Better mastered music could be on the way!
24bit recordings are another step ahead of 16bit , it’s not hard to work out there is more information on 24bit to 16 bit.
sorry man, but the only advantage hi-rez gives you over Red Book is higher dynamic range - 24 bit vs. 16 bit, and the dynamic range already offered by modest Red Book is more than anybody ever used so far. and also ability to capture high frequency information, which is useless anyway. I dare you to make an effort and report if you can even hear above 18kHz, let alone 40kHz or more. moreover, high frequency signal will wreck your amp. worst case scenario here (which is not so much unprobable) will manifest in increased intermodulation distortion level being already audible. the thing is that the information contained within audible spectrum is digitised in the same manner no matter the format. this fact derives from quantisation theory - science - and not hearing test. if comparing hi-rez to Red Book you'd better make sure the mastering is identical because they often like to use compressed master for the Red Book and that's cheating obviously. but I surely can understand how bigger number speak to our imagination. I got myself fulled myself before.
IMO the only true benefit of hi-rez over Red Book is that you could use non-oversampling conversion together with shallow analog filtering not worrying yourself you'll gonna hit a wall of aliasing distortion or you'll have to attenuate audible range by some -3dB.
EDIT: I'd only like to add that my point here is that what we need is good quality recordings with loundness normalisation allowing for some 25dB dynamic range. regardless if it's hi-rez or not.
Have read and been involved in many debates regarding 16bit – 24bit.
Sound wise I will purchase what is best to my ears. First the vinyl records which delivers a warm sound. Digital formats will always go for 24bit. Again to my ears it sounds better than the equivalent 16bit on back to back tests in other words real world listening. Not by printed out graphs measuring sound waves.
Many experts in the field will tell you playing a CD then switching over to the equivalent SACD stereo track sounds better on SACD 24bit.
Finally 99.9% of music is recorded in 24bit then compressed down to enable it to be put onto mass market through the cd. So make no mistake 16bit has been compressed.
You have artists like Neil Young fighting with his record company to put out his music on 24bit Neil Yung wrote he wants his fans to hear the music the way it should be heard straight from the studio. You can find that interview on the Linn blog if you do wish.
Can I ask what equipment you use for streaming ?
Don't worry, I was just about to say the same thing.
The CD’s were given away for free as part of the system J
Lets hope that you are doing regular backups to an external drive (or two) now you have no CDs to rip again if your NAS goes kaput.
If they really do sound different there must be some other reason. They wouldn't sound different due to the compression used at those high bit rates.
How very final - being so sure, must be very comforting! 
Lets hope that you are doing regular backups to an external drive (or two) now you have no CDs to rip again if your NAS goes kaput.
I guess you'll have to refund him all the money he gave you.
Many experts in the field will tell you playing a CD then switching over to the equivalent SACD stereo track sounds better on SACD 24bit.
maybe you'll be interested to read this quote from another expert then?:
Turning to "Money" from the hybrid SACD issue of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, John (Atkinson) compared the SACD layer, which preserves the superior original mastering, to the CD layer, which squashes dynamics.
as you can see above in that case the two layers are different masterings of the same recording. I have no reason to believe that was a separated case if you take into account what engineers do to Red Book versions of old recordings these days. so, the difference here lays in the mastering quality and not the format. you could only start comparing anything on a hybrid SACD/CD if you indeed had the same material recorded to both layers. I hope this is clear.
if interested to read the whole article then here it is:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/winning-loudness-wars
Finally 99.9% of music is recorded in 24bit then compressed down to enable it to be put onto mass market through the cd. So make no mistake 16bit has been compressed.
you're mistaking here digital downsampling to acoustic compression. those are two different things and completely independent. you could have an acoustically compressed 24bit recording if somebody does mastering that way. the only advantage higher resolution gives in the studio is that you're less likely to capture material with clipped peaks since you have extra 30dB of dynamic range to play with. this is not so relevant when replaying recorded material. As I said CD offers all dynamic range you can dream of and then some.
and you're making another mistake thinking I'm a hi-rez opponent. well I'm not. I'm just saying it doesn't have anything more to offer that what's already here. but if studio format recordings were become a standard it's fine by me. I just see no reason why they are supposed to be more expensive than CD?
Can I ask what equipment you use for streaming ?
none.
Oldric , It would be so easy for me to go online and pick experts posts on 24bit being superior to 16bit just as you have against. Funny enough the ones who say 24bit is no better than 16bit are people who don’t use the format and only go on what they read. ( if they are honest )
There is a simple solution of course. Go and book an audition at a good hifi shop. Tell them you want to listen to a CD playback then the same track in 24bit. Real life listening for your own ears.
I’m not here to convince or argue each to their own but never forget let your ears do the testing.
Enjoy your music no matter what format at the end of the day that is what it's about low budget , high budget so get those feet tapping.
SACD isn't 24bit.
SACD isn't 24bit.
Why do I keep coming back to this thread. Yes you get 24bit recordings on SACD please go do your home work.
If they really do sound different there must be some other reason. They wouldn't sound different due to the compression used at those high bit rates.
How very final - being so sure, must be very comforting!
Yes it is comforting not worrying about something that doesn't make any audiable difference to the sound. 
I've converted high rez 16 and 24 bit audio files to 320kbps MP3 several times and I've never heard any difference. Sony and Apple have also done comprehensive reasearch into music compression and found that nobody can hear the difference between a lossless file and a properly encoded 256kbps MP3 or AAC file.
Are you willing to try converting the 24 bit track into a 320kbps MP3 yourself to see if you can hear any difference? If you do I bet you couldn't pass a blind ABX test 10 times in a row.
Go on Cno. I challenge you (or anybody else) to try it.
SACD isn't 24bit.
Why do I keep coming back to this thread. Yes you get 24bit recordings on SACD please go do your home work.
I always thought SACD was 1 bit
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug04/articles/qa0804-4.htm
So 24 bit recordings would have to be converted to I bit DSD to be put on to a SACD disc .
- Login to post comments
Don't worry, I was just about to say the same thing.
No signature worth mentioning...