[interpolate]

Well my argument for keeping everything at the same bit depth/sample rate would be exact imaging as opposed to resampled/bit-shifted. This not only ascertains an accurate representation of the original master it means no alteration in sound was made to get there other than codec conversions. I think it's all subjective. I bought Janis Joplin - Pearl 24/96 FLAC. Whilst a 16/48 would do the same job, it sounds pristine..can't fault it.

 

[RRod]

  Well my argument for keeping everything at the same bit depth/sample rate would be exact imaging as opposed to resampled/bit-shifted. This not only ascertains an accurate representation of the original master it means no alteration in sound was made to get there other than codec conversions. I think it's all subjective. I bought Janis Joplin - Pearl 24/96 FLAC. Whilst a 16/48 would do the same job, it sounds pristine..can't fault it.

 
Other than all the alterations in the sound that happened during mixing/editing. I guess my perspective is that it's odd for people to have no qualms about applying all kinds of corrections, filters, and effects to audio but then scoff at the idea of doing a final conversion to 16/44.1, which most definitely produces fewer audible changes (none, some of us would argue) than the other stuff. I will be honest and say I'm fine with the current situation, as handling hi-res isn't any kind of big deal. It's the principle, though, especially when it comes to companies charging for the stuff.

 

[interpolate]

I kind of agree, they are charging for an extra sound benefit most people won't be able to distinguish. Personally I always mixdown to 24/48Khz until the final mixdown for CD.  Having FLAC, APE and other hi-res formats opens more potential. Record companies are charging some based on hype, placebos and unwarranted claims.
 
Despite what others say, DSD to me sounds pretty good although again the source material has be sampled at output rate (through analogue conversion) rather than upsampled to fill all of the 1&0's.
 
I will buy SACD player which will also act as a high-end CD player at some point.

 

[RRod]

  I kind of agree, they are charging for an extra sound benefit most people won't be able to distinguish. Personally I always mixdown to 24/48Khz until the final mixdown for CD.  Having FLAC, APE and other hi-res formats opens more potential. Record companies are charging some based on hype, placebos and unwarranted claims.
 
Despite what others say, DSD to me sounds pretty good although again the source material has be sampled at output rate (through analogue conversion) rather than upsampled to fill all of the 1&0's.
 
I will buy SACD player which will also act as a high-end CD player at some point.

 
Well SACD at least tends to have 5.1 mixes, which is some extra value regardless of the audible benefits of DSD. There's a label I've been into recently that to me does it right. Their albums tend to be about $20, but for that you get a Redbook CD and a Blu-ray audio disc with 2.0 and 5.1 mixes @ 24/192, and a 7.1 mix @ 24/96.

 

[interpolate]

I think potentially the problem is the misunderstanding between bit depth and sample rate.,
 
Bit-depth as far as I understand, determines how much dynamics you have. So a vinyl player with 60dB SNR is about 10-bit sound and 8-bit in theory only offering 48dB which should be enough for the top end. However it does mean there is potentially missing information filled up as noise.
 
The less digital information that can be stored in an array, the more truncation and jitter transfer errors will occur. So what is the aim analogue accuracy or digital precision? What is the highest elite sound people really desire. Or is it just one of these things desire yet will never achieve without mortgaging the house.

 

[RRod]

  I think potentially the problem is the misunderstanding between bit depth and sample rate.,
 
Bit-depth as far as I understand, determines how much dynamics you have. So a vinyl player with 60dB SNR is about 10-bit sound and 8-bit in theory only offering 48dB which should be enough for the top end. However it does mean there is potentially missing information filled up as noise.
 
The less digital information that can be stored in an array, the more truncation and jitter transfer errors will occur. So what is the aim analogue accuracy or digital precision? What is the highest elite sound people really desire. Or is it just one of these things desire yet will never achieve without mortgaging the house.

 
Well extra sample rate buys you space for doing things like noise shaping as well (look at the content of an SACD much above 20kHz), so sample rate can technically buy you dynamic range as well. But yes, at the standard 6dB/bit calculation, 8bit gets you 48dB, but there are tracks that really have no dynamic range to speak of, so they can work at that depth.
 
