Zp 24/96

Surely the point of hi-res isn't just the higher frequencies, but rather the perceived overall increase in 'resolution' achieved by the higher sampling rates?

OK - what about the 24 bit part?

No offense, but your questions about "resolution" and the use of 16 vs. 24 bits are completely answered by the Xiph article.

But then all you're doing is saying that 'my chosen expert is better than your chosen expert', where there are lots of 'audiophile experts' saying that the reverse is true.

With the quasi-religious undertones of the hi-res advocate, I can't see them being swayed just by pointing them at a single web-site - however highly you or I might rate them. After all, for all they know this web site could be to audio what Ken Rockwell's site is to photography.

I tend to prefer a scientific statement/theory/stance to be backed up by many others, hence my point about the single-source approach.

On source can easily be dismissed by the believer - dismissing many different reputable sources saying the same thing this is much, much harder.

Also, the Xiph article is not "one source". It lists dozens of references, along with links to peer reviewed scientific studies that back up their conclusions.

All of which begs the question: Why are you critiquing the use of an article that you so obviously have not read?

Anyone who claims "expertise" in this are has to have a background in Audio Engineering or a related Engineering/Science based discipline. The Xiph guys have that in spades.


I've often thought that these audiophiles who so love to brag about their $50K cables would have been much better off spending the money on an EE degree. That Asimov quote is so relevant to the audiophools.

Here we are identifying an area where money is being wasted, unnecessarily trying to present 24 bits to the room. Channeling this same money into listening room improvements would have a much larger payoff.



Numbers always make for better bragging rights than actual performance. It's much cooler to say "I spent $10,000 on this DAC/Amp combo! It does 24/192 and is 1000 Watts!! Yours only does 24/96 and 750 Watts! Neener, neener, neener!" than to say "I spent $100 on acoustic wall treatments and fixed the resonance problem with the end table by putting 4 99 cent rubber feet on it."

Remember, Audiophiles don't listen to music, they listen to gear.

At the moment, until this is done, this article remains the nearest we have to the truth...

As I said before, I'm not saying that I disagree with anything in the article, and the associated links, but ISTM that the reverence for this one article approaches the fervour shown from the opposing camp...

The beauty of science is that, if it's proven to be wrong at any point, scientists will accept it, revamp their ideas and move on.

On the point about choosing your preferred experts, in the further reading section of the article we are encouraged to look at "Coding High Quality Digital Audio" by Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio - but he then goes on to say "Our conclusions differ somewhat (he takes as given the need for a slightly wider frequency range and bit depth without much justification)" - so he praises the article, but then says that the guy is wrong. But if he's an expert, and the other guy's an expert - but they are saying contradictory things, then which is correct? And if either expert is wrong (and one must be), then surely that casts doubts upon their credibility...

He then edits this to say "I may not agree with many of Mr. Stuart's other articles, but I like this one a lot." So, even our 'expert' doesn't agree with the 'expert' - or doesn't rate him on a general basis - so he's picking the one bit that he likes/agrees with...

Is it any wonder that the layman has doubts?

All of which begs the question: Why are you critiquing the use of an article that you so obviously have not read?

I have read the article, and don't disagree with anything in it.

My point here was that, to an outsider, the constant pushing of this one article can appear as evangelical in it's own way as the opposing camp.

As I said before, I'm not saying that I disagree with anything in the article, and the associated links, but ISTM that the reverence for this one article approaches the fervour shown from the opposing camp...

I wouldn't call it reverence. I would call it a reference. It's used so commonly because it is a good reference from a reputable and independent source, which is unusual in the audio industry.

The beauty of science is that, if it's proven to be wrong at any point, scientists will accept it, revamp their ideas and move on.

This is true, but it does need real proof. An opinion is not proof, regardless where it comes from. A proof is a deconstruction of the original point complete with an explanation or where the errors are, or perhaps a better proof.

I've not seen that happen with this particular article yet. A lot of the arbitrary standards proposed in the Bob Stuart article are based on quite weak arguments with a lot of "in my opinion". He's pretty much saying that he's making educated guesses.

On the point about choosing your preferred experts, in the further reading section of the article we are encouraged to look at "Coding High Quality Digital Audio" by Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio - but he then goes on to say "Our conclusions differ somewhat (he takes as given the need for a slightly wider frequency range and bit depth without much justification)" - so he praises the article, but then says that the guy is wrong.

That is allowed,and isn't as contradictory as it might first appear. The Bob Stuart article is a great article when it comes to describing audio coding. This and the Xiph article have more in common than not. However, the Bob Stuart article is rather arbitrary when it comes to selecting formats.

Consider, also, that he works for a vendor, Meridian, who are a high-end audio equipment vendor who have a vested interest in the adoption of higher specification standards. He is a far from neutral party in this. In fact he continually refers to the "ARA" as if it was something of weight and significance when, in fact, the "Acoustic Renaissance for Audio" group are a Meridian-sponsored group whose role is to advocate for higher technical standards that directly benefit their sales.

Xiph, by the way, are neutral in all this. Their work supports hires and standard res. Their only "skin in the game", if they have any, is that they are advocates of openness and honesty, and (it seems) they see "hires" as fundamentally dishonest.

But if he's an expert, and the other guy's an expert - but they are saying contradictory things, then which is correct?

The things is these articles mostly agree that "hires" (24 bit, 96kHz) is pointless. The Xiph article points to 44.1 and 48kHz as being "standard res". The Bob Stuart article suggests 48kHz as a standard is adequate but 44.1kHz not. The difference of opinion is minor.

Personally, I believe 44.1kHz is adequate, but 48kHz is attractive for a whole other set of reasons than just audibility: it's the standard used for film, it's an easy multiple of the 96kHz commonly used in recording, which makes it easy to convert it without damaging it, and many DACs and ADCs are natively 48kHz as well.

If 48kHz became the next standard for music formats, I wouldn't complain one bit, and I suspect the Xiph guys wouldn't either.

And if either expert is wrong (and one must be), then surely that casts doubts upon their credibility...

Neither are wrong, because they are largely arguing for the same thing. Both say that hires formats are pointless. The disagree slightly on whether 44.1kHz is good enough.

He then edits this to say "I may not agree with many of Mr. Stuart's other articles, but I like this one a lot." So, even our 'expert' doesn't agree with the 'expert' - or doesn't rate him on a general basis - so he's picking the one bit that he likes/agrees with...

Well, yes. As I said, the general gist of both articles is that hires is pointless. However, the Bob Stuart article advocates for 48kHz and 20 bits based on some fairly arbitrary logic. The Xiph article advocates 44.1kHz and 16 bits as being good enough based on the fundamental laws of sampling theorem. I would trust the latter, personally. The explanation is more complete and it fits with current scientific theorems. It doesn't rely on opinion or guesswork.

Is it any wonder that the layman has doubts?

I don't disagree., which is why people like me argue with such vigour, and why we point people at the Xiph article so often.

It is a minefield, and vendors exploit people's doubts for profit. All we can do is try to educate.

Cheers,

Keith

I have read the article, and don't disagree with anything in it.

My point here was that, to an outsider, the constant pushing of this one article can appear as evangelical in it's own way as the opposing camp.

I doubt anyone here is under the false assumption that we are going to cause a true-believer to see the light. Audiophilia truly is like religion. We could cite 10, 100, 1000 sources, and they will never change their view. So instead of playing a game of "one up" with sources (where we link to objective scientific articles, and they link to subjective, anecdotal reviews), we just link to the most comprehensive article on the subject for the layman audience and let readers take away what they want.

BTW, If tit-for-tat back and forth between the objective/subjective is what you crave, read the first part of this (and other) threads. Nobody has convinced anyone firmly on the other side yet, although I imagine some on the fence were educated (and some on the fringe were put on ignore).

Firstly, thanks to you and everyone else for taking the time to answer so fully...

It's used so commonly because it is a good reference from a reputable and independent source, which is unusual in the audio industry.

As I said, I don't have concerns with the article itself, just at how it's sole advocacy appears to the hi-res group. If you genuinely believe that these things (hi-res, amp design, etc) make a significant difference - especially if you believe that you can hear them, then your chosen 'experts' will be those who advocate your world view - and there are thousands of snake-oil sellers out there willing to do so...

This is true, but it does need real proof.

Well, I did say 'proven' 😉 I take your point about the lack of challenge to the article, but then one could easily say the same about many articles on the web. To the initiated, it may not be worth refuting because it's 'so obviously wrong' - it must be - "I can hear the difference!!"

A lot of the arbitrary standards proposed in the Bob Stuart article are based on quite weak arguments with a lot of "in my opinion". He's pretty much saying that he's making educated guesses.

Quite... So here you have one guy, working for a particular manufacturer, making one set of statements, yet many another audio guys working for many other manufacturers might be espousing the importance of hi-res et al... In essence, we're choosing which of these audio 'experts' we choose to believe...

I'm afraid that I generally give very little credence to people with a commercial interest (with the exception of Peter Walker, I suppose - another example of choosing ones preferred experts;))

If 48kHz became the next standard for music formats, I wouldn't complain one bit, and I suspect the Xiph guys wouldn't either.

Sounds logical...

Neither are wrong, because they are largely arguing for the same thing.

Yes, I accept that... Effectively, though, the guy is saying "I don't agree with much of what this other guy says, but I'm endorsing this one article, even though I don't agree with all of it, because bits of it supports my own views". Wouldn't it carry more weight if he could say "read this article by an independent, world renowned scientist whose work I admire wholeheartedly"?

It is a minefield, and vendors exploit people's doubts for profit. All we can do is try to educate.

Yes, I suppose that you're right... I've never seen the enlightened respond to logical arguments, though...

I've never seen the enlightened respond to logical arguments, though...

Vive la résistance!

;)

Cheers,

Keith

Audiophilia truly is like religion.

Agreed... And so, yes, I suppose using logic is probably not going to work 😞