I only have 2 192khz albums, 'Appetite for Destruction' and a Lorde album. I make no claims as to them being my preferences, but as far as the higher bitrate goes, they sound much more fluid and full than lower bitrate versions. I'm getting more continuity and detail with the everchanging sound, it reminds me of the analogue I had until I stopped buying it. If Neil Young wants to write an article about how the human ear couldn't tell a higher bitrate even if you cranked it up at a concert, anyone else who wants to be a lonely guy can say that's why too, knock yourselves out. Not that a rock concert will ever sound good, besides being the source of your dreams in original analogue, on those crappy speakers. You can argue outdoors instead of a studio too, if you want.
What if I said 8 bit 22khz was already exactly what happened, and nobody can hear a difference at 44.1? Reminds me of DOS video games days. Earlier ones, they made it to 16bit, probably still 22khz until a bit after windows 95, though.
OK, I'm listening to "Time" now, (Floyd). I bet you he still slept in. The sound is rolling continuously in it, and it reminds me of what I was getting from analogue. Wow, it really does sound good on this beefy analogue stage. I think they used Abbey Road studio for it, that was a really nice move to make, with all that Beatles money.
I skipped to 'Money' now. I think he means people are all a bunch of losers, because that's all anyone will care about. Abbey Road studio is starting to have to deal with that was a long time ago now, but everyone else at the time sucked in the first place, in comparison and there's something about it that you can tell they must have spent a lot because of.
"The Great Gig In The Sky". Where they want to go when they die, I guess. They hired a woman for the vocals. She thinks it's a great gig, and he must be one of those guys, because of it. Reminds me of analogue, at 192.
"Eclipse", probably because he knows he'll lose and it's the last song. The woman who handled the vocals for the gig is backing the poor man up. It's really too bad, because it all ends up eclipsed by the moon, and there is no dark side, actually, it's all dark. Well, at least it ended. Anyways, I have never heard an analogue section like mine, even though it's just because I don't know anyone with better gear to check out. Do all your talking about it as soon as the new sample hits you, since that's all they'll be doing for a while, but that's what 192 helped, I was stuck with being more of a content guy. But if you want to say I would still get the basic idea at 11khz, I'd probably say that's true. It will piss me of if 11khz is all this analogue section I lived on food stamps for so long gets out of these people. It's a bunch of garbage anyways, if that's how better clocks help. These people aren't fooling anybody, man. Bet you some guy comes along with a better clock, and these people don't seem so stupid anymore. Everybody will be saying, 'hey, you should have been doing that all along, that sucked before, we sounded ridiculous.'
Well, since that's all I have downloaded for the 192 vs the 44 it's mostly been argument, and Tidal won't play 192 with noise like it was upsampling that the guy with the device in the video showed, without having to use an extra chip full of transistors, which sound more electronic than tubes, I guess I could try 96 that they admit your processor can do, hoping they can get you into forking out for an extra chip in your gear. The fact that it's streaming won't help the argument if I think it sounds worse.
Muse, BH&R. Big letdown after the 192 uncompressed on a flash drive. The internet won't work, and 96 seems like they don't really want to tell me about it. As for it sounding noisy, it already would be being flac. Darn I need to listen to it as my own 96 file. And I would have to listen to it as a flac file to see if mqa sounded even noisier. Should I put it on a mechanical drive, also, where it seems noisier, so that it's apples to apples? I guess I'd have to stream it somewhere else through Audirvana for a fair comparison.
But my argument is currently isolated to sander99 and Niel Young saying that 44.1 is already perfect. Streaming is a letdown after my own files, due to the internet to go through, so never mind them, but Floyd on my own drive at 192 was really nice that way. Hey, I can try the actual "Abbey Road" on my drive, talk about apples to apples when it's in the same studio!
Unless anyone else at the time would have rather have recorded there, they won't know what audiophiles are talking about. Something about it still sounds expensive. Well, there are probably classical recordings that used good gear. But this is a studio, that's better, to me. I think they do have studio's for orchestras too, though, don't they? I'm just growing into it lately.
Yeah, 96 is a big bummer after 192. But so relaxed and obvious compared to the brief Tidal streaming. No, "Polythene Pam" is not relaxing, it's much better, The Beatles are doing well. You gotta watch out for chicks like that, man.
Well, after 96 rate being a letdown, I guess it's time for a 44.1 file, to see if it's perfect. Don't think there will be anything more from abbey road.
I only seem to have System of a Down in 16bit 44.1, some people think 24bit 44.1 is perfect. Oh man, is that ever basic, that's like way back when I was playing cd's. That was junk. I only like a few of their songs, this guy can be an idiot sometimes. This one's better, and it's last too. Very lousy amount of information, but thank goodness it's not from the internet. No, they're not maggots smoking fags, they're maggot smoking fags. Hey, 96 from Tidal is next on the playlist. Sounds worse because of the internet, right away. Maybe a bit more recent gear, but not that much. I don't hear any noise, but it's puny and unauthoritative. Oh, my 44.1 was played at 192 to my dac, whoops. It didn't sound bad to me that way, but I've tried changing it after that before after finding that out, and it does get a little better up top.
Well anyways, I think Neil Young's argument that 44.1 being perfect isn't really saying too much to me.
But in Tidal's case, I guess that argument is that you're wasting your money if you pay double for the higher resolution plan you have to hope mqa is the same as, and trade your favorite dac in for something better with an extra chip to get anything out of it if it were even possible for it to improve. Qobuz is busy incorporating the entire rich catalogue of a french streaming platform until next month to be able to get in Canada, so yeah, Tidal at 44.1 it is, for me until then. Tidal's default player sounds the least bad compared to the rest besides Qobuz, so until then, it sounds best if I want audio from anything else, including higher res Amazon, due to it having an even worse player. Although the Amazon player at higher res would sound like I'm getting more track information. Streamers should look for a market that bought great gear that can already do it, instead of making us buy transistor riddled chips first gear so that they can charge double and by not spending more. But I'm sure they'd rather make us trade in our gear for gear with another chip before the mqa chip so that they can actually send 22khz rate files. If Qobuz's player doesn't sound better than Tidal's, or if they give me less than 8 different playlists according to the different types of music I've said were my favorites, I'll probably keep Tidal at 44.1 also for better non-Audirvana use, and just have both. That's still cheaper than when I was buying cd's all the time based on the radio. But if I go back to trying a file uncompressed on my thumb drive, I'll think that stuff.
I'm listening to Tidal at 88.2 now, so that I don't have to keep changing my setting so often, and a 96 mqa track is playing. It doesn't really sound that good. Could be the track. I"m in the new albums section, a girl is saying she thought she was pregnant, and she hopes he goes back to his hometown and marries that girl, she wants to kill her because of it. So I'm not sure why I need a music subscription for a while, I guess.
Anyways, 44.1 seems pretty basic to me, but on the internet, it's worse than that.
We need a chip that makes good content. That's why people are working on ai to save us all.
