Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutekk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ben crosland
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutekk
the benefits of mixing and recording at higher rates then 16/44
are easy to hear...no matter what the medium.
even if going to cd.
|
Easy to hear for some people, but 99% of the buying public couldn't care less, I can assure you. Especially being as a good deal of them probably listen to most of their music in mp3 format now.. |
this is such a crappy attitude.
im shocked. 8O |
LOL.....but what Ben is saying is actually the way it is. Your not going to hear any audiable difference (whilst listening to a 192kbps mp3) from a track originally recorded on a quality 16/44 soundcard to that of some 24/96 card. The dynamic range of mp3 just wont allow for it. Secondly, your only going to hear a difference when playing a CD if you have a medium to hi-end hifi (circa ?3000+). I know this...as im into hifi and can 'hear' the difference. YOur average jo bloggs sits at home with their ?300 mini system....sorry to burst the bubble....but all you get from those kinda mass produced hifi's is sonic distortion.
You live in a world where you want pristine sound quality....thats great...I feel the same way....but as Ben hinted...and from what i know....most people arent living in the same sonic world as you or I. Sound card manufacturers love to bombard you with specs....but as a final thought...a high quality 16.44 soundcard pisses on a cheaper 24/96 card. Im not too familiar with the pulsar card...but it sounds like it sits in the sub ?1000 budget category.
Plz dont take offence to my comments....your entitled to yours as I am.
DS