Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Oct 2012 00:05 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 537316
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by kwan_e
by rjamorim on Tue 2nd Oct 2012 13:44
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kwan_e"
RE[6]: Comment by kwan_e
by Richard Dale on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 11:00
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kwan_e"
"someone on the internet
If you don't know who Monty is this tells more about you than about him.
has written a rant
Your comment is rant. Monty's piece can be published in a respectable journal. "
Of course I know who the guy is, and he certainly knows a lot about lossy codecs. But he's hardly the best guy to have an unbiased opinion about HiRes uncompressed digital audio. The are plenty of good technical reasons to believe why Red Book 16/44.1 isn't good enough and why 24/192 is better. For example, CD needs a 20Khz brickwall filter to work which has side effects well into the audio band at half the frequency.





Member since:
2005-07-22
..the equipment and content will be more expensive, and the actual quality will be worse: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html "
Oh gosh someone on the internet has written a rant about 24/192 digital music - it must be true!