The thing about digital accuracy is that digital should be entirely capable of being accurate if things have been bandlimited properly and you have enough bits, which should be true in any good chain. The question is where you set the limit. For frequency extension, based on testing single tones, 22kHz is enough. Hi-res advocates say more is needed, but they can't possibly be basing that on what humans can hear as single tones. Various theories are out there (non-aural sensation, non-linearity in the ear, etc.), but any evidence that comes out on both sides is readily rejected by the opposing side. As a little person, I figure all I can do is listen to music, do my own tests, and read published papers to judge where the science actually is. Currently, this has me at 16/44.1 being plenty enough for end-user delivery.

 

[sonitus mirus]

For media playback, it seems to me that Red Book already greatly exceeds the comfortable dynamic range for human hearing.   Other than my "Whispers and Air Raid Sirens Volume 2" CD, I think we have already achieved all that we can hope to with dynamic range unless some major breakthrough is discovered...that doesn't come from Meridian and their business partners.

 

[KeithEmo]

  I kind of agree, they are charging for an extra sound benefit most people won't be able to distinguish. Personally I always mixdown to 24/48Khz until the final mixdown for CD.  Having FLAC, APE and other hi-res formats opens more potential. Record companies are charging some based on hype, placebos and unwarranted claims.
 
Despite what others say, DSD to me sounds pretty good although again the source material has be sampled at output rate (through analogue conversion) rather than upsampled to fill all of the 1&0's.
 
I will buy SACD player which will also act as a high-end CD player at some point.

 
I think this discussion depends to a major extent on which side of the table you're coming from.
 
Purely as a customer, I'm inclined to believe that, IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, the higher resolution version will be better. Assuming the company selling the product isn't "playing games", if they're offering a 24/192k version and a 16/44k version, they will have created the master at 24/192k first, then down-sampled it to create the 16/44k version. So, IF the conversion process is audible, then the 24/192k version will be closer to the master and, if the conversion really is totally inaudible, then they will be equal. Likewise, IF the company has deliberately chosen to make the two versions sound different, they will be most likely to have deliberately reduced the quality on the 16/44k version. (Either to deliberately ensure that their more expensive "premium" version sounds better, or to deliberately reduce the details audible in the "non-audiophile" version because they believe that's what their audience expects.) All of these factors led me to believe that the 24/192k version will be either audibly the same as, or audibly better than, the 16/44k version. And so, by buying the 24/192k version, I can be most sure of getting the best version (or, at the very least, not a deliberately or accidentally reduced version).
 
I do NOT find the various claims about how high-resolution and better frequency response can actually have a negative effect on sound quality to be at all credible with modern equipment.
 
Now, as a seller of music, I think the current reality is simply that high-resolution is an excellent marketing strategy. If my customers are willing to buy a "24/192k remaster" just because it's 24/192k, or if they're willing to pay a few dollars more for it than the "regular" version, then that's all the motivation I require to offer it for sale. There's no motivation for me to perform testing to prove that it's better, and certainly no motivation for me to do testing that might prove the opposite; and, obviously, even a test result that proved that the high-res version was "a tiny bit better, but most people don't notice the difference" would be bad for business.
 
And, finally, as a seller of audio equipment, I can use the fact that my products support the higher sample rate as a positive selling point, and as a reason why my customers should upgrade their older equipment to "current high-res products". (And, if anything, I might have more motivation to do so, since, presumably, people will buy music either way, but they may not choose to upgrade hardware without a "solid reason".) However, the reality is that MOST current DACs support sample rates up to and including 24/192k so, while it might be considered to be an important feature, it's hardly a "product differentiator".
 
My overall conclusion would be that "enough people want high-resolution music" that it makes sense to both produce and to sell it... and that technical "proof positive" that the difference is audible is pretty much unnecessary at this point. It simply seems unlikely whether a scientific study that provides conclusive proof either way will have much effect on sales - and it is sales that "drive the need to produce the product". (You can make your own judgement as to whether "there's simply no point in fighting the amount of advertising money that's been spent to sell high-res to the public" or "the horse is already out of the barn and it's way too late to try and get him back inside - or to worry about how he escaped".) Bear in mind that storage space has gotten very cheap, which means that 24/192k files don't cost much more to store or download than 16/44k ones. And also remember that, as downloads have overtaken CDs as the most popular medium, and download bandwidth has also gotten cheaper, the fact that 16/44k is "the CD standard" has become less significant (more people are buying downloads than CDs, and the cost of downloading a 24/192k album is not significantly more than the cost of downloading a 16/44k album).
 
