[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

I don't think very many people understand exactly what hi-res means. There are effectively ZERO benefits conferred to the audiophile by 24 bit files, or those with rates of 192 Khz, etc. 
 
The key is that those high bit rate releases are usually better mastered over their 16 bit counterparts, leading people to believe that the improvement comes from the higher rate. Thus, several gigabytes of space is wasted per album, for no effective improvement in SQ.
 
Don't believe me? Conduct this simple experiment...
 
Take one of your "hi-res" files, convert it to MP3 320kbps using the LAME codec (I like dbpoweramp, and they have a free trial). Then A/B the original high rate file with your newly converted 320 (make sure it is the convert of the original FLAC/WAV etc). If you find a difference without doubt, then feel free to put me on your ignore list
 
When you're done listening, read this for a proper explanation: 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

 
And this......
 

24/192 Music Downloads....and why they make no sense

 
. http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[purk]

Quote:

I don't think very many people understand exactly what hi-res means. There are effectively ZERO benefits conferred to the audiophile by 24 bit files, or those with rates of 192 Khz, etc. 
 
The key is that those high bit rate releases are usually better mastered over their 16 bit counterparts, leading people to believe that the improvement comes from the higher rate. Thus, several gigabytes of space is wasted per album, for no effective improvement in SQ.
 
Don't believe me? Conduct this simple experiment...
 
Take one of your "hi-res" files, convert it to MP3 320kbps using the LAME codec (I like dbpoweramp, and they have a free trial). Then A/B the original high rate file with your newly converted 320 (make sure it is the convert of the original FLAC/WAV etc). If you find a difference without doubt, then feel free to put me on your ignore list
 
When you're done listening, read this for a proper explanation: 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

 
And that's the reason why I prefer Hi-rez due to better mastering ...and that's enough of the benefit for me.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
I was speaking broadly.
 
Somewhere here on Head-fi, I have previously commented upon the fact that I thoroughly enjoy music like Ruth Moody's album 'In the Garden' in flac 16bit/44.1khz, ripped from ordinary CD to FLAC / ALAC. I think it might have been in one of the DX100 threads, and I recall saying that I was amazed at how good the DX100 can make ordinary 16/44.1 sound, through a pair of UM Miracles.
 
So I actually agree with you that much of the information encoded in very hi-res files cannot necessarily be heard as an improvement over 16/44.1, BUT I still steadfastly stand by my remarks about lossy compression vs lossless, even though I am well aware of all the arguments back and forth about 192kbps mp3 supposedly being indistinguishable from a .wav of the same 16/44.1 parameters, etc. etc. etc.
 
And so, on that basis, even a half-decent variety of music at 'just' 16/44.1 will RAPIDLY exceed the capacity of a 64gb memory card if it's in a lossless codec.

 
 
There IS NO information.
 
Please try out the experiment. I can't convince you, you can only hear it for yourself. Convert your favorite 24/192 track to 320kbps MP3, then expand on the differences you hear.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
And that's the reason why I prefer Hi-rez due to better mastering ...and that's enough of the benefit for me.

 
 
Bit rate and mastering are completely different concepts. 
 
When I see people with albums that weigh over 1gb, I shake my head because all those extra bits are nothing but zeroes.

 

[purk]

Quote:

 
 
Bit rate and mastering are completely different concepts. 
 
When I see people with albums that weigh over 1gb, I shake my head because all those extra bits are nothing but zeroes.

I understand that.  I'm simply buying hi-rez b/c it sounds better (likely due to better mastering) to my ears compared to the redbook counter parts.  

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

 
...As we see in, for example, Apple DAPs, they don't give a damn about capacity for ALAC files, since the majority of their custimers, across the globe, are using highly-compressed .aac offerings from the iTunes store.

 
Oh yes, those absolutely awful, really, really awful 256kbps AAC files! If only the masses knew better.
 
Quote:

2) The marketplace is saturated with mediocre players (including those from Apple) that will play highly-compressed lossy files and keep the masses contented.

 
If Apple DAPs were manufactured by an obscure Japanese company and they retailed for $1,000+, I wonder what people in these forum threads would be saying about them.
 
FWIW, I found my 64GB iPod Touch (4G) better sounding than my previous 160GB 6G & 7G iPod Classics.
 
