pablolie wrote: > I didn't participate in the survey, but downloaded and listened to the > samples. I was not able to tell the difference either through my pretty > revealing bookshelf setup or my Grado RS1 headphones. The external DAC > is a Benchmark HGC2 that doubles as headphone amp. I could not tell an > ounce of a difference. > > Now I am sure some critics will resort to the "I need a great recording > I have more emotional engagement and I am more familiar with". I have > done that repeatedly. When some of my favorite recordings, which I had > ripped from CD at the usual 16/44 became available sometimes as high as > 192/24 I got them. Sometimes I have liked them better because -I assume- > they were somewhat remastered etc; but as a rule I find it very hard and > mostly impossible to tell a difference. Certainly the difference is not > worth 15$ an album for my 4000 album collection :-D > > In audio we often run into diminishing returns. Most of the time the > gatekeeper is not the sampling rate or the number of bits per sample - > it is the recording studio. I kinda laugh when they put out some old > Motown album as 192/24, because it probably warrants 192k MP3 at most > from a recording quality point of view (and I love Motown music). > > I personally think that 20bits and 44.1kHz is something that gives me > the *psychological* assurance I am surely can't be possibly missing out > on anything. Just like plopping $500 on RCA connectors. In our hobby it > is natural to invite in some borderline irrationality. It is all good.
Thanks for the comment and sharing the personal experience Pablo. I believe the fact that 16/44 CD-quality audio has survived 30+ years despite various attempts at higher resolution - HDCD, SACD, DVD-A - having all failed to make much difference, is evidence of that point of "diminishing returns". The marketplace IMO has already spoken to there not being a "need" for a better consumer audio format (at least in terms of bit depth and samplerate). Other than the small number of audiophiles and evangelists, I have never heard anyone really complain (as compared to say the complaints of poor video quality projecting a DVD on to a 65" screen then seeing the Blu-ray). It's clearly not as the proponents of high-res digital audio claim (like those silly Pono testimonial videos). Personally, I don't think the "emotional engagement" argument makes any sense either. Personally, the more emotionally engaged with the music I become, the more I enjoy and like to listen -irrespective -of the quality. Those engaging songs are indeed the personal "soundtrack" to my life! When I listen to them, my mind is more focused on the feelings of when I first heard the piece, or the thoughts they evoke rather than focus on the sound quality. I'm even tempted to tap the rhythm and sing along which is "distortion" of the sound in the room :-). I would certainly like to see some evidence that higher quality audio makes any difference through a "subliminal" effect out of reach of conscious awareness which seems to be what the emotional engagement argument seems to be about! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101766 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
