|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.178.31.161
In Reply to: RE: I bought the SACD posted by Ozzie on March 02, 2014 at 15:07:39
What I disagree with is the new McCarney album, that was recorded in 24/96 sounds better (or as good, or better according to the reviewers) on cd.
It's not just this one recording.
It's not just 'showing up the flaws of the source material'.
Hi-Rez downloads, on the whole, are a colossal fraud.
I'm so tired of b.s. like this from the music/hi-fi industry.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
Follow Ups:
Chris gave you a classical example. I think that I am safe to say that most jazz downloads probably sound good too. A good rule of thumb might be, if it is rock, it probably isn't worth the extra money as the masters are crappy in the first place.
It comes down to one thing. If they don't sound good to you mbnx01, by all means don't waste your money on them.
"Hi-Rez downloads, on the whole, are a colossal fraud."
That's a pretty sweeping statement, and in my experience with classical downloads, I've found that hi-rez downloads are well worth it (for me), as long as you know what you're buying. What I also like is the verification you can use with standard software to show whether you have clean musical signals in the ultrasonic range - and with the music files I've downloaded, I've found that that's invariably the case. And even without reference to "listening with my eyes", these downloads just sound wonderful too. I've heard that the world of non-classical downloads can be more problematical.
/
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: