24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense

Fox

you'll find your answer here

https://forums.naimaudio.com/search?searching=true&type=everything&queryString=xiphmont

Cheers Aleg

Should have done a search first der

Well, yeah this is one that keeps popping up regularly.

it is IMHO all pseudo-scientific BS.

just listen for yourself. IMO 24-bit certainly has better details/nuance than 16-bit.

192kHz might be a bit over the top since often the music has been taken from analogue or digital masters that don't offer that dynamic range or high frequencies to begin with.

when given the choice between 192/176 and 96/88 I'll go for the 96/88 versions. 

if recordings have been made with high res in mind I don't think that recording gear is capable of capturing 96 kHz signals, so under normal circumstances I expect 96kHz recording to be sufficient and its 48 kHz within reach of high quality high res recording gear.

When i first went down the digital streaming route i was fixated on getting 24/192 downloads where possible. But as time has passed ive realised that although i can sometimes tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 files, ive not once been able to distinguish the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 files.

And where i can hear a difference between the 16/44 and 24/96 files im not convinced that it really makes a difference to the enjoyment i get from listing to the music.

Ill still buy Hi Res albums, but not sure ill pay the premium for the 24/192 option. Ive gone back mainly to ripping CD's. And i have to say when you get a good'n its astonishing how good it can sound.

I think it is like with a good wine. If you don't have perfect grapes, anything you do with it, will it not make better, meaning if you don't have a perfect recording, anything above redbook does not sound better. I have become very careful with buying highres downloads. I think especially hdtracks tries to sell many highres downloads where I doubt they sound better than the original css.

I have also had these hdtracks highres experiences, where the diffrence is very small, and sometimes even with the cd version being the best. I am convinced that remasters from an analogue tape master, is not enhanced just by making a  24 bit version. Sadly many of the new titles added to hdtracks are remastered versions from many years ago, before any digital recording was possible. I will by new recordings in highres if they exist, unless the price is way to high. Linn has high prices but like Naim they know what they are doing, so often the 24 bit versions are worth paying for.

With the current free track linn is offering each day until the 24th of December, it is time to get some music samples, since you can download each track in all the versions from mp3 to 24 bit Linn has on there download site.

http://www.linn.co.uk/christmas?utm_source=Linn+Email&utm_campaign=59a9ddfb33-Linn_Xmas11_18_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_517fad5333-59a9ddfb33-317548605

I cannot hear the difference when you get up to 24/192 either. I suspect a lot depends on your system (including your home acoustic) to be able to reveal these differences.

For me, I also belong to the camp in which I will certainly not pay a premium for a resolution beyond redbook CD. It would be really interesting to know the market data regarding hi res music downloads and if this segment of the market are really growing and profitable as intended.

We're obviously not buying what some of the snake oil salesman are selling!!!

Like everyone else here, I cannot tell the difference between most 24/96 and 24/192 but I can tell between 16 bit and 24.  But as some one has already said, there are so many other variables, including room ambience, I don't think i shall be dumping all my CD rips and paying yet again for the fourth time in some cases (vinyl, cassette, CD, now 24/196) for some recordings.

The heads-up on Linn is useful though to see what 24/196 might do in the future