On 9/19/2022 3:32 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Which is why FM radio compresses the music as much FM listening is done in the car. My Dodge Caravan had a switch to turn on dynamic compression that helped tremendously with wide-range CDs. I had at least 2 different portable CD players (I may still have them, I have about 15 of them dating to the 1980's) that had the same compression option. This is not to be confused with Sony's volume limiting which is a different thing entirely.

On 9/19/2022 3:56 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

This will not be the first time someone has run out of arguments and rather then admitting it or re-considering his position, backs out on the grounds he doesn't have time to talk to stupid people.

In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086-8702-c9454f768a7an@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>"...or what-have-you"?? Are you unclear about what would clearly
>support your faith that "more bits are better"?

First of all, I've said each & every time this arises that more bits
includes the possibility of a better recording, not a guarantee.

As far as what you will believe, I really don't know. And I don't
care either.

>And you think it is my job to prove the prudence of my scepticism?

It's certainly not my job to prove anything to you. Do as you like!

Your notion that the broad industry trend toward 24bit/96khz is
"bunk" is noted, though. I've filed it appropriately.

In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086-8702-c9454f768a7an@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>Taking such a crude question seriously, there's always the possibility
>i could save you money... :-)

I'm going to take this remark seriously, on the off chance that
clarifying an earlier statement will actually aid communication.

I remarked on a 16bit recording sounding "thin" next to 24bit
recordings. I know I've remarked in the past that I might listen
to 10 new recordings of new music in a row some days. Recently, I
think for this first time [*], most were 24bit recordings, prompting
that remark. But don't tune out here. I received them only as
recordings, i.e. FLAC files. (And I'm basically just listening for
impressions. I usually have no idea what I'm going to hear.) They
were simply "the download" with no resolution specified, nor do I
(usually) look.

In other words, no (difference in) money was involved.

* Partly a coincidence, I'm sure, but do I think this is part of a
trend? Yes, I do. Glad you asked.

In article <tgb607$732$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>* Partly a coincidence, I'm sure, but do I think this is part of a
>trend? Yes, I do. Glad you asked.

Then per the streaming topic, what do these services do with the
higher bit (and maybe higher sampling rate) recordings? Qobuz --
also in the Subject line, I note -- does offer a "studio sublime"
streaming subscription for high-res recordings. But what do they
do in terms of throttling for bandwidth limitations? I don't know.

Regarding Bandcamp, where most of the music of interest to me gets
released these days, you very well might get a high-res download
without comment (as opposed to Qobuz or Presto, which always(?)
have separate prices), but the "streaming" part doesn't appear to
be high-res. At least not sometimes.

In article <tgb9g5$9fa$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>Regarding Bandcamp, where most of the music of interest to me gets
>released these days, you very well might get a high-res download
>without comment (as opposed to Qobuz or Presto, which always(?)
>have separate prices), but the "streaming" part doesn't appear to
>be high-res. At least not sometimes.

So, even if I were to tell someone that I just heard such & such a
high-def recording there (e.g. _Harbors_ that I posted about in
last month's WAYTL thread, without noting that it's a 24bit
recording...), (1) they wouldn't be able to hear it in high-def
without buying it, and (2) I have no idea if every DAC that nominally
supports 24bit (etc.) actually uses the extra information meaningfully.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as what you will believe, I really don't know. And I don't
> care either.
> It's certainly not my job to prove anything to you. Do as you like!

I don't think I said it was your "job". I think it is reasonable that anyone offering a positive claim of performance should be prepared to back it up with something more substantial than personal experience or be prepared to recognize that one can legitimately classify such a report as merely a subjective reporting of faith. You clearly don't like this, but you can't address it head on- you'd rather dismiss me for one or another tangential reason. (I'm rude, I don't have the equipment, you're disinterested, have no obligation, etc.).

> Your notion that the broad industry trend toward 24bit/96khz is "bunk" is noted, though. I've filed it appropriately.

Sorry, but the growing market niche for high-res audio does not amount to proof of product quality, technological superiority or comparative value. and bringing it up like it matters is silly. What filing system am I now part of?

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 8:45:48 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <7ae24ee2-f1f1-4086...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I remarked on a 16bit recording sounding "thin" next to 24bit
> recordings.

You might try to define "thin" which to me sounds like a drop of mid to lower frequency range. But the claim deserves evidence, because on its face it is preposterous. The bit rate is not adding to the harmonic juiciness of the track.

