[Digitalchkn]

  If the "high def" purchased version was no better (to MY ears, on MY equipment) than the lossless rip I did from my own CD, I would happily (although perhaps not unerringly) conclude that - in most instances - lossless CD rips would be perfectly adequate for my purposes.
 
 

 
When doing this you have to be aware of different masters frequently often being used for CD vs hi-res version.  At that point it becomes more of a comparison of which master you prefer rather than the "24 vs 16 bit"

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
I assumed he meant that I ought to buy both and compare. Doing that one time for the sake of making a comparison is something I would think is worth the expense.....once, anyway.

As has been stated numerous times on this thread, whether the high resolution version sounds better than the standard CD version is more a function of how each was mastered and really has nothing to do with the purported benefits of the higher sampling rate and the increased bit depth of the high resolution version. In which case one just needs to find out, via forums, google, etc. which mastering has the best sound and buy the CD version of that mastering, if available.

 

[RazorJack]

  Ummm...because it would give me at least some data about the quality of my purchases and that information would provide some guidance for future purchases.  If the "high def" purchased version was no better (to MY ears, on MY equipment) than the lossless rip I did from my own CD, I would happily (although perhaps not unerringly) conclude that - in most instances - lossless CD rips would be perfectly adequate for my purposes.
 
I found your "why bother?" question a bit nonsensical, to be honest; puzzling.

 
Ok, understood.
 
I find the hype around >16 bit, >44.1 kHz digital audio a bit nonsensical to be honest. But not puzzling 

 

 

[Digitalchkn]

   
Ok, understood.
 
I find the hype around >16 bit, >44.1 kHz digital audio a bit nonsensical to be honest.

 
Some hype may be there, but it does encourage development of higher quality gear!

 

[miceblue]

16+/44.1+ is almost always used in the studio though. People who manipulate the music find it useful.

 

[riverlethe]

Let your ears decide.

Can anyone think of advice worse than this? "Let your ____ decide."

 

[thesuperguy]

I posted a simple question and I expected a simple answer, which I got a few billion posts behind , but I certainly did not expect such an active debate to spark up. I would have thought that this topic had been discussed into the ground already over the years but it seems like people can't get enough of it.
 
Just for some background about my question - I was listening to "Time" from The Dark Side of the Moon which I ripped from an SACD in all its ultra high quality glory, and after getting a chance to listen to another typical lossless version of the song, I was astonished at the outstanding difference between both lossless formats. You would know this if you saw my previous thread somewhere over yonder, but turns out it's due to very noticeable mastering differences.

 

[Aggie-Luna]

interesting topic

 

[KT66]

Format is almost irrelevant, its all about the mastering.
To the OP you need to join and read stevehoffman.tv forum, it could save you a lot of money !

 

[nanaholic]

   
Some hype may be there, but it does encourage development of higher quality gear!

 
It doesn't really help to have all the high quality gear in the world when the music industry goes back to being lazy/careless and making poor masters.  No amount of high-end gear can fix clipping for example, so all those songs that are mixed too hot is ruined forever and no file format or bitrate will fix it.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

   
It doesn't really help to have all the high quality gear in the world when the music industry goes back to being lazy/careless and making poor masters.  No amount of high-end gear can fix clipping for example, so all those songs that are mixed too hot is ruined forever and no file format or bitrate will fix it.

When it comes to popular music, i.e. any music that sells very well - be it country, rap, hip-hop, R&B, rock, pop, etc., the music industry just wants it to sound good on a smart phone with $5 ear buds, which of course means as an mp3 file. So unless one is listening to non-popular music, i.e. music that does NOT sell, such as jazz, world, classical, etc., all one really needs a smart phone and some really cheap ear buds, any else is just overkill and a waste of money.
 
Luckily I listen to a lot of jazz and a lot of it is very well produced, recorded and mastered. Sounds great on good equipment and state of the art headphones.

 

[Cannikin]

 
As has been stated numerous times on this thread, whether the high resolution version sounds better than the standard CD version is more a function of how each was mastered and really has nothing to do with the purported benefits of the higher sampling rate and the increased bit depth of the high resolution version. In which case one just needs to find out, via forums, google, etc. which mastering has the best sound and buy the CD version of that mastering, if available.

Is there a single, collated resource available to us that offers a rating/review of releases/remasters so we can at least have a clue as to which masters to avoid and which to seek out? Seems to me that such a thing would be incredibly helpful. (My apologies if the answer to this question resides within the realm of "common knowledge" - it isn't something I am aware of)
 
If "googling" for the information, can you suggest ideal search terms for best results? I can imagine there is a right way, and a wrong way to find such data.

 

[Digitalchkn]

  Luckily I listen to a lot of jazz and a lot of it is very well produced, recorded and mastered. Sounds great on good equipment and state of the art headphones.

 
Exactly. A great master will be limited by poor equipment at the end of the chain - your setup. But a hi-res capable setup has enough overhead to preserve the full resolution of the source, even if it doesn't take advantage of 24 bits resolution.

 

[ag8908]

Partly because the bigger number fools your brain into thinking it sounds better. There is no substantive difference with respect to the vast majority of audiophile stuff, and many audiophile things sound worse. For example, the best headphone won't sound anywhere as good as the sweet spot of a basic 5.1 surround system, but that won't stop people from wasting money on the headphone.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 
Is there a single, collated resource available to us that offers a rating/review of releases/remasters so we can at least have a clue as to which masters to avoid and which to seek out? Seems to me that such a thing would be incredibly helpful. (My apologies if the answer to this question resides within the realm of "common knowledge" - it isn't something I am aware of)
 
If "googling" for the information, can you suggest ideal search terms for best results? I can imagine there is a right way, and a wrong way to find such data.

Not that I know of, however here are two things to keep in mind when looking for a reliable source of information.
 
1) Avoid reviews and opinions from any source (print or online publications) that have any of the vendors of high resolutions downloads (e.g. HDTracks, Linn, Acoustic Sounds, etc.) as advertisers - their "opinions" will be more press release than actual opinions plus for these publications ANY and ALL high resolution downloads, especially DSD downloads, will sound great.
 
2) Public or semi-public forums are a much better source of quality opinions although these too have their drawbacks (e.g. fan boys, people who need to justify their purchases) but by taking an average of the opinions one can draw some reasonable conclusions.
 
So for example the sound quality of new Beck recording "Morning Phase" has been highly praised in the press and overwhelmingly trashed in online forums.