Is 16/44.1 still a decent quality in 2020?

DAC starts at 96 kHz/24 bit I listen to Beethovens 9th Marving Gayes Best and The Who Whos Next and the Beatles Abbey Road and I A/B thnem with and without DAC since I can listen to both and enjoy the Music again rsdno

 

Especially for Floyds Animals The DAC makes it shine 96kHz/24 bit that replaces my sound card I'm not going to a stronger DAC but music is in the ears of the beholder

 

Yeah! But, you are trying to get me to prove it to you. What I am trying to get you to understand is that it isn't possible! You'll have to take peoples word for it if they tell you that they hear something you don't, and despite what your scientific/mathematical theories say.

You can believe what you want, but you will never be satisfied until I prove to you that I hear what I hear. And, how exactly do you expect me to do that? The problem is that you operate on the assumption that no one can hear the audio attributes you don't. In other words, you have a closed mind. A closed mind is not scientific. Real scientists keep an open mind and look for answers we don't have yet.

Again, with my cilantro example: some say it tastes like soap, some don't. Why is this? How can those who say it tastes like soap prove it to people like you? Got any ideas? See, cilantro doesn't taste like soap to me, so I enjoy it. Well, some people have a gene that alters the way they taste things. Other than accepting someone's experience, and knowing that there is a genetic component, I don't argue the point. I don't make these people prove they taste what they taste.

So, we are all really different. No two people are alike. Is it such a stretch for you to think that, just maybe, some people posses a gene that allows them to hear more of something, or vice-versa? There are a lot of things we, as humans, don't yet know and understand, but it is our duty to keep searching instead of resting.

God, or, nature, didn't create robots.

 

Can you use some punctuation please?

 

Well, i tried offering respect. You respond with crazy.
Hadn't really read my post very well, too bad.
Soap and cilantro, whatever that is about...
I hadnt asked you to prove anything; you even quoted me?!
:leaving thread by side door:

 

Crazy? No, just reason. Since you've decided to lower yourself to insults, it's time I put you on ignore. Bye-bye.

 

Will try it and upload my files in case others would like to try as well.

You just said that hires has better soundstage and depth so you had to compare two identical masters of the same album/song I think?
In general hires probably sounds better cause they release only/mainly better/good recorded albums and the target audience is people who care about music.

Anyway I don't understand releasing CD masters as HiRes (ok, they are 24bit, and maybe have some frequencies above 20kHz, but still low DR).
Give me non squashed and non clipped version if u charge 3x more LOL. Might be even 16/44.1 )))

 

That poster was trying to, in a roundabout way, get me to prove to him that I hear what I say I hear. He thought he was being slick. I understood his little wordplay and was trying to tell him that it is impossible to prove it. He doesn't accept my say-so, and decided to insult me because I wouldn't/couldn't give him what he wanted, so I cut him off.

That's the problem with these threads: someone comes in, like me, and says I can hear differences between hi-rez and redbook, and someone always comes in and challenges them. No one can win.

 

What's interesting about these threads, is that the same people jump in every time, pulling out the same tired augments that "prove" with study's and paperwork that it's impossible to hear differences in high rez material. Rarely, if ever, do they ever talk about pushing the "Play" button for themselves.

It's so common to see the differing mastering case get wheeled out. WHY? A number of nice comparisons are out there on the ol' WWW that let you freely and comfortably, at your own speed, listen to same mastered material at different rates. Like the excellent Sound Liason label. Anyone can go download the samples and press PLAY.

Free Compare Formats

Taking the time to create an account, download and listen is far faster than all the time spent at the keyboard feverishly trying to tell others that they can't hear what they hear. Why hang around an audio board and spend all time here if you're not interested in better? When good enough is good enough instead of a better experience?

CJ

 

It's only a matter of time until someone posts that same old tired Monty video.

 

The problem is that listening tests, of the non-ABX variety, are inherently subjective. If something says that it's hi-res, your brain interprets it as sounding better.

