For Classical Music.

There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:

https://magicvinyldigital.net/

Here's a couple of examples:

Bad:
https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2

https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2

Good:
https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2

With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify, Qobuz et al
don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
(un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company /
studio this way. Good or bad. The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger
customers probably prefer highly compressed music.

Thanks for any info. :^)

Hank

On 9/13/22 10:35 AM, henrysibley wrote:
> For Classical Music.
>
> There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music.   See:
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> Bad:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2
>
> Good:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2
>
>
> With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify, Qobuz et al
> don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
> (un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company /
> studio this way.  Good or bad.   The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger
> customers probably prefer highly compressed music.
>
> Thanks for any info.   :^)

Spotify has user settings for reducing dynamic range, too. There is the
problem that the listings aren't necessarily for the specific mastering
implied by the name. I discovered this years ago searching for 'mono'
tracks.

I'm confident of my ability to discern if the result qualifies.

On 9/13/22 8:35 AM, henrysibley wrote:
> For Classical Music.
>
> There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> Bad:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2

Dire Straights and Madonna have been remastered. Generally, the highest quality
release is the basic original CD release. This goes for all 1980's music vs.
remasters. As in so much things in the marketplace, the best version is often
the cheapest, even though it can only be bought used, as whenever the remaster
comes out the original recording is deleted. Though a lot of un-remastered CDs
carry a high price because the remasters are so weak.

> Good:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2

The Police apparently hasn't been remastered; Popular Music remastering is compression + noise reduction.

> With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify,

The reviews don't mention Spotify. I'd like to know if Spotify and the
other streaming companies compress the music just like radio stations
compress their music. These reviews don't address that.

> Qobuz et al don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
> (un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company / studio
> this way. Good or bad.

If the original recording has been remastered, the record companies
delete the original and only allow the remaster to be licensed. So
how good the streaming versions are depend on how big name the artist
is, the more popular the artist, the more likely for their recordings
to suffer from remastering.

> The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger customers probably prefer highly compressed music.

I make sure the popular music in my car is un-remastered, never have
I ever heard it and decided I need to have the loud notes reduced in
volume by compression, though I often also have those remastered versions
that I was cheated into buying.

That's what compression is, muffling the loud notes while noise reduction
is the muffling of quiet notes.

In article <97ecnWhA6dhHRb7-nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>I'd like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies
>compress the music just like radio stations compress their music.

It seems to depend, e.g. on how much effective bandwidth they're
getting between them & you. They definitely adjust. And they're
vague about this, because they don't want to promise anything. I
doubt there's anything definitive. (And even if there is, I'm sure
they reserve the right to change their practices at a moment's
notice.)

One way to avoid it is actually to download the music, and then you
know what you have....

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:23:26 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <97ecnWhA6dhHRb7-...@giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >I'd like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies
> >compress the music just like radio stations compress their music.
> It seems to depend, e.g. on how much effective bandwidth they're
> getting between them & you. They definitely adjust. And they're
> vague about this, because they don't want to promise anything. I
> doubt there's anything definitive. (And even if there is, I'm sure
> they reserve the right to change their practices at a moment's
> notice.)
>
> One way to avoid it is actually to download the music, and then you
> know what you have....

I had suspicions about Spotify but wired up an internal recording loop on my Mac (used to be easy- a royal pain in the current OS) and compared the waveforms to a disc rip. They were the same. (OK, yes, the Spotify is 320 kbps compressed, but that's not what we are talking about. Data compression does not necessarily include dynamic compression.) I think the disc was a Arabella Steinbacher release, but it was over a year ago and I don't remember. I dislike their interface enough that it will never compete with my personal collection, no matter what. But the streaming can be pretty reliable as a substitute or way of sampling things. Or just a pleasure to listen to if that space is comfortable to you and you like the price.

The other fact of this conversation is that I love Chicago's WFMT, and at least some of the content on it is dynamically compressed- like the CSO broadcasts (not messed with if streamed form their site). But I still value them a lot and listen to them.

In article <eba91bb0-172d-4049-9418-e25fc1120a83n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>OK, yes, the Spotify is 320 kbps compressed, but that's not what
>we are talking about. Data compression does not necessarily include
>dynamic compression.

The latter is certainly true, but personally, I was talking about
any kind of lossy compression....

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:20:10 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <eba91bb0-172d-4049...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >OK, yes, the Spotify is 320 kbps compressed, but that's not what
> >we are talking about. Data compression does not necessarily include
> >dynamic compression.
> The latter is certainly true, but personally, I was talking about
> any kind of lossy compression....

