[lamode]

Just a honest question: Isn't it true that headphones impact sound much more than the DAC/AMP? I mean, If you use a 4000$ headphones and a 200$ dac/amp vs the contrary, The first will sound much better. So why do people still claim that they have the same importance? I don't think it is true

 
Agreed. The price/performance ratio is very different for these components.

 

[lamode]

   
In 1986, I designed electrostatic headphone system ( headphones + amplifier ), which, when heard by a friend who helped me with the design of the amp, beat then brand new Sennheiser Orpheus by a country mile.

 
In the year 1785, I created the world's first supercomputer using home-made ICs, centuries ahead of its time. In the end, I had to shut it down because of a lack of available software, and it was emitting unsafe levels of X-rays....

 

[StanD]

   
In the year 1785, I created the world's first supercomputer using home-made ICs, centuries ahead of its time. In the end, I had to shut it down because of a lack of available software, and it was emitting unsafe levels of X-rays....

Not to be outdone by the excess levels of bullSchiit from CD Mats and DSD fantasies that have been plaguing this thread for too long.

 

[uchihaitachi]

   
Unfortunately you have a track record of making up stories, like the one about measuring an orchestra at 113dB from 30m away using a smartphone app. (I'm still LOLing about that one)
 

For real?????

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Unfortunately you have a track record of making up stories, like the one about measuring an orchestra at 113dB from 30m away using a smartphone app. (I'm still LOLing about that one)
And then there are the countless claims which contradict well established science without any proof whatsoever.
So no, your posts can't be taken seriously at all. If I correct your many false claims, it is not because I think I can change your mind, but because I want to help other newcomers to get the facts.

I have checked regarding that 113 dB readig with the friend in question. The app used was https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bti.soundMeter
I am awaiting his reply regarding the accuracy of that meter - against his Conrad SPL meter (nothing special, but solid and good value) . Will report what his reply would be - but the reading on the IIRC Samsung Galaxy 6? REALLY did show 113 dB. Could be error/fluke - will report ASAP.
 
But, without a doubt, it was LOUD. Much above say some Brahms and similar - Prokofiev and other Russians are known for that.
 
 
 
 

  20 kHz is plenty. I can't hear above 18 kHz. I've tried and tested.
 
Not sure what you're talking about in the next section, but it sounds conspiratorial.
 
Why should hi-rez be priced premium? Is it an elitism thing?
 
You don't need an ABX comparator to do an ABX test, it just makes it easier. Heck, if you could prove you can hear anything above 16/44.1, even in PCM, people might take you more seriously.

Why should be genuine hi-rez be priced premium?
 
If nothing else, because it is new recording. Furthermore, whoever goes to the trouble of getting true hirez, will want to use the best equipment and best people for the job. All of the above costs money - infinitely more so than just remastering DSOTM for the up-teenth time. Which has been amortized - many times over by now.  Not so with a new recording that is unlikely to ever generate as much income as DSOTM did - and still does.
 
I did say that 16/24 testing was tough - I could hear the difference rather consistently in some tracks, and in some not at all. They were test tracks from 2L I have in all available resolutions - and 96 kHz and up and DSD  sounds much different than 44.1kHz 16/24 thing - therefore easier to tell apart. 

 

[lamode]

  For real?????

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded/3345#post_11484713

 

[maverickronin]

  Why should be genuine hi-rez be priced premium?
 
If nothing else, because it is new recording. Furthermore, whoever goes to the trouble of getting true hirez, will want to use the best equipment and best people for the job. All of the above costs money - infinitely more so than just remastering DSOTM for the up-teenth time. Which has been amortized - many times over by now.  Not so with a new recording that is unlikely to ever generate as much income as DSOTM did - and still does.

