temerini;521318 Wrote: > Some reviews on RR HRx releases: > > Absolute Sound Review: "Reference Recordings, a company at the > forefront of technical advancements for the past 30 years, has broken > through the technical barriers to deliver to listeners the exact > high-resolution digital bitstreams created during the recording > sessions... Hearing these familiar pieces for the first time in high > resolution was an absolutely mind-blowing experience... If you want the > undisputed state-of-the-art in music reproduction right now, HRx is one > thrilling ride. But consider yourself warned: Once you hear > high-resolution digital done right, there's no going back." - Robert > Harley, The Absolute Sound, January 2009 > > Best of Show award for Greatest Technological Breakthrough: Reference > Recordings HRx ultra-high resolution (176.4/24) digital music format. > (Alan Taffel: The Absolute Sound April/May 2008)
But they will sound just fine down-sampled to 88.2 or 96 ? And TAS come on ;) And btw RR has 11 of these recordings ? this is the same as 0 if you considering the rest of the market . Seriously sound cards have 192/176.4 faculties due to their use as recording equipment. But Why build playback equipment for 20 recordings ? how to make money from that = the audiophile market wants it bigger number=better, how many have actually used this capacity ? but it is a very very tiny market. And speaking of music ? my 23 years as an audiophile have somewhat inoculated me against audiophile recordings yuck ! Show me one of these recordings that actually at the same time is the best musical interpretation of the music . I'm no expert on Mozart or Beethoven, but some of the jazz and folk on these labels ? Have you heard some of the "music" Linn is selling no way some of these people would got studio time unless they bend over for an audiphile label ? Imho there is something profoundly wrong with musicians only good enough to appear on audiophile labels. Don't get me wrong there are some labels that have become audiophile labels,but that also have good music, but they also have a wider goal than making audiphile records. Example Opus 3 some of their music don't suck. Maybe I get a RR recording anyway, I'm actually curious maybe I get one of those, thanks for the tip, sometimes I can not help myself :) Some audio hardware companies are more practical or have higher standards ? For example Meridian does downsample 192/176.4 in their players and runs 24/96 in their processors and speakers for the simple reason that 1. it halves the processor power needed to run all dsp x-overs and whatnots 2. makes the product cheaper (relatively speaking of m gear) 3. They conduct controlled listening test and have found that it does not makes any audible difference at all, so why bother. 4. Their c.e.o and founder is a real engineer and publish papers in AES and does (real )research in psychoacoustics. So I think he rather die than propel hype and audio myths to sell more products . Other respected companies like Weis and dCs does pro gear too, so their products will have 192/176.4 by default just because it's the same technology they use anyway. Many standalone DAC's have 192/176.4 for compatibility reasons, customers must be able to hear all their disc's files and such. And the output from certian gear is 192/176.4 . Or even simpler the DAC chips used have this already so why not. Standalone DAC's is very niche anyway only used in pro/ hobby recording settings or by some audiophiles. It becomes an altogether different problem when your products contains processors and network functions. Then down-sampling the content somewhere becomes a good solutions as it actually accomplish the compatibility goal and does not impare the SQ in any way. In a standalone DAC's it probably cheaper and easier to just use 192/176.4 capable chips than build a downsampling engine and processor in it. I want 192/176.4 in the Touch because I want to offload my server from the transcoding duties, Here is my "problem" If I want to sync my very few 192 album with a Touch and one SB3 my server have to run 2 different sox processes one for 48k and one for 96k, It have the cpu power to manage one of these processes. But realizing that this will only happens if there is an very easy fix for the drivers in the touch, I mean very easy as there is no real reason to do this for SQ or sales *. I can probably fix my own problem by simply downsample this album before loading it in my library. Don't discount Logitech's offer Touch or Transporter for a digital transport just because it lacks 192/176.4 . In real life how often are you going listen to this music and when you do transcoding will be good enough . The Squeezebox system is so practical to use, I'm prepared to live with that "compromise" of "only" supporting 96k native and transcode the rest for this reason . /Mikael *(unless you want to sell on hype and audiophile myths, but then we want toobs and aluminum billet chassis and rack handles too ;) ) -- Mnyb -------------------------------------------------------------------- Main hifi: SB3 (soon to replaced by a Touch :) It is on preorder) Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Receiver (soon to be replaced by my SB3 and the SBR to be stuffed in a box in the attic ) Miscellaneous use: Radio (battery pack to be ordered) I use a Controller various ir-remotes and a Eee-PC with squeezeplay to control this ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=74688
_______________________________________________ Touch mailing list Touch@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
