Zp 24/96

How can it be a myth if its here now?


In the same way that dowsing "is here". It's a myth anyway.



Its inevitable high res formats will be adopted more broadly just as it has in video. Video tape -> DVD -> Blu ray -> 4K ring any bells? and this progression is happening with video streaming now. Not sure why you would dispute this...


The analogy you draw is false in so far as the recent improvements in video resolution are actually discernible by the human eye, in contrast to what HD audio offers compared to CD quality. If you want to stay with the video analogy, you can imagine that we have left video tape, DVD, blueray and 4K behind us long ago. We're already using 16K. How much do you think the perceived image quality will improve if we go on to 24K?Exactly: Not at all.


its a great thing for music lovers.


Not at all. It's a great thing for audio gear lovers (a perfectly valid hobby) and sales people.

I will enjoy my high end toys. Thanks. Enjoy the middle!

Exactly. That's the spirit!

How can it be a myth if its here now?

Its inevitable high res formats will be adopted more broadly just as it has in video. Video tape -> DVD -> Blu ray -> 4K ring any bells? and this progression is happening with video streaming now. Not sure why you would dispute this...its a great thing for music lovers.

I will enjoy my high end toys. Thanks. Enjoy the middle!

Once again, an audiophile falls for the snake oil. The analogy to video is not higher resolution, it is higher frequencies. Raising the sampling rate to 96 or 192 simply means you are raising the frequency range into the ultra-sonic; therefore it is exactly like increasing the wavelength of your TV set to ultra-violet. Can you see ultra-violet light? Of course not. Neither can you hear anything above 20KHz (and typically much less than that if you are over 30). So you asking for a Sonos player able to play 96KHz files is just as if you asked Sony to produce a TV that displays ultra-violet light.

Worse yet, imagine if the Sony "Ultra-Violet Ultra" TV had problems with the visible picture when stressed to display the ultra-violet signal? Would you trade a crappy visible picture for the ability to "see" the ultra-violet signal, which is by definition invisible to the human eye? No, you say? Well what if I told you that stressing modern amplifiers and speakers by feeding them an ultra-sonic signal causes intermodulation distortion in the audible frequencies? Would you trade a crappy audible sound in order to "hear" the ultra-sonic signal which by definition is inaudible to the human ear? You wouldn't? Well, that is in fact what you are doing when you request support for hi-res audio.

So in short, subjective audiophiles are wishing for crappier, more distorted sound, and the objectivists want their sound to be free of distortion. Who'da thunk it?

Most mornings while enjoying a coffee I read "Dilbert" then I come here.. It's usually a toss up which I find funnier ...

So to summarize the last three posts (other than the Dilbert one...I love Dilbert).

1 - cd-da red book 16 bit / 44.1K technology, released in 1980, is the BEST digital audio standard humans will ever invent. I wonder if dogs are working on anything? hmmm

2 - 24 / 96,192 blu ray audio doesn't sound better than cd. At best we can't tell the difference...it's probably worse than cd though.

3 - A scientific paper is always right and science never evolves.

Curse you Neil Young! I trusted you! 😉

3 - A scientific paper is always right and science never evolves.

No one here has said that. It always evolves to a better position based on better hypotheses proved by rigorous peer testing following double blind and other protocols deemed necessary to rule out subjective bias.
This has not been done anywhere for hi res 2 channel audio.

So to summarize the last three posts (other than the Dilbert one...I love Dilbert).

1 - cd-da red book 16 bit / 44.1K technology, released in 1980, is the BEST digital audio standard humans will ever invent. I wonder if dogs are working on anything? hmmm

2 - 24 / 96,192 blu ray audio doesn't sound better than cd. At best we can't tell the difference...it's probably worse than cd though.

3 - A scientific paper is always right and science never evolves.

Curse you Neil Young! I trusted you! ;)

Science evolves when a hypothesis is supported by rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experimentation, as the "scientific paper" you are questioning most definitely was (you did read the footnotes, didn't you?). Your hypothesis is that hi-res audio is superior to CD when sourced from the same masters. So far, every rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment conducted has disproven this hypothesis. Show us a rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment that proves this hypothesis and science will have evolved. See how that works? See how easy it is? Good luck in your quest, oh seeker of audio nirvana! :rolleyes:

1 - cd-da red book 16 bit / 44.1K technology, released in 1980, is the BEST digital audio standard humans will ever invent. I wonder if dogs are working on anything? hmmm



And as to this strawman point: Is there something about the fundamental capabilities of human hearing which have changed since 1980? And if Redbook is fully capable of resolving every sound the human ear is capable of hearing (in 1980 and/or today), why do we need something "better"? Unless of course, humans have somehow been cloned with those dogs you so flippantly mention?

And as to this strawman point: Is there something about the fundamental capabilities of human hearing which have changed since 1980? And if Redbook is fully capable of resolving every sound the human ear is capable of hearing (in 1980 and/or today), why do we need something "better"? Unless of course, humans have somehow been cloned with those dogs you so flippantly mention?

Humans reached the apex of audio technology in 1980! I'm curious what dogs are doing!

Humans reached the apex of audio technology in 1980! I'm curious what dogs are doing!

You didn't answer the question (actually, you haven't answered any questions - typical of audiophiles). I'll ask again:

Is there something about the fundamental capabilities of human hearing which have changed since 1980? And if Redbook is fully capable of resolving every sound the human ear is capable of hearing (in 1980 and/or today), why do we need something "better"?

If all you have in response is another flippant dog comment, you can save it. We all know you have no answer which refutes my position, no need to crack dumb jokes to try and cover up that fact.

Science evolves when a hypothesis is supported by rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experimentation, as the "scientific paper" you are questioning most definitely was (you did read the footnotes, didn't you?). Your hypothesis is that hi-res audio is superior to CD when sourced from the same masters. So far, every rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment conducted has disproven this hypothesis. Show us a rigorous, reproducible, peer-reviewed experiment that proves this hypothesis and science will have evolved. See how that works? See how easy it is? Good luck in your quest, oh seeker of audio nirvana! :rolleyes:

You love the :rolleyes:. Thank you! I'm seriously happy my investment in red books will carry down many generations. I've started a treasure trove of audio that my daughters and their children can only build upon! Probably the first time in the history of humanity a technology hasn't been improved upon. Errm...crap...fire is probably the same as it was when it was discovered...