is a polarisation in multiple axes. One is that
technology has increased our productivity immensely, but the benefits go
to a very small minority, while an
Mnyb wrote:
> Well I think the hostile aproach drives up to much tension and personal
> prestige it locks everyone involved into their trenches.
See my comment in the Holy Wars thread...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
But then there is this: 'Why the Flat Earth Movement is the Best Symbol
of the Increasingly Diminished Value of Truth and Intelligence'
(http://news.nationalpost.com/life/why-the-flat-earth-movement-is-the-best-symbol-of-the-increasingly-diminished-value-of-truth-and-intelligence)
"ItÂ’s the same
ho_kuku wrote:
> I did experienced the same thing - but with IFI Audio IUSB
> Volume became louder - at the same time improved separation. The noise
> floor also was greatly reduced.
> It just goes to show how "noisy" USB audio is - and those noise have a
> negative impact on sound.
> Clearing
Golden Earring wrote:
> Since all our "realities" are a construct by our brains from a set of
> tiny electrical impulses, it is entirely possible that we are all wrong
> :cool:
Or if we only exist as a computer simulation...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Golden Earring wrote:
> I think anyone prepared to live in a major active earthquake zone (when
> they could obviously afford to live elsewhere) needs a substantial
> element of subjectivity in their psyche...
>
Ah, yes, or induce it chemically. :)
With "CA", I was actually referring to a
Golden Earring wrote:
> It's a 2002 Mazda MX-5
Great car, and also illustrates the difference between subjective and
objective preference. I have a Morgan. I would be the first to admit
that the MX-5 is objectively better in pretty much every way, and
cheaper.
> I presume you're expecting it
Golden Earring wrote:
> Just got my 14.5 year old sports car back on the road this year after a
> couple of years off. I'm staving off the rust monster by treating the
> underside to a serious burst of Ku-rusting + Hammeriting, but it's
> turned a bit chilly in Blighty for my arthritic back
Golden Earring wrote:
> I've always harboured a secret desire to visit Amsterdam. I've been told
> that the music in the cafes sounds amazing...
Cafes or coffee shops? :)
There are some great jazz cafes - and great venues such as Paradiso (an
old church, and way too small for major acts, but
Golden Earring wrote:
> I have all the necessary equipment (2 identical unused Transporter SE's
> recently acquired from the same eBay seller in San Jose, CA, a DAC with
> the capability to achieve exact signal level matching, an amplifier with
> two sets of balanced XLR inputs and two sets of
Golden Earring wrote:
> At 14,000,000 to 1 odds or worse, your lottery statement is a fact.
It is a fact because it is based on some reasonable assumptions. Just
like my assessment of your observations.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
Golden Earring wrote:
> It's prejudice...
So if someone ask me about the lottery, and I say "it is unlikely that
you will win", is that prejudice?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
Golden Earring wrote:
> I was hoping that someone would be able to at least come up with a
> plausible hypothesis for the phenomenon: I would be delighted to assist
> in rigorously testing any decent suggestion.
First we need to find out if there really is a need for a new hypothesis
- and you
Golden Earring wrote:
> I think that your second sentence justifies my comment.
Ah, yes. So the fact that I know the physical reality of the situation
biases me?
> Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected
> results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect
Golden Earring wrote:
> However you have already persuaded yourself that the result would be a
> foregone conclusion.
Have I? Please explain...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge
Golden Earring wrote:
> With respect, I did ask for explanations which did NOT imply that I am
> deluded.
>
Have I implied that you are deluded? All I can say is that the
differences you report are unlikely enough that it justifies verifying
them with controlled double blind listening.
Golden Earring wrote:
> I am not aware of any scientific principle that establishes a minimum
> jitter threshold of inaudibility...
>
There is a scientific process - it is called double blind testing. But
you can also analyse the noise/distortion that the jitter adds (very
similar to
garym wrote:
> That is what I was assuming as well. And if he is saying "I hear no
> difference between the audio output of the Transporter's internal DAC
> playing to my analog inputs versus the Transporter digitally feeding an
> external DAC playing to analog inputs" then my response is of
jazzyphile wrote:
> Am I doing something wrong. How can I get external DAC to play through
> Transporter digital outs?
Am I correct in assuming what you want is to play the digital output of
the Transporter through the external DAC (and not the other way around)?
"To try to judge the real
Archimago wrote:
> Many subjectivists are reasonable folks who I believe will acknowledge
> the limitations of positions the "mainstream" audiophile writers take
> and will appreciate when examples are shown to demonstrate the
> fallacies.
Whenever I start thinking that I just have a quick look
Oh, and just after I posted that I saw the World Health Organization
warning about measles making a comeback in the western world due to
people not vaccinating their children...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
ralphpnj wrote:
> for audiophiles this means one can believe in measurements when it comes
> to bit depth and sample rates (as in digital audio) but not when to
> comes to harmonic distortion (as in tubes versus solid state).
And even for bit depth and sample rates, it becomes a simplistic
Archimago wrote:
> I believe the path of the "subjectivist audiophile" is weak, ignorant,
> and clearly rests on an unstable foundation based on nothing but -faith-
> in false or grossly intellectually compromised idols and idiosyncratic
> "high priests"
I agree. Unfortunately that is a very
pablolie wrote:
> Based on my reading, even the best human platinum ears can not hear
> beyond 20/44.
And I would question the 20. Even 16 bits means hearing stuff that is
way below the background noise level of your listening room while
listening to music at 120 dB...
"To try to judge the
atrocity wrote:
> I'm ripping my SACDs via one of the naughty methods that technically
> isn't supposed to exist.
Right - that is a curse that will probably stay with us for ever - silly
attempts by the content industry to keep control of the material using
misguided technical means.
"To try
atrocity wrote:
> And HDMI to output gapless 5.1 FLAC and DSD!
Considering DSD might have been a good idea in the 90's, we might now
let it rest in peace...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a
foxesden wrote:
> May I humbly suggest that you review this and other responses that you
> have made on this forum and then consider how they may appear to other
> people?
Arny has a somewhat aggressive style of communication. Nevertheless he
is right about the answer from the isolator
cliveb wrote:
> On a good day and with a following wind, maybe :-)
> IME typical vinyl is equivalent to more like 10 or 11 bits.
I was trying to be charitable :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a
To try to answer the original posting - I spent yesterday at ISE2017 -
Integrated Systems Europe, one of the largest AV trade fairs in Europe.
It filled pretty much the whole RAI exhibition centre, but only one hall
was Audio. Even Harman International were mostly promoting their smart
retail
d6jg wrote:
> This is interesting to me as I have been considering upgrading the ADC
> that I use for ripping Vinyl from the current 16/48 Behringer that I use
> at the moment to something capable of 24/xx.
> There is a massive price jump from 16/48 to anything capable of 24/xx.
> Are you all
ralphpnj wrote:
> I suppose that one could just compare the measured dynamic range (via
> the foobar plugin or an equivalent) of a 24bit/44.1kHz audio file and
> the same audio in a 16bit/44.1kHz file. if the dynamic ranges are the
> same (which they absolutely should be) then a 24bit file is
It is indeed high resolution - noise. And no, it doesn't matter - you
won't hear a difference, at least not blind.
I keep asking for examples of commercial recordings with a dynamic range
exceeding 16 bits, and I still haven't found one.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always
1 - 100 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
