my definition of hi-rez is anything 24/88.2kHz and up
Thanks Bruce
Whose definition are you looking for?
Meaning there is no standard? If not, what is it for you?
my definition of hi-rez is anything 24/88.2kHz and up
Whose definition are you looking for?
my definition of hi-rez is anything 24/88.2kHz and up
Thanks Bruce
Meaning there is no standard? If not, what is it for you?
I don't agree one bit (no digital pun intended). If you are going to stick your nose up in the air and crap on everyone who claims to put out HD music that doesn't meet your specifications for how you have defined HD music and you can't meet your own specs either, what does that say about you??
Well, lets see, to me ... it says you're no different than so many other arrogant "people" in the industry, many within ear shot.
Buy AIX recordings?
I didn't make any claims about how great my recordings are and crap on my competitors' recordings if they don't meet specifications
Are you affiliated with AIX in some way?
Not my particular cup of tea.
BTW, you thinking that SACD sounds more "analog", I ask you this, does that apply to only DSD originals? Because if not, would your "analog" description include flat lifeless bass, a highish truncated noise floor and screaming highs?
what if it still sounds like crap?
Please stop taking my text out of context, in this case, I didn't mean you ... unless the shoe fits ... of course.
(sigh)
tb1
??? Please explain your questions a little better because I want to make sure I understand you before I respond.
Please laugh while you explain yourself.
So there is no standard? Perhaps anything other than RBCD is Hi-rez then or could be considered as such.
IMO, true Hi-Rez reproduction cannot be related to an individual format because ALL formats are slaved to the quality of it's source. Therefore, "hi-rez" is a system inititive that's directly related to the quality of its source material first and foremost ... despite each formats (theoretical) respective sonic ceiling.
By that definition any bit rate / word length beyond 44.1/16 would be *technically* hi-res, independent of the quality of the actual content, just like it is used in photography to signify the number of pixels, independent of the artistic quality of the photograph itself...
Exactly, especially true considering that both audio/photography require proper focus in order to deliver true hi-rez ... despite pixel/bit counts.
tb1
The same guy who did a great 16/44.1 can't top himself with more bits and samples at his disposal from recording all the way down to mastering?
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |