[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In the absence of blind tests supporting these claims, there is a
finite probability that the restlessness observed is due to anxiety over
not
keeping up with the latest in the emporer's new sample rates.

I can't speak for others, but that isn't the case with me.

How do you know that for sure?

At present,
my listening argument is limited to 44.1/16 and my observation is, on
the same equipment, recent releases are easier to listen to for long
periods than early releases.

So far, I see no procedural controls that would make me believe that the
observed results surely have the stated cause.

You are still talking sighted evaluations, which have their strongest
supporters in the world of true-believer high end audiophiles. Remember,
sighted evaluations are the primary and generally only evidence for every
new and old example of audio snake oil.

I don't want to drag SACD, HD downloads,
vinyl or tape into this because that opens a whole other can of worms.

IME it is all the same can of worms - people are very likely to be acting
out their anxieties and beliefs if nothing is done to manage their effects.

I am sure there were some great early releases as well as some terrible
recent releases. I am also sure the kind of music I am listening to at
any time is a factor. That is why I stressed that it is completely
subjective and may not affect anybody else but me. Apparently it does
affect other people but I can't say if the same thing is going on or not.

I agree that it is impossible to find a relaible link between experience and
perceptions with the evidence presented so far.

I would venture, without any evidence to support it, that whatever was
done to improve CDs probably has carried over to other media.

I know of no signiifcant changes to how first tier audio production has been
done since the early 1980s that would seem to be an improvement in fidelity.
The major change since then has been decreasing costs for obtaining a given
level of quality and vastly increased use of digital at lower budgetary
levels.

Consequently, if 96/24 sounds better or is just more comfortable to
listen to for long periods it could well be because of technological
advances involving digital mastering.

Same story. I am also aware of large numbers of audiophiles who will say
that the aerage fidelity of recordings has only gone downhill since the late
1990s.

In other words, I don't think a 96/24 recording of crummy material is
going to sound any better because
it was done at 96/24.

Now, that is a known fact! No audible difference means no audible
advantage.