SUMMER MUSINGS: "Final" ceiling absorption 😉. AI-assisted summary of Floyd Toole's thoughts on early reflections treatment & discussion on this.

Hey guys and gals, it's July and thus time to enjoy some summer jams, BBQ, and family time ahead. And of course getting into the "Summer Musings" season here on the blog!

Let's "shoot the breeze" and talk about a couple of things in this post related to discussions over the last while with room treatments and acoustics you might want to consider for your own space.

First, as you can see in the picture above, despite the self-proclaimed statement that I was "done", I just had one more little addition to add. I cleaned up and optimized my seating area a little and realized that the rear ceiling panel wasn't exactly overhead. So I added an extra 2' x 4' x 0.8" PET panel immediately overhead above the main listening position. [I also spent some time optimizing the height channels and DSP recalibration along the way.]

Images from San Francisco: Audio Vision SF, B&O Flagship Store, Amoeba Music. Question of greater importance: music or gear?

It's an interesting experience I think to pop into local "brick and mortar" audiophile stores when traveling (like this, this, this over the years). This past week, I've been in San Francisco visiting family. We happened to stay within walking distance from what I think is the most well-stocked audiophile gear store in the city - Audio Vision San Francisco - located in the Nob Hill neighborhood. They're opened on weekends, closed on Tuesday, and by appointment on Mondays.

Chatting with the salesperson, I was told the store opened about 26 years ago. I suspect most audiophiles will be impressed when you walk into the store and see their selection of gear sitting in the hallway!

As if higher prices always correlate to fidelity: Stereophile's Defense of Luxury Audio & the false Binding Statement of High-End Audio.

Hublot Big Bang Unico, ~US$20k+ depending on model.

Hey everyone, I just got back from the wonderful trip to Central Europe and figured I'd extend some thoughts expressed in the previous article: The Luxury of Sound and Time: Audiophile products, the Rolex and Timex Analogy.

That article went online October 12th and I was surprised to see Stereophile posted their article “In Defense of Sticker Shock” on October 17th written by Rogier van Bakel featuring a fancy looking, but inexpensive quartz wristwatch as the title image; what synchronicity! I assume his article must have been published in print/e-magazine earlier than when it showed up online.

I see the article pretty much opens with this statement:

Say “$10,000 DAC” and watch audio-forum commenters descend like pigeons on a dropped hot dog, flapping and furious.

Yeah, that's probably a fair observation! However, I think the first question we must ask ourselves is: “What’s wrong with that?”

The Luxury of Sound and Time: Audiophile products, the Rolex and Timex Analogy.

Left: This certified authentic Used Rolex Cosmograph Daytona Watch, with the Model Number: 126598TRU, has a Yellow Gold/Diamonds 40 mm Round Case with Screw Down Crown and a Gem Set. This Men's Rolex Cosmograph Daytona has an attractive Diamond Pave Dial with Gems Dial Markers. The certified Swiss tested Rolex Automatic Movement will keep perfect time for you. The elegantly designed Rolex Yellow Gold with will look great on your wrist.

Right: Timex Men's Waterbury Classic Chrono 40mm Stainless Steel Quartz Dress Watch with Leather Strap. Reviewed to be one of the best well-priced mecha-quartz watches.

If we plug in the phrase "Rolex vs. Timex" into Google, we'll see that there have been a number of articles written about this topic aimed at wristwatch hobbyists that compare and contrast things like history, the products, features, and prices (like this). For the purpose of our discussion here, the actual brands are of could not too important; these are mere archetypes - Rolex the Swiss brand that caters to the prestige luxury market, while Timex is an American company (originally started as the Waterbury Clock Company in 1854, these days American-Dutch) known to produce mass-market time pieces for the "common man"; to satisfy the needs of kids, the athlete, and yes, even dipping its toes into the luxury market though nothing like the Rolex brand price-wise. As per their classic slogan suggesting the device is meant for the conditions of daily life, the Timex - "It takes a licking, and keeps on ticking."

Over the years on this blog, I've touched on the ideas behind luxury products - here and here for example. We've also discussed the wine-tasting pursuit compared to audiophilia, but I think there is an even better analogy we can make when we look at something like the wristwatch collector (horophile) hobby. Since both audio products and watches are products of technological evolution, I believe there are similarities when it comes to the trajectory of these products, the industries behind their production, the consumers who buy them, the way they are portrayed in advertising (including in reviews) and social sentiment.

So grab a comfortable seat, maybe get a nice beverage, let's take some time to think and discuss...

SUMMER MUSINGS: What could possibly be wrong with the High-End Audiophile Industry?! 🤔 (The supplier side of audiophoolery.)

Alas all good things end including summer, so this will be the last instalment to my "Summer Musings" series for the year. For completeness, since we talked about the "audiophool" consumer hobbyist last time, let's make sure to address the other side of the coin when it comes to audiophile silliness - the supplier - manufacturers, and the media that sell us stuff.

As a pre-emptive comment against sounding like a grumpy old man who doesn't want audiophiles to have fun, let me just say that this commentary is not against "having fun". If fun means enjoying your music, trying out different hardware, exploring the various sounds you can achieve at all kinds of price points, I'm totally on board with that!

However, freedom to do all kinds of things obviously doesn't imply that we shut down our brains and accept that "anything goes!". Many things can be a lot of fun at the time but not good for us, the hangover could be nasty, and regrets more common than we might want to admit. So if there's foolishness when it comes to the Industry itself, let's make sure to think about that and come to terms with it for ourselves.

In the recent post about audiophoolery, Solderdude and Mikhail wrote the following comments:

Solderdude 18 August 2025 at 23:13

I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all). Examples could be Paul McClown and Danny.

Some, for sure, are just unscrupulous money grabbers (think Machina Dynamica and absurdly priced cable sellers).

And, oh boy, most audiophools as well as audiophiles usually have plenty of money to spend on their hobby and being human and lacking actual knowledge are very easy to 'hear' things that aren't there just as they are equally fooled by optical illusions.

Some might simply have fallen for the same 'perception effects' and fully believe in what they are selling. Are these sellers also unscrupulous ?

Perhaps only the ones that sell their wares at way too high margins for what it costs to manufacture ?

Mikhail 19 August 2025 at 07:18

Should we start calling this sector of the audio industry "alternative engineering"? If there was Federal Audio Administration they would require putting labels like "Claims not verified by double blind testing" and "This product is not intended to actually improve the sound of your audio system" on their products.

Interesting points. Let's talk about this.

MUSINGS: Trust, empirical testing, and evidence in the Audiophile hobby. And the Double Blind Test (DBT) strawman argument.

For this post, let's spend a little bit of time thinking about "levels of evidence" in audiophilia. This is important because it helps determine how we gauge the veracity of the articles we read and how we build confidence as we create our own internal models of the topics covered in this hobby.

Inevitably, if we stick around this hobby of audio gear and products long enough, we'll come across the abbreviation 'DBT' - that dreaded Double Blind Test; that seemingly ultimate methodological scientific "gold standard" in human research to tell us whether an intervention or change in our systems actually resulted in a worthwhile difference.

But do audiophiles actually throw around the comment "You need to do a DBT!" very often? Or insist that "I don't believe that unless a DBT proves it!". The answer is 'NO!'- of course not!

Let's start by zooming out a bit and thinking about the very big picture...

MUSINGS: The need for full-range sound (likely with subwoofers) in audiophile systems. [And Ojas New Ageism?]

"As an audiophile with an eclectic taste in music, I feel that life is too short not to enjoy the full audible frequency range."

That statement above is just an audiophile's (my) opinion. While I know some audiophiles debate about the need for the use of subwoofers, it has always been a "must" for my reference systems over the decades. Obviously, it's not really my business what anyone else buys or enjoys for themselves. My only intent in this post is to remind audiophiles that most of our passive speaker systems, including relatively large floor-standers, are frequency bandwidth limited (for human hearing).

I know that there are some audiophiles and well-known reviewers out there who have expressed aversion towards the need for full-frequency reproduction - basically flat frequency response down to 20Hz - as a priority. Since robust low-frequency reproduction below 40-50Hz commonly requires an adequate subwoofer, it's surprising to me that the idea of having one isn't more universal among audiophiles, and there are often comments like this warning of issues that come across as dissuasive.

MUSINGS: Words, worldviews, and the multimodal expansion of AI. [Let's have some fun with generative AI in 2024.]

