Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

"Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192? "

I have not heard many native 192! People have ripped to 192 and claimed 192, but they are not authentic, and on playback are easy to spot as being inferior. DCS upsampled to 192 is excellent. When I upsample to 384 (by mistake) I notice something is not right and realise I need to drop down to 192.
It is NOT the same as upsampling rips via dbpoweramp, which is pretty ineffective, which is again possibly why some people cannot tell the difference and then make false claims of the situation.
Dull cds are brought to life. For example 10cc recordings are a bit on the dull side, but they are lifted by the DCS, to now being very acceptable, and closer and closer to vinyl.

When I say 50% of the information is missing what I mean by “information” is that dynamic range is doubled and resolution is increased considerably. I am not (rpt not) trying to say there is twice as much data available to the DAC as was on the CD 💿 Obviously, the data on the CD cannot be changed. But what can be changed is how the data is pulled off the CD. Yes, I know what you’re thinking - doesn’t Reed Solomon and the CD laser servo system take care of all the errors? 😳

We know, for example, the reason there IS a laser servo system in there in the first place is because the original designers were aware that the CD 💿 flops around while spinning, that the nanoscale laser beam cannot stay on the nanoscale data spiral without help. It helps but is not 100% effective. IT CANT KEEP UP. The laser beam is an out of control locomotive roaring down the track! 🚂 

So when you add up the increase in dynamic range, the increased bass performance, increased air and increased signal to noise ratio SNR you get 50%, if your system can handle it. And I’m being conservative here. Who wouldn’t want to DOUBLE Dynamic Range? It’s subjective. Put those books down! Use your ears. And yes, I know what a lot of people will say, “but my system already sounds fabulous!”

There is no substitute for signal to noise ratio.

www.2l.no  has plenty of free hires and redbook samples of all kinds. It also shows the source format, almost all studio DXD. It is easy to compare the same piece of music at all sampling/bit rates. Ask somebody to assign new ABX file names (do not check file sizes) and play them as long as you like- blindly. Note your ABX test choices. This double blind self-test will tell you the truth. About the hires and/or about yourself.

VI,


Your 50% information theory, which was previously 25% is a fantasy not a reality. Unless your CD is severely damaged, the multitude of control system and data correction methods on a CD player take care of all the things you claim and eliminate effectively all the errors with few exceptions.  Modern CD players also buffer and reclock so you can't even claim timing issues. 


VI, if you had any, and I do mean any data to back up what you claim, that data very easy to produce, then you would be broadcasting that from the rooftops. You do not. You just have an unfounded hypothesis. Basically a fantasy about the missing "information".

Tatyana69,


44.1/16 upsampled to 192/24 is still 44.1/16. A standalone upsampler is just a more accurate digital resampler or it is intentionally making the 192 signal less accurate which is okay if you like the result. 


Your post would suggest 24/96 is enough?