[bigshot]

I actually wonder if this debate matters at a time when you can buy a 4TB hard drive for $150. It might be better to buy high res versions just to show producers that customers are interested in better sound quality than what they've been offering...

 
LPs sounded pretty good. Then CDs were introduced and LP sound quality took a nose dive. For a while CDs sounded good. Then they introduced SACD and CDs started getting hot mastered. Now they are introducing HD tracks and blu-ray audio which supposedly has even bigger numbers (and copy protection). How many copies of Dark Side of the Moon can the record companies convince you to buy?
 
Filesizes do matter. We are heading towards a world that replaces physical objects with streaming, and home stereo components with portable DAPs and phones. How many different file sizes for music that sounds the same do you really want? I only want one... the smallest size that meets and exceeds my ability to hear. That is AAC 256 VBR. I don't really have any use for CDs any more. It all gets ripped and plopped on a media server to stream to me.

 

[riverlethe]

LPs sounded pretty good. Then CDs were introduced and LP sound quality took a nose dive. For a while CDs sounded good. Then they introduced SACD and CDs started getting hot mastered. Now they are introducing HD tracks and blu-ray audio which supposedly has even bigger numbers (and copy protection). How many copies of Dark Side of the Moon can the record companies convince you to buy?

Filesizes do matter. We are heading towards a world that replaces physical objects with streaming, and home stereo components with portable DAPs and phones. How many different file sizes for music that sounds the same do you really want? I only want one... the smallest size that meets and exceeds my ability to hear. That is AAC 256 VBR. I don't really have any use for CDs any more. It all gets ripped and plopped on a media server to stream to me.

24/96kHz lossless is what, 3 megabits per second? I'm paying $40/month for 50 Mbps. It's trivial.

 

[castleofargh]

-because the hires version usually costs more.
 
-because when I try an ABx I do not hear a difference.
 
-because I don't know if my system will stay stable with 96khz samples. there are some choices that are done by the guys creating dacs and amps. having to control a wider frequency range does come at a price in electronic(and I'm not just talking money, I'm talking conceding something to gain something else). some manufacturers already have a hard time keeping a flat clean response from 20hz to 20khz, imagine when they have to stay flat and clean from 20hz to 30 or 40khz. that's double the frequency range, not a small feat. and if you care for those stuff. do you ask the manufacturer where the low pass filter is? at 20khz bringing not much the the actual sound(probably the best choice) or at 30khz? requiring to keep a good response up to that level?  and impedance and jitter will start having a real effect at those frequencies. even a cable might start to have a real impact. I think you take the problem of hires for something a little too simple and optimistic.
just like DSD is in fact impractical and most manufacturers go with multi bit dacs and cut the high frequencies just like a pcm file. making something that is not really better in any way.
and that for drivers that mostly won't be able to output those frequencies, into ears that don't register them, what a waste. we just end up praying that no IMD will jump back into audible range so that at least we don't make the music worst than with 16/44.
 sure it can go the other way around too and actually give a better signal with hires files, but as long as the doubt is here, I'd rather use smaller files that cost less.
 
- I use mp3 on my daps, so if I chose size over quality when it's a proved fact, you can guess why I don't care much for hypothetical improvements with hires.
 
here you have my own reasons. others might have other reasons for other choices. but if you want the last "bits" of real sound, just get a headphone or speaker with less distortion and less roll off. that's where the improvement can be of a meaningful magnitude.

 

[bigshot]

24/96kHz lossless is what, 3 megabits per second? I'm paying $40/month for 50 Mbps. It's trivial.

 
Try to get that on your phone on the road with Starbucks wifi or 3g!

 

[elmoe]

   
Try to get that on your phone on the road with Starbucks wifi or 3g!

 
4G is 10 times faster than 3G at the minimum. Not that its a problem because nowadays smartphones can handle USB OTG allowing you to hook up large USB keys to your phone as removable media, essentially letting you carry your music (even large filesizes) in your pocket.
 
Ah wait you're still using Apple products. Nevermind then. 

 

[haloxt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
 
Inaudible sounds still have to be produced, causing distortion in equipment like instruments, amps, and speakers, and when the sound waves are created and bounce around will cause interference with each other. Humans may not be able to hear inaudible frequencies directly, but it should be possible for people to at least unconsciously hear the resultant interference caused by certain natural inaudible sounds. But given professional violinists' inability to consciously differentiate between super expensive Stradivarius violins and other violins, I don't expect to see anytime soon people prove that people can consciously be aware of natural inaudible frequencies causing sound wave interference.

 

[stv014]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound

 
Good thing people usually do not listen to "music" with ultrasonic content at 100-110 dB SPL. And even when such level of ultrasound is actually present, the intermodulation products from the non-linearity of air could be captured by the microphone used for recording, since they are already in the audio band.

 

[bigshot]

There was a test at the AES that concluded that at high volume, people can perceive ultrasonic frequencies as sound pressure, but the presence or absence of ultrasonic content made absolutely no difference to the perception of sound quality in music.

 

[Don Hills]

   
Good thing people usually do not listen to "music" with ultrasonic content at 100-110 dB SPL. And even when such level of ultrasound is actually present, the intermodulation products from the non-linearity of air could be captured by the microphone used for recording, since they are already in the audio band.

There's been some work on reproducing sound "in thin air", by focusing beams of ultrasonic sound to cross at the desired point. The non-linearity of the air mixes the two signals and makes their difference frequencies audible. It's not very practical because of the high ultrasonic SPL needed to reach useful levels of air non-linearity. 

 

[hogger129]

I really can't tell the difference in anything above CD quality.

 

[bigshot]

Neither can other humans.

 

[blades]

  Neither can other humans.

 
In fact you can remove up to 80% of the data from a red book CD and still have no audible change.

 

[dikkiedirk]

To answer the question of the TS:
 
Because higher numbers, either bits or kHz or $$ mean better sound, IT HAS TO!!
 
Better listen to great MUSIC then to a great system. Choice of great music is strictly personal.

 

[blades]

  To answer the question of the TS:
 
Because higher numbers, either bits or kHz or $$ mean better sound, IT HAS TO!!
 
Better listen to great MUSIC then to a great system. Choice of great music is strictly personal.

 
Why does it have to?

 

[dikkiedirk]

   
Why does it have to?

Aren't bigger nummers always better? Pun intended.