In Reply to: RE: "goal is bit-perfect, high-res, analogue, output from the PC" - whose goal is that? posted by Jaundiced Ear on September 12, 2014 at 17:25:02:
"The first group thinks that "Redbook CD" is pretty darn close to the limitations of human hearing and so is "transparent"
The better recording engineers and subjective audiophiles have known for a long time that high resolution digital audio is needed to transparently reproduce what humans can hear. These people have simply used their God given senses to note the obvious. For a long time a different gang of pseudo scientific hobbyists, calling themselves "objectivists", have conducted experiments that they mistakenly claimed showed that the "subjectivists" were delusional and that nothing better than 44/16 PCM was necessary for transparent reproduction of music.
Recently, the ground on which the objectivists stood has been washed down the river to the sea. The linked thread (and some threads linked off this thread) discuss how this was done.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Tony Lauck 09/13/1410:06:18 09/13/14 (8)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Jaundiced Ear 14:03:02 09/13/14 (4)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Tony Lauck 14:19:40 09/13/14 (3)
- "You have to read .... 4000+ posts" - or, he could assemble a reasonably resolving system, and listen. - carcass93 08:44:07 09/15/14 (0)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Jaundiced Ear 22:32:03 09/14/14 (1)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Tony Lauck 11:57:33 09/15/14 (0)
- Subjective objectivity - Storris 12:46:51 09/13/14 (2)
- RE: Subjective objectivity - Tony Lauck 13:31:09 09/13/14 (1)
- RE: Subjective objectivity - Storris 15:06:06 09/13/14 (0)