View Single Post
Old 01-28-2018, 11:35 AM   #40
JSWolf
Resident Curmudgeon
JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
JSWolf's Avatar
 
Posts: 80,030
Karma: 147977995
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
That xiph.org post is a load of crap. It doesn't say anything useful. It doesn't say anything about how the music sounds with more bits and the cutoff point being that close to 20kHz. It's not about what you cannot hear, it's about making what you can hear sound better. That post is pulled out whenever someone is trying to say that 16/44.1 is all we need.

As for the blind test, this is what stands out...
Quote:
4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS

Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.

Last edited by JSWolf; 01-28-2018 at 11:42 AM.
JSWolf is offline   Reply With Quote