There are a number of high-end 24/96 and FLAC capable servers already on
the market (Linn, PS Audio, Meridian/Sooloos) and more about to be
released (Cary, others). Prices will continue to fall as competition
heats up. I may end up with a Non-Squeezebox streamer in my listening
room, with Squeez
mlsstl;520243 Wrote:
> The one credible argument that I've seen for 24/192 is on the recording
> and mixing side. When multi-track levels are adjusted dramatically
> during the mixing phase, you can get an unwanted increase in background
> noise at the lower resolutions.
>
> However, once the m
Phil Leigh wrote:
> Record an acoustic Guitar and vocal performance using a Neumann U87 and
> Focusrite ISA430 Mic Pre-Amp onto a properly aligned an maintained
> Studer A80 1/2 inch 2-track.
Nice test setup, but as the rest of the posting notes, as well as most
of contents of this tread say, 24/1
I just can't imagine Logitech expending the effort to come out with a
24/192 playback device. They are a consumer products company and seem to
have little interest in chasing the super-audiophile end of the market.
While the Transporter is still available, it seems to be in a wind-down
phase of
Phil Leigh;520194 Wrote:
> I've done this. Using commercially released material is pointless as you
> will see - its lineage is unknown...
>
> Record an acoustic Guitar and vocal performance using a Neumann U87 and
> Focusrite ISA430 Mic Pre-Amp onto a properly aligned an maintained
> Studer A80
I've done this. Using commercially released material is pointless as you
will see - its lineage is unknown...
Record an acoustic Guitar and vocal performance using a Neumann U87 and
Focusrite ISA430 Mic Pre-Amp onto a properly aligned an maintained
Studer A80 1/2 inch 2-track.
Play the tape back
MrRalph;520048 Wrote:
> Why bring up the argument over and over that we don't need a 24/192
> device just because 'we can't hear any difference'? May I please trust
> my own ears and be the judge of that. This has nothing to do with the so
> called 'tendency' for greater numbers = better quality.
slackhead;520040 Wrote:
> Likewise, there is no material that demonstrates they can't.
That's a non-argument. You can't prove a negative assertion.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
SB Touch Beta (wired) - TACT 2
I doubt the Touch will be made capable of 24/192 but that is not the
issue.
Recordings are being release in 24/192 master format. Any resampling
will have a deleterious effect on them. New additive errors, new
applied filters. Audibility of same is personal.
I think the fundamental truth is
Why bring up the argument over and over that we don't need a 24/192
device just because 'we can't hear any difference'? May I please trust
my own ears and be the judge of that. This has nothing to do with the so
called 'tendency' for greater numbers = better quality. We all know
that. I just don't
Phil Leigh;520021 Wrote:
>
> AFAIK there is no published material to demonstrate that humans can
> reliably hear any difference between 24/192 downsampled correctly to
> 24/96 vs straight 24/192 in controlled testing.
Likewise, there is no material that demonstrates they can't.
--
slackhead
11 matches
Mail list logo
