Focus on 24/192 Misguided?.....


As I've upgraded by digital front end over the last few years, like most people I've been focused on 24/192 and related 'hi rez' digital playback and music to get the most from my system. However, I read this pretty thought provoking article on why this may be a very bad idea:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Maybe it's best to just focus on as good a redbook solution as you can, although there seem to be some merits to SACD, if for nothing else the attention to recording quality.
128x128outlier
It no his arguments, but the conclusions he draws that takes him over the top.

Much of his argument is premised upon amplifier circuits not being able to handle ultra sonic signals cleanly. Do they still make high end electronics that can't handle a 100kHz signal?
Al, My DAC and perhaps a lot of them cuts at 45kHz. AFAIK vinyl recordings also extend to about 50kHz. It is considered to be an advantage of vinyl.
Outlier - thanks for posting the liink. Very interesting and helpful article - no matter what side you come down on in the hi res debate. Thanks also to Bombaywalla for the "beginners guide" link. Am I missing something or isn't the convenience of computer-based audio going to apply whether or not music files are hi res?
I guess if you are happy with 16/44 then that is all that matters, but there is a whole lot more to be had.
Onhwy61, yes most of the electronics today is still well below 100KHz bandwidth. Hi-end does not mean hi bandwidth; it means better sonics in the 20-20K band. It might be easier for preemie to extend to 10s of KHz above 20K but for power amps to have a power bandwidth of 100KHz will cost you very close to a 2nd mortgage. Don't believe me, do some research yourself & find out just how many power amps have a power bandwidth that even touches 50KHz. Find out what your gears' bandwidths are. Almost all audio gear was never meant to amplify ultrasonics. The Pro studio gear might be a different ball of wax. Thanx.