 
I'm pretty sure he's asking something like why a higher resolution should cost more than standard 16/44 of the same recording.  Many of the websites that sell hires audio downloads also sell the same recordings in standard formats but charge more for high resolution version.  Considering it was already recorded in hires, the downsampling it is actually extra work and yet it's sold for less.  Sure the hires version takes up a bit more space on their server, and a bit more bandwidth for the user to download but today is not 15 years ago and that's not much of an issue.  Bandcamp will let you buy and download any album in any format you want (MP3v0, MP3 320kbps CBR, FLAC, ALAC, or Vorbis) for the same price and that price can be as low as $1.  I've bought several albums from there and download FLAC files which surprisingly turned out to be 24/44 and they don't even tell beforehand, let alone brag.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
I'm pretty sure he's asking something like why a higher resolution should cost more than standard 16/44 of the same recording.  Many of the websites that sell hires audio downloads also sell the same recordings in standard formats but charge more for high resolution version.  Considering it was already recorded in hires, the downsampling it is actually extra work and yet it's sold for less.  Sure the hires version takes up a bit more space on their server, and a bit more bandwidth for the user to download but today is not 15 years ago and that's not much of an issue.  Bandcamp will let you buy and download any album in any format you want (MP3v0, MP3 320kbps CBR, FLAC, ALAC, or Vorbis) for the same price and that price can be as low as $1.  I've bought several albums from there and download FLAC files which surprisingly turned out to be 24/44 and they don't even tell beforehand, let alone brag.

Why do tickets for concerts, opera, sports events, etc, cost differently ? Because from some seats, you can hear and see better - therefore different pricing.
 
Same with recordings - Linn has policy of pricing MP3s the lowest, 192/24 or DSD/physical SACD disc the highest - and everything in between. I am not saying its prices are high or low, just that I find this style differentiation fair.
 
Native DSD   https://www.nativedsd.com/ ( you can download some free tracks if desired ) 
has pricing similarly done - DSD64 stereo, DSD64  multichannel, DSD128 stereo, DSD128 Multi, DXD, etc - I also find it fair. Not inexpensive, but fair.
 
24/44 is not exactly higher resolution - but it is nice that Bandcamp is offering it starting at $1. 

 

[maverickronin]

  Why do tickets for concerts, opera, sports events, etc, cost differently ? Because from some seats, you can hear and see better - therefore different pricing.
 
Same with recordings - Linn has policy of pricing MP3s the lowest, 192/24 or DSD/physical SACD disc the highest - and everything in between. I am not saying its prices are high or low, just that I find this style differentiation fair.

 
That's not really a good analogy.
 
The most important difference is that seats at real life events are limited goods.  There are only do many to go around.  Seats will run out. and by the law of supply and demand, prices for choice seats will increase regardless of what they're originally sold for or what regulation attempts to stop it.  OTOH you will never run out of digital downloads.  It is not intrinsically a scarce good and it's scarcity is only protected by government regulation.  Given that the high res version are original they will only have a tiny increase in marginal cost over a standard res download and consequently only a tiny increase in price is justified by production costs.
 
To use Bandcamp as an example again, they apparently find this difference so tiny that to even bother to charge more for FLAC* than for MP3 would cost more than they'd make back.
 
The second fail is that being close to a physical event. actually lets you see it and hear it better.  It is demonstrably superior.  The most polite thing I can say about high res recordings is that their superiority has yet to be demonstrated.
 
Given these facts I think the higher prices of high res audio downloads is best explained by mistaken belief in their superiority which increased demand for them among the uninformed or unconvienced, and which allows sellers to increase their prices even further.
 
 
*(which isn't strictly high res, but is analogous because the ratio of file size difference between MP3 V0 and 16/44 FLAC is similar to difference between 16/44 FLAC and 24/96 FLAC)

 

[wakibaki]

  I find this style differentiation fair.

 
Yes, this is what I find puzzling.
 
Where I live there's a big issue over energy prices. Gas, electricity. The wholesale gas price goes up, the price to the consumer goes up, the wholesale gas price comes down, the price to the consumer stays the same. Except people kicked up so much they got the government to force the energy companies to reluctantly reduce their prices, after quite a delay of course. In the meantime the energy companies have such a plethora of pricing plans that as in the case of mobile phones, it's very difficult to decide which is best for oneself.
 
