24/192 music downloads are useless??

[Grador]

Just because two very smart people came up with an ingenious solution and had the organizational skills and backing to take that insight and leverage the resources of their audio club (the venerable Boston Audio Society) into a paper worthy of audio's premier refereed journal...that's no reason to feel silly!

I was thinking more along the lines of a software solution. As long as you have the higher resolution source you can always resample, but I had my mind stuck on physical media.

[Time_Stand_Stil]

DS-21,

Talk about personal attacks here. Reading through your rather pompous and really subjective reply to me I note that YOU have no clue what my stance is on many audio/hi-fi related topics. You have no clue as to my audio used, lived with, reviewed and tested and such as to sound quality issues of home audio. To arrogantly call me an idiot and audiophool only belittles your points and possibly reflects your level of intelligence or lack thereof. So spare me your insults and pompous remarks. Discuss as a grown adult point v. point or quite simply maybe move on.

You and some others state you/they can't hear any qualitative differences between 16/44.1 and the high rez formats , GOOD FOR YOU I GUESS! IT'S YOUR AUDITORY LOSS in my book. Just because some folks were recording engineers and other so called experts does not reveal anything special about how and if they can hear sound well. Freaking Pete Townsend and Neil Young to name but two both do record engineering and both have serious hearing issues. Some say many musicians generally have low quality home audio, they may know their sound but that does not mean they by standard know good recorded sound. Dr. Dre has his Beats headphones, they sound like sh*t IMO, but I bet he lent his name to them thinking they sound good to him. Being a claimed expert in a field does not mean you are a defacto reference standard.

In the end DS-21 believe what you want. But I have done many a serious test and reviews of home audio gear etc. I can hear sonic differences between high rez and CD sound as well as the differences between CD players too.

I never denied 16/44.1 can't sound good and is not hi-fi. I have said often in life as an audio/hi-fi fan that it can as software be engineered well or bad. Its playback gear can be made well or bad. Digital is not all the same. Is there audiophoolerie in hi-fi? YES, there is but I am not talking about such here. I'm only pointing out my experiences on the sonic issues of this debate and others would with sound logic agree with much I said. You don't, it's your choice ok? May I suggest you then save money go buy a $20 Wal Mart sold off brand Blu Ray player to watch your movies and play your CD's with ok? Obviously Digital sounds the same to you regardless of gear and format as long as its a min.16/44.1. or maybe you believe MP3 can sound just as good?

You believe what you want, I will do the same for myself. From there it will only result in a proverbial circular argument. Studies, tests and notable persons claim sonic differences, you choose otherwise , FINE! But keep your pompous attacks to yourself.

[DS-21]

You and some others state you/they can't hear any qualitative differences between 16/44.1 and the high rez formats , GOOD FOR YOU I GUESS!

Actually, if you were a better reader you would've understood that it's not anyone "stating" that they can't hear a difference, it's sixty members of the Boston Audio Society who showed in A/B listening trials conducted over the course of about a year that they could not reliably distinguish hi-rez from hi-rez with a D/A-A/D loop thrown in that downsampled to 16/44.1. See Meyer and Moran, supra.

Against that, you have tired and feckless chest-beating, and nothing more.

IT'S YOUR AUDITORY LOSS in my book.

There you go with the hackneyed idiot audiophool snobbery again. It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

The rest of your quoted paragraph was so untethered from the actually relevant issues, that...I'm just going to stop now.

[mtrycrafts]

... Reminds me of the tag teams we used to get into over the benefits of high end cable at the old Audio Review site back in the mid 90's. Ah, the memories.

DJ

That is important, that is the memory still works well.

[mtrycrafts]

mtrycrafts.

If you think all cd players sound alike. I suggest that you pick up a few, even cheap thrift store buys and listen. You will find they sound different. This tells us that digital vs digital of the same format is not all the same.

As to DVD-A and SACD, yes they sound better as they are high rez. 16 bit 44.1K on its own can sound great but the added resolution of the hi rez formats is noticeable. JUST TRY IT!

I'll end my reply here as its enough of one to validate my points. Also I have no more patience right now to argue what likely will only go circular.

I am not the one who needs convincing. You are the one making testable claims and is unable to support those claims in a credible manner.

[mtrycrafts]

..., but odds are he lacked a acuteness to hear the differences as the reason why the Meridian could not excel for his hearing ability.

Yep, always the other guy has an issue but the claimant, you in this case is always right, right? It couldn't be you being fooled, right? You have that 'golden ear' and that certification of credible listener who is not biased. My mistake.

[Grador]

DS-21,
May I suggest you then save money go buy a $20 Wal Mart sold off brand Blu Ray player to watch your movies and play your CD's with ok? Obviously Digital sounds the same to you regardless of gear and format as long as its a min.16/44.1. or maybe you believe MP3 can sound just as good?

I am rather curious to hear your speculation on how the CD player used can cause audible differences in the sound. The only thing I can think of that could be handled differently between players would be error correction, which would only factor in on a damaged disk. If you are using the line out instead of a digital link, then yes the D/A in the player can be of varying quality, but i trust the D/A of my receiver.

[Time_Stand_Stil]

I am rather curious to hear your speculation on how the CD player used can cause audible differences in the sound. The only thing I can think of that could be handled differently between players would be error correction, which would only factor in on a damaged disk. If you are using the line out instead of a digital link, then yes the D/A in the player can be of varying quality, but i trust the D/A of my receiver.

Yes, because I'm using the player's DAC and outputting the analogue signal to my receiver.

The difference in sound from CD players or feeding various DAC's is the DAC design. DAC's do each have a sound of their own. Of course the analogue stages after conversion if one use a CD player to be the DAC too will have affect on sound.

[sterling shoote]

This thread is a wonderful distraction, very entertaining, as are most threads where perspectives collide. My take on it all, is that I never liked LP's. I was thrilled with CD's, and, still prefer them, since SACD's do not seem better. Now, however, I'm beginning to download from HDTracks, and iTunes. The downloads sound great; and, storing these music files on my computer makes everything I want to listen to so convenient. Beyond my fasination with computer audio, I occasionally buy BD audio discs as Dolby Digital sounds really good.

[mtrycrafts]

...
But I have done many a serious test and reviews of home audio gear etc. I can hear sonic differences between high rez and CD sound as well as the differences between CD players too.

Interesting claim but no credible evidence has been presented that it is a fact.

...
Studies, tests and notable persons claim sonic differences, you choose otherwise , FINE! ...

Yep, they are just claims, you are correct.