I'm all for extraneous points, but obviously the question was "I'd like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies
compress the music just like radio stations compress their music."

Sticking to the original question, the sad fact is that some radio stations who stream their broadcast over their web page provide the same dynamically compressed product that goes out over the airwaves.

In article <3be380ee-8ae7-49a5-9163-5ab7b586be3dn@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm all for extraneous points, but obviously the question was "I'd
>like to know if Spotify and the other streaming companies compress
>the music just like radio stations compress their music."

So I don't know if it's "just like," but as stated, they do compress,
and they don't guarantee anything.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:35:37 AM UTC-7, henrysibley wrote:
> For Classical Music.
>
> There's a growing discussion of this going on in Pop / Rock music. See:
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/
>
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> Bad:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/06/18/dire-straits-money-for-nothing-review-lp-cd-qobuz-1988-remastered-2022/#Part2
>
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/09/08/madonna-finally-enough-love-review-vinyl-2-lp-qobuz-hi-res-tidal/#Part2
>
>
> Good:
> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/04/15/the-police-greatest-hits-review-lp-qobuz-amazon-tidal-and-cd/#Part2
>
>
>
> With this cursory information, it appears that Spotify, Qobuz et al
> don't do this to "all" recordings, making it seem like the
> (un)compressed music they stream arrives from the record company /
> studio this way. Good or bad. The millions of ear-bud-wearing jogger
> customers probably prefer highly compressed music.
>
> Thanks for any info. :^)
>
> Hank

I'd be more concerned that the "lossless" or "Hi-Res Audio" that some streaming services offer aren't simply transcoded from lossy originals. A number of recordings downloaded from there and other commercial websites, then disseminated on What.CD were later determined to have been transcoded from mp3s. My guess is that this probably happens a lot more than some may care to think.

In article <ded5a301-5c0a-49d8-9b05-335c0887a95an@googlegroups.com>,
Néstor Castiglione <castiglione.nestor@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'd be more concerned that the "lossless" or "Hi-Res Audio" that
>some streaming services offer aren't simply transcoded from lossy
>originals.

Yes, the higher bandwidth products offer the possibility of better
sound, but there are few guarantees. I tend to be more trusting
of recent recordings, which are often engineered for hi-res, but
with older recordings, it's really hard to know in advance. (Many
are just adding empty bits.) Even with newer recordings, some just
aren't engineered to make meaningful use of more bandwidth.

I keep offering these caveats, though, and sometimes I guess it
seems to give the impression that higher bandwidth recordings have
nothing to offer. On the contrary, the sound can be quite noticeably
better. And with far more dynamic range, as far as the specific
topic -- to the point that people complain that they're too loud
(as I believe has been mentioned here). Even without higher sample
rates, listening more often to 24bit recordings can make the former
digital standard of 16 bit sound very thin timbrally/compressed
dynamically.

On 2022-09-16 22:11:32 +0000, mswd...@gmail.com said:

> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:23:26 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> In article <97ecnWhA6dhHRb7-...@giganews.com>,
>> Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:> >I'd like to know if Spotify
>> and the other streaming companies> >compress the music just like radio
>> stations compress their music.
>> It seems to depend, e.g. on how much effective bandwidth they're>
>> getting between them & you. They definitely adjust. And they're> vague
>> about this, because they don't want to promise anything. I> doubt
>> there's anything definitive. (And even if there is, I'm sure> they
>> reserve the right to change their practices at a moment's> notice.)>>
>> One way to avoid it is actually to download the music, and then you>
>> know what you have....
>
> I had suspicions about Spotify but wired up an internal recording loop
> on my Mac (used to be easy- a royal pain in the current OS) and
> compared the waveforms to a disc rip. They were the same. (OK, yes, the
> Spotify is 320 kbps compressed, but that's not what we are talking
> about. Data compression does not necessarily include dynamic
> compression.) I think the disc was a Arabella Steinbacher release, but
> it was over a year ago and I don't remember. I dislike their interface
> enough that it will never compete with my personal collection, no
> matter what. But the streaming can be pretty reliable as a substitute
> or way of sampling things. Or just a pleasure to listen to if that
> space is comfortable to you and you like the price.
> The other fact of this conversation is that I love Chicago's WFMT, and
> at least some of the content on it is dynamically compressed- like the
> CSO broadcasts (not messed with if streamed form their site). But I
> still value them a lot and listen to them.

Thank You for that report on your personal testing. :-) That's a
bummer that some WFMT content is dynamically compressed... ugh.

Quality of streaming Classical radio is another thing, because most
streaming radio is "lossy" due to bandwidth realities for broadcaster
and listener.

Here are KUSC's available Classical streams:

https://www.kusc.org/radio/how-to-listen/

AAC encoding is pretty common. KUSC & Concertgebouw streams use it,
and other Classical stations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Efficiency_Advanced_Audio_Coding

While I've not done any specific testing on this, I'd believe that an
AAC (-HE) stream of a good, *not-dynamically-compressed* Classical
recording would sound just fine, for not-critical listening.

Hank

On 9/16/22 11:24 PM, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <ded5a301-5c0a-49d8-9b05-335c0887a95an@googlegroups.com>,
> Néstor Castiglione <castiglione.nestor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd be more concerned that the "lossless" or "Hi-Res Audio" that
>> some streaming services offer aren't simply transcoded from lossy
>> originals.
>
> Yes, the higher bandwidth products offer the possibility of better
> sound, but there are few guarantees. I tend to be more trusting
> of recent recordings, which are often engineered for hi-res, but
> with older recordings, it's really hard to know in advance. (Many
> are just adding empty bits.) Even with newer recordings, some just
> aren't engineered to make meaningful use of more bandwidth.
>
> I keep offering these caveats, though, and sometimes I guess it
> seems to give the impression that higher bandwidth recordings have
> nothing to offer. On the contrary, the sound can be quite noticeably
> better. And with far more dynamic range, as far as the specific
> topic -- to the point that people complain that they're too loud
> (as I believe has been mentioned here). Even without higher sample
> rates, listening more often to 24bit recordings can make the former
> digital standard of 16 bit sound very thin timbrally/compressed
> dynamically.

You might be comparing particular 24 bit and 16 bit recordings that
have been mastered differently, which is why you notice it. CDs,
or 16 bit, have an extremely high dynamic range, it's just that
mastering engineers do not use that available dynamic range,
especially in pop music.

In article <S4Scnbv0BbpdAbX-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>You might be comparing particular 24 bit and 16 bit recordings that
>have been mastered differently, which is why you notice it.

Apples to apples comparisons are indeed difficult. As more albums
are released in 24bit, though, the "average" impression gets to be
quite different though.

(I'm not sure why no one seems to be sending review copies at
multiple digital resolutions, just for this sort of purpose. Maybe
it happens in some speciality situations, but generally not. Since
2020, almost all review copies are digital, but you get one resolution,
usually CD quality. If they really want to sell the high-def
versions, clearly they should be encouraging reviewers to compare,
but I digress....)

>CDs, or 16 bit, have an extremely high dynamic range, it's just
>that mastering engineers do not use that available dynamic range,
>especially in pop music.

It's true that e.g. pop music tends not to use as much dynamic
range, but the higher bandwidth recordings are -- at least some of
them -- in another league. As noted, some people are complaining
they're too loud....

On 9/19/22 9:54 AM, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <S4Scnbv0BbpdAbX-nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>> You might be comparing particular 24 bit and 16 bit recordings that
>> have been mastered differently, which is why you notice it.
>
> Apples to apples comparisons are indeed difficult. As more albums
> are released in 24bit, though, the "average" impression gets to be
> quite different though.
>
> (I'm not sure why no one seems to be sending review copies at
> multiple digital resolutions, just for this sort of purpose. Maybe
> it happens in some speciality situations, but generally not. Since
> 2020, almost all review copies are digital, but you get one resolution,
> usually CD quality. If they really want to sell the high-def
> versions, clearly they should be encouraging reviewers to compare,
> but I digress....)
>
>> CDs, or 16 bit, have an extremely high dynamic range, it's just
>> that mastering engineers do not use that available dynamic range,
>> especially in pop music.
>
> It's true that e.g. pop music tends not to use as much dynamic
> range, but the higher bandwidth recordings are -- at least some of
> them -- in another league. As noted, some people are complaining
> they're too loud....

Many of high rez recordings are far more compressed than the original
1980's or 1990's recording on CD, because they have the same
compression that the remastered CDs have. Sometimes the high bit
recordings have the same compression as the remastered CDs but have
been set several decibels lower in volume than the CD so it sounds
"quieter".

https://dr.loudness-war.info/

I don't like how compressed recordings are called "loud", they have
the loud notes reduced in volume so how can it be called loud?
Listening to compressed recordings is frustrating, because the
loud notes are muffled and no matter how high you turn the
volume the loud notes remain muffled.

In article <4WadnRxuMdu2OrX-nZ2dnZfqnPti4p2d@giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>Many of high rez recordings are far more compressed than the original
>1980's or 1990's recording on CD, because they have the same
>compression that the remastered CDs have.

To be clear, I'm talking about new recordings.

With older recordings, I would be more skeptical.... Obviously it
depends, in part, on how the recording was engineered in the first
place.

But today, more are engineered for the higher bandwidth, and the
versions are released at the same time. So the "CD" version is
already a compressed version, including dynamic compression compared
to the studio master.

In article <4WadnRxuMdu2OrX-nZ2dnZfqnPti4p2d@giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>I don't like how compressed recordings are called "loud", they have
>the loud notes reduced in volume so how can it be called loud?

I am not calling a compressed recording "loud." I am calling a
recording with greatly increased dynamic range "loud" -- and I'm
not personally calling it loud either, but some people do: If one
sets the volume of an orchestral recording as one normally would,
such that the quiet passage are of a similar volume, in a 24bit
recording with a big dynamic range, the loud passages will be very
loud. In fact, someone might be quite startled, and/or annoy their
neighbors. This is what I'm talking about, not compression at all.
The opposite.

On 9/19/22 10:39 AM, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <4WadnRxuMdu2OrX-nZ2dnZfqnPti4p2d@giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Many of high rez recordings are far more compressed than the original
>> 1980's or 1990's recording on CD, because they have the same
>> compression that the remastered CDs have.
>
> To be clear, I'm talking about new recordings.
>
> With older recordings, I would be more skeptical.... Obviously it
> depends, in part, on how the recording was engineered in the first
> place.
>
> But today, more are engineered for the higher bandwidth, and the
> versions are released at the same time. So the "CD" version is
> already a compressed version, including dynamic compression compared
> to the studio master.
>
Now you seem to be conflating dynamic and data compression but if you
mean that they are releasing high bit as less dynamically compressed
than CD, that's perfectly possible, but it is measurable. They've often
done that with LPs, releasing a CD with brickwall compression while
releasing the LP of the same recording as normal sound with scratches
added. But these are entirely the deliberate decisions of the record
companies, and not done for technical reasons. The CD, is in no way a
"compressed format".

On 9/19/22 10:45 AM, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <4WadnRxuMdu2OrX-nZ2dnZfqnPti4p2d@giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>> I don't like how compressed recordings are called "loud", they have
>> the loud notes reduced in volume so how can it be called loud?
>
> I am not calling a compressed recording "loud." I am calling a
> recording with greatly increased dynamic range "loud" -- and I'm
> not personally calling it loud either, but some people do: If one
> sets the volume of an orchestral recording as one normally would,
> such that the quiet passage are of a similar volume, in a 24bit
> recording with a big dynamic range, the loud passages will be very
> loud. In fact, someone might be quite startled, and/or annoy their
> neighbors. This is what I'm talking about, not compression at all.
> The opposite.

Those loud notes are loud not because it's 24 bit but because the
loud notes haven't been compressed away. CDs, also called Lossless,
have an extremely high dynamic range, so high that no one uses the
entire 96 decibels of dynamic range, so an extra high bit rate is
not necessary.

Usually when there are complaints about compressed recordings, the
apologists for compression say that "compression makes it louder"
so they using the term "loud" in the opposite sense.

In article <S1OdnYeb1uaSMLX-nZ2dnZfqnPti4p2d@giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>Now you seem to be conflating dynamic and data compression ...

Dynamic compression is one way to do data compression.

>The CD, is in no way a "compressed format".

It's a lower bandwidth format. One can now buy digital recordings
with more detailed sound, including bigger dynamic range. Simple
as that.

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 1:24:27 AM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> On the contrary, the sound can be quite noticeably
> better.

There's nothing you can point to where this can be shown to be objectively true, outside of the possibility that a hi-res mastering has other qualities that make it better in a way that would also be better in a Redbook format. I certainly accept that you believe it is a significant difference, but I would love a list of examples where you claim a high-res version really is superior to a standard-def master, where we can sample both of them.

Even without higher sample
> rates, listening more often to 24bit recordings can make the former
> digital standard of 16 bit sound very thin timbrally/compressed
> dynamically.

I think this is also bunk. Assuming you were happy with a lower mean volumn level in 16-bit, you could offer an exceedingly wide dynamic range. And some manufacturers did offer product that was often very difficult to listen to- BIS was an obvious example. People complained about it- they couldn't hear the quiet parts and then the loud parts were blasting. On a CD. The fact that high-res offers more mathematical room for dynamic range does not mean that we were somehow deprived of it before- what stopped there form being greater dynamic range is that it wasn't valued.

