Nothing wrong with Red Book CD using a half decent player; once again Audiophiles, going in those ever tightening circles, have shot themselves in the foot in search of the Holy Grail, and better Magic Mushrooms.
Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?
It's really difficult to compare resolutions with different masterings, delivery methods, sources, etc. I have hundreds of HI-rez files (dsd, hi bit rate PCM, etc). I have to say that even 24/44 is probably revealing the best a recording has to offer. Obviously, recording formats, methods, etc all play a huge role. I'm not talking preferred sources like vinyl, sacd, etc. I'm talking about the recordings themselves.
Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD.
Opinions?
Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD.
Opinions?
- ...
- 169 posts total
I have a different angle on this topic. I have the Audio Note DAC5 and have had several top DSD dacs and high rez PCM dacs in my system as well. The DAC5 is a NOS dac and can take up to 24/192 with the latest receiver chip. My finding is that on redbook or natively recorded higher rez it is superior to any oversampling dac I have encountered. DSD natively recorded has a the edge as well over oversampling dacs but the DAC5 is simply much more magical on redbook vs redbook through the DSD dac. Native DSD has a lot going for it and I feel it also sounds free of the OS artifacts but I have not encountered a DSD dac that competes with the DAC5 or the "Killer Dac" Every oversampling dac I have heard has some artifact that I hear now that I have heard the NOS multibit and DSD dac's . My observation is that NOS 16/44 is enough to give goosebumps in the best of systems and natively recorded 24/96 through a NOS dac has slightly more air and natural shimmer but only the slightest amount. It is very probable that the people who find the big benefits from native high rez are benefiting from lower levels of oversampling happening. |
Funny anytime I want to dazzle the crap out of someone I put on one of Tony Minasians’s of Tonian Labs recordings . Usually Drums & Bells , 15 seconds into the first cut they are usually absolutely dumb founded commenting never listened to anything recorded sound so realistic. Whats so special about these recorderings , nothing other then some modifications to his impressive collection of recording microphones these recordings are shocking realistic sounding to say the least . For $20.00 listen for yourself , Tonianlabs.com |
In blind testing with foobar "comparator", I could reliably distinguish 24/44 from 16/44 but not 24/44 from either 24/96 or 24/192. So, I am a fan of 24-bit files! Still, I like the idea of higher sample rate, so 24/96 seems like a good standard. Moreover, the higher sampling rates offer greater choices in playback filtering: On the other hand, by the time you get to quad-rate sampling (176.4 kHz or 192 kHz), the compromises are practically non-existent. One can have flat frequency response to 40 kHz or 50 kHz, and still have a filter with little or no ringing (in the case of the moving-average filter). |
- 169 posts total