In Reply to: RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction? posted by b.l.zeebub on April 9, 2014 at 06:52:25:
Hey, I was going to say that! :)I'd only add that, even if the people conducting the test cover those bases, there's still a bump in the road. The downsampled version has gone through an extra set of electronics (the sample rate converter and the subsequent digital recorder), which add their own sonic signature to the resulting file. In an effort to reduce the number of variables to something closer to "one", it would make sense to also run the original HR file through the converter, maintaining the original bit depth and sample rate, and record it on the same digital recorder, even though no downsampling is actually done. At least then, the new "unchanged" HR file has gone through the same set of electronics as the downsampled version.
:)
Edits: 04/09/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction? - Inmate51 11:03:05 04/09/14 (4)
- RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction? - Tony Lauck 20:16:14 04/10/14 (2)
- RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction? - Inmate51 02:50:21 04/11/14 (1)
- RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction? - Tony Lauck 07:08:26 04/11/14 (0)
- RE: High Resolution - Fact or Fiction? - b.l.zeebub 08:32:30 04/10/14 (0)