Pricing of High Definition Downloads

Loath as I am to court controversy (don't laugh), can I recommend a look at a thread on this issue on the Linn forum: "24/192 downloads and why they make no sense"?

I was convinced of the superiority of my hi-rez downloads until I read this and set up a double-blind listening test for myself.  I posted my methodology and the results (no better than random) and prompted a deluge of vitriol that makes debate with creationists sound conversational.

The upshot was that though hi-rez was defended with fundamentalist zeal, not only did no-one post their own double-blind listening results (with one not fully conclusive exception), the testing process itself was attacked and rubbished as irrelevant!

I have read widely on this issue and am convinced that either in only very exceptional circumstances by very few listeners can a difference between 24/192 and standard CD quality resolution be detected, or that the difference is undetectable by the human ear.

Needless the say, I don't buy hi-rez downloads at double the cost of 16bit recordings any more.

Vic.

This might be worth a look:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

A double-blind test is not too difficult to set up, and as someone I debated this issue with said (in the "Buying and Downloading Lossless Formats" thread here), "what have you got to lose?"  

To say I was surprised at the result is an understatement.

I am not arguing that the pursuit of high resolution into areas possibly beyond human hearing is not worthwhile because it presumably leads to innovations in related areas of excellence, but to claim (and charge highly for) a difference that few or none can hear when they don't know which format they are listening to is important information for consumer choice.

Vic.

An absolute right indeed.  There's no argument with that.   As delusion go, this is certainly one of the least harmful.  Just a bit expensive, as you say.   However  ...

I too have seen the article quite effectively refuted.  I've also seen it quite effectively defended.   There is no dispute about the extra information these hi-rez downloads can carry.  What no study has ever done is prove that it can be heard.  At best they show a slight statistical significance one way or the other, depending on the study.  Which is why a properly conducted double-blind listening test would be conclusive for each individual, should he/she wish to settle the matter personally.

As I wrote earlier, I did, and couldn't detect a difference - despite being absolutely convinced beforehand that I could!    This could be down to my own hearing, of course.  Or to my equipment, though as it was with Linn downloads on mid-range Linn equipment, I doubt it.  Despite hundreds of views on the Linn thread on this debate, only one person posted a positive result (correct: 64%).  Given that dozens were attacking the article, I would have thought that posting personal listening results would have been powerful evidence, if it had been found.  The silence I took to be significant.  

Food for thought, at least.

Vic.

...However, any "musician or listener" may become an "audiophile", if he/she can hear the difference...And they can, when they have access to listening to a better product!

Pricing is always an issue, though.

Parla

I totally agree with Scoastlistener. There is almost no extra cost for high definition audio files. The cost of manufacturing and packaging are inexistant. However, there is a cost of storage/stocking as they have to pay servers.

In my opinion, a fair price would be the same price of a CD. Some labels are selling with really too high prices (Linn, Channel classics). However, Hyperion is selling flac HD fairly priced in my opinion. The higher price can be justified in some cas if you have some options. In France, there is Qobuz which "save" your order so you can download it as many times as you want. It is not the case for most of the labels because it needs obviously some work to setup this kind of platform and service.

Interesting discussion but I did find it a little negative. After
reading I did my own blind test by playing the Stereo CD and Stereo
SACD tracks from three classical SACDs, with my wife alternating
between the two, and I was able to detect the difference in all of
them. I next downloaded a "sampler" from the Linn site in
24/192 (stereo only) and did notice an improvement over a CD. My
wife (who is from Yorkshire where they don't like spending their
brass) then proceeded to royally put a spanner in the works by saying
that the downloads did not sound as good as our best Hyperion CDs, of
which we have more than a few!

I do agree about the high price of 24/192 downloads. The Linn site
allows you to download 24/192 recording from the Pentatone label. Not
only is the price higher than the equivalent SACD but to add insult
to injury they are only available in stereo whereas most Pentatone
SACDs are multichannel.

However I let's not overlook the effort and knowledge
that goes into these new sources and give some credit to the
engineers concerned. To me there are observable improvements but as in the past,
the results are very much the law of diminishing returns. I think it
very much depends on your equipment. It wasn't until we seriously
updated our equipment that we were able to spot the sonic
improvements in higher density sources, be they SACD or 24/192. To me the question is what is
practical and economical for us as collectors? If these improved
sources were priced more reasonably, would there be more interest?

There has been a lot of talk about the
differences between CDs, LPs and SACDs etc. but no one has offered
any listening parameters for a blind test. In other words, exactly what
are we listening for? At the moment it depends on entirely who is
listening and what is being listened to and as such becomes somewhat
arbitrary. I think that once we consider formulating listening
criteria and desired results,  then the task of conducting a
valid blind test becomes a lot more difficult