No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation.
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
Not having read *every* post i like the direction of the OP and Geoff.... first, most of what we like and don't seems to be locked in at recording and mastering. Listen to some 50 year old Verve and Mercury recordings - superb in 16/44. Now listen to Supertramp Crimes of the Century on CD. I rest my case. Red book (16/44) gives us 96 dB snr vs most analog (which remember, we like) at 60-70 with a tail-wind. The problems must lie elsewhere - yea, they exist, but not in the fundamental coding. A recording engineer can easily squander 20dB of SNR by getting the level check wrong. That, to me, is the big benefit of 24/96 -- in the studio it allows for another 8 bits of mistakes before we can hear it :-) No, seriously. Time domain errors have little to do with coding format, and we still have not tamed those. Maybe Bob Stuart is right, maybe wrong, but he's chasing at lest one of the right topics. I just want good, simply recorded, simply produced 16/44 -- badly done 24/96 just reveals all the awful warts. Heck, i just heard "ripple" in 192 mp3 (!!!) sound fantastic (on a pretty superb system). Case closed. G |
atdavid GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough. >>>>As is often you case with you your memory is either failing or you’re lying. Take your pick. I never refuted anything of the sort. Eat more fish! 🐟 🐟 |
porscheracer No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don’t even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation. >>>>That seems highly improbable since I haven’t been wrong since 1985. How about 20%? Let’s compromise. You seem like a nice guy. |
You don't have to accept it since there is lots of data on CD error rates, and certainly 25% is not "errors" or missing. Unfortunately some people have a disconnect from reality. One can only assume that a person who makes such a statement does not truly understand CDs, and hence does not realize that 25% of the data on a CD is error correction, but confuses this (or tries to confuse others) that it is "missing" data. porscheracer123 posts11-28-2019 1:53pmNo, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation. |
- 169 posts total