I know I've remarked in the past that I might listen
> to 10 new recordings of new music in a row some days. Recently, I
> think for this first time [*], most were 24bit recordings, prompting
> that remark. But don't tune out here. I received them only as
> recordings, i.e. FLAC files. (And I'm basically just listening for
> impressions. I usually have no idea what I'm going to hear.) They
> were simply "the download" with no resolution specified, nor do I
> (usually) look.
>
> In other words, no (difference in) money was involved.
>
> * Partly a coincidence, I'm sure, but do I think this is part of a
> trend? Yes, I do. Glad you asked.

It "could" be a coincidence, but then you say "well, I still think it is more than that." Yeah, there is your confirmation bias.

In article <47a4f775-cd39-40e3-ba19-a86dd5568bc9n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>What filing system am I now part of?

Stupid things people say on the internet.

In article <272d8383-afaf-4f28-ae43-7931745110f3n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>It "could" be a coincidence, but then you say "well, I still think
>it is more than that." Yeah, there is your confirmation bias.

That's nice, but I hope you did note to what that starred comment
actually referred. The other nice thing, then, is that I'll certainly
find out soon enough whether most releases end up defaulting to
24bit going forward....

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 11:49:35 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <47a4f775-cd39-40e3...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >What filing system am I now part of?
> Stupid things people say on the internet.

Yep, you've sunk so low that for pointing out your weak rhetorical tricks, I get called stupid. I really thought you had it in you to argue better than this.

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 11:55:17 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <272d8383-afaf-4f28...@googlegroups.com>,
> mswd...@gmail.com <mswd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >It "could" be a coincidence, but then you say "well, I still think
> >it is more than that." Yeah, there is your confirmation bias.
> That's nice, but I hope you did note to what that starred comment
> actually referred. The other nice thing, then, is that I'll certainly
> find out soon enough whether most releases end up defaulting to
> 24bit going forward....

Why would that matter? Are you confusing popularity with quality?

In article <4314237e-1a12-48a5-9537-f081c2ea39a1n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, you've sunk so low that for pointing out your weak rhetorical
>tricks, I get called stupid. I really thought you had it in you to
>argue better than this.

I should really stop replying, but I guess I still want to note a
few things, starting with the mixed messages here -- which I've
noted before: Express disdain for what I have to say, and when I'm
consequently ready to stop, insist I need to keep posting....

So... I didn't call you stupid, but what you said, a distinction
I've noted in the past. (I also have zero interest in "arguing"
and usually tune out when someone takes that approach.)

And now for my impressions of thia interacton:

I posted some experiences around the topic, but they weren't specific
enough to dynamic range for you. Fair enough, but I also think
it's worth thinking of data formats & resolutions & compression in
a general way, especially if we're trying to predict future
behavior.... Well you didn't like this, and then I ended up noting
that high-def recordings can have more dynamic range, and this
really set you off. Next thing I know, you're making demands &
assigning me chores for you. I openly wondered at that point, what
is my incentive to follow your demands? You evidently found such
a response to be strange. Which also confuses me, pace mixed
messages noted above.... Providing some reason I might actually
want to do as you say simply never entered into it.

So hey, whatever. I've definitely seen enough from you at this
point.

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 1:11:36 AM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> So... I didn't call you stupid, but what you said, a distinction
> I've noted in the past. (I also have zero interest in "arguing"
> and usually tune out when someone takes that approach.)

You think that is a defense of what you said? Wow.
> And now for my impressions of thia interacton:

I think "impressions" is the operable word here. You've read everything I wrote as expression of emotion and nothing more. Perhaps I'm a horrible writer, but it seems more likely that you're not really thinking so much about any idea I raised so much as reacting emotionally. Thinking emotionally is one my concerns with high-res audio and most of what gets sold as "audiophile": the critical language around it is a cloud of non-objective poetry that will not cohere into anything solid that would tolerate testing, measuring, documenting, and so forth. It is a belief system.

This means you can decide that:
a. more bits means greater potential dynamic range (theoretically true)
b. since that range is wider than CD specifications, that's good (doubtful- some CDs already had dynamic ranges that people found difficult, and BIS marketed their recordings on the dangers of their dynamic range)
c. because it is a difference you can consistently hear (no evidence of that)
d. greater dynamic range is good (not necessarily so)
e. more bits means more detail that is audible to a listener (completely unproven)
f. and more bits means other sonic "improvements". I don't think I caught you making any clear assertions in this area, but they are made

If all this were really true and for the better then you would have an easy time proving it. And I'd love to see it. I would even be open to tamping down my skepticism. But the very fact that some people still think LPs are the superior product proves the difficulty here:
people can believe whatever they want. So at this point the question of whether high-res is worth money for listening has no evidence in its favor that I'm aware of. But if you like spending your money this way, go for it. I think it is actually perfectly fine to be wrong and to waste money. Just don't try to sell me the habit.