"If language is as inextricably tied up with consciousness as it seems to be, then the continuing diminishment of our inclination to use it to express in letters the times in which we live could mean that an element of human consciousness itself is on the verge of disappearing."   --- Anonymous

I saw this interesting comment above during my readings across the Internet this past week. I guess it triggered in me some thoughts around writing articles these days with the rise of audience engagement with video, the bold new world of AI "generative" technologies, and trust in the sources we read/listen/watch. In this post, let's just "shoot the breeze" with some meandering musings around these themes and navigate through some complex ideas... 🤓

Years ago, during the heat of the MQA Affair, I talked about writing these blog pages using a pseudonym. That was in response to MQA's issue around anonymity; perhaps they were paranoid that I was an industry player or working for a competitor. These days, in the face of increasingly sophisticated artificial agents roaming the Internet, foreign influences, machine-generated content (including artificially generated audio and video), I think it's quickly becoming old-fashioned to worry about just mere human anonymity having nefarious intent!

Now that my writings have spanned more than a decade, I trust that readers know that I'm actually very much a "real" guy behind the keyboard who's passionate about audio reproduction, sharing my perspectives on the high-fidelity pursuit as an audiophile of the early 21st Century. I have my philosophical views, thoughts on the importance of objective hardware fidelity and adequacy, the importance music itself as the origin of the art we admire and the emotions evoked rather than attributing too much of this to the hardware.

Furthermore, I trust my writings have been internally consistent in presenting my audiophile worldview, built up based on objective fundamentals. Comparatively, I think this is quite different from what we typically read elsewhere coming from most magazine writers. My beliefs are often at odds with the interviews given by Industry experts, and I hope these accumulated articles have been vastly more in-depth than superficial opinions on social media.

The Dolby Atmos Music Target Curve. And on being an audiophile "tonmeister".

[For the post this week, let's take a pause from the Pacific Audio Fest 2024 discussions (last 2 weeks). Next week we'll have a Part III discussion about audio shows.]

Standardization is generally good.

I've discussed in previous posts that Dolby Atmos defines loudness characteristics for recordings and this has helped preserve dynamic range in multichannel/Atmos albums following their guidelines. Likewise, we can benefit from standardization of the frequency response as this will allow us to better "translate" the sound from the studio into our sound rooms. This idea is not new for audiophiles. The ill-fated (with good reason) MQA promised that we could experience the "sound of the studio", but they never could deliver in a large part because there was never any standardization for essential parameters like the frequency response, among other failings. In the same way, back in the day (~2014), this was the promise of hi-res audio by Neil Young and Pono that you would somehow get the "finest digital copy" and this would represent the sound the artists intended from the studio; clearly they overpromised and under-delivered by 2015.

It's one thing to standardize between the studio and home ("inter-system") playback, but it's also important to standardize "intra-system" - that is, between all the speakers in your set-up when you're doing multichannel such that each speaker is calibrated to the same timbre. This is important in a multichannel layout since we do not want "objects" moving through space changing tonality because of mismatch between speakers around the listener. The Dolby Atmos Music Target Curve is Dolby's recommendation for the music studio frequency response. This curve evolved from the X-Curve, an 'X'perimental frequency response based on some early empirical work exploring the performance of actual theater sound systems starting in the 1970's, and evolved over the years. See this paper for more details, note some similarity of the Dolby Atmos Music Target Curve to the SMPTE 202M - 1998 X-Curve.

As with all things in audio, nothing wrong with asking whether this curve is the "best". 🤔

SUMMER MUSINGS: What are the most important audio components? Domains / dimensions of the audiophile pursuit.

[Available as audio podcast summary.]

The other day, I came upon another common question we run into within the audiophile forum communities. The thread topic on the Steve Hoffman Forums read: "What is more important? The quality of the source devices or the quality of the amp and speakers?"

Among the pages, in response to the question, there was this one listing items as such:

1 (tie). Source material, i.e. the recording, the mix and master, etc.
1 (tie). Speakers
3. Your hearing
4. Analog source playback device
5. Your room
6. Your mood
7 (tie). Digital source playback device
7 (tie). Amplification

A good list to start with! Let's spend some time in this post thinking more about this, adding more details, and broadening it out. Clearly, this (and variants of this) topic is one of those "classic" big-picture questions that demand a more nuanced and complete take. Specifically, let's make sure to contextualize the response with what I believe are relevant dimensions or domains to include.

MUSINGS: On Hardware Audiophilia and Wine Tasting.

Across the years of audiophile discussions, we sometimes will see parallels drawn between the world of the oenophile (wine connoisseur) and hardware audiophile. While both pursuits involve a strong subjective component since the ultimate intent is enjoyment, there are also clearly differences when we take the time to compare them. I actually don't think many of the heated debates among audiophiles have meaningful analogues within the wine-tasting world.

