It all proves that 16/44.1 is really not that bad a way to encode music. (nt) - jsm

Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - Luciano,IT 09:22:21 11/20/06 (18)

Dynamics differentiates SACD from CD - SoftwireEngineer 11:46:22 11/22/06 (0)

Re:an impossible task, you've set for yourself - Bruce from DC 07:00:43 11/21/06 (1)

Re:an impossible task, you've set for yourself - ts 07:24:35 11/22/06 (0)

As for the Monster 5100 - Pacman 05:57:21 11/21/06 (0)

Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - Ramesh 17:10:13 11/20/06 (0)

Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - nunderwood 16:23:14 11/20/06 (0)

Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - jimmyjames 16:10:27 11/20/06 (2)

PS... - jimmyjames 16:16:55 11/20/06 (1)

critical listening and comparisons... - Ozzie 11:24:05 11/21/06 (0)

IMO, you can't generalize about it - Sordidman 13:08:12 11/20/06 (1)

I agree you can't generalize about it - Soundboy 15:03:18 11/20/06 (0)

Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - HighEndWire 09:40:05 11/20/06 (6)

Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - Ozzie 11:11:50 11/20/06 (5)

Norah Jones: Stereo from 16/44.1, Multi-channel layer from analog - chriscmore 07:55:04 11/21/06 (2)

Uh uh Chris... - Ozzie 10:14:56 11/21/06 (1)

Chris is right - racerguy 13:11:24 11/21/06 (0)

Re: XRCD v. SACD - interesting comparison - HighEndWire 16:09:15 11/20/06 (0)

It all proves that 16/44.1 is really not that bad a way to encode music. (nt) - jsm 15:34:01 11/20/06 (0)

Follow Ups

It all proves that 16/44.1 is really not that bad a way to encode music. (nt) - jsm 15:34:01 11/20/06 (0)