[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.

As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.

See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?

Jack



Detecting HQ sound is *not* about having to boost the most unpleasant
frequency range in a recording to painful levels as you do.

I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.