[Skylab]

Quote:

I thought this was all bull and Redbook cd's are as good as it gets.
 
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=Default&Date=200710&blogId=1
 
Personally I don't really care, even though I have a DAC Magic and SACD/DVD-A player capable of the higher bit/khz. The 16/44 sounds really good to me on my setup anyway (where speakers and cans are the only thing that really improve it anyway). But I admit I'm no expert, but higher bitrate/khz sounds suspect to me.
 

 
One can argue that the higher sample and bit rates do not matter in any meaningful way, but one cannot argue that they are not superior technically.  From a mathematical point of view, 96/24 is significantly better than 44.1/16.

 

[scannon18]

Quote:

 
 
But I am interested in LEGAL lossless downloading sites where you pay to download, just like on amazon or i-tunes, only in an actually decent quality (lossless, not lossy) format (I never have and never will pay for lossy formats...I won't even listen to them after comparing lossy to lossless in depth years ago).

Yea, are there any resources for this type of thing? 

 

[Pratt]

 
Quote:

One can argue that the higher sample and bit rates do not matter in any meaningful way, but one cannot argue that they are not superior technically.  From a mathematical point of view, 96/24 is significantly better than 44.1/16.

 
Not if that number is not what matters and what does is the dynamic range of which the 16/44 of 96db is more than enough (from what I understand).
 
Also, isn't what matters is the recording process? As in most albums are recorded (mixed/produced/mastered whatever) in 16/44 so only new ones recorded in a higher res could possibly sound better anyway? Or re-recorded ones? (Which is impossible for many obvious reasons in most instances anyway).
 
What I want to know is if there is any science that says higher res should matter. I don't care if 99.9% of "audiophiles" can "hear" a difference or not, if empirical data says that there is no difference then there is none.
 
I'm agnostic on this so far (although it sounds like typical audiophile pseudo science to me) and truly what to know if there is a difference or not and I'm open to going either way (again, based on what science says, not personal testimony or even ABX testing, even if that is actually PRO no difference).

 
Quote:

Yea, are there any resources for this type of thing? 

 
Some were mentioned in here! Another is: http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/display.aspx?infid=3550

 

[jcx]

Quote:

... Also, isn't what matters is the recording process? As in most albums are recorded (mixed/produced/mastered whatever) in 16/44 so only new ones recorded in a higher res could possibly sound better anyway? Or re-recorded ones? (Which is impossible for many obvious reasons in most instances anyway).
... 

 
I believe current practice (say for only about the past ~20 years) is to record, master in "hi res" format(s) both in sample rate and bit depth and to only apply filtering, dither, sample rate and bit depth reduction at the final step to fit RedBook CD
 
even handheld "prosumer" field recorders today record in hi res
 

 

[Skylab]

Yup. Almost everything is recorded at 96/24, at the least.

 

[Pratt]

 
Quote:

 
I believe current practice (say for only about the past ~20 years) is to record, master in "hi res" format(s) both in sample rate and bit depth and to only apply filtering, dither, sample rate and bit depth reduction at the final step to fit RedBook CD
 
even handheld "prosumer" field recorders today record in hi res
 

Quote:

Yup. Almost everything is recorded at 96/24, at the least.

Thank you guys, did not know that!
 
And I admit I am largely ignorant of the process that gets the played music to the finished product (whether vinyl, tape, cd, digital...).
 
Wanting to learn here, find out the "truth" so I can decided to keep my 16/44 standard redbooks (which, again, sound great) or start looking into "higher res" downloads in the future and/or replacing some of the redbooks.
 
However, as most of my favorite music was recorded pre '80 or at least '90 (though I have a lot of stuff produced after that of course) then "high res" is out for that material, unless, again, it can somehow be remastered to the "higher res".
 
More research...
 
PS: Is the db issue off or on target? That is, if there is enough dynamic range (96) in the standard 16/44 format, then there is no need for 100+ db (except maybe for extreme instances like test material or pipe organs, neither of which I listen to often lol).

 

[jcx]

noise shaped dither is very successful in extending perceived S/N and eliminating correlated quantization errors - http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/dither.htm
 
http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF suggests RedBook may still be uncomfortably short on sample rate - but mostly because he wants the extra bandwidth to ease anti-alias filtering and provide for even more noise shaping
 
but since RedBook still exceeds old white guys hearing limits the rest of you are just stuck with it since we're the ones who own, buy, produce "audiophile" music, equipment 

 

[Pratt]

 
Quote:

but since RedBook still exceeds old white guys hearing limits the rest of you are just stuck with it since we're the ones who own, buy, produce "audiophile" music, equipment 

 
ok, let's see, perhaps valid things...oh wait...until this. i'm 33 and can hear at least up to 18k. but i guess i'm just an "old white" guy. and my cousin is 22 and has 16-24 year old friends; want to test their "old white guy" hearing limits? 
 
but besides all this (SPOILER: people can hear high frequencies into their 60's and 70's; don't let audiofool forums fool you); empirical evidence of this? No? Same old pseudoscientific
unsupported, unwarranted crap? Ok then. And then even what's even worse and incredibly ignorant: "we're the ones who own, buy, produce "audiophile" music, equipment"
 
Well first, grammar is your friend (or enemy in your case), and second, those who...blah...blah...are almost exclusively rich "old white guys".