Again, if you want to offer some examples, go ahead. There ought to be some way to elevate the claims of audio superiority from "I hear the difference" into a zone that is measurable and repeatable.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, henrysibley wrote:

> Thank You for that report on your personal testing. :-) That's a
> bummer that some WFMT content is dynamically compressed... ugh.

I'm not complaining. I listen in my car more often than not, and I'm not paying premium dollars for dead silence in the cabin. I need that compression to hear the music. It is a practical choice, and it really doesn't impact enjoyment all that much.

In article <cbb7ddc2-5045-411d-9df3-3472bb69e675n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>There's nothing you can point to where this can be shown to be
>objectively true, outside of the possibility that a hi-res mastering
>has other qualities that make it better in a way that would also
>be better in a Redbook format.

Your statement is certainly put definitively. Suit yourself. I'm
not going to beat my head against a brick wall on yet another stupid
topic.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 2:42:40 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <cbb7ddc2-5045-411d...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There's nothing you can point to where this can be shown to be
> >objectively true, outside of the possibility that a hi-res mastering
> >has other qualities that make it better in a way that would also
> >be better in a Redbook format.
> Your statement is certainly put definitively. Suit yourself. I'm
> not going to beat my head against a brick wall on yet another stupid
> topic.

You're attacking the style of my assertion and making that grounds for fleeing the topic? Doesn't that prove my point? It bothers me that there's no evidence at all out there supporting the claims of the High Res industry. Sure, it probably has value in the mastering process, but for a final product, you have no evidence at all that a high-res file sounds better than a 16-bit of the same. Where are the double-blind listening tests where everyone picks high-res? It's not like they aren't possible, and it's not like anyone with a high-res file couldn't set it up themselves. They don't exist? What? After all this time? Seriously.

You've flat-out claimed that you lose dynamic range and detail with 16-bit. Back it up. Absent proof, it is just a belief system.

In article <9ea3cac1-bd9c-4418-9971-78429bdc86edn@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>You've flat-out claimed that you lose dynamic range and detail with
>16-bit. Back it up. Absent proof, it is just a belief system.

"Lose" relative to what? You can get more with more bits.

Anyway, regarding this topic and your insistence on proof or
what-have-you, do you even have a proper decoder for 24bit/96khz
music? I have no idea. Have you ever listened to any? Yet here
you are making strong assertions. So no, I don't respect your
presentation (style). And guess what, it doesn't make me want to
interact with you. What am I possibly going to get from this?

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:02:04 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <9ea3cac1-bd9c-4418...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You've flat-out claimed that you lose dynamic range and detail with
> >16-bit. Back it up. Absent proof, it is just a belief system.
> "Lose" relative to what? You can get more with more bits.

The value of that fact is entirely unclear. What is the threshold of human perception where extra bits becomes something that just doesn't matter? That's a question ripe for scientific investigation, and one that could be answered with certainty. You could easily come up with subsets of listeners who could consistently hear the difference and on X equipment. But this is not a question that the high-res industry has any interests in answering. Why would that be? Because the industry is not interested in proof or the truth. Value in the audio industry is simply what someone is willing to buy and love. And heaven forbid that scientific testing should get in the way of claims of the positive benefits of anything that can be sold. Thousand dollar power cables? Yeah, someone's going to value that and believe in it, even if it has no benefit at all, objectively speaking.

> Anyway, regarding this topic and your insistence on proof or
> what-have-you,

"...or what-have-you"?? Are you unclear about what would clearly support your faith that "more bits are better"?

do you even have a proper decoder for 24bit/96khz
> music? I have no idea. Have you ever listened to any?

That's not relevant. I am open to the idea that high res could be better. I am bothered by the fact that nobody really wants to know if it is true. You are the believer here, and you've got nothing to point to. And you think it is my job to prove the prudence of my scepticism?
For the record, I own a DAC with a SINAD of 106 that supports 24/384. I generally listen on headphones that have near-zero distortion and which are EQ'd. And I don't hear the value in high-res files. But, again, not relevant. The burden of proof should be on the believer, the one who makes positive assertions. Give me some example files. Prove your case!

Yet here
> you are making strong assertions.

There's a difference between strong assertions and persistent skepticism in the absence of evidence.

So no, I don't respect your
> presentation (style). And guess what, it doesn't make me want to
> interact with you. What am I possibly going to get from this?

Taking such a crude question seriously, there's always the possibility i could save you money... :-)