That doesn't matter to some folks because they "hear the difference" and their exceptional ears don't lie ...... except of course they absolutely do.
Best course of action is radio silence.
Best course of action is radio silence.
And since 320 is the download for standard mp3, that's why I haven't fooled with seeing what's the best setting for a codec with "transparency" for say 2 pass VBR lowest acceptable bitrate.The difference between 320 lossy and lossless is much greater than the difference between 320 and lower data rates. It really doesn’t matter if you do 320 instead of 256 or 192.
The snapshots are taken from a band limited signal, and there is only one unique band limited signal that fits with the snapshots: and that of course is the sampled signal. So from the snapshots we also know everything that happened inbetween them.Nothing before your dac recorded what was going on in between the snapshots, so it can't be played.
After filtering by the reconstruction filter a band limited analog signal remains that fits with the snapshots. Since there exists only one unique band limited signal that fits with the snapshots, the original band limited signal, that must be it: the original band limited signal.The reconstruction that you're describing has no math that can support consistent or realistic accuracy.
As someone involved with video....I'm not sure if I should clarify what I now see what was interjected. Well, I'll just do a bit of reconstruction there....Video works completely different. Video delivers discrete seperate images, totally different from digital audio that delivers a perfectly continuous output signal.
What do you mean 24hz being a new standard? A native 24fps for TV is relatively new: it was the cinema standard for decades. So cinema projectors defaulted with having a frame rate of 24 frames and shutter of 48 frames. It was deemed acceptable because it was smooth motion and economical enough for fitting a duration of film on one reel (where feature length movies still needed to switch several reels through the duration).It did not start off with an insult. It started off with me saying that 192khz was better than 96. The insult was the way that someone disagreed with me, which I refute.
Imagine playing a fast reaction video game: at the new standard 24hz for movies, someone who is a far away speck can be moving across your screen erratically. Can you get your crosshairs on him quickly and accurately? What if there were more FPS, like Bruce Lee complained about the old 29hz spec only providing? The same is true for video, with the frames per second factor already existing for it..
You shouldn't try to compare modern video standards with audio. Because the current advances in digital technology is more pertinent to video than it is audio. You shouldn't compare new video codecs (that might be within the latest 5 years) vs SACD (which was standardized well over 30 years ago). So digital audio met the limits of analog recording decades ago. I've been involved with photography: I can safely say that digital now exceeds every metric of film. When I first delved into digital photography, the main advantage it had was higher sensitivity (better detail in low light). Color film had better resolution and dynamic range. Now digital cameras exceed those metrics as well: greater resolution and dynamic range.The higher resolution photography is really nice, sometimes I think that's just a tick of the 4k, but no, digital camera's are still getting better at the rest of the camera's job, while the resolution increases. Photo's have a medium-free factor too, same with video.
Care to explain why DSD recordings are said to sound more analogue than cd's? Even in only the original SACD resolution?