Home DVD-Audiobahn

New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.

What is REAL High resolution?

65.26.233.47

What the heck, let's start a flame war:

Have you heard Graham Nash's "Songs for Survivors" or Beck's "Sea Change"? These are fantastic sounding disks at lowly 48/24.

They might sound even better at 96/24, but if I were a sample-rate snob, I would have missed out on these two gems.

I think the audible difference between 96 and 192 is virtually non-existent and most of the preferences people have for 192 would disappear in double-blind tests.

Disclaimer: I base these opinions on my 40-something year-old ears and my mid-fi equipment.

But when people like Elliot Scheiner (who I figure has pretty good equipment and ears) indicates that going from 96 to 192 isn't a significant difference and that most of the benefit of 96/24 comes from the 24 (bit size)and not the sample rate, at the very least I conclude that for most of us, going out of our way to move from 96/24 to 192/24 provides very little difference outside of placebo effect.

I understand that for the people who feel either it's vinyl or it's garbage and have invested in esoteric speaker wire with unobtainium-gas filled isolation chambers, it's comforting to know that you are maxing out the sample rate just in case there is something that might be captured by that overhead.

BTW, The one dualdisc I own is 96/24 and has played in every player I've slipped it in. (about 15 different types of players)

I'm very difficult to offend so I look forward to any and all responses.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.