As for the term "audiophile", I'll leave that for another day...

 

[Mython]

Quote:

 
Oh yes, those absolutely awful, really, really awful 256kbps AAC files! If only the masses knew better.
 
 
If Apple DAPs were manufactured by an obscure Japanese company and they retailed for $1,000+, I wonder what people in these forum threads would be saying about them.
 
FWIW, I found my 64GB iPod Touch (4G) better sounding than my previous 160GB 6G & 7G iPod Classics.
 
As for the term "audiophile", I'll leave that for another day...

 
I'm not shy about standing my ground with anyone here on Head-fi, but we've all seen where that approach ends on various forum threads, so I'm not going to go there.
 
Peace.

 

[purk]

Quote:

 
Oh yes, those absolutely awful, really, really awful 256kbps AAC files! If only the masses knew better.
 
 
If Apple DAPs were manufactured by an obscure Japanese company and they retailed for $1,000+, I wonder what people in these forum threads would be saying about them.
 
FWIW, I found my 64GB iPod Touch (4G) better sounding than my previous 160GB 6G & 7G iPod Classics.
 
As for the term "audiophile", I'll leave that for another day...

I'm not going there either, but you should check out Sony Walkman (with S-master digital amp module) if you like a Japanese DAP as it is superb sounding compared to my iPod Touch 4th Gen.  Now let's go back to the DX50 thread.

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

I'm not going there either, but you should check out Sony Walkman (with S-master digital amp module) if you like a Japanese DAP as it is superb sounding compared to my iPod Touch 4th Gen.  Now let's go back to the DX50 thread.

 
I had the Sony X1061, NW-A857 & A847 and none of them beat my 4G Touch sonically — if anything they were more or less on par SQ-wise (though they did sound better than my previous two iPod Classics). Not sure if any of the latest Sony DAPs are improved versions of those three Sony DAPs I owned. What I have learned over the years is that people tend to exaggerate the sonic merits of those Sony DAPs I mentioned (and also those of the Tera Player, which I also owned), and that there is pleeeenty of criticism of Apple products. Like I said a few days back (when talking about the new-ish Earpods), it seems bashing Apple (and lossy formats, for that matter) is a prerequisite to be regarded as an audiophile.
 
"Now let's go back to the DX50 thread."

 

[Theta Alpha 1]

Quote:

I don't think very many people understand exactly what hi-res means. There are effectively ZERO benefits conferred to the audiophile by 24 bit files, or those with rates of 192 Khz, etc. 
 
The key is that those high bit rate releases are usually better mastered over their 16 bit counterparts, leading people to believe that the improvement comes from the higher rate. Thus, several gigabytes of space is wasted per album, for no effective improvement in SQ.

 
You're right, but to be fair, my friend told me we hear those highest frequencies above 20kHz through our eyes.  So yeah, it's useless on a DAP.

 

[Tom Yum Goong]

Quote:

.......it seems bashing Apple (and lossy formats, for that matter) is a prerequisite to be regarded as an audiophile.  
"Now let's go back to the DX50 thread."

Not that anybody ever called me an audiophile, but I'm not sure if I ever want to be called one....

"Now let's go back to the DX50 thread." ²

 

[Theta Alpha 1]

Quote:

 
And that's the reason why I prefer Hi-rez due to better mastering ...and that's enough of the benefit for me.

 
Sometimes there is no mastering at all.  They use $10,000 microphones, so it sounds nicer.

 

[telecaster]

It's non sense. I want a portable FLAC player because my Library is FLAC and I don't want to convert it all...
If 320kbs is al you need then be happy, there are hundreds of mp3 players out there!
The upcoming DX50 and a 128gb sdxc card will be a nice little player for those of us with FLAC libraries. 

 

[Theta Alpha 1]

You can ABX the difference between 320kbps and FLAC, it's been done several times, he's talking about 192 kHz files http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-testfiles.aspx

 

[LCfiner]

You can ABX the difference between 320kbps and FLAC, it's been done several times, he's talking about 192 kHz files http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-testfiles.aspx

Something’s not right with that mp3 test file. There’s a glare to the vocals (around 2.5 seconds in) that is not indicative of how all vocals sound with mp3 (or mp4) compression