In Reply to: RE: Reviewers with LP - how many are there ? posted by J. Phelan on March 5, 2017 at 15:49:15:
>>I assume most of your digital is not hi-res. It might be upsampled CD files (?) Or 16/44 that sounds like hi-res !<<
No upsampling, so yes, the bulk of my digital is files ripped from CDs, pure redbook, though some are losslessly compressed (FLAC mostly)--last winter's project. To be candid, I've always found hi-res hit or miss; I've got some CDs (or CD files) that sound spectacular; some (truly high-res) files that sound so-so. Your post made me rethink what I wrote, which was a bit hurried and imprecise: There are many great-sounding CDs, and playback has reached the point so that they sound pretty great, IMO. Plus, high-res is approaching (if it's not there already; I think it probably is) total transparency--yes, I'm saying I don't think 24/192 has a sound of its own. (I do think DSD has its own sound, but it's subtle.) So that's two points that I combined awkwardly into one. So the second point is, I don't think there's a problem with digital anymore. It can be as good as engineers can make it.
Also, so far I'm impressed by MQA. I've spent hours poring over the papers and patent applications and concluded that it's legit enough to judge on its merits--which is to say, on how it sounds. And so far I like it. So there's that, too, especially for streaming.
jca
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Reviewers with LP - how many are there ? - Jim Austin 17:40:24 03/05/17 (0)