In Reply to: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. posted by Tony Lauck on April 6, 2015 at 11:38:26:
"Anyone who doesn't appreciate the inadequacy of the 44/16 format is unqualified to comment to the issues under discussion because they lack the ability to hear what is going on. "
I would not call the approach complete BS if you also required the "qualified" to prove their system and ears via relevant statistically significant experimental results. As a general rule this kind of credibility is not often required of posters making questionable claims here.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Ugly 12:09:37 04/06/15 (11)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Tony Lauck 12:40:21 04/06/15 (10)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Ugly 12:52:25 04/06/15 (9)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Tony Lauck 13:13:36 04/06/15 (8)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Ugly 17:30:03 04/06/15 (7)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Tony Lauck 18:01:02 04/06/15 (6)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Ugly 19:19:09 04/06/15 (5)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Tony Lauck 08:39:26 04/07/15 (4)
- RE: interesting article - Ugly 19:49:30 04/07/15 (2)
- RE: interesting article - Tony Lauck 08:48:23 04/08/15 (1)
- RE: Doh. Sorry. This one. - Ugly 19:17:17 04/08/15 (0)
- RE: The -90 dB argument and the "H" word. - Ugly 19:08:45 04/07/15 (0)