Recently, in this thread on Steve Hoffman Forum about "snake oil", J-Flo made a nice comment on this; let's have a look at his post and I'll add my observations and thoughts with some opportunity to expand upon the ideas.

EARLY LOOK (Part II): E1DA #9039S USB Balanced DAC dongle/headphone amp - DSD and performance under load. A few more words on the "need" for higher DAC fidelity!

Last week, I published Part I of the review/measurements on the upcoming E1DA #9039S USB dongle DAC/headphone amplifier. Already, we've seen that this ESS ES9039Q2M-based balanced DAC produces very clean, high-resolution sound.

As we continue, let's delve deeper into the performance of this little device. We'll have a look at some features like DSD performance and more importantly, let's examine the balanced amplifier output when subjected to headphone-like loads to see how well it performs.

MUSINGS: Fidelity, Immersion, and Realism (FIR) - Levels of Audiophile Attainment

As we start 2024, let's think about a "big picture" topic. Like with most things in life, I find it useful to think about the overarching philosophy - the "forest" if you will - alongside the details - the "trees" - which is when we get down to measurements and tests of specific products. Hopefully by doing this we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of whatever it might be we're engaged in.

As discussed years ago, I don't think the audiophile hobby is a monolithic entity based on only one core pursuit. In reality, it's a multitude of hobbyist pursuits ranging from the "music lover", to the "hardware audiophile", to subgroups like the "gear hoarder", "LP collector", even "high end (luxury) enthusiast", each of us at varying levels of emotional intensity; even resulting in more "fetishistic" extremes! 🙄

We're not a particularly large group of hobbyists. Sure, there are billions of music lovers out there, but when it comes to guys (mostly) wanting to talk about audiophile hardware, geeky high-fidelity (transparency) reproduction, and things that appear extravagant to the general public, there really are not many of us. It's also hard to know if this hobby is growing, stagnant or diminishing in numbers.

As I look around at magazine reviews and YouTube videos, that idea of stagnation has entered my mind many times over the last few years. Not just wondering about the numbers of audiophiles and whether the hobby is growing, but rather, in what directions are we as hobbyists going forward, if even at all!

Approaching the mid-2020's, are we still in search of "High Fidelity" after all these decades and the multitudes of products? Maybe, maybe not... Let's talk about some ideas which I believe are the goals that audiophiles can aspire to which I've acronymized as FIR - Fidelity, Immersion, and Realism.

MUSINGS: On the duplicity of hi-fi audio anti-measurers? The John DeVore example.

The Hall of Measurement Devices.

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be." --- Lord Kelvin, Popular Lectures and Addresses vol. 1 (1889) ‘Electrical Units of Measurement’, delivered 3 May 1883

"What is measured, improves." --- Peter Drucker (from The Effective Executive) 

"When performance is measured, performance improves. When performance is measured and reported back, the rate of improvement accelerates." --- Karl Pearson

A longstanding debate over the years in the audiophile pursuit sadly is that of whether measurements are important in audio. Obviously, to me, and I think the vast majority of the world, the answer is "Of course it does!". One does not need to be a scientist of Lord Kelvin's stature or a statistician like Pearson, or a management consultant like Drucker to see the wisdom of such a basic idea which probably is one of the founding principles giving rise to our modern technologically sophisticated world.

Can you think of a single technological pursuit where the use of measurement instruments of some sort isn't beneficial to help gauge the effectiveness, efficiency, or value of a device which has been invented, produced, or manufactured? Is this not doubly important if that devices is supposedly built to a high "standard", reportedly made with quality and care? Typically at a higher cost like the things of "high end" audio?

Well, apparently, there are supposedly respected people in the audiophile world, designers even, who seem to think otherwise about the importance of measurements...

A Psychoacoustic Rationale for the Subjective Evaluation of Stereophonic Sound Systems by Reviewers and Audiophiles (Ralph Glasgal)

With the discussion of ambiophonics ("ambio") and crosstalk cancellation (XTC) last time, I came across a number of fascinating writings from Ralph Glasgal in the Ambiophonics Facebook group. The one below is one of them I think worth considering that I had not seen before, explicitly written as copyright-free. I've made some mild formatting edits and wording substitutions/additions for clarity as well as emphasis in areas I felt of importance. I trust this mildly edited version retains the full meaning and intent of the original found at the group above. A copy of this has been sent to Mr. Glasgal but I'm not sure if he's reviewing his E-mails or active in audio discussions these days in his 90s.

