|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.168.161.170
In Reply to: RE: OK.... posted by Tom Schuman on July 02, 2015 at 18:32:06
It's an utter, blatant BS - as anyone with a resolving audio system and healthy ears, who bothered to listen to a hi-rez recording versus its downsampled to 16/44 equivalent, through a "regular" amp and speakers, can attest to.
Follow Ups:
I tried that very test though I think I downsampled to 48k instead of 44.1.I didn't hear any reliable difference when I was honest and attempted to self-blind as well as possible. And I re-upsampled back to the original sampling rate so that the DAC was running electrically in the same configuration so the difference was exclusively the effect of the sampling procedures.
If there was any difference, it was way below my threshold of caring.
I was disappointed as I wanted to move to a great new world of increased awesomeness beyond what I had.
I imagine there's an advantage to higher bit depths & sampling rates when there's any kind of DSP as it puts the range of some implementation artifacts out of audibility.
Anyway I now care about recording mastering quality much more.
Edits: 07/05/15
(NT)
cMP PC win8.1 > Weiss AF1 Firewire interface > Vovox Link Direct SD > Lavry Black DA10 > Vovox Sonorus Direct S > Klein & Hummel O300
perhaps you can define what you mean by a 'downsampled equivalent'? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
IMO, 24/96 downsampled to 16/44 is not any better than 16/44 upsampled to 24/96!!
OTOH, there is more to digital audio than traditional S/N ratio measurements, so the idea that you need an amplifier with a -132 S/N ratio to hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 is not 'all of the truth'.
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: