CD sound is too harsh for my ears.
There is nothing about a CD that could possibly be harsh. This is like saying a hard drive is harsher or bassier than a flash drive. A CD just stores data. The only way I can even think this argument has any grounding in reality whatsoever is if you're listening to early pre-emphasized CDs without a playback device capable of processing the pre-emphasis flags and de-emphasizing the audio, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the CD, but the CD player's DAC.
But making good vinyl rip sounding better than counterpart CD isn't easy task and quiet expensive though.
It's impossible to make a vinyl rip that sounds as technically competent as a CD because the vinyl format has inherent, scientifically provable flaws that a CD will never have to compensate for, for reasons I have already posted.
CD standard was introduced when computer performance, storage and transfer rates were not so good, so CD standard minimally covered main streamer listener requirements to a sound quality. I consider a new CD standard has to be introduced as 24/192.
There is no audible benefit that 24/192 provides where 16/44.1 does not.
You can't. I can only conclude you involved in some business which fool consumers that they should be happy with 16/44.1 format and proving that on ******** as a sampling theorem
This is a hilarious (and false) attempt at circumstantial ad hominem. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with you must have an ulterior motive. Then again, I could just turn around and accuse you of exactly the same thing (that you are involved in a business that sells high-res files), right?
Edited by Tus-Chan - 8/18/13 at 10:47pm
I eagerly await your reply where you suppress evidence, make personal accusations, and create lots of unprovable claims. That seems to be the general theme of your responses so far.