Also, as you've noted, simply offering a few more formats, and so more options, also tends to be good for business.

 

[FFBookman]

   
Other than all the alterations in the sound that happened during mixing/editing. I guess my perspective is that it's odd for people to have no qualms about applying all kinds of corrections, filters, and effects to audio but then scoff at the idea of doing a final conversion to 16/44.1, which most definitely produces fewer audible changes (none, some of us would argue) than the other stuff. I will be honest and say I'm fine with the current situation, as handling hi-res isn't any kind of big deal. It's the principle, though, especially when it comes to companies charging for the stuff.

It's because everything else in the creation and mixing phase adds to the total sound quality. Downsample+dither is the first and only forced step back in quality in the modern recording environment. I mean the last 20 years. Artists/producers ask why, were told "so it fits on a CD" and are now told "that's what online store stocks" and it's basic commerce at that point. How far can we degrade it before people stop paying? Hmm.....
 
This downgrade to a smaller file size (bandwidth restriction) is not described accurately as being necessary for conveniently timed and priced transmission, storage, and playback of the file. That's the basics and the whole story.
 
All the ABX gar'baaage, all the name calling, all the psychoacoustic research cited, could care less about what music sounds best. That can only be determined when the barriers to proper rendering at large are removed.
 
 
That's why products like Pono are important, they bring quality that only few knew existed to the masses, and then they can decide if they hear or care about the quality differences.

 

[FFBookman]

  I think potentially the problem is the misunderstanding between bit depth and sample rate.,
 
Bit-depth as far as I understand, determines how much dynamics you have. So a vinyl player with 60dB SNR is about 10-bit sound and 8-bit in theory only offering 48dB which should be enough for the top end. However it does mean there is potentially missing information filled up as noise.
 
The less digital information that can be stored in an array, the more truncation and jitter transfer errors will occur. So what is the aim analogue accuracy or digital precision? What is the highest elite sound people really desire. Or is it just one of these things desire yet will never achieve without mortgaging the house.

 
I can't prove it but I think there's something there in the sound field air that gets digitally reduced along with the things we can measure. It might even get scrambled on the way in, but I haven't recorded enough with a purely analog signal chain to test that theory. I just think the entire ADC/DAC process is ripe with error and compromise and we are left to accept them since we cannot easily swap components inside those digital processes.
 
As far as upper limits of resolution, stereo PCM 24/192 has plenty of headroom in all directions to my ears.  I have not heard DSD or MQA yet but I've been in many recording environments and I can't see going beyond 24/192 for a few more decades at least. They'd really need some new inventions with speakers to need more bandwidth than that.

 

[RRod]

 
It's because everything else in the creation and mixing phase adds to the total sound quality. Downsample+dither is the first and only forced step back in quality in the modern recording environment. I mean the last 20 years. Artists/producers ask why, were told "so it fits on a CD" and are now told "that's what online store stocks" and it's basic commerce at that point. How far can we degrade it before people stop paying? Hmm.....
 
This downgrade to a smaller file size (bandwidth restriction) is not described accurately as being necessary for conveniently timed and priced transmission, storage, and playback of the file. That's the basics and the whole story.
 
All the ABX gar'baaage, all the name calling, all the psychoacoustic research cited, could care less about what music sounds best. That can only be determined when the barriers to proper rendering at large are removed.
 
 
That's why products like Pono are important, they bring quality that only few knew existed to the masses, and then they can decide if they hear or care about the quality differences.

 
To me as a consumer, there are no guarantees that everything you might do to a mix will be an improvement; see the whole loudness war as an example. The barriers to proper rendering should be at the far ends of the chain: the venue and the mics, the speakers and the listening room. ADCs and DACs do their job and do it well, and DAWs will do exactly as told including turning a mix into utter crud. And while the Pono player is certainly good hardware, the whole Pono setup *assumes* that people can hear the differences, and charge for it accordingly, esp. in the store. Your statement is an example: "quality that only few knew." That assumes nothing before was available at < $400 that had quality sound, which is just plain untrue.

 

[FFBookman]

  For media playback, it seems to me that Red Book already greatly exceeds the comfortable dynamic range for human hearing.   Other than my "Whispers and Air Raid Sirens Volume 2" CD, I think we have already achieved all that we can hope to with dynamic range unless some major breakthrough is discovered...that doesn't come from Meridian and their business partners.

 
Dynamic Range is just another attempt at finding a singular measure for quality. Then there's that word 'comfortable'. I don't listen to air sirens, I listed to instruments, and it makes me comfortable to hear them as accurately as possible, in a position in the room.
 
Too bad you've never heard better than CD playback. I'm not snarking, I kind of feel bad for you, to think that in 1978 they designed the most perfect digital audio system as to never need a basic file format upgrade. That's mind blowing to me. I bet every other digital anything in your life has been upgraded multiple times in that timeframe. Wait - most of them didn't even exist in 1980.
 
It's like digital audio v 1.0 and you are still believing it can never be improved upon.
 
I know that ADC and DAC chips have improved since 1980 but it's more than that. People have been working at qualities above 16/44 literally since the CD shipped to the public. You can argue that the general public doesn't need it, but to think that it doesn't exist is just crazy to me. Why record at 24/88 to ship at 16/44?

 

[FFBookman]

   
To me as a consumer, there are no guarantees that everything you might do to a mix will be an improvement; see the whole loudness war as an example. The barriers to proper rendering should be at the far ends of the chain: the venue and the mics, the speakers and the listening room. ADCs and DACs do their job and do it well, and DAWs will do exactly as told including turning a mix into utter crud. And while the Pono player is certainly good hardware, the whole Pono setup *assumes* that people can hear the differences, and charge for it accordingly, esp. in the store. Your statement is an example: "quality that only few knew." That assumes nothing before was available at < $400 that had quality sound, which is just plain untrue.

True there was stuff around to play hi-def but very few all-in-one iPod style devices to play it properly. By around 2013  I knew of A&K selling one for $1400 and Fiio had one for $500. There have been external DAC's and amps forever. 
 
What hooked me on the pono pitch was the push for provenance and open standards/no DRM on the music. Buy from us, trust it's the best version available, and it comes with no security or catch. That's nice and they are living up to their promise, so far.
 
The player being a bad little mother is just icing on the cake. Sure you can piece together a few things that will sound as good as Ponoplayer, but it won't be as small, rugged, simple, and come in under $500.
 
Neil's marketing was key because it cracked through the "lossy is fine, music is fine, buy new headphones" line that Apple and others have been pounding us with. They haven't talked quality in 15+ years now. Those bastards injest 24bit files and then lossy them to 256 AAC to sell and stream them. They have masters they won't even sell!

 

[FFBookman]

   
To me as a consumer, there are no guarantees that everything you might do to a mix will be an improvement; see the whole loudness war as an example. The barriers to proper rendering should be at the far ends of the chain: the venue and the mics, the speakers and the listening room. ADCs and DACs do their job and do it well, and DAWs will do exactly as told including turning a mix into utter crud. And while the Pono player is certainly good hardware, the whole Pono setup *assumes* that people can hear the differences, and charge for it accordingly, esp. in the store. Your statement is an example: "quality that only few knew." That assumes nothing before was available at < $400 that had quality sound, which is just plain untrue.

To address the rest of your point -- if you are buying something from an artist, that artist has a producer, there's a mixing engineer or two, maybe a label person, and the team of them decide how it's going to sound.  You as a consumer just have to accept that they created a piece for your listening pleasure.
 
Loudness war is a combination of many things, it can't be blamed on one entity, one stage, one format, even one decade. Its been a continual thing since the beginning of recorded music. You want yours sounding bigger, louder, more current, and more hip than the others. This goes all the way back.
 
Today's loudness wars are the result of infinite digital duplication on the production end colliding with a massively restricted output format that isplayed on $4 audio signal chains into $5 headphones.
 
There's a lot wrong with modern music. And to me, it all started started heading off the rails when 16/44 shipped as the first digital audio standard. 

 

[castleofargh]

  True there was stuff around to play hi-def but very few all-in-one iPod style devices to play it properly. By around 2013  I knew of A&K selling one for $1400 and Fiio had one for $500. There have been external DAC's and amps forever. 
 
What hooked me on the pono pitch was the push for provenance and open standards/no DRM on the music. Buy from us, trust it's the best version available, and it comes with no security or catch. That's nice and they are living up to their promise, so far.
 
The player being a bad little mother is just icing on the cake. Sure you can piece together a few things that will sound as good as Ponoplayer, but it won't be as small, rugged, simple, and come in under $500.
 
Neil's marketing was key because it cracked through the "lossy is fine, music is fine, buy new headphones" line that Apple and others have been pounding us with. They haven't talked quality in 15+ years now. Those bastards injest 24bit files and then lossy them to 256 AAC to sell and stream them. They have masters they won't even sell!

I'm loving it. you're blind when it goes as you like, and super picky when it doesn't. the typical 2 tiers reality.
dither at -96db, oh boy that ruins your sondstage and whatever. but pono is great? \o/ I can't stop laughing.
 
how about 5ohm output that changes the frequency response of most high end multidriver IEMs? and that's single ended.
how about the same impedance that varies with the voltage output because the ayre guy decided 30years ago that feedback was bad when everybody uses it to stabilize frequency response, reduce impedance output, and improve overall distortion levels. but you wouldn't care about distortions and FR changes right?  those are not important stuff, not like dither and signal with no music content down below -96db. oh irony.
and the fact that pono is oriented for highres, well better tell people to use highres, the thing sucks just plain bad at 44khz. no good in FR,  rolls off already 0.5db @10khz. THD is almost as high as the stuff masked on a mp3

. IMD is pretty bad too. that's how great it it for 500$. you have the signal resolution of a little better than mp3.
 
what your post tells us is that you're talking about stuff happening behind the mountain but you miss the bird that landed on your nose. in relative magnitude that's about it. you complain about stuff down at -96db and don't notice the stuff happening at around -70db. (I fully believe most people wouldn't notice either, but if one should be noticed, I wouldn't bet on the -96 signal. just saying).
 
you the 2 is more than 1 argument guy, how about that? complaining about signals( the pono goes almost 1V so I'll take that to give a scale) 96db below that's 0.000016v(people plz tell me if I mess up). the distortions of the pono up to -70db(a little higher in fact and that's with almost ideal load...) that means errors in the signal of about 0.000316v that's 19 times bigger, I know you like it when it's about numbers being bigger. you've told us so many times. of course people will say and will be right, that 2nd order HD are unlikely to be noticed. but so is dither. and you've got no excuse for IMD not being audible or being euphonic.
 
for once in your life how about taking off your blinders and accept that you've been talking nonsense all this time?
you can see it all there http://www.stereophile.com/content/pono-ponoplayer-portable-music-player-measurements. and again the review is suspiciously nice, I would kill to see measurements into a 16ohm load. highres DAP would surely take a very special definition at that moment.
 
but we're not done, now the pono files, did you read archimago's take on the "only the best" marketing stunt?  let me give you the link http://archimago.blogspot.fr/2015/01/last-words-on-pono-mastering-analysis.html
they're just like any other highres provider, if the guy giving them the masters says it's good, they will take it.
 
 
and people say to buy a better headphone because most headphones have distortions in the 1% area, even those really low like some ortho/planar stuff, they are still in the 0.1% zone for distortions. that's -60db, the limit of signal fidelity of a MP3@320. seeing how you hate mp3s, headphones should scare the hell out of your with the same magnitude of signal getting corrupted.
but too bad speakers are usually worst+the room. feel silly for sprouting nonsense about stuff at -96db you pretend to hear yet?
 
I'd say good luck explaining all this, but we both know that you just ignore anything that proves your wrong. that's how you have been able to keep pretending all this time.