|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.220.54.45
In Reply to: RE: +1 posted by smart845 on June 28, 2014 at 12:42:32
/
Follow Ups:
... it's consistently miss-represented here (and abroad) as being "superior" by simple default alone.
In the process, the true meaning of "higher-resolution" as it pertains to all forms of audio reproduction, has become diluted, butchered even ...
True hi-resolution reproduction isn't simply about quoting larger digital numbers, or incorrectly associated CD (scapegoat) with all the evils pertaining to past digital reproduction, that's being far too dismissive of the real world issues surrounding digital/audio reproduction as a whole.
Higher-resolution digital, done correctly, can sound realistic & captivating. I've heard that reality countless times. However, I've also heard far too many crappy sounding "hi-rez" recordings, while ironically, some of the very best sounding digital recordings I've heard to date - were originally recorded @16/48 and played back @16/44.
tb1
The difference is how much are you willing to spend for all the crap that is out there
Alan
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: