SACD's are best ripped to an even multiple of the basic 44.1khz CD sampling frequency. And to be honest I don't believe that anybody could tell the difference between 88.2 and 96khz sampling. They're basically the same.
I also don't hear a big difference between SACD's ripped to 88.2khz/24bit flac and 192.4khz on the equipment that I have. I keep the ISO files around in case that the difference becomes more apparent on some future system. To be completely honest an SACD rip to 44.1/16 bit lossless also sounds pretty darn good to me. The real advantage of audiophile formats is that you hope that somebody at least tried to master in a way that wasn't compressed, or clipped or rolled off in the frequency extremes. The extra bits and samples are just to be sure you're not loosing something.
In a few years hard drives, and portable storage media will be large enough that we'll take the extra bits just because we can. But for now I just don't have more than a GB for a record.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment