Uh oh, do I foresee a little
conflicted listening in your future?
It will be interesting to hear if your opinion of 16/44.1 vs. 24/96kHz changes with these new releases.
If your opinion does change, might you may have "Rushed" to a conclusion?
/OUT
Well I mainly posted this for others who may be interested in having the albums in this format. I actually probably will be buying these just for the packaging and to have them (completist I am
), but I very highly doubt that the "high res" will be audibly discernible (especially when tested blind).
On that note, I have listened to several regular and "hi res" releases (including Moving Pictures in 96kHz/24-bit) in blind tests with an audio group I'm a member of on all sorts of set ups (and also by my own on my own setup aided by others). We also passed 96kHz/24-bit through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck". When listening blind none of us could tell a difference between the "hi res" releases compared to the regular redbook or when they were passed through the 16-bit/44.1-kHz processing or not over what is predicted by chance, just as the Meyer/Moran test (for one) also found and as, I am convinced, the scientific reality of all related aspects of the relevant technology and human hearing dictates. When we knew what format was what (not blind), however, suddenly subtle to significant differences were audible between the formats, at least to some. Curious indeed. Well, not really, that is precisely just as the entering or removing of the psychological/perceptual distortions of expectation and placebo would predict.
So I actually have not "rushed" into my conclusion as you assume and, as such, mine is a conviction based upon both empirical testing and the rational scrutiny of the available evidence revolving around related issues (and I have an engineer friend to help with the technical aspects I'm not well versed in), not a mere unfounded or totally subjective opinion on the level of "I like orange and not lime green".
(But I have not always posted this info. so your assumption is not entirely unwarranted or premature. To turn this around, however, I can also justly assume that you have perhaps rushed to your position based on placebo/expectation and no actual personal scientific listening tests or even research into the matter which strongly evidences that the purported audio benefits claimed to be gained from "hi res" are highly dubious, to put it mildly, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt nonetheless).
That said, just like with everything else, if I'm given proper solid evidence that undermines or even totally falsifies my position then, to remain a sane, rational, and honest person, I MUST either entirely discard or amend that position as the new information/reality dictates and openly admit I was either partly or entirely wrong (for whatever reason). This has happened before and I'm sure will happen again, just as it has with many scientists or philosophers who, given new or more complete evidence or knowledge, have also come to hold a position that is sometimes diametrically opposed to their former stance or at least is a more qualified and tentative view of their former position. No one mind is infallible, and one must always hold all "truth" to be provisional, never wholly certain.
But that does not, of course, mean that one should retain a view of epistemological agnosticism regarding well established phenomena; that would be both intellectually irresponsible and irrational. On one view, for instance, the only fundamental or basic fact of which we homo sapiens can truly be certain of is that each of us, as an individual self, exists in the moment that we reflect upon said existence. Not only is the reality of an external material world unprovable, but even a self which is continuous, exists over time. But one would be strange indeed to truly believe this radical Solipsism, as it is known: that there is no external world in any sense and only inner thoughts or mental states exist (not even a material mind/brain of which these are predicated on) in the moment they are thought, much less to live by it. Once again, as the dictum goes, "A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence." I would reword this to say "A rational person proportions his or her belief(s) to the cognitively compelling evidence and not the mere possible." (for, again, almost anything is "possible"). But however phrased the meaning is the same.
In the end what I or anyone else thinks on this matter is of no major import: what matters is what reality dictates independently of fallible minds. I don't begrudge those who find "hi res" material to sound better than "regular/low res" in one sense simply because they enjoy it and that is good. I do think they are fundamentally mistaken and probably haven't researched or tested their assumptions and I do take umbrage with the ones who act smug towards those who are skeptical about their dubious position for that is entirely unwarranted (it is akin to people acting condescending towards people who "believe in" the empirical reality of gravitational theory or evolutionary theory...imo these are not faulty analogies here). But for the ones who simply hold an attitude of "It sounds good/better to me, it's cool if you don't think so, and you're right, my position lacks evidential support/I have not researched the matter to see if my belief is empirically supported" (which includes a couple of my friends) I have no issues with.
I will say no more, enough off-topic.
Everything that can be said on this issue has been before on other forums in any case and can be easily googled.
