In article , Michael
Chare scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Better than CD eh?, so just where do you obtain this from?...
--

There are a number of websites which offer downloads.



Are they really any better?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit can
hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone
anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played
via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
In article , Michael
Chare scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Better than CD eh?, so just where do you obtain this from?...
--

There are a number of websites which offer downloads.



Are they really any better?..
--

Depends whether your ears (and hifi) are good enough to tell the difference,
and whether you brain appreciates the difference it.


--
Michael Chare

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this
sort of kit can hear the full range of frequencies
present on a CD, let alone anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my
daughter could quite easily distinguish between 16/44
and 24/96 flac music files when played via my hifi,
where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

More to the point, how were the issues of time synch, level match, and
listener bias dealt with?

"Michael Chare" wrote in
message
news
"tony sayer" wrote in message
news
In article
,
Michael Chare scribeth
thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


Better than CD eh?, so just where do you obtain this
from?... --

There are a number of websites which offer downloads.



Are they really any better?..
--

Depends whether your ears (and hifi) are good enough to
tell the difference, and whether you brain appreciates
the difference it.

I'll believe this when I hear of results from bias-controlled listening
tests.

"Michael Chare" wrote

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played
via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How about 16/96, can your daughter tell the difference between that and
24/96? or for that matter how about distinguishing between 16/48 and */96?

What I'm suggesting is that for domestic playback 24 bit depth is always
pointless (ie. nobody can hear the difference) and that the slight increase
in sampling rate to 48kHz (as found on DVDs etc.) will possibly satisfy most
of the minority who can hear past 20kHz.

What limits the quality of domestically reproduced music nowadays is the
quality of the original recording, the disc mastering, the loudspeakers
and the acoustic environment of the listening area.

That has been the case for a long time.

Not in the days of vinyl. Then the disc playing system was also significant.

David.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit can
hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone
anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played
via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?


In the brief test I used two pairs of sample files downloaded from the Naim
website.

I just asked my daughter if she could hear any difference, and then to
explain the difference that she heard.


--
Michael Chare

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when played
via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How about 16/96, can your daughter tell the difference between that and
24/96? or for that matter how about distinguishing between 16/48 and */96?

What I'm suggesting is that for domestic playback 24 bit depth is always
pointless (ie. nobody can hear the difference) and that the slight
increase in sampling rate to 48kHz (as found on DVDs etc.) will possibly
satisfy most of the minority who can hear past 20kHz.


I just conducted the test using the two pairs of flac music files that I
had. You may well be right.


What limits the quality of domestically reproduced music nowadays is the
quality of the original recording, the disc mastering, the loudspeakers
and the acoustic environment of the listening area.

That has been the case for a long time.

Not in the days of vinyl. Then the disc playing system was also
significant.

My point was that the other factors still applied. :-)


--
Michael Chare

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
,
Michael
Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in
message ...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this
sort of kit can hear the full range of frequencies
present on a CD, let alone anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my
daughter could quite easily distinguish between 16/44
and 24/96 flac music files when played via my hifi,
where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?

More to the point, how were the issues of time synch, level match, and
listener bias dealt with?

The two pairs of files that I used play at the same level, and were played
one after the other.

I did not explain what the difference might be or even why there might be a
difference in advance.


--
Michael Chare

In article , Michael
Chare wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Michael Chare" wrote


whilst few people old enough to be able to afford this sort of kit
can hear the full range of frequencies present on a CD, let alone
anything supposedly "better".

Yes I have proved that point, as I found that my daughter could quite
easily distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96 flac music files when
played via my hifi, where as I struggle to do this.

How was one of the files produced from the other?


In the brief test I used two pairs of sample files downloaded from the
Naim website.

So I assume that you don't know how one was produced from the other in each
case. (I am also assuming the 'pairs' were from the same source recording.)

IIRC At least one person has analysed versions of such recordings and shown
that they have measurable differences that aren't due to a change of sample
rate or sample depth. Instead due to the producers deciding to "not level
compress the 'hi rez' version as much as the 'cd' one" or similar.

Hence in such cases a difference can easily be measured, and may be
audible, but actually tell you nothing about the difference in sample rate
or resolution being a 'cause' for said differences.

I just asked my daughter if she could hear any difference, and then to
explain the difference that she heard.

This tells you that she thought she heard a difference. But it doesn't give
you any clue to if there was any difference due to the difference in sample
rates or bit-depths.

Are the Naim files you refer to available freely? If so I'd be interested
in examining them sometime.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html