Digital Emperor has no clothes

"I like the point about SACD or more carefully recorded things sounding better because they were more carefully recorded...hmmm"

They could easily find CD and SACD processed from the same 24/192 master tape and play both layers on the same SACD player.

Statement that 192kHz recording is harmful because it contain high frequency is BS. It is much easier to filter out 192kHz than 44kHz. It is even easier to filter out 2.8MHz carrier in SACD. Not only that author claims that 192kHz is harmful because it is higher than 44kHz but moment later talks about benefits of oversampling - increasing sample rate to ... yes harmful 192kHz.

Yet another bit-head attempting to explain why audiophiles are nuts. While the author of the piece is undoubtedly intelligent and appears to know what he's talking about, his numbers-game discourse means nothing to me. Sure, 24/192 files are probably a waste of time when one experiences them on consumer hi-fi (that is why SACD never took off) but in the context of a properly set up and fine tuned high end system, most high resolution files are clearly superior. It is all relative to what system these files are played.

Keep in mind that not all hi res files are created equal - many of them sound inferior when compared to their CD counterpart. Could it be that the listening panel was comparing two files of dubious quality?

I do give the author credit for suggesting that his consumer hifi audience buy better headphones than their $20 buds. Good to know.

Are we having fun yet?

Oh yes we are! Remember, bits are bits and nothing else matters. 8^)

Of course 16/44.1 sounds better than 24/192. And Mp3 sounds better than 16/44.1. Everyone knows that.