Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: d(-_-)b Who?? <who@whatwhere.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.new-age
Subject: Re: 16 BIT vs 24 BIT
X-Newsreader: NewsLeecher v7.0 Beta 10 (http://www.newsleecher.com)
References: <8661i95vc46tcvjnlrpskjjhc2q2lq1ofr@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Feb 2016 04:41:57 GMT
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <56babf95$0$30435$b1db1813$5cfd346e@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: af744185.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=J22YeN`@d?FTE2gdJ]P=SGL?0kYOcDh@J]S6_k?OKXKO``PE?b4kQlKBRCQV\K7kn@:J;_bhASI[B3>6kN^@Cd2F=@[0[f]jP9A
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3374425377
X-Received-Bytes: 1660
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.sounds.lossless.new-age:2884
In reply to "Griffin" who wrote the following:
> I was wondering if anyone prefers, or even downloads, 24 BIT music?
>
> There isn't any point in posting something if no one downloads it,
> IMHO.
>
> I can't really tell any difference between the two. But that could be
> because of my modestly priced stereo or my old ears - or both ;^)
>
> I appreciate any input.
>
> Griffin
We use to like mp3s, then we liked flac.
24bit 192khz flac is the next level best now.
I'm in my 60s & I hear they are way better.
24bit 44khz is as low as 24 goes & isn't that much better.
Try some 192s! a.b.lossless.24bit has lots of them.
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Beta 10
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|