There are two factors at work: sometimes the hi-res version is mastered to come across better than CD, because it's "supposed to sound superior"; and often the implementation of the playback chain will favour reproduction at the higher bit rate.
I've gone through the exercise of stripping off the extra information supposedly in very high quality recordings, and there's nothing particularly significant there - mostly it's purely random ultrasonic noise, and short transient bursts just above 20kHz, at odd moments when a highly percussive sound occurs. If one just resamples CD material to whatever hi-res format you favour, you'll get 99.9% of the benefit that you can hear with these "special" reordings ...
Sometimes, yes. I also dub albums to wav format.
Since I never said that, I can't imagine where you got this idea.
Overcome distortion caused by saturation of the core and especially hysteresis? Impossible, you can't! Also, Tube amp have mechanical noise associated which contributes to overall noise performance and distortion (micro-phonic). also they have a huge amount of second harmonic distortion associated to the natural topology used and last but not least the device itself.
Deliverable power is minimal. And distortion increases exponentially as output power increases.
I could go on and on...and it would just get worse than Vinyl vs. Digital....but yet still people listen to Tubes...why?! Because all these above parameters have not significant impact on the overall listening experience!
1&2- There is much literature. I have confidence that you're familiar with it or, if not, can find it and read it.
3- Engineering.
Ur Welcome,
Thread title should be changed to TT vs CD , the Irony ............
Stefanoo is an internet troll. I hope your realizing what your up against
Keep it up
So the high resolution track contains more background noise, just like vinyl and it sounds more the same.
I never heart a diverence SACD normal cd. Only difference I hear is that they did a better job recording.
Last edited:
I don't buy that many CD's nowadays but when I do, I rip them to FLAC using EAC then put them away somewhere, the loft usually. I've been trying out some 24/96 FLAC downloads lately, not sure they are worth the file size for what little if any benefit I have heard so far. What is the point of something like say - a Led Zeppelin album in this format? it's so poorly recorded that it might as well be MP3 192 kbps. Far too many modern recordings are also too processed sounding, a wasted effort.
Instead of arguing with each other, maybe we should direct our venom at the record industry. Otherwise the point of having decent hifi equipment will soon be lost IMO.
Instead of arguing with each other, maybe we should direct our venom at the record industry. Otherwise the point of having decent hifi equipment will soon be lost IMO.
64 feet I believe for 16Hz. ...32 feet is for 32Hz. ...Or ....8Hz (64 feet), and 16Hz (32 feet)?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.