Jason Breckling

I don't know. The equipment, as well as other real world factors, is exactly where I was going with the topic. I don't suppose that high res isn't inherently better. I just don't know if our equipment and surroundings allow it to shine. A similar question would be, does it make sense to get a great camera, with an outstanding sensor, if you're going to put crappy glass in front of it? Jason

Honestly, the reason I'm using the server I am is due to cost (like the rest of my chain.) I upgraded my main computer to an iMac when Microsoft stopped supporting XP, which meant I had a spare computer for the living room. At some point i hope to upgrade to a Mac Mini, but we're buying a house this year, so funds are tight. Our music collection is about as varied as it gets. Our last few albums include John Coltrane, Beck, The Dunedin Consort's Mozart's Requiem, Daft Punk and Nickel Creek. I did try comparing the CD and high res versions of Nickel Creek's A Dotted Line, but there were obvious differences in the masterings which made the test more or less useless. The only true test I've been able to take part in is the experiment going on now at AVS forums. I don't know the results yet, but I did hear differences. I don't know if I picked the CD versions or the high res versions, but it was interesting none the less. I don't really have a dog in this fight. If high res turns out to be demonstratively better, great! If it doesn't, great! That means less hard drive space and cheaper albums. Either way, I enjoy the debate.

That's kinda what I figured too. You're absolutely right. I don't know why I didn't think about that. I guess I've been out of it for too long. Good point. It's well reasoned, and simply explained answers like these that make me like this site as much as I do. The knowledge base and level of respect from participants (most of the time) is what keeps me coming back.

I want to believe in high res audio as much as anyone. I want to believe I haven't wasted a fair bit of money at HD Tracks and Linn Records. I believe I've even heard the difference, through a carefully constructed A/B test, between 44.1k/16bit and 96k/24bit files. In the end though, there are a lot of questions I just can't reconcile. First, there is the fact that a great many people don't have amplifiers, preamplifiers, or speakers that will reproduce a signal beyond 20k. There has been some interesting and thoughtful discussion on this point, so maybe this isn't an issue. I’ll let that one go for the moment. Then there's the bit depth. I'm finding it interesting that the s/n ratio on most really good amplifiers is in the 94 - 106db range, which is no where near the 144db required to take full advantage of the s/n of a 24 bit recording. Do amplifiers even exist that have a noise floor that low? If the weakest component in the chain is still too noisy to hear the advantages of the file format, does it make a difference? This is of course setting aside the fact that the best microphones in the world (AKG C12, Telefunken 251, Neumann U47, etc...) are limited to 20k on the high end and have s/n ratios in the 70's (db). Then there is the rest of the signal path (mic preamp, eq, compressor, console, etc...). If any one of these is not up to the capability of the file format, doesn't the idea of calling the end product "high res" fail"? I know there are people who believe that high res is snake oil and that anyone who believes they hear a difference, is fooling themselves. I'd like to hear from the other side though. How given all of these facts, is it still possible for high res audio to provide any benefit at all? To be clear, I am not questioning the value of the format, so much as I'm wondering if the equipment isn't keeping us from ever being able to hear it.

Ok, here is where my understanding of this gets fuzzy. If the idea behind the higher sampling rate is to smooth the filtering issues at 22.5k (for red book), how will eliminating that issue effect lower frequencies? Presumably, since my amp won't accurately produce anything beyond 20k, the effects of the filtering wouldn't be heard anyway. I'm not trying to star an argument here. I'm genuinely curious about this.

I recently completed my computer based audio system, which uses JRiver for playback, a Schiit Audio - Modi DAC, outputting to a NAD C 316BEE integrated amplifier, which sends power to a pair of GoldenEar Aon3 speakers. I've read extensively on the obvious benefits and of the complete fallacy of high res audio. I then tried my own listening test with Nickel Creeks "A Dotted Line" on CD and 24/96k from HD Tracks, only to find that there were inconsistencies between the two masterings, which in my mind invalidated the test. To make matters worse, I think my system which - though modest, is still not cheap - may not even be capable of reproducing high res audio due to the specs of the NAD amplifier. I even tried reaching out to NAD to see if perhaps the documented 20-20k frequency response of their amplifier wasn't a bit on the conservative side. Unfortunately, the response I got was nothing more than "This amplifier has a frequency response of 20-20k, which covers the whole of the human hearing ability." This seemed a strange and somewhat glib response since NAD themselves sell integrated amplifiers with 24/96k DACs built in. Why do this if 20-20k was all a human would need? It really makes me wonder how the case for high res music can be made when you have to be a world class detective and spend a quite a bit of money just to assemble a system that will do the job. In the end, I don't know if my amplifier is up to the job or not. If anyone could has any knowledge on this issue, I'd be grateful.