24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4820 times.

Rischa

24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« on: 26 Apr 2012, 09:29 pm »
Interesting article on the supposed follies of high resolution music files:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #1 on: 26 Apr 2012, 09:49 pm »
You know what's even worse for people than hirez?  Stupidity.

Rischa

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #2 on: 26 Apr 2012, 09:53 pm »
You know what's even worse for people than hirez?  Stupidity.

Are you referring to the premise of the article, or people who listen to high resolution downloads?

mhconley

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #3 on: 26 Apr 2012, 10:43 pm »
Oh look - it's this thread again...  :roll:

Martin

werd

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #4 on: 26 Apr 2012, 10:52 pm »
I wish and I mean I WISH this was true but its not. Put into practice the legit hi Rez are better sounding. There might be a worth while debate between 96 and 192. Making 192 redundant over 96. That hasn't been my finding but it would be more respectful.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #5 on: 26 Apr 2012, 11:21 pm »
That article is idiotic.

Freo-1

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #6 on: 26 Apr 2012, 11:27 pm »
Reminds me of that old saying:


“Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”   :roll:

JerryM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4709
  • Where's The Bar?
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #7 on: 27 Apr 2012, 12:43 am »
That article is idiotic.

I called this article pure crap before, and I'll call it pure crap again.

This article is pure crap.  :thumb:

Rischa

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #8 on: 27 Apr 2012, 01:22 am »
Was there already a thread about this article? Didn't mean to dredge up an exhausted topic.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #9 on: 27 Apr 2012, 01:23 am »
I called this article pure crap before, and I'll call it pure crap again.

This article is pure crap.  :thumb:

Well, I dunno, there must be at least a little something to it - after all, the guy who wrote it has a website.

Davey

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1481
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #10 on: 27 Apr 2012, 01:25 am »
What do you fellas think of Ogg, FLAC, and some of the other compression schemes??

Dave.

Daedalus Audio

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 974
    • http://www.daedalusaudio.com
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #11 on: 27 Apr 2012, 02:30 am »
That article is idiotic.
hey Tyson,
we get to agree on something!!!!!  the article is worse than crap, more like the wretched byproduct of a wanker.  this guy spent a ton of time on a project based on assuming his virtual reality is in fact real.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #12 on: 27 Apr 2012, 02:41 am »
3 things, actually - That article was crap, your speakers sound awesome, and Pasquini's rocks!

Rischa

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #13 on: 27 Apr 2012, 02:53 am »
Ok, guys, gotta play devil's advocate here. What's so idiotic about the article? The author makes some compelling arguments and backs up his claims with evidence. Anyone have anything more substantial to offer than "high-res sounds better to me, therefore the article is crap"?

JerryM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4709
  • Where's The Bar?
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #14 on: 27 Apr 2012, 03:33 am »
Anyone have anything more substantial to offer than "high-res sounds better to me, therefore the article is crap"?

I don't.

High Resolution Audio sounds better than Redbook to me.

The article is pure crap. YMMV

Davey

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1481
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #15 on: 27 Apr 2012, 04:26 am »
You guys are pretty funny.  :)

Here's more crap for you:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

Cheers,

Dave.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11126
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #16 on: 27 Apr 2012, 04:32 am »
Maybe this is why I like the sound of DSD DFF files over those same files converted to 24/192.  :P

SlushPuppy

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #17 on: 27 Apr 2012, 10:59 am »
Here we are again  :roll:

jimtranr

Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #18 on: 28 Apr 2012, 05:08 pm »
What kept rattling around in my head as I read those papers was this faint but strangely familiar refrain: "Perfect Sound Forever."

Uh-huh.


doug s.

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6572
  • makin' music
Re: 24/192 bad for you, bad for equipment?
« Reply #19 on: 28 Apr 2012, 05:15 pm »
as i mentioned before in the other thread,  the author is the creator of the ogg free software container format and vorbis audio codec and others.  (vorbis is an audio format and codec designed to compete with the patented MP3 and AAC.)  and, he is founder of xiph.org, and works for redhat.com.   you don't think he might not have a dog in this fight, do you?   :roll:

doug s.