Originally Posted by ChrisSC
+1. I get that most of this hobby is trying to squeeze out that last 5%, but I find the differences between lossless files to be so minimal that I can only tell them if I'm straining so hard that I won't be enjoying the music anyway. Hell, I'm happy with 320kbhps mp3s though
Agreed! 320kbps mp3 is a damn fine sounding format.
Originally Posted by lee730
I agree to an extent. There are some 24/192 and 24/96 files that really aren't better than the 16/44 versions. But then there are well recorded ones where it just blows you away. I happen to have quite a few of those tracks and I can confidently say 24/192 and 24/96 has the potential to blow 16/44 clear out of the water. Just no comparison when these types of well recorded tracks are compared. At least not to my ears.
I'm a little cynical about those differences. No doubt they'll exist, but whether it's because it's just better quality or if they use a refined mastered version for the higher bitrate version to encourage people to pay extra for it. Same how some sneaky balanced amp manufacturers make the balanced headphone out of their amp sound nicer than the single ended headphone out so when people compare it they'll walk away swearing how balanced technology makes a night and day difference, giving the manufacturers and retailers more leeway to raise the prices on balanced amps because god damn it those customers will pay for their perceived increase in sound quality!
Don't mind me, I'm just a tad bitter. Feel free to ignore my sentiments.
Back to the format comparison, a good test would be to downsample an awesome sounding master of 24bit 192khz (or preferably 96khz because of this) to 16bit/44.1khz and see if we can tell a difference between the downsampled file and the original high res version. Like I said above, I don't trust these businesses to provide an identical master for each format because they have more to gain by providing a nicer sounding one in the higher bitrate and charging more for it that way.