Toshiba has even introduced 'hi-res' cassette decks for the Japanese domestic market which take advantage of the placebo effect.

 

Yet when I asked for a ONE example where YOU hear that huge and easy to hear differences I got nothing. LOL

Wow, we are going somewhere here. Ok, I got the tracks. Could you please tell me where YOU hear the difference? What element at what time. I'm asking about YOUR EXPERIENCE. I don't claim anything.

Cause usually if something sounds different it is a different mastering LOL. Like CDs from the vinyl era, for example Mercyful Fate's first album (1983), each release sounds different. Different EQ, different loudness. Easy to spot, even through laptop speakers. And the official remaster came in 1997 (1st), then in 2005 (2nd remaster). Even so called reissue from 2020 is different from original releases from the 80s (so it is not a reissue but rather a new remaster... but whatever)

So called audiophiles take everything as a personal attack LOL.

I have no problems with showing to anyone how UHD BR is better than BR or DVD or how different releases of the same movie are different (tinting for example).
Or how non-netflix movies on netflix looks lame in comparison to the BR releases and soooo on.
But cant get the same from anyone in the audio world.

 

Yup, the huge differences usually disappear when try to compare two formats without checking the bitrate
Anyway, the link from user CoolJazz is cool.

 

One last time for you and others who didn't get the message:

Trying to get someone to PROVE that they hear what they say they hear is ridiculous! It shows an incredible amount of disrespect and is tantamount to calling someone a liar. It is also unscientific and ignorant because it demonstrates a closed mind. It relies on the assumption that all humans are created equal in physical abilities. On top of that, there is no possible way to prove anything to you through an internet forum, even if I wanted to take you up on your challenge, which makes me believe you just want an argument for entertainment.

Once again: i'll use my example: some people say cilantro tastes like soap to them. To others cilantro does not taste like soap. There is evidence of why some people taste this herb differently than others. Consider this:Research Has Found that Genetics Is Behind Your Dislike for Cilantro
and this:
Cilantro Love and Hate: Is it a Genetic Trait? - 23andMe Blog
Or this: The Genetics of Coriander's Soapy Taste

Now, I don't want to get off on cilantro here, but, i'm trying to demonstrate that there are reasons people experience things differently, and this includes auditory input, too.

Now, the NARAS can conduct DBT of hi-rez and redbook all they want, and even show that the majority of their participants can't reliably determine a difference, but no one, to my knowledge, has really studied why some people hear things that others don't, and genetic differences may offer a reason. Some people, probably like yourself, will discount any possibility out-of-hand because they keep relying on old established beliefs without researching further. There is a reason some people can discern differences and it isn't psychological. It could be a simple matter of learning what to listen for, genetics, or a little of both. And, yes, there is also the taboo topic of some people having compromised hearing. Few people, even audio professionals, like to admit any hearing loss.

The "it's all numbers and science" types often do not even do their own DBT, or do it with controls. They rely on the opinions of others they trust. That's confirmation bias, something they accuse audiophiles of, but they are just as susceptible to it.

Bottom line: I hear what I say I hear. Many audiophiles hear what they say they hear. Some of you who keep trying to challenge us into PROVING what he hear to you skeptics may not hear differences, and some of you never even bothered to try. If someone tells you they hear differences, leave it at that. They may actually hear things you don't, or can't, and it is not your place to tell them different. Another quick example: our host, Steve Hoffman (Remember him? His name is on the masthead!) says an acetate cut from the master tape, sounds closet to that tape than anything else he has heard. I don't see you science guys calling him out on it. Why? is he too hard of a target? You may believe him, but you won't believe someone who says they hear a difference between hi-rez and redbook? Sounds like you keyboard warriors in your mom's basement just want an argument for entertainment.

I will not be responding to any more of your ridiculous requests.

