Zp 24/96

Dear @ schalliol.

First off let me apologize for the (expletive) that seem to know all, or at least want to act as if they do, and like to brow beat anyone who doesn't agree with them, frankly it's a bit sad.

I don't think a new possible Sonos owner needs to be called a:

Whiner "You can complain about it like all the other whiners"

Or a Fool "Not for the audiophools, certainly"

Or a time waster "For us, this is non productive waste of time."

In any case if you're still around, the new-ish Bluesound system will do Hi Res.. It's very stable, and has gotten great reviews. http://www.bluesound.com

And again let me apologize for those here that for whatever reason believe that they know everything, that there can be no truth other than theirs..

And maybe you engineering folks might find this paper interesting.. it certainly meets all of your scientific requirements:
http://hiresaudiocentral.com/aes-award-winning-paper-says-cd-cant-capture-it-all/

I'll assume you haven't read the Meridian paper, as it's behind a paywall at the AES, but have only read the biased opinion of its conclusions on a "hi-rez" touting website.

Monty Montgomery mentions Bob Stewart's earlier work in his superb white paper, along with this observation:

"Coding High Quality Digital Audio by Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio is beautifully concise despite its greater length. Our conclusions differ somewhat (he takes as given the need for a slightly wider frequency range and bit depth without much justification), but the presentation is clear and easy to follow."

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_more

Here's a blind test for the true believers. Neil Young in 16-bit vs 8-bit. So much of today's pop music is so severly dynamic range limited, that 8 bits are sufficient to capture it all.

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php

In any case if you're still around, the new-ish Bluesound system will do Hi Res.. It's very stable, and has gotten great reviews. http://www.bluesound.com


@schalliol since you say you are already using a Squeezebox you could easily upgrade your system with this: https://sites.google.com/site/picoreplayer/home

Minimal investment of a pi+hifiberry.

Here's a blind test for the true believers. Neil Young in 16-bit vs 8-bit. So much of today's pop music is so severly dynamic range limited, that 8 bits are sufficient to capture it all.

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php

I scored 6 out of 10, using studio quality headphones through a premium soundcard. I challenge any else to truthfully post their results.

@chicks

Putting aside your snarky comments, and staying objective let me pose a question:

What circumstances or tests or whatever would convince you or others that HiRes files can sound better than 16/44?

Lets for the sake of discussion take the mastering or mixing out of the equation.. I think it's a given that a well produced, recorded, mixed and mastered album at 16/44 will sound better than a poorly done recording presented in a HiRes format.

So all things being equal what would it take to personally convince you (or others) that HiRes sounds better..

And if ones answer to this simple question is "There is nothing that can convince me, my mind is totally closed to even the possibility, because my rigorous training and experience says it can't, and I won't even consider the possibility" Than please don't bother answering.

I have no doubt that an up close recording of an Apollo spacecraft launch would benefit from the greater dynamic range afforded by 24 bits. I'd need a lot more power and bigger speakers, but wouldn't risk the damage to my eardrums.

If I were still 18, I might notice some minor benefit of the > 22khz captured range of hi-rez, but doubt it. At 60, I'm absolutely certain I won't hear a difference.

Understanding the science behind digital audio is hardly being closed minded; just the opposite, rather.

Listening to the marketing of "high end" audio makers and their proxies in the audiophile press, while ignoring the facts, is.

What circumstances or tests or whatever would convince you or others that HiRes files can sound better than 16/44?

Lets for the sake of discussion take the mastering or mixing out of the equation.. I think it's a given that a well produced, recorded, mixed and mastered album at 16/44 will sound better than a poorly done recording presented in a HiRes format.

So all things being equal what would it take to personally convince you (or others) that HiRes sounds better..

I would settle for a test that definitively refutes the results of the '16/44 bottleneck' paper. To me, that bottleneck is the most damning of all, because the test uses the same source, so mastering differences are not a factor.

Thanks NoBob, that's certainly a reasonable response..

I would settle for a test that definitively refutes the results of the '16/44 bottleneck' paper. To me, that bottleneck is the most damning of all, because the test uses the same source, so mastering differences are not a factor.

I think this is the response given every time us "closed minds" types are confronted by the "open minds" who consistently deny/ignore proven facts like the placebo effect, human physiology, mathmetical theory, and audio physics. Yet they keep posing the same question.