A Psychoacoustic Rationale for the Subjective Evaluation of Stereophonic Sound Systems by Reviewers and Audiophiles

By Ralph Glasgal, BEP, MSEE, AES, IEEE

glasgal@ambiophonics.org

(original text posted on Facebook - October 15, 2015)

The oft repeated assertion that high end components of stereo systems can only be truly evaluated by listening rather than by measurement or blind A/B testing by listening panels has been argued for decades now. The following text will, I believe, provide a psychoacoustic explanation of why this position is largely correct and not a question of practicing voodoo audio.

Very few audiophiles will want to read what follows since it is rather long, too technical, and not what they are used to reading in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. But this article is for the record, for discussion forums, and to have it available for future debates. Anybody is free to use or forward this text. It is not copyrighted. Supporting technical references by a variety of authors are available at ambiophonics.org (mirrored).

The Different Types of Subjectivisms in Audiophilia (And How to Get Rid of Them) - guest Taylor Christensen

By Taylor Christensen

I joined the audiophile hobby less than 10 years ago, and, as a person who relies heavily on understanding and applying scientific literature in my day job, I was baffled (pun intended) to discover the extent to which the culture of this hobby is shaped by “pseudosciency” beliefs and even frank scientific ignorance, especially when considering the high prevalence of the audiophile community being well educated and affluent.

Since then, I have thought a lot about this phenomenon. Whenever I am trying to make sense of the world, I find that exhaustive, mutually exclusive categorizations help a great deal, and I have come up with such a categorization that helps me organize and understand the strange things we see in this culture.

To communicate clearly, I need to explicitly define any words whose definitions may be ambiguous – in this case especially, because they sound very similar. Therefore, let me start with three definitions.

The first one, which I will be using frequently throughout this article, is "subjectivism," which I am defining as "any false belief in audibility".

Contrast that with the second word I want to define: "subjectivity," which relates to a person having a personal preference.

Audiophile Survey, early 2023: Who we are (including age and gender). What we use. How we think.

Well ladies and gentlemen, thanks to all who took the time to complete the information in the open "SURVEY: What audio playback system and/or streaming music service are you using in 2023?" post. The survey collected responses from February 11 to May 5, 2023 on this blog, and as usual, the responses came from audio lovers around the world, receiving in total 1330 entries with general information on demographics, broadly what kinds of systems are being used, multichannel playback, interest in masterings, and for those using streaming subscriptions, which ones.

As with any survey, we have to start with some context for the data. Obviously, the individuals who submitted results to me would have been primarily the viewers on this blog although I know the survey was advertised at various audiophile-related forums. I did not do any special advertising personally, other than mentioning it on a few forums I visited like Audiophile Style or Steve Hoffman Forum. I don't maintain much of a social media presence so basically just let the survey diffuse across the Internet.

Given the nature of this blog and its contents, I'd like to think that this survey will tell us about some of the characteristics of the subgroup of intelligent, reasonable, balanced, technically savvy, prudently skeptical, practical audiophiles around the world in the first half of 2023. ;-)

Musings & Meditations on the intersections between clinical care and audiophilia.

The "Monastery" of Petra (Jordan); carved out probably around 1st Century CE. Harder to get to, but I thought this was just as awe inspiring as the "Treasury" made famous in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".

In the last month, I had the pleasure of travelling through Jordan and Israel. As I pondered on some of the sights and sounds of the ancient civilizations, I wondered among other things, perhaps not surprisingly, on the audiophile pursuit for the purposes on this blog. :-)

Regardless of culture, we as humans share the same universal hopes, fears, and desires as we carve out a place in this world for our families and ourselves. Whether it's with a street vendor in Amman or some guy in a Shanghai night market, haggling over the best price for a souvenir T-shirt is essentially the same process. Nobody wants a bad deal, or items below expected quality.

We can discuss academically about the mechanisms of price discovery, study the complex verbal and nonverbal negotiation techniques, or explore macroeconomic determinants of supply and demand. Whether it’s getting a decent T-shirt or purchasing "high-fidelity" audio products, as consumers, value is always a core consideration as I've discussed many times over the years as a recurring theme (including here, here and here).

