Yes we are playing games of listenable least objectionable quality again.I
mean we all used cassettes for convenience, even though on challenging
material there was no disguising the issues, and of course trying to get
quarts into pint pots, however its done is going to have its compromises.
There are of course lossless codeccs, though despite the theory being
apparently flawless one can hear differences.
I suspect the real truth is that no matter what you try to do, digital or
analogue you always add something you do not want, whether is distortion or
inaccurate samples, noise or whatever.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/08/2014 18:27, Eiron wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...o-music-hi-res


Not quite as daft as usual...

The premise is okay, and I've done similar experiments using my own gear
all the way through.

The article's not too bad, but using a multi channel, mixed to stereo,
analogue recording from a 1969 Who live performance as a quality reference
with all the audio quality problems that implies?

A better test would be to record a good orchestra or a love band at 24
bit, 192 kHz quality, which the reviewer could listen to live, then at
reduced levels of quality.

The shortest chain I've used was Orchestra - Zoom H2 set to 24 bit -
headphones. Even on that, I noticed a reduction in sound quality, mostly
due to the headphones. By the time it got to CD, it was noticeably
inferior, and even listening casually, most listeners could spot even a
high rate MP3 on an inferior playback system.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.