Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: AIFF: Ripping at 32 bit? (Read 2898 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AIFF: Ripping at 32 bit?

Hi,

It is usefull rip a CD with AIFF to 32 bit of deep floating point?

I have see that it is possibile, but what is the usefull?

CD are all at 16 bit

Thanks

AIFF: Ripping at 32 bit?

Reply #1 –
No. No in so many different ways. No.

One example.

Any other purpose to this thread, or should we just wait for your next one?

I don’t want to have to keep questioning the quality of your posts and the underlying comprehension and willingness to perform even the most basic research, but you’re not making that easy at all.

AIFF: Ripping at 32 bit?

Reply #2 –
No problem, I know that my question is little "idiot" :-)

But I prefer to ask this, because I had see on different site that people suggest to use 32 bit to rip their CD.

I had reply that is not usefull use 32 bit from a source of 16, but the reply is that a major deep of bit is useful for improve the precision of the sound message.

Sorry for an another "antigen message"

AIFF: Ripping at 32 bit?

Reply #3 –
We are not interested in debating by proxy. You have your answer. Furthermore, the usefulness of higher bit depths has already been discussed to death. Again, search the forum.

AIFF: Ripping at 32 bit?

Reply #4 –
Quote
But I prefer to ask this, because I had see on different site that people suggest to use 32 bit to rip their CD.

Please try to understand these important points:

People say a lot of things. People on the internet, especially.

Saying something does not make it true. You have to consider who’s saying it, the standards of logic (or the lack thereof) to which they adhere, and their possible biases or ulterior motives.

Sure, Hydrogenaudio is just another website (if one squints enough!). But at least it has standards of discussion and reasoning, particularly about subjective claims. This makes it more reliable.

But never rely on one source, especially not some pseudonym on the internet. Take advantage of the availability of encyclopaedic and scientific material, both on- and offline, about so many different topics – and your own (however vague) intuitions and suspicions, such as the fact that upsampling cannot possible add detail that was never there to begin with – and you have a beginning from which you can evaluate claims made by others.

That’s the key: You have to think a bit. You can’t always rely on someone to answer everything for you. And you have to attempt to evaluate their answer if you do get it. Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Even on Hydrogenaudio! But especially elsewhere on the internet, where the first keyboard jockey who stumbles past can seem just as plausible as someone with decades of experience if you don’t have any means by which to evaluate the likelihood of what they say being true.

And so on.