[cjl]

   
Just want to make a quick comment here difference RMS and peaks (voltage or currents or power). Some care must be taken when talking about specifying these numbers. Manufacturers are not always clear on this.

Manufacturer specified sensitivities are almost always in RMS power/voltage. You're right that you do need to be careful though.

 

[Digitalchkn]

  Manufacturer specified sensitivities are almost always in RMS power/voltage. You're right that you do need to be careful though.

Also, and more importantly the interesting metric is the peak output voltage or current . Because it, not the RMS value, is the determining factor whether a particular amp can drive distortion free.

 

[cjl]

  Also, and more importantly the interesting metric is the peak output voltage or current . Because it, not the RMS value, is the determining factor whether a particular amp can drive distortion free.

It depends on how the amp is measured/specified. A lot are specified in RMS, but some are specified in peak (since the number is higher). As long as you know which one you're working with, either can be used.

 

[icesenshi]

Here's an article from the register, affirming that 16bit is enough, and a few other things.
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/apple_beats_and_fools_with_money
 
"Even worse is that in the hi-fi world, that vacuum is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. And when fundamentalism gains a hold, science leaves on the next boat – and progress ceases."

 

[bigshot]

great article

 

[Tuco1965]

That was a good read.

 

[sonitus mirus]

It reads great, to a point; but, it's clear to me that the information has been garnered from reading and not from direct experience.  
 
"Some time ago, Young expressed concerns about what was left of his music after being downloaded by the consumer. Those concerns are entirely justified, as MP3 is a lossy compression scheme and at limited bit rates – such as the 320kbit/sec of Beats Music – does its best to preserve the dominant sounds by neglecting ambience and reverberation."

 

[bigshot]

A simple ABX test puts the lie to that.

 

[icesenshi]

I cannot tell the difference between 320 and flac or other lossless formats, so I think the author is wrong about that part. But the rest of what he says I pretty much agree with.

 

[headwhacker]

I cannot tell the difference between 320 and flac or other lossless formats, so I think the author is wrong about that part. But the rest of what he says I pretty much agree with.

 
That is why 16 bit is already overkill. I think people think 16 bit and 24 bit audio has the same correlation with 16 bit and 24 bit on video in terms of number of colors can be produced. Hence they refer to 16 bit audio being lower resolution compared to 24 bit. 

 

[Baxide]

  Here's an article from the register, affirming that 16bit is enough, and a few other things.
 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/apple_beats_and_fools_with_money
 
"Even worse is that in the hi-fi world, that vacuum is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. And when fundamentalism gains a hold, science leaves on the next boat – and progress ceases."

A terrible propaganda piece against high resolution. The writer is obviously living in denial and/or has a terribly bad audio system.

 

[kraken2109]

 
A terrible propaganda piece against high resolution. The writer is obviously living in denial and/or has a terribly bad audio system.

Please tell us more about this denial

 

[limpidglitch]

 
Please tell us more about this denial

 
Obvious satire, intentionally or not.

 

[cjl]

 
A terrible propaganda piece against high resolution. The writer is obviously living in denial and/or has a terribly bad audio system.

Please, tell us more about these double blind tests where you've clearly demonstrated an ability to tell the difference between 16/44.1 and "high-resolution" formats...

 

[esldude]

Well like cameras or video you have your resolution products.  With audio 44.1 khz and 16 bit would be 22050 possible frequencies at 65K possible levels.  A total resolution product number of frequency and levels of 22,050x65,536=1,445,068,800.
 
Then your 192khz 24 bit is good for 16,777,216x96,000=1.61x10 to the 12th power. 
 
As doubling sample rates to 384 khz only doubles the resolution product. I think more bits is better.  Adding just one bit gets you twice as much.  Much more efficient way to expand the resolution product. 192/32 bit would give 8.25 x10 to the 14th power.  Far more resolution product that way for just a few bits extra. 
 
This evaluation of resolution also gives lie to the idea that DSD is high resolution.  Only 50,000 different frequencies at one bit.  Okay since one choice is 0 as well as one I'll be generous and say it is 50,000x2=100,000.  Totally pathetic vs even redbook for resolution products. 
 
So I think these increasingly high sample rates are really just marketing bull.  They intend to sell everyone 192khz and in a few years it will all be 384 khz rates and you'll need to buy your recordings all over again.  They need to make the jump directly to 32 bit and start working on 48 bit for now. 
 
 
 
 
Yes, I know the above reasoning is ridiculous.  But it makes more sense than plenty of marketing ads explaining benefits I have seen in many cases.