Last Active: Feb 09, 2015
Threads: 18
Posts: 2,036
Reputation:
13
Lossless vs lossy isn't really in the same boat as 16/44.1 vs 24/96
One can easily argue the benefits of recording at a high sample rate, but delivering the final product at anything higher than 44.1 is mostly useless, unless you are entertaining cats.
The dynamic range advantages of 16 bit vs 24 bit would be wasted on most of today's music. Perhaps classical recordings can take advantage of the lower noise floor of 24 bit, but the majority of the existing 16 bits are not used by what is circulated now. Or, technically, they are overused...
What would be fraud is using a CD as the source for 24/96.
Last Active: Dec 01, 2024
Threads: 7
Posts: 124
Reputation:
5
please, this is ridiculous, i have a decent sound system and when i play Dark Side of the Moon vinyl rip it is completely other universe, sound is so clear, sharp that even my sis, non techy, can tell the difference and she was amazed, like jawdrop.
FLAC is lossless and mp3 compression ruins the bits.
Last Active: Nov 24, 2022
Threads: 15
Posts: 263
Reputation:
16
(Jan 15, 2014, 19:22 pm)100.XY Wrote: please, this is ridiculous, i have a decent sound system and when i play Dark Side of the Moon vinyl rip it is completely other universe, sound is so clear, sharp that even my sis, non techy, can tell the difference and she was amazed, like jawdrop.
FLAC is lossless and mp3 compression ruins the bits.
exactly my experience 
Last Active: Feb 09, 2015
Threads: 18
Posts: 2,036
Reputation:
13
You peeps need to go back and read the first post.
This discussion is not about FLAC/lossless vs MP3/lossy but 24/96 vs 16/44.1
Now please get back on topic. /mod
Last Active: Nov 24, 2022
Threads: 15
Posts: 263
Reputation:
16
(Jan 15, 2014, 19:31 pm)kjf Wrote: You peeps need to go back and read the first post.
This discussion is not about FLAC/lossless vs MP3/lossy but 24/96 vs 16/44.1
Now please get back on topic. /mod
OK, where's the harm in using 24/96 as opposed to 16/44 ????
Last Active: Apr 13, 2015
Threads: 62
Posts: 2,121
Reputation:
5
Where is the harm in reading a thread before you reply to it? At the very least it saves you looking like a moron.
The "harm" is in paying for yet another copy of something that you already own when you really won't be able to tell the difference.
[I know that you're going to misunderstand what I've just said, so I urge you, before posting another reply showing everyone how little you know about what is being discussed, do try to catch up.]
Last Active: Feb 20, 2015
Threads: 3
Posts: 68
Reputation:
0
You need a Really good sound system/Headphones to tell the difference between the 2. and the reason a vinyl sounds different than a 24/96 master file is because vinyl has a weird airy sound to it.
Last Active: Sep 13, 2024
Threads: 18
Posts: 684
Reputation:
4
If you read the post with the link, you can't hear the upper frequencies no matter how much you think you do. You might percieve some of it, but nothing to warrant a full 96khz range
Last Active: Nov 24, 2022
Threads: 15
Posts: 263
Reputation:
16
(Jan 15, 2014, 19:44 pm)NIK Wrote: The "harm" is in paying for yet another copy of something that you already own when you really won't be able to tell the difference.
It's always foolish to buy stuff you don't need. So why replace something with another copy you can't tell different ??
As for paying for HD stuff: what kind of pirate are you 
Last Active: Apr 13, 2015
Threads: 62
Posts: 2,121
Reputation:
5
I did warn you that replying without reading would simply make you look even more foolish. 
|
