[xnor]

  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.

Indeed they don't target audiophiles but a significantly larger group: "normal" users, consumers.
 
 
I don't see why Gizmodo shouldn't write about hi-fi. Some (many?) things in high end audio are just ridiculous and who is more likely to point them out: someone on the inside or someone on the border or even outside?
Ridicule is a tool and when they say "audiophile has always been another word for sucker" they're making use of it. If you are not, you shouldn't be offended by it and if you are, you shouldn't be either.

Instead of judging it as an insult think of it as food for thought.
 
There's much BS in high end audio and it is indeed the audiophiles that literally buy into it. Telling consumers that a track sounds better due to 24 bits and therefore can be justified to be more expensive is the same BS when the real change is different mastering.

 

[24Bit]

Me in this thread.
 

 

[xnor]

  Me in this thread.

 

 

[Chromako]

Ridicule is a tool and when they say "audiophile has always been another word for sucker" they're making use of it. If you are not, you shouldn't be offended by it and if you are, you shouldn't be either. Instead of judging it as an insult think of it as food for thought.

Wise words!

Must not be offended, for it is them who are being silly.

 

[hogger129]

16 bits gives enough dynamic range.  Of the 24 bit albums I own, I've only purchased them because of recommendations from sites like this and others that spoke of improved SQ over the CD.

 

[Duartisimo]

*edit

 

[hogger129]

 

  16 bits gives enough dynamic range.  Of the 24 bit albums I own, I've only purchased them because of recommendations from sites like this and others that spoke of improved SQ over the CD.

 


Good one.

Personally, i wont download 24 anymore, unless it's free or comes in some sort of package, like the new Nine Inch Nails release; basically you pay for the album and they'll let you download it in every format available.
I downloaded one of the Chesky Binaural albums in all available formats and tested it out. As those albums are, as far as i know, universally praised for their production and sound quality and all, i think if difference between 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 are negligible (to my ears), pretty much every other album i listen to will also be. Also, i downloaded a live bootleg by Pearl Jam (my favorite band) from a show i attended in 24/96 and 16/44.1 to be sure.

My conclusion? Like i said, no 24 bit for me.
Does it sound better? i Think it's not the right question to ask, as music appreciation is more of a subjective experience. The real question would be:
Do i hear more music in 24 bit? NO, i do not.

The problem is that for some music, 24 bit DOES seems to offer better sound quality. It's not that 24 bit recordings sound better; it's that some 16 bit sounds so awful that we buy 24 bit in hopes of better dynamics. With 24 I'm not buying better resolution, i am buying HOPEFULLY a better mix.

So 24 bit sometime sounds the way a CD should have sounded in the first place. So yeah, it's a sales gimmick.

 
After Eddie Vedder's comments I refuse to support Pearl Jam anymore.

 

[Duartisimo]

*edit

 

[limpidglitch]

   
After Eddie Vedder's comments I refuse to support Pearl Jam anymore.

 
He hasn't ever been particularly coy about his political opinions, ever since he and Pearl Jam started to receive attention in the early 90's.
It's a bit late lamenting now.

 

[Duartisimo]

*edit

 

[miceblue]

And so the HD formats war continues on. I'm always curious to know more about this mysterious HD stuff despite myself buying a good handful of albums. Usually I buy HD albums for the convenience of having lossless files at my fingertips. I can't say I hear a difference between a 24/96 file and a downsampled equivalent of 16/44. Since the price of albums on a popular HD music-distributing website has gone up, I haven't bought anything recently.
 
Funny that I ran into DigitalFreak's "The Sad State Of The So Called Audiophile DAP Market" thread a few weeks too.

 

[24Bit]

 

 

More 24bit enabled devices equates to the higher potential for general consumers to be forced to become more informed with their audio selection.   

 

 

[hogger129]

   

 

More 24bit enabled devices equates to the higher potential for general consumers to be forced to become more informed with their audio selection.   

 

 
It's also a potential for record companies to sell us the same music we already own once again, at a higher price.

 

[miceblue]

^ so true

Introducing Pink Floyd's new Dark Side of the Moon re-re-re-re-remastered album from the original studio re-re-remaster in super high-fidelity formats up to 64-bit/768 kHz! Now with never-before-heard bonus audio! Early bird pricing starting at $119 USD.

 

[24Bit]

   
It's also a potential for record companies to sell us the same music we already own once again, at a higher price.

 
Yep, or resold under guise of actually being 24bit, when in fact it is 16bit 256kbps upconverted to 24bit 320kbps or higher sampling rate.