|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
202.148.160.27
In Reply to: A familiar theme...the end to high-end... posted by slapshot on April 23, 2007 at 11:01:30:
This is found towards the end of the article.If they had used a 50kHz sampling, people would have enjoyed their CDs a lot better. Using a low sampling rate or less bits is a form of compression which many don't seem to realize.
IMHO, the difference between 96/24 and 44.1/16 is greater than uncompressed 44.1/16 and a 256kbps MP3 file.
Follow Ups:
"IMHO, the difference between 96/24 and 44.1/16 is greater than uncompressed 44.1/16 and a 256kbps MP3 file."I have to kindly disagree with this one.... I've almost never experienced 24/96 that was listenable.
I do think had we gone 16/50, like you said, we wouldn't even have a format issue. Although I also think and we gone 16/50, vinyl wouldn't have survived.
Everybody has their own preferences, opinions and ears but AFAIK most people will agree that 96/24 is better than 44.1/16 even if they feel the difference is not much. You seem to be the only person I have come across that feels that 96/24 is worse than 44.1/16
Vinyl isn't dying because digital isn't better.But portability and convenience is a big deal.
So now there are new LPs being released with free mp3 downloads. Meanwhile CD sales are falling. Interesting trend.
The problem with CD isn't the medium. The problem with CD is the quality of playback, by and large, is ghastly pathetic relative to its potential. It's evidenced by the preference of vinyl, the preference of SACD (which I personally cannot stand), and even the claim that MP3 isn't any worse.When the CD first came out, I questioned the medium, and thought its playback quality was inherently flawed to be viable for high-end applications. Then one day, I heard a Wadia 7/9 playback system, at the defunct Sound Resource in Cleveland. I couldn't believe I was listening to CD. One of the recordings I remember during the occasion was Stravinsky's "Petrouchka", by the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by Pierre Boulez. And with Jeff Rowland electronics and Avalon speakers. The staging and specificity was head and shoulder above anything I've heard on CD prior to that. And also the tonal warmth and timbral resolution.
I ultimately got the Prism DA-2, which comes close, as well as some modified Magnavox and Philips players of early vintage. But still, I was at the HE 2006 in Los Angeles. And that same old generic, boring sound from CD from players costing thousands. A sound that a lot of us have loved to hate.....
The sick part is I'm now getting in the ballpark with a laptop computer, but one needs to go on a scavenger hunt for drivers, applications, and settings to bring it home. I also say on the video side, one can get a picture quality that trounces a high-end DVD rig.
The problem is we keep getting new technology, but it seems like hardly anybody really knows how to harness it. So more-often than not, we get glorified changes that end up being more sideways or backwards than forwards. And along with the bliss of anticipation, we're getting the more and more frustrated with the end result.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: