A Guide to Lossless Streaming - WSJ
- Thread starter nicoff
- Start date
JohnJ
Member
Thanks for posting nicoff. I finally got 16 vs 24 and 44.1 vs 192 "theory." Still feel the "re-mastering" to 192 still has more to do with the a "musical balancing process" than going from 44.1 to 192 however.
Lots of choice; it will be interesting to see what services shakes out and perhaps what partnerships are formed in the future.
Lots of choice; it will be interesting to see what services shakes out and perhaps what partnerships are formed in the future.
I wish they wouldn't call CD quality 44.1 music Hi Res. To me CD quality is standard and MP3, or anything less than 44.1 is sub-standard, lossy, whatever you like to call it. Hi Res is better than CD quality and that isn't being offered by Spotify, Amazon, Apple. I believe this is only offered currently by Qobuz on a precentage of its library anfd Tidal, though this requires the somewhat dubious MQA processing so requires specific equipment to take advantage of their Hi Res.
Or am I wrong?
Or am I wrong?
No objection to your classification.
AFAIK however, MQA is lossy (i.e. not lossless or high res).
BTW, interesting article from a mainstream publication!
NekoAudio
New member
I think that technically it has to either be higher than 16-bit or higher than 44.1kHz to be called "high-resolution" music. Not sure I have a citable source though.