In your case though, you, a consumer, seem determined to defend a pricing structure where the relationship to cost is tenuous in the extreme. This is leading you to romanticize a relationship where none exists. (The electricity company is my friend.)
 
This is fortunately at least less antisocial than stalking.

 

[davidsh]

analogsurviverI'd love to see ABX results comparing 44.1/16 and 192/24

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Yes, this is what I find puzzling.
 
Where I live there's a big issue over energy prices. Gas, electricity. The wholesale gas price goes up, the price to the consumer goes up, the wholesale gas price comes down, the price to the consumer stays the same. Except people kicked up so much they got the government to force the energy companies to reluctantly reduce their prices, after quite a delay of course. In the meantime the energy companies have such a plethora of pricing plans that as in the case of mobile phones, it's very difficult to decide which is best for oneself.
 
In your case though, you, a consumer, seem determined to defend a pricing structure where the relationship to cost is tenuous in the extreme. This is leading you to romanticize a relationship where none exists. (The electricity company is my friend.)
 
This is fortunately at least less antisocial than stalking.

It is not puzzling - at all.
 
I am far more on the side of "producer" than consumer of recordings in this case. If you knew what and how long does it take in order for the musicians to arrive at the position to be able to rehearse a piece of music well enough to be recorded, how difficult is to find a venue in which to record and how much does it cost, you would start thinking differently. There is no such thing as wholesale price for the musicianship - better musicians cost more and you have to learn to deal with it.  Sometimes, the lack of funds for a single one rehearsal more that would be required to get things in order can backfire during the concert/recording so badly that it renders the whole effort useless for the recording in the end. It did happen, more than once, and it hurts like hell when it is my  technically the best recording so far - that will be as a whole not getting anywhere due to too big errors in playing. Budget simply could not be stretched more - end of story, lesson learned.
 
There is no way of denying SACD (DSD64) came into being and distribution as a direct consequence of the fact that CDs were and are being illegally copied. On massive scale. I wonder what you would do, in case that the work of your profession could be downloaded illegally free or copied from CDs without any financial compensation - would you endorse it ? Something had to be done - and it did work for a while, at least what it did was to stop making of illegal copies for a while.
 
I did get to see how sales of CDs plummeted the minute CD recorders became available - and even more when it was possible to do it with computers. I was working in CD retail at the time - and you would not believe how many "customers" were returning or at least trying to return the "defective" CD the next day after the purchase.  
After being copied, illegally, of course. In how many copies? Enough for the new arrivals that should sell reasonably well to linger on the shelves , sometimes long enough to have to be put on sale after a while. 
 
It is a MUCH different game than the gas - and one everybody is trying to solve in order for the wolf to be fed and sheep still being intact. Bandcamp is one of the possible solutions.
 
You can not copy gas - after it is burnt, at whatever the price, it is gone. With CDs, you can make - illegally - a fortune; buy one, rip an image of it, be audacious enough to return it to the store as defective and claiming the money back, then producing copies ad libitum.  
 
This is the other side of the same coin !!!

 

[dazzerfong]

  It is not puzzling - at all.
 
I am far more on the side of "producer" than consumer of recordings in this case. If you knew what and how long does it take in order for the musicians to arrive at the position to be able to rehearse a piece of music well enough to be recorded, how difficult is to find a venue in which to record and how much does it cost, you would start thinking differently. There is no such thing as wholesale price for the musicianship - better musicians cost more and you have to learn to deal with it.  Sometimes, the lack of funds for a single one rehearsal more that would be required to get things in order can backfire during the concert/recording so badly that it renders the whole effort useless for the recording in the end. It did happen, more than once, and it hurts like hell when it is my  technically the best recording so far - that will be as a whole not getting anywhere due to too big errors in playing. Budget simply could not be stretched more - end of story, lesson learned.
 
There is no way of denying SACD (DSD64) came into being and distribution as a direct consequence of the fact that CDs were and are being illegally copied. On massive scale. I wonder what you would do, in case that the work of your profession could be downloaded illegally free or copied from CDs without any financial compensation - would you endorse it ? Something had to be done - and it did work for a while, at least what it did was to stop making of illegal copies for a while.
 