> So hey, whatever. I've definitely seen enough from you at this point.

Please feel no obligation to reply.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/recordings-with-dynamic-range-warnings-on-them.912658/

Ah, the famous Telarc 1812 Overture recording... with the warning. :^)

I wonder how Qobuz streams that? LOL

Hank

On 2022-09-24 01:44:38 +0000, mswd...@gmail.com said:

> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 1:11:36 AM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> So... I didn't call you stupid, but what you said, a distinction> I've
>> noted in the past. (I also have zero interest in "arguing"> and usually
>> tune out when someone takes that approach.)
> You think that is a defense of what you said? Wow.> And now for my
> impressions of thia interacton:
> I think "impressions" is the operable word here. You've read everything
> I wrote as expression of emotion and nothing more. Perhaps I'm a
> horrible writer, but it seems more likely that you're not really
> thinking so much about any idea I raised so much as reacting
> emotionally. Thinking emotionally is one my concerns with high-res
> audio and most of what gets sold as "audiophile": the critical language
> around it is a cloud of non-objective poetry that will not cohere into
> anything solid that would tolerate testing, measuring, documenting, and
> so forth. It is a belief system.
> This means you can decide that:
> a. more bits means greater potential dynamic range (theoretically true)
> b. since that range is wider than CD specifications, that's good
> (doubtful- some CDs already had dynamic ranges that people found
> difficult, and BIS marketed their recordings on the dangers of their
> dynamic range)
> c. because it is a difference you can consistently hear (no evidence of that)
> d. greater dynamic range is good (not necessarily so)
> e. more bits means more detail that is audible to a listener
> (completely unproven)
> f. and more bits means other sonic "improvements". I don't think I
> caught you making any clear assertions in this area, but they are made
> If all this were really true and for the better then you would have an
> easy time proving it. And I'd love to see it. I would even be open to
> tamping down my skepticism. But the very fact that some people still
> think LPs are the superior product proves the difficulty here:people
> can believe whatever they want. So at this point the question of
> whether high-res is worth money for listening has no evidence in its
> favor that I'm aware of. But if you like spending your money this way,
> go for it. I think it is actually perfectly fine to be wrong and to
> waste money. Just don't try to sell me the habit.
>> So hey, whatever. I've definitely seen enough from you at this point.
> Please feel no obligation to reply.

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

This is off-topic, but could a person get into trouble for uploading something from Spotify onto Youtube?

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 2:22:23 AM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
> 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
>
> This is off-topic, but could a person get into trouble for uploading something from Spotify onto Youtube?

I'm not seeing Henry's original; post so here's a reply to both:
- There's no evidence in the posts from Magic Vinyl that any of the bad masters streamed by the high-res sites are due to choices made by those entities. Rather, I think, they are playing what they are given. Spotify, for instance, plays a lot of RVG Blue Note releases, and the mastering on those is dreadful. But you can find the same music on the CDs.
- And you can see that the devotion to original-release vinyl at least has the benefit of avoiding the "compression wars" masterings of years later.

Could you get "in trouble"? Assuming you could capture something from Spotify and post it to youtube, there is every likelihood that Youtube would automatically silence the portion of the upload that contained the music. Only people with permission status on file can reliably post audio. I once posted a video there intended for a hardware distributor I'd done business with showing the behavior of a bad DA converter in a multi-channel amp. Music would play fo ra few seconds, then cut out, then cut back in at random intervals. The chunks of audio were enough for the full span of the test to be silenced once the test was uploaded to Youtube.

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

(The following from QUORA may be of interest):

Can you hear a difference in quality between Spotify's 320 kbps stream and TIDAL's HiFi lossless audio stream?
Profile photo for Dave Samwell
Dave Samwell
·
Follow
Worked in the music industry internationally as a sound engineer and midi tech6y
Originally Answered: Is Tidal's high-quality streaming noticeably better than Spotify's 320kbps stream?
I cannot really answer this question specifically, but I can tell you about 320kbps quality in general.

As a professional sound engineer I would say my ears are fairly highly trained. I have some very high quality pairs of headphones and speakers, some of which cost as much as a second hand car.

I cannot tell the difference between 320kpbs and CD quality for most recordings. Especially pop/rock or electronic music which is very dynamically compressed.

