Absolutely agree, bit- and sample rates beyond 44.1 khz / 16-bit sound the same to me. I always listen at that sampling rate even though some people on the forums claim that 24-bit or even 48 khz (the sample rate used for movies and video games) is superior; I could never tell.
You have made me curious about the beatles now. Never been into them, but I will try to listen to a vinyl record of theirs and compare it with a digital one. For Michael Jackson I already prefer the original vinyl over the digitally remastered albums.
I’m currently listening mostly on old speakers and an amp from 1979, plugged into a modern pre-amp and DAC. I’ve got two proper pairs of headphones, but these old speakers I bought for 5 quids from eBay can keep up with them quite well. So well that I rarely find myself using headphones. Judging by “numbers” they should be inferior to my headphones, but in reality they just sound different, not worse. Bigger soundstage, more “real”, less detailed, I’d say.
Absolutely agree, bit- and sample rates beyond 44.1 khz / 16-bit sound the same to me. I always listen at that sampling rate even though some people on the forums claim that 24-bit or even 48 khz (the sample rate used for movies and video games) is superior; I could never tell.
You have made me curious about the beatles now. Never been into them, but I will try to listen to a vinyl record of theirs and compare it with a digital one. For Michael Jackson I already prefer the original vinyl over the digitally remastered albums.
I’m currently listening mostly on old speakers and an amp from 1979, plugged into a modern pre-amp and DAC. I’ve got two proper pairs of headphones, but these old speakers I bought for 5 quids from eBay can keep up with them quite well. So well that I rarely find myself using headphones. Judging by “numbers” they should be inferior to my headphones, but in reality they just sound different, not