24/96 ,, 24/192 ... Can you hear the difference ?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Dimitri!!
When did you re-surface?
Nice to see you back, and fighting the corner for purist subjectivism

[Themis]

Dimitri!!
When did you re-surface?
Nice to see you back, and fighting the corner for purist subjectivism

I re-surfaced... today !!!

And I was thinking of you, when in Vienna I decided to buy a Canon 600 D !

[dave2010]

I really wonder why some spend so much energy trying to convince me what I can or can't hear ?
I assure you I can answer myself to this simple question !

Dmitri

Nice to see you back here.

Isn't the problem that some of us may never be able to tell the difference, some of us perhaps for sure can, and some of us may be able to tell the difference given some time.

Not only that, but we may also need to be able find data which we like and can tolerate listening to. A simple example might be of some audio compressed to MP3 (shudder) and done (fairly badly) with a light touch, and compared with a really heavily compressed MP3 of the same. It should be easy to tell the difference. It's also possible that the more heavily compressed version will sound pleasanter, since the high frequency roll off, though pretty severe, may at least be smooth enough, whereas the supposedly higher resolution version may just have all the artefacts out there on display, and actually be uncomfortable to listen to. However, neither should sound as good - in general - as the original recording - assuming that was made well.

I am sure that my hearing varies over time, and sometimes it's a lot better than others. Just because I can't hear artefacts one day doesn't mean I won't hear them another day - or vice-versa. If I'm building up a library of recordings for myself and others to enjoy, I generally think it's worth trying to get as good a sound as possible. However, casual listeners may not notice much difference between versions, so in the end it depends whether one cares enough I guess.

I suspect that what are generally considered to be better quality systems are usually much easier to listen to for longer periods, and that's where some of these differences - assuming they exist - will show up.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I re-surfaced... today !!!

And I was thinking of you, when in Vienna I decided to buy a Canon 600 D !

Nice bit of kit!
Did you get any nice shots with it whilst you were there?

[Themis]

Nice bit of kit!
Did you get any nice shots with it whilst you were there?

Yes, of course ! I'll try to post some in the photo section soon !

[Themis]

Dmitri

Nice to see you back here.

Isn't the problem that some of us may never be able to tell the difference, some of us perhaps for sure can, and some of us may be able to tell the difference given some time.

Not only that, but we may also need to be able find data which we like and can tolerate listening to. A simple example might be of some audio compressed to MP3 (shudder) and done (fairly badly) with a light touch, and compared with a really heavily compressed MP3 of the same. It should be easy to tell the difference. It's also possible that the more heavily compressed version will sound pleasanter, since the high frequency roll off, though pretty severe, may at least be smooth enough, whereas the supposedly higher resolution version may just have all the artefacts out there on display, and actually be uncomfortable to listen to. However, neither should sound as good - in general - as the original recording - assuming that was made well.

I am sure that my hearing varies over time, and sometimes it's a lot better than others. Just because I can't hear artefacts one day doesn't mean I won't hear them another day - or vice-versa. If I'm building up a library of recordings for myself and others to enjoy, I generally think it's worth trying to get as good a sound as possible. However, casual listeners may not notice much difference between versions, so in the end it depends whether one cares enough I guess.

I suspect that what are generally considered to be better quality systems are usually much easier to listen to for longer periods, and that's where some of these differences - assuming they exist - will show up.

Nice to see you're still here !

Very sensitive words, Dave !

What really bothers me about hi-rez discussions is just people who are trying (sometimes sincerely) to convince everybody around that their effort of "trying to get as good a sound as possible" is useless... or even worse.
And it is still more disturbing when all this is based on partial technical data, sometimes even deliberately so.

Like, for instance, reducing sampling frequency use on the sole cutting-frequency argument.