[PalJoey]

   
They often charge more than it actually costs to ship it, at least according to the cheapest shipping cost. And some sellers charge even more, like $8.

Well, I don't know about Amazon's USA site, but the additional postage is always made clear on the UK site. I changed an order only three days ago on that basis.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Well, I don't know about Amazon's USA site, but the additional postage is always made clear on the UK site. I changed an order only three days ago on that basis.

 
Yes, it's clearly listed, but my point was that the sellers sometimes charge more for than necessary for shipping to offset the fact that they are practically giving away the CDs. Sometimes, new CDs + shipping are available for less than the cost of those penny CDs + shipping.

 

[Pirakaphile]

YKYAAW the first thing you think of when you see your tax refund is "should I get headphones or an amp?"

 

[Don Lehrer]

That´s my first thought when I start the process for tax refund...

 

[DonutDeflector]

Ok, I'll think about getting CDs as gifts!

 

[TRapz]

Just listened to hi-res on my own gear for the first time. I absolutely love the sound, but I don't know if it's just because it's a remaster or because of the hi-res. Got Californication, remastered, in 88.2/24. It sounds wonderful, though it's quite different as I'm used to listening to the regular version. Also, 1.2+GB isn't quite optimal...

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Just listened to hi-res on my own gear for the first time. I absolutely love the sound, but I don't know if it's just because it's a remaster or because of the hi-res. Got Californication, remastered, in 88.2/24. It sounds wonderful, though it's quite different as I'm used to listening to the regular version. Also, 1.2+GB isn't quite optimal...

 
You know you're not a true Music Alchemist fan when you don't remember his posts about how the only reason some high-res albums sound different is because they came from a different master.

 
Here is an article with background info.

 

[TRapz]

 
You know you're not a true Music Alchemist fan when you don't remember his posts about how the only reason some high-res albums sound different is because they came from a different master.

 
Here is an article with background info.

I actually do somewhat remember those posts 

 I don't really believe too much in hi-res, and it actually was the remaster I wanted. 
 
The bass sounds so good on "Road Trippin'." The last time I listened to it was on an iTunes download out of an iPod Touch 4, and it doesn't even compare. 
 
YKYAAW you've read that article at least two times

 

[399942]

del

 

[Dobrescu George]

  YKYAAW you read Trapz first post on listening to high res and immediately think about responding with the xiph.org link (alchemist beat me to it)

 

   
You know you're not a true Music Alchemist fan when you don't remember his posts about how the only reason some high-res albums sound different is because they came from a different master.

 
Here is an article with background info.

 

  Just listened to hi-res on my own gear for the first time. I absolutely love the sound, but I don't know if it's just because it's a remaster or because of the hi-res. Got Californication, remastered, in 88.2/24. It sounds wonderful, though it's quite different as I'm used to listening to the regular version. Also, 1.2+GB isn't quite optimal...

high resolution is totally real, the theory behind lies within nyquist frequency.
 
the most basic ideea is that you do not get over 20khz frequencies, you get 4Xthe sample rate, which takes stress off the interpolation algorithm and there is less aliasing [for example less musical notes overlapping, or other bad effects that you might not like]

 

[399942]

del

 

[Music Alchemist]

  high resolution is totally real, the theory behind lies within nyquist frequency.
 
the most basic ideea is that you do not get over 20khz frequencies, you get 4Xthe sample rate, which takes stress off the interpolation algorithm and there is less aliasing [for example less musical notes overlapping, or other bad effects that you might not like]

 
As far as I know, high-res would only matter when upsampling/resampling in real-time, which can be done with any file. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to distinguish between high-res and Red Book when they converted the files and did a proper test.
 
And the Nyquist sampling theory states that 44.1 kHz is all we will ever need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
As far as I know, high-res would only matter when upsampling/resampling in real-time, which can be done with any file. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to distinguish between high-res and Red Book when they converted the files and did a proper test.
 
And the Nyquist sampling theory states that 44.1 kHz is all we will ever need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

Nyquist sampling theory states that 44.1 would be enough in the context of a perfect algorithm, which does not exist. Linear, and linear type algorithms create ghosting, and cubic, sinc and polysinc are still pretty far from perfect....
 
to give a more tangible example, using polysinc in hqplayer makes a difference, and what it does is upsample to 192khz. using the same file at 44.1khz in foobar will not sound as good. 
 
This can improove even more.
 
 
 

OK, maybe, but even so can you hear a difference. Yeah, high res makes sense in theory, doesn't mean it makes sense in reality.

i was not able to hear a clear difference, but i heared hugo oversampling, and it made a huge difference. it should do the same thing as making everything hi-res. so, in theory this should be achieveable on computer too.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Nyquist sampling theory states that 44.1 would be enough in the context of a perfect algorithm, which does not exist. Linear, and linear type algorithms create ghosting, and cubic, sinc and polysinc are still pretty far from perfect....
 
to give a more tangible example, using polysinc in hqplayer makes a difference, and what it does is upsample to 192khz. using the same file at 44.1khz in foobar will not sound as good. 
 
This can improove even more.
 
i was not able to hear a clear difference, but i heared hugo oversampling, and it made a huge difference. it should do the same thing as making everything hi-res. so, in theory this should be achieveable on computer too.

 
Oversampling is different. Until you can demonstrate that you can hear a difference between high-res and Red Book played natively, technical discussion is fruitless.

 

[taffy2207]

YKYAAW PLEASE SEE PRECEDING POSTS