Coincidentally, a few weeks prior to leaving on vacation, I had a discussion on Audiophile Style with Andrew Quint who writes for The Absolute Sound. Like him, I work as a doctor and engage in the art and science of clinical care of and with people every day while pursuing the audiophile hobby in my free time. Over the years, I have virtually met some of you on forums and through E-mails also coming from clinical backgrounds whether as pharmacist, psychologists, therapists, nurses, etc. This article germinated during my travels as I thought about the complexity of clinical care and likewise some of the complexities that arise in audiophile discussions. Thankfully, related themes are nowhere as complicated or potentially perilous for us audiophiles and the epistemological debates among us seem safely parabolical of more significant ideological differences beyond just this little hobby sandbox

Since clinical care is a huge topic, permit me to talk somewhat loosely about some points of intersection since I think these factors have affected my attitudes toward the audiophile hobby and informed the judgments I make when reviewing products contained in these pages. These ideas may resonate with your own thinking as an audiophile.

(Along the way in this article, let me show you some pictures I took during the vacation!)

The Audiophile Wisdom of ChatGPT (Feb 13, 2023 Version): Learnings from an artificial intellect on an esoteric hobby. (And on creativity?)

I'm sure none of us these days have escaped news about ChatGPT from OpenAI. Articles have been ubiquitous covering the implications of what this "chatbot" is able to do. No doubt, there will be deep implications stemming from this technology already being debated through the halls of academia on how it will affect everything from education, to work, to legal ramifications. As with any likely transformative technology, there will be promise and fear.

Already, I've seen many articles out there including in our little corner of the universe with Stereophile's "As We See It" in February referencing ChatGPT.

As you're likely aware, ChatGPT achieves its remarkable abilities based on Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-3.5) "large language model", a sophisticated "self-supervised" general AI model based on >175B parameters combed through 570GB of data as text off the Internet, books, and Wikipedia. Yes, human feedback is part of the training process and data continues to be gathered from users to improve the model. At the time of this article, the openly available online ChatGPT has been trained with data up until September 2021 as can be seen here:

Arch: Who won the Superbowl in 2023?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but I am not capable of predicting future events as I am a machine learning model trained on historical data. As of my knowledge cutoff date, which is in September 2021, the most recent Super Bowl was Super Bowl LVII and it has not happened yet. It is scheduled to take place on February 5, 2023, so we won't know the winner until the game is played.

Given the level of knowledge ChatGPT has access to, I wondered how would it perform currently in March 2023 if asked about broad audiophile topics. I think this is interesting because the answers it gives must be an integration of all those hundreds of gigabytes of texts fed into the system. What does all that information teach the machine about the current understanding of audiophile topics? Are the answers reasonable, and relatively free of errors? Do the answers show "common sense" or even a level of "wisdom" one might wish to receive when talking to a knowledgeable audiophile friend requesting advice?

Let's dive into a Q&A discussion and see what ChatGPT can tell us about this niche audiophile hobby... (Grab a warm beverage by the fireside friends, we go deep and broad.)

Internet Blind Test: 24-Bit vs. Dithered 16-Bit Part Deux - Daft Punk Edition! And the honest desire to seek truth as audiophiles.

BTW: 1.5kHz sine waveform, -65dBFS. 16-bits on the left, 24-bits on the right.

It's amazing how time flies. Nine years ago - 2014 - at a time when hi-res audio downloads were being promoted as the "next best thing" for audiophiles, we ran a 24-bit vs. 16-bit blind listening test on this blog. I'll leave you to examine the results.

Since then, electronics like DACs have advanced quite significantly. Compared to 2014, these days, high quality asynchronous USB DACs have become ubiquitous. Jitter is basically a non-issue now. Inexpensive audio streamers like Raspberry Pi devices can be easily put together. We can all play music with wide selections of digital filters without great difficulty. Very high quality headphone amps and phenomenal headphones have become commonplace with a growing "head-fi" community.

Recently, I had some fun on this Steve Hoffman Forums thread engaging in the discussion about 16-bit vs. 24-bit; the topic of audibility again came up. As usual, things can get pretty contentious among audiophiles and since it has been awhile and perhaps some of you did not have the opportunity to participate in 2014, let's do a blind test again for those wanting to listen to 24-bit vs. 16-bit audio.

Let's use popular music rather than the more esoteric 24-bit 2L classical recordings last time - let's try some "classic" Daft Punk. ;-)