Zp 24/96

Monty Montgomery responds to someone who doesn't quite agree:
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/63490.html

Monty Montgomery responds to someone who doesn't quite agree:
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/63490.html

Funny stuff, and yet so typical of the drivel on many audiophile forums.

The crux of it for me is this:

" But if the CD really does capture the expressible playback range, and I argue it does, what point is there in simply adding more numbers? It's just bigger. And maybe it's fun, because shiny toys. But it's not technically better."

This is the bit the audiophiles hate, because they love their shiny toys above everything else, including reason, rationality, Science, Engineering, established facts, and their wallets!

Cheers,

Keith

But it's not technically better."

It would be more accurate to say not audibly better. Because technically it is better. Except in some cases where it has been shown to be technically worse.

And maybe it's fun, because shiny toys. But it's not technically better."

There is similar going on in every hobby, and it seems to be a male preserve.
Photography for instance. But there is one essential difference - one uses a camera to take pictures, and picture taking needs constant interaction with the camera. Ergonomic improvements can go a long way to enhance the pleasure of picture taking, leading to more picture taking, and sometimes then, to better pictures. I recently used two modern cameras, each as good as the other technically. But one is simply a joy to take pictures with, the other isn't as involving. Which one would be used more, and probably take better pictures as a result - easy to guess.
Even things like smartphones are in the same category, although the various things they do are of dubious use, IMO.
But the audiophile equipment hobby is almost unique, in that the equipment just sits there, delivering music. Not much call to interface with it frequently - functionally, it may as well be out of sight. I suspect that makes it a more frustrating hobby than many others. And more of a mystery.
One sees some signs of the frequent interfacing here as well, witness all the hoopla over the new controller, for example.

Because technically it is better.

No, that's the whole point. If all that's needed to accurately reproduce the humanly-audible analog waveform is to sample it at 16/44.1, then anything higher/deeper/whatever than that is just a waste of resources for enduser playback.

It would be more accurate to say not audibly better. Because technically it is better. Except in some cases where it has been shown to be technically worse.

Not technically better. Actually, (and definitionally) worse.

'HiRes' delivers no better music audio than 'StdRes' but it does so at a larger file-size, requires more bandwidth & processing, and stresses wireless transmission systems to failure.

You are falling into the "bigger must be better" trap.

Sometimes bigger is just less efficient (in multiple ways).

Best of Luck

anything higher/deeper/whatever than that is just a waste of resources for enduser playback.
It may just be semantics - I agree about the waste of resources. And that the better isn't audible. All I saying is that from a purely engineering perspective, it may measure to be better.

'HiRes' delivers no better music audio than 'StdRes' but it does so at a larger file-size, requires more bandwidth & processing, and stresses wireless transmission systems to failure.

You are falling into the "bigger must be better" trap.

See above. It depends on how you define "better". And to repeat what I have said elsewhere - I find well mastered 256kbps I tunes purchases to be excellent in a resolving system, using the Connect wired to a middle to high end external DAC. I no longer buy CDs just to be able to get lossless rips from them. It would cost me ten times as much, and the technically better here would be meaningless for me.

I think you are confusing "higher specification" with "better".

From an Engineering point of view, a solution which fits the requirement, in the most efficient way, would be considered "best".

A solution which included unnecessary padding would be considered "inefficient" and, therefore, not "better" than a solution which met the requirement more efficiently (all other things being equal).

If that inefficiency also could cause unwanted side-effects which detracted from the ability to deliver the original requirement, then it definitely wouldn't be considered "better".

You see, most real Engineers aren't only concerned with raw specifications. They are concerned with solving problems in ways that are functional, technically efficient, cost-effective, and deliverable.

Also, there is more to Engineering than understanding a bit about the technology. Real Engineering is a specialist form of Applied Science, and follows much of the same Scientific principles.

Most audiophiles (and most recording studio "engineers" and producers) aren't Engineers. They may understand some of the technology, but they chase specifications, and that is not what a real Engineer would do.

So, in terms of specifications, yes hires has bigger numbers, but that is meaningless in an Engineering sense given the application. It might be useful if you are playing Top Trumps or boasting about the size of your (ahem) "hardware" to others, but not if you are listening to music.

Cheers,

Keith

Most audiophiles (and most recording studio "engineers" and producers) aren't Engineers. They may understand some of the technology, but they chase specifications, and that is not what a real Engineer would do.


I would throw in almost every reviewer in that category, more so the ones that have pages of colourful charts that demonstrate the better numbers, while not alluding to any actual well conducted listening comparison test.
The word " real" is interesting. Now, it is one thing to say that someone with an engineering education selling the common snake oil isn't a real Engineer.
But would you extend it to the ones developing newer DAC chipsets? I am not sure if it is even in their brief to measure their output performance via a double blind AB test with precision level matching, to validate their advance. I am not saying this is right or good, just pointing out the probable situation.
And there are lots of engineers involved in developing lots of new products that don't fit the description you use of a real Engineer. Actually, I would venture to say that a small percentage of all the engineers in the world do.