@Guinnless it didn’t look commercial to me either.
Yes, there was a link indeed. @Richard.Dane corrected the post and deleted it. I guess I posted something against the rules, therefore I apologize. Can I mention the name of the video @Richard.Dane? Would you be so kind to tell me what’s wrong about the video I posted? I’ve seen other informative videos from Youtube on this platform but their links haven’t been deleted.
Indeed, instruments can tell us there isn’t a difference detectable within the sensitivity of the instruments for the parameters they measure, or that there is a difference but not which our ears will prefer - and different sets of ears may prefer differently.
I agree, what matters is what we hear and perceive. Full stop. And it’s subjective of course. Nevertheless I found that to be an interesting approach, a bit different from the usual IMHO. So I was wondering what other people were thinking about that.
So not really any different from what seems to be the consensus of opinion of hi res vs 16/44 when from the same master, namely that there isn’t a huge audible difference, rather the hi res has “a little more air around the music” - which conceivably could be explained by a lower noise floor.
Indeed, I’ve said a few times on here that 24bit material sounds much better even just 24/44 or 24/48 that aren’t considered ‘hires’. I find it’s much easier to set a preferred volume level on 24bit material too.
There was a recent-ish PS audio video post where in the video the owner of PS Audio said the sampling rate is the most important, I said this was incorrect and may have upset some PS audio customers on here.