Is listening to 24-bit/192kHz a bad idea?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

AlmaataKZ

New member
Jan 7, 2009
295
1
0
Visit site
Being pragmatic and from my experience with various resolutions:

- compressed AAC/MP3 etc of reasonable bitrates: absolutely fine for portable hifi and OK for proper hifi, but for home I prefer:

- 16/44 as it has a bit better sound and excellent availability of music (on CD). If itunes-like downloads went 16.44 I woudl be extatic

- 24/96 is nice to have BUT basically not avaialble and I would still prefer a good recording in 16.44 or even in 256 AAC/MP3 over a bad recording in 24.96

- 24/192 also not availabe, files too large and I cannot tell a difference to 24.96 (and I challenge anybody who say they can!)

so forget 24/96 and 192 but give me 16.44 downlaods. and for high quality palyback all you need is: ipod/iphone or similar for portable and an SB touch (or similar affordabe streamer with good user interface) + amp + good speakers (skip the amp if active speakers) + good remote
 

Workshy

New member
May 9, 2014
1
0
0
Visit site
Don't believe everything you read. The eye provides no information on sound to the brain, there are no links between the eye and ear. Just because certain frequencies may stimulate nerves in the eye and create neural activity does not mean that this will translate into a greater appreciation of hi res music. I know this because I am an audiologist. The eye has no neurological structure for responding to soundwaves just as the ear has no neurological structure to respond to light. The cochlea is the most complicated part of the body apart from the brain itself, it is still shrouded in mystery. The eye in comparison is a fairly simple organ.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts