[arnyk]

  I find people it funny how much time and attention spent on disproving things rather than adding to or improving the understanding of it. In the first case it's the absolute opposite of the scientific benefits of the research in the first place.

 
In many ways, proving and disproving are two sides of the same coin.
 
It is important to disprove false claims and support correct ones. Many times, doing one implies the other.

 

[interpolate]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 

 

[miceblue]

I find people it funny how much time and attention spent on disproving things rather than adding to or improving the understanding of it. In the first case it's the absolute opposite of the scientific benefits of the research in the first place.

The 24-bit audio myth helped me understand what 24-bit audio actually means rather than just being an uninformed consumer and falling for the "HD audio gives you xxx times more information than a CD!" marketing.

I have yet to see someone prove that 24-bit audio provides any audible benefits to the end-listener. And no, 999999 kbps does not mean it sounds better to our human's finite resolution of hearing than 1000 kbps. Prove it if you're so certain about that because there is overwhelming evidence against that claim.

The masters make far more of a difference in sound than resolution, far more, and I can pass ABX tests between many masters, at the same resolution.

 

[interpolate]

Yes that's true However i consider sampling frequency to be separate from the audible range. If something is recorded high and kept at the same rate then there is more chance of it working as a studio master than at a dithered and resampled size. How much benefit can be acheived is another story. As for bit-depth that really only counts during the recording process not afterwards really.

I have 2 albums which are 24 96 and to be honest, they sound really good although if i ran pow\r 2 dither on them and resampled to 44.1k i probably wouldn't notice much difference just from listening.

 

[arnyk]

  Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 

 
 
That would be excellent advice, provided the means of demonstration is itself not full of falsehoods. Casual sighted audiophile evaluations are the usual demonstrations offered but they fail to be reasonable due to their vast array of inherent failings and sources of falsehoods.

 

[arnyk]

I have 2 albums which are 24 96 and to be honest, they sound really good although if i ran pow\r 2 dither on them and resampled to 44.1k i probably wouldn't notice much difference just from listening.

 
That appears to be an unbelievably broad interpretation of highly limited evidence.
 
I've had excellent resources at my disposal for making 24/96 recordings since about Y2k, and even more excellent resources for making 24/192 recordings since a few years after that.
 
I've made some very high resolution recordings and along with other volunteers that I have gathered along the way done extensive listening tests to find if there were any relevant audible differences.  When the listening tests are done right, there are no audible differences.

 

[interpolate]

Nobody said there is an audible difference although the data from higher resolution recordings will be different.

 

[StanD]

Nobody said there is an audible difference although the data from higher resolution recordings will be different.

But not different to a human being's senses, so there's nothing to get excited about.

 

[arnyk]

Nobody said there is an audible difference although the data from higher resolution recordings will be different.

 
 
Please explain that in the light of this post, for example:
 
"Wouldn't that be good - a portable SACD player? Bloody expensive yet pristine audio at the same time. I really struggle to find DSD downloads which aren't classical because it's either some classical/jazz thing or it isn't licensed. At least here in the UK, it seems to be very limited at the moment.   I see that Sony are now putting a proper effort into promoting higher-resolution music even if the advertising is misleading to a certain extent. Companies like A&K, FiiO.."

 

[interpolate]

Well doesn't SACD sound better than CD?  If it didn't then everyone who spent hundred and thousands on equipment must be ill-judging imbeciles then. Sony's approach to promoting hi-fi is more gimmicky and non-techy which is fine for some. I suppose my point is you get out what you put in or very much approximately a good proportion of what you do. 
 
I'm going try recording some vinyl at the weekend into my laptop through a Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 and Phono amp. It's a vinyl version of the KLF - White Room album. Not to make any real comparisons however I don't see it available to buy except from sites like Discogs.com.

 

[arnyk]

  Well doesn't SACD sound better than CD?
 
 
 If it didn't then everyone who spent hundred and thousands on equipment must be ill-judging imbeciles then. Sony's approach to promoting hi-fi is more gimmicky and non-techy which is fine for some. I suppose my point is you get out what you put in or very much approximately a good proportion of what you do. 
 

 
No SACD doesn't necessarily sound better than CD, and here is proof: About half of the SACDs sold before 2006 were mastered from sources that were CD quality or worse. Nobody noticed until some techies did FFT analysis of the SACDs and found out the truth.

 

[nick_charles]

  Well doesn't SACD sound better than CD?  If it didn't then everyone who spent hundred and thousands on equipment must be ill-judging imbeciles then. Sony's approach to promoting hi-fi is more gimmicky and non-techy which is fine for some. I suppose my point is you get out what you put in or very much approximately a good proportion of what you do. 

 
If an SACD of a specific "Album" sounds "better" than a specific CD version of the same then the most likely reason by a sizable margin would be differences in mastering, closely followed by differences in level matching and then poorly controlled listening tests. To date there is genuinely almost zero evidence for the potential technical advantages of SACD being audible in normal listening...

 

[interpolate]

OK fair enough, well until I get a SACD player I will remain an ignorant outsider.

 

[interpolate]

It makes me want to throw all my high-res gear in the bucket 

 

[arnyk]

  OK fair enough, well until I get a SACD player I will remain an ignorant outsider.

 
I'm under the impression that a great deal of so-called hi-rez tracks are downloaded these days.