I guess the former is not a downsampled version of the latter, but a different master ?
I've been doing just that and noticing discernible differences between a few of my 16/44 and 24/96 songs with my SR-507. Any of my other headphones I would say it's much harder to hear a noticeable change but with the Stax it can be easy to figure our which track is which.
A great example is "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis. I have an Apple Lossless version and one that's 88.2K. The difference between the two is immediate and easy to hear. I know it's probably not the case for every hi-rez vs. redbook file but there are plenty of tracks where the different is substantial.
Stax might just be resolving enough t get the job done. Did you get a second person to blindfold you and switch the tracks? Or did you use an app or?
Thanks, I'd love to see some truth behind a lot of audiophile myths.
That's a good point. For a true blind test, one should convert the high resolution file to flac, or even 320kbps then do the test.
I was thinking about downloading some albums on HD Tracks that I already have the CD on Apple Lossless. I've seen some very interesting points and numbers through the threads, but I want to know if I'll hear a difference if I buy some HD Tracks albums. I did download the Sampler, and it sounded a lot better on my headphone system.
In terms of pure delivery formats, I agree that 24 bit doesn't provide much tangible advantage for consumers. However, for an app like ours, having 24 bit files would be a good deal better for our DSP processing — less concern with dynamic range, dither noise, etc.
If anything is going to be done to the audio stream — even if just a simple EQ — 24 bit helps.
Sure, but you're probably doing DSP with at least 32 bit floating point anyway I guess, and you can quantize the result to 24 bits with or without dither (not going to matter).
There's usually noise on the tracks above the perceived dithered 16-bit noise floor too, so yeah 24 is not gonna make a difference there. Also, any EQ boost will boost noise and (the usually much stronger) signal equivalently. Can't hear the noise before EQing there's a good chance you won't afterwards.
This reminds me of why I shoot and process photos in 48-bit colour, when it will be viewed, likely, on a screen that can only reproduce 24-bit colour. (Okay, nitpickers, my DSLR sensor can only output 36 bits, and the other 12 bits are just padding, but you get the picture. I made a pun! yay!) Also, the typical human eye can't see much finer than 24-bit colour, so why do I go to the trouble? It gives you more freedom to manipulate the file.
1: Gizmodo really should get out of hi-fi writing (as should CNN- they just had a series of wretched op-eds about hifi stuff). This just isn't their area of expertise.
2: They do have a point- 24-bit files are most of the time going to be a gimmick for the studios to make more money, as 95% of the systems the files will be played on won't be able to reproduce the difference.
3: Their article is written to the more average person, and we are looking at this from a different perspective. There's no need to get too angry, as we aren't their target audience.
3.5: So, basically, what I mean is that the article wasn't written with the serious audiophile in mind.
Doctors cringe when visiting WebMD.