 

It is not possible to prove your personal experience, I was rather asking for guidance where to look for differences. Like with MP3 vs Redbook. Differences are usually (to my ears) in room acoustics, echo, reverberation. But for a long time I was looking for them in the foreground.
For HiRes: DSD sounds the best to me (so smooth) but the differences disappear when I do direct comparisons. So that's just my expectation bias. Will test more over the weekend but the sound can also be affected by my DAC. My room acoustics might mask the differences etc, a lot of factors.

Technically humans can hear even up to 30kHz. Anyone can professionally test his/her range.
I'm not saying it is not possible. Frequency response at 30kHz might be a lot below 0dB though.
For an ear, amplifier, speakers.

I'm not gonna risk the perm ban, hahahah, but I cant see why a high frequency scan of that tape would sound any different?
My guess would be that the vinyl he mentioned was the closest to the tape from all the stuff available for consumers.
Which probably is true for maaaaaany releases from the analog era.
Anyway I'm staying away from the analog domain. Too many variables which creates space for mumbo jumbo.

The last Audiophiliac Daily show:

I like the guy, he is more about music than gear, and has some good points.

All I'm asking is more HiRes releases of master tapes or at least non-squashed masters.
You guys sent me some links and that audiophiliac releases sound great, but it would be nice to have some more popular music in great quality.

Cheers!

 

Do you have a link to the information behind this statement? Thanks.

 

With all due apologies, I was not informed that you were granted permission to tell everyone what to do and how to behave.
Seriously, it is probably not your place to tell other posters what their place is.
gad.

 

The only way you can do that is to create your own personal experience. I don't have your ears, and you don't have mine. I feel I am probably better-trained in what to listen for, which I mentioned earlier: soundstage, depth, a more relaxed/natural high-end. Once these things were pointed out to me, I knew what to listen for. And, listening on speakers is better than trying to discern these difference on headphones.

Exactly! The differences are similar.

So, you see where i'm going.

All I am saying is that it is wrong for people to tell me to PROVE I hear those above-mentioned differences. It isn't possible. These naysayers will have to conduct their own tests. If they hear anything, good. If not, they'll save some money and will have less to be concerned about. But, never tell anyone they don't hear what they say they hear. That's flat-out wrong, intellectually lazy, and quite ignorant.

And I think that was all he was trying to say. It's what he heard, and he has access to master tapes and acetates created from them.

In my experience, the cartridges and turntable are the biggest factors in how vinyl analog sounds. Some carts are more accurate than others.

Unfortunately, the record labels have too often decided that pop releases aren't meant for the audiophile and squash them any way they can. And, they would be right. It seems the average consumer doesn't know or care. But, I think their subconscious pick up on it and that's why people don't seem to enjoy music reproduction as much.

 

I have some of questions for Grant
Can you hear an 80db sound at >15khz? Could this be proven or disproven?
Do you possess any recordings with a dynamic range in excess of 96db?
If so how do you experience this in your home?

Thanks

 

If I say the moon is made of cheese it's up to me to prove it.

It's not up to everyone else to prove that it isn't.

 

So, if I ask someone if there is no difference between hi-rez and redbook, it's up to them to prove it. It's not up to everyone that there isn't.

See how that works?

 

Is it up to me and Grant to prove that you're deaf?

 

I have some of questions for Grant and Mr Sandwich
Can you hear an 80db sound at >15khz? Could this be proven or disproven?
Do you possess any recordings with a dynamic range in excess of 96db?
If so how do you experience this in your home?

Thanks

 

Up to 28kHz for pure tones in a lab, but they were increasing the volume of the test sound with the frequencies.
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.2761883
So I can't say it is not possible.

I read somewhere that toddlers can hear even 30kHz so added 2kHz extra

Yes, I think that's what's happening.
My case: test listening on YouTube, then bought the most recent remaster and..... something is not right. YT somehow sounded better and I didn't know why lol

Let's just listen to some music

Cheers!!

 

I will read it in full later but I do see they used simultaneous pink noise so there is the possibility that the response was to intermodulation products.