I did get to see how sales of CDs plummeted the minute CD recorders became available - and even more when it was possible to do it with computers. I was working in CD retail at the time - and you would not believe how many "customers" were returning or at least trying to return the "defective" CD the next day after the purchase.  
After being copied, illegally, of course. In how many copies? Enough for the new arrivals that should sell reasonably well to linger on the shelves , sometimes long enough to have to be put on sale after a while. 
 
It is a MUCH different game than the gas - and one everybody is trying to solve in order for the wolf to be fed and sheep still being intact. Bandcamp is one of the possible solutions.
 
You can not copy gas - after it is burnt, at whatever the price, it is gone. With CDs, you can make - illegally - a fortune; buy one, rip an image of it, be audacious enough to return it to the store as defective and claiming the money back, then producing copies ad libitum.  
 
This is the other side of the same coin !!!

As much as I hate to say it, I do agree with him that the higher bit rate stuff should cost more. How much more is up to anyone's guess, but that's how basic capitalism is. Doesn't matter if there's a perceived improvement or not (there's none to me), but the bandwidth itself is enough of an excuse to increase the cost. However, and I must stress very strongly, the different versions of the songs are to be from the same master.

Now, stop going off-topic and focus with the issue at hand. No-one is talking about CD sales plumetting here. Also, what you say about the 'price' of musicians will be true if the costs of a CD is actually reflected by their fee. It's not, hence I call BS.

 

[analogsurviver]

@analogsurviverI'd love to see ABX results comparing 44.1/16 and 192/24

Why not ? 
 
Would comparing 192/24 and 44.1/16, both converted from the DSD128 with the use of the Audiogate 3, be good for you ? 

 

[analogsurviver]

  As much as I hate to say it, I do agree with him that the higher bit rate stuff should cost more. How much more is up to anyone's guess, but that's how basic capitalism is. Doesn't matter if there's a perceived improvement or not (there's none to me), but the bandwidth itself is enough of an excuse to increase the cost. However, and I must stress very strongly, the different versions of the songs are to be from the same master.

Now, stop going off-topic and focus with the issue at hand. No-one is talking about CD sales plumetting here. Also, what you say about the 'price' of musicians will be true if the costs of a CD is actually reflected by their fee. It's not, hence I call BS.

I agree on the requirement  that all versions are from the same master .
 
I agree on the bandwidth - in that light, MP3s can be the costliest way to buy music.
 
From your response regarding the "price" of musicians is clear that you do not have a clue how that goes. Whenever a live microphone is on stage, "wages" of musicians go up by at least 30 % - by their contract, union rules - you name it. And one way of recuperating the costs of recording, and I mean NEW recording, is by selling it in various qualities. Sorry, DSD128 and MP3 can not cost the same - despite the fact that additional work is required for converting the DSD128 to anything else.
 
This consumerism has made the price of the musicianship almost invisible. At least with re-releases of re-releases. It is one hell less expensive to re-release some famous recording from the past every sparrow knows is "good, reference playing" - than releasing a new recording of a local band playing the music of living composers. Not to mention famous musicians playing the music of living composers - do you have any idea how much these rights cost ? Short answer - enough for the most to avoid recording new music - at all. It was so for Bolero from Ravel - not before 75 years have passed from the composer's death ... (if you could not afford the performing rights). 
 
Technical side - whatever it is - costs the least. Or USED to cost the least - prior to hirez. If you really want hirez, it means the change of - almost everything. Faster microphones, faster electronics, faster recorders - which have to be bought new, they can not be  part of "heritage" that was "amortized" long ago. In short, it costs dearly. And has to be reflected in price of the recordings to the public.
 
Yet, it is the only tangible differentiation by which a"front row" and "back seat" "tickets" can be sold. It is the only leverage that can be used to recoup the costs of recording - and new recordings will always be pricier than the older ones. Despite if being on MP3...