or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by cnocbui

I don't see the bearing this has on the argument for 24 bit vs 16 bit. The biggest limiting factors are noise in the playback systems and noise in the playback environment. You did bring up an excellent point in terms of the loudness war and modern recording practices. passages of quiet requiring even 16 bit depth are very few and far between. The noise levels of vinyl are not close to CD's in practical use. I should know, I spent a couple decades zapping the wretched...
Well if a microphones can't, then it cant be recoded in the first place so you don't need the capability in the reproduction system I know about the extent of the dynamic range of human hearing. 16 bits gives you a dynamic range of 96db What is the signal to noise ratio of a decent power amp? About 100 db. So what's the point of having 24 bits, giving a theoretical dynamic range of 144 db? You can't reproduce a sound that is quieter than the noise floor of your...
I'm always up for a good laugh, could you please provide details or a link to somewhere that provides details of where and how it has been shown that there is an audible difference between AIFF and ALAC or FLAC. By the way, FLAC and ALAC are not lossy compression algorithms, they are LOSSLESS.
Most people can not hear a difference between moderately high compression rates, say 223 kbps, and uncompressed source material. 24bits is pointless. All it does is lower the possible noise floor to levels where there are few places on earth quiet enough to be able to begin to take advantage of it on playback. As for 96khz - WTF? Dolphins and bats might appreciate the higher frequencies such a sampling rate allows, but humans won't. I very much doubt that more than 10%...
Sounds like a lot of work. You might find this site interesting http://www.hydrogenaudio.org They have been running ABX public trials of various compression codecs and compression rates for years. There is an app called Foobar2000 for PCs that apart from doing other things, has a facility for doing truly blind software invigilated ABX comparison of files. It's therefore open to anyone to do their own at home blind testing. Whether they will believe the results is...
That is perfectly true, but audiophiles usually state that compressed music is the spawn of the devil and sounds so obviously inferior that the idea of listening to it is beneath their contempt.They usually claim the audible difference between compressed and source (CD usually) is huge, not subtle.I know you personally have not made that claim, apart from making a remark about me listening to compressed music.My reasoning sort of goes; if one can't hear a difference...
You mean like Samsung with Super AMOLED? This article is hugely misleading. Samsung has no problems sourcing touchscreens.
I meant they couldn't suddenly prevent me from reading that which I have purchased, nor could they prevent me from on-selling it, donating it to a hospice, exchanging it at a 2nd hand bookstore and other such legitimate and legal uses.
I buy my books printed on paper. I like them that way. Apple doesn't make yet more profit out of me and can have no say in how I use what I have legitimately purchased.
Well you failed the hearing test - point proven I think. Earlier I said: Prescient of me, non? I use a pair Sony MDR-D77 headphones and B&W 802 Nautilus speakers. There is science behind HDMI, there is not a jot behind the supposed superiority of cables. Funny you should mention coathangers. They are galvanised steel and theoretically fairly poor conductors compared to copper. Audiophiles could not tell the difference between coat hangers and monster speaker cables...
New Posts  All Forums: