[dazzerfong]

 
What's so tough about accepting that we might not have heard something we think we heard? It is hardly life-threatening, but audio forums and meetings give the impression that it strikes at the very basis of reality. What humbug! 

Simple: when you sunk $100k into something, and found out it's all for nought, that's generally the first thing you fall into: denial.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

Well, yes... Been there; suffered the various forms of post-purchase psychology. Never had the chance to have it cost me that much though. 
 
And, of course, being but a recovering audiophile, part of me still wonders...

 

[StanD]

Once the mob's loudmouth spews a story, all bets are off.

 

[Slaphead]

If you can even see all of the colors.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/25-people-have-4th-cone-see-colors-p-prof-diana-derval

And

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/tetrachromacy.asp

You can't test for tetrachromacy on a computer screen as a computer screen is not capable of generating the range of colours needed to test for the condition.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
In practice, and when I am listening to music, I agree entirely. I've seen people file their music collections under formats, sample rates, etc --- and I wonder why! Once it is in my collection, and especially if it was the only copy I could get, I don't care if it is allegedly high-res, a scratchy vinyl rip, or even grabbed from youtube: it's music.

 
I have to both agree and disagree on your statement there - and quite strongly (but not for aesthetic reasons). I always file my music by file type, but the reason is purely practical. If I always have to go over to my MP3 folder to find the only copy I have of some of my old favorite songs, then that reminds me that I should, at least occasionally, be checking to see if a better quality copy has become available. (Between re-masters and uploads, new versions of songs or albums frequently become available, so that's not an unlikely possibility.) And that's doubly true for something like Youtube, where there is a huge amount of variation between different copies of "the same" music or video. (So, yes, if I notice that I've listened to that same poor quality MP3 five times this week, then that prompts me to go on an "expedition" on eBay for a better copy, or even a better quality video on Youtube.)

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

I'll do that if the music quality is irritating, and I get the sudden inspiration to look for better. I would never do it because, for instance, hey, only 64kbps. If it is listenable, it is listenable, and I don't even consider the file format.
 
Irritating could be a bad vinyl rip (eg from one of my own scratched LPs!) as often as it is a symptom of low bit rates.
 
disclosure: My relative-to-many-others fairly-small digital music library is mostly of an arbitrary  standard that says, lossless FLAC wherever possible, and 320- or 180-MP3 where not. The reason I say arbitrary, is that I have never taken the trouble to find out, by listening tests, at what point I, personally, really can hear the difference.
 
I do keep lossy copies for portable use, in another location. Probably nothing over 180-MP3.

 

[KeithEmo]

  I'll do that if the music quality is irritating, and I get the sudden inspiration to look for better. I would never do it because, for instance, hey, only 64kbps. If it is listenable, it is listenable, and I don't even consider the file format.
 
Irritating could be a bad vinyl rip (eg from one of my own scratched LPs!) as often as it is a symptom of low bit rates.
 
disclosure: My relative-to-many-others fairly-small digital music library is mostly of an arbitrary  standard that says, lossless FLAC wherever possible, and 320- or 180-MP3 where not. The reason I say arbitrary, is that I have never taken the trouble to find out, by listening tests, at what point I, personally, really can hear the difference.
 
I do keep lossy copies for portable use, in another location. Probably nothing over 180-MP3.

 
That's pretty well the way I look at it.... although I do extend that to include "high-res versions whenever they happen to be available". Ignoring the heated discussion about whether there is an audible difference in high-res files because they're high-res, I have found that many of the recent high-res re-masters do sound significantly better to me than previous releases. For example, I find the recent Grateful Dead Studio Remasters to be far superior sounding - to me - than any previous release (and there have been a lot). Now, whether that's because they're high-res, or simply because they're the latest re-master, or because a little more effort was spent to make them sound good because they're "an audiophile release", doesn't specifically influence my decision to buy them; I'm buying them because they sound better for whatever reason. I would also note that many of the recent high-res re-masters DON'T sound any better to me than any other versions that are available - for whatever reason - but I'm basically taking that same gamble whenever I buy any re-master, whether it's high-res or not (which is why it's always a good idea to follow the reviews).

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

Grateful Dead

 

[Ruben123]

Woa some science guys (+ me one time) have had discussions in the pono topic about the benefits of 24 bits (and other things) and we got flamed because it was off topic and "discuss it elsewhere". Now it's almost 2 pages talk about Win 7,8,10... How is that not off topic ?!

 

[RRod]

Woa some science guys (+ me one time) have had discussions in the pono topic about the benefits of 24 bits (and other things) and we got flamed because it was off topic and "discuss it elsewhere". Now it's almost 2 pages talk about Win 7,8,10... How is that not off topic ?!

 
Because that topic doesn't go against the underlying philosophy of the Pono. We Redbook people are infidel defilers, and any mention of bits or samples is thread-crapping.

 

[jcx]

  I find the recent Grateful Dead Studio Remasters to be far superior sounding - to me - than any previous release (and there have been a lot). Now, whether that's because they're high-res, or simply because they're the latest re-master, or...

Plangent Processing? - I know GD has used them in the past - if you can get original tapes you can strip out the "FM" modulation, "scrape flutter" mechanical tape motion errors from bearing noise, rubbing, stick-slip by digitizing at high enough sample rate to capture the recorder's AC Bias tone and use that as your timebase to back out the tape speed errors

 

[interpolate]

Celemony offer an effective yet very expensive solution to tape transfers with Capstan.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
That's pretty well the way I look at it.... although I do extend that to include "high-res versions whenever they happen to be available". Ignoring the heated discussion about whether there is an audible difference in high-res files because they're high-res, I have found that many of the recent high-res re-masters do sound significantly better to me than previous releases. For example, I find the recent Grateful Dead Studio Remasters to be far superior sounding - to me - than any previous release (and there have been a lot). Now, whether that's because they're high-res, or simply because they're the latest re-master, or because a little more effort was spent to make them sound good because they're "an audiophile release", doesn't specifically influence my decision to buy them; I'm buying them because they sound better for whatever reason. I would also note that many of the recent high-res re-masters DON'T sound any better to me than any other versions that are available - for whatever reason - but I'm basically taking that same gamble whenever I buy any re-master, whether it's high-res or not (which is why it's always a good idea to follow the reviews).

 
I find the Grateful Dead remasters to sound outstanding as well, even with the Google Play 320 kbps streaming mp3 files.  I am very familiar with this music, and I prefer the latest remasters to the CDs that I own.  I had all of the studio releases on vinyl back in the day, as well, and the latest remasters sound better than anything I can recall hearing before.  Maybe the hi-rez versions are even better, but I doubt it.  If I wasn't already extremely happy with the streaming version, this would be another opportunity for me to test a hi-rez file converted to Red Book or lossy.  I think I will save my money this time, as I am fairly certain how the ABX will result.\
 
Edit: This is the HDTracks version of the music in Google Play that I have been listening to with the wonderful sound quality.  http://www.hdtracks.com/complete-studio-albums-collection

 

[OddE]

  I find the Grateful Dead remasters to sound outstanding as well, (...)

 
-Excellent news, I guess I'd better pick a few of them up - while I've got just about every album they ever put out, plus most of Jerry's pursuits outside the Dead, the earlier remaster offerings have left me underwhelmed, to say the least. If they finally got it right, this'll be a classic case of 'Shut up and take my money!!!'

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
-Excellent news, I guess I'd better pick a few of them up - while I've got just about every album they ever put out, plus most of Jerry's pursuits outside the Dead, the earlier remaster offerings have left me underwhelmed, to say the least. If they finally got it right, this'll be a classic case of 'Shut up and take my money!!!'

 
With regards to the studio releases, it is the Complete Studio Album Collection which I find to sound the best on Google.  I have not listened to any others lately, but I would have confidence with any of the latest Rhino releases.