Once you've experienced really good audio reproduction, you know what you've been missing, and it's painful to compromise.
> On Apr 4, 2014, at 2:01 PM, "David H. Bailey" <dhbailey52@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2014 1:25 PM, Kris Murray wrote:
>> Isn't that the opposite of good audio fidelity?
>>
>
> Unless you're playing the original vinyl LPs or reel-to-reel tapes
> recorded at 15ips or audio recorded at 24-bit 96KHz, it's all "the
> opposite of good audio fidelity."
>
> So after that it's all a matter of being somewhat the opposite of "good
> audio fidelity." The answer is how much of a compromise will you notice
> as you listen and how much money you're willing to spend to avoid making
> much compromise.
>
> The listening environment should be acoustically designed according to
> pretty complex formulas or you're already in the realm of the "opposite
> of good audio fidelity" so the rest isn't all that important.
>
>
> --
> David H. Bailey
> dhbailey@davidbaileymusicstudio.com
> http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (11) |