I have, if listening very very closely, noticed a few artefacts on very quiet sections of classical recordings on ridiculously high quality listening equipment. I have only noticed this when specifically trying to listen out for them when playing about with MP3 encoders.

On normal consumer listening equipment to the normal listener 320kpbs will be absolutely indistinguishable from anything any higher.

If anyone claims they can tell the difference, offer them a large cash sum to be able to reliably pick the higher quality one with a variety of recordings. I guarantee you your money will be safe.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:40:18 AM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
> 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
> (The following from QUORA may be of interest):
>
> Can you hear a difference in quality between Spotify's 320 kbps stream and TIDAL's HiFi lossless audio stream?
> Profile photo for Dave Samwell
> Dave Samwell
> ·
> Follow
> Worked in the music industry internationally as a sound engineer and midi tech6y
> Originally Answered: Is Tidal's high-quality streaming noticeably better than Spotify's 320kbps stream?
> I cannot really answer this question specifically, but I can tell you about 320kbps quality in general.
>
> As a professional sound engineer I would say my ears are fairly highly trained. I have some very high quality pairs of headphones and speakers, some of which cost as much as a second hand car.
>
> I cannot tell the difference between 320kpbs and CD quality for most recordings. Especially pop/rock or electronic music which is very dynamically compressed.
>
> I have, if listening very very closely, noticed a few artefacts on very quiet sections of classical recordings on ridiculously high quality listening equipment. I have only noticed this when specifically trying to listen out for them when playing about with MP3 encoders.
>
> On normal consumer listening equipment to the normal listener 320kpbs will be absolutely indistinguishable from anything any higher.
>
> If anyone claims they can tell the difference, offer them a large cash sum to be able to reliably pick the higher quality one with a variety of recordings. I guarantee you your money will be safe.

This matches the reports of other "golden ear" experts who haven't bought into industry hype. I've read that you can tell the difference between 320, lossless and high-res, but only by boosting track fadeouts by many decibles and comparing playback quality at these near-inaudible levels. This may reveal the differences between the tracks, but it is a completely unnatural way to listen. Outside of this there is no chance a blind listen at normal levels could consistently identify the different tracks.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 3:40:18 AM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> 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
> (The following from QUORA may be of interest):
>
> Can you hear a difference in quality between Spotify's 320 kbps stream and TIDAL's HiFi lossless audio stream?
> Profile photo for Dave Samwell
> Dave Samwell
> ·
> Follow
> Worked in the music industry internationally as a sound engineer and midi tech6y
> Originally Answered: Is Tidal's high-quality streaming noticeably better than Spotify's 320kbps stream?
> I cannot really answer this question specifically, but I can tell you about 320kbps quality in general.
>
> As a professional sound engineer I would say my ears are fairly highly trained. I have some very high quality pairs of headphones and speakers, some of which cost as much as a second hand car.
>
> I cannot tell the difference between 320kpbs and CD quality for most recordings. Especially pop/rock or electronic music which is very dynamically compressed.
>
> I have, if listening very very closely, noticed a few artefacts on very quiet sections of classical recordings on ridiculously high quality listening equipment. I have only noticed this when specifically trying to listen out for them when playing about with MP3 encoders.
>
> On normal consumer listening equipment to the normal listener 320kpbs will be absolutely indistinguishable from anything any higher.
>
> If anyone claims they can tell the difference, offer them a large cash sum to be able to reliably pick the higher quality one with a variety of recordings. I guarantee you your money will be safe.

(The following from the COMMENTS section of the link below may be of interest):

- Being an audiophile has always been a niche endeavor.
Submitted by avanti1960 on September 27, 2022 - 4:21pm
The differences between the sound of a finely tuned audiophile system and a basic home theater setup are in fact subtleties to most people (not audiophiles of course).
It takes keen hearing, a willingness to learn and an appreciation of the spatial and tonal differences to become an audiophile. Skillsets that do not grow on trees......

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-problem

In article <tgb9g5$9fa$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>Regarding Bandcamp, where most of the music of interest to me gets
>released these days, you very well might get a high-res download
>without comment (as opposed to Qobuz or Presto, which always(?)
>have separate prices), but the "streaming" part doesn't appear to
>be high-res. At least not sometimes.

If anyone else is interested in these formats....

I've been paying a little more attention to exactly what the DIY
new music community is putting out, whether over Bandcamp, or sending
directly to me for review, and there's variety in both the 16bit &
24bit resolutions. (I haven't seen anything but 16bit or 24bit
recently, although I believe the height of the CD era saw some 20bit
releases, if I recall correctly....)

I'm continuing to see a majority of 24bit, and most of the sampling
rates are 48khz. This is unsurprising, since that is the nominal
resolution of both the Iphone & Google Pixel. But I've also seen
e.g. 44khz at 24bit (not 44.1! but also 44.1...) & of course 96khz
(not 192 outside classical...). There was also a 16bit recording
with 96khz sampling, a strange choice. And now a 16bit at 48khz
(i.e. very similar to CD, but not).... This was all since this
thread, within the past couple of weeks....

And while DIYers put out music at the resolutions they want, we can
probably expect "major labels"/classical to continue to milk it for
whatever money they can squeeze....

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 4:06:58 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <tgb9g5$9fa$1...@hope.eyrie.org>,
> Todd M. McComb <mcc...@medieval.org> wrote:
> >Regarding Bandcamp, where most of the music of interest to me gets
> >released these days, you very well might get a high-res download
> >without comment (as opposed to Qobuz or Presto, which always(?)
> >have separate prices), but the "streaming" part doesn't appear to
> >be high-res. At least not sometimes.
> If anyone else is interested in these formats....
>
> I've been paying a little more attention to exactly what the DIY
> new music community is putting out, whether over Bandcamp, or sending
> directly to me for review, and there's variety in both the 16bit &
> 24bit resolutions. (I haven't seen anything but 16bit or 24bit
> recently, although I believe the height of the CD era saw some 20bit
> releases, if I recall correctly....)
>
> I'm continuing to see a majority of 24bit, and most of the sampling
> rates are 48khz. This is unsurprising, since that is the nominal
> resolution of both the Iphone & Google Pixel. But I've also seen
> e.g. 44khz at 24bit (not 44.1! but also 44.1...) & of course 96khz
> (not 192 outside classical...). There was also a 16bit recording
> with 96khz sampling, a strange choice. And now a 16bit at 48khz
> (i.e. very similar to CD, but not).... This was all since this
> thread, within the past couple of weeks....
>
> And while DIYers put out music at the resolutions they want, we can
> probably expect "major labels"/classical to continue to milk it for
> whatever money they can squeeze....

Isn't that what I was arguing? I'm not saying high-res doesn't have uses for recording purposes, but my argument was that there is no evidence that paying to procure a high-res file is getting you anything you can hear, and the prevalence of these formats in the market was about what people would pay for and nothing else.

In article <6d3c5594-69da-4b01-b9da-c5b3e90062e7n@googlegroups.com>,
mswd...@gmail.com <mswdesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 4:06:58 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> If anyone else is interested in these formats....

*anyone else*

>Isn't that what I was arguing?

Boggle.

On 10/3/22 4:06 PM, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <tgb9g5$9fa$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
> Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>> Regarding Bandcamp, where most of the music of interest to me gets
>> released these days, you very well might get a high-res download
>> without comment (as opposed to Qobuz or Presto, which always(?)
>> have separate prices), but the "streaming" part doesn't appear to
>> be high-res. At least not sometimes.
>
> If anyone else is interested in these formats....
>
> I've been paying a little more attention to exactly what the DIY
> new music community is putting out, whether over Bandcamp, or sending
> directly to me for review, and there's variety in both the 16bit &
> 24bit resolutions. (I haven't seen anything but 16bit or 24bit
> recently, although I believe the height of the CD era saw some 20bit
> releases, if I recall correctly....)
>
> I'm continuing to see a majority of 24bit, and most of the sampling
> rates are 48khz. This is unsurprising, since that is the nominal
> resolution of both the Iphone & Google Pixel. But I've also seen
> e.g. 44khz at 24bit (not 44.1! but also 44.1...) & of course 96khz
> (not 192 outside classical...). There was also a 16bit recording
> with 96khz sampling, a strange choice. And now a 16bit at 48khz
> (i.e. very similar to CD, but not).... This was all since this
> thread, within the past couple of weeks....
>
> And while DIYers put out music at the resolutions they want, we can
> probably expect "major labels"/classical to continue to milk it for
> whatever money they can squeeze....

I'd guess the variety of formats has to do with inexpensive recording
equipment available, ie, Zoom H4 at 24/96 and intended use. Anything
heard through an AVR will be bottlenecked at 48 kHz no matter what the
original is.

In article <thhear$1pbj$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
mINE109 <pianoforte109@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'd guess the variety of formats has to do with inexpensive recording
>equipment available, ie, Zoom H4 at 24/96 and intended use.

It's become a lot easier for "an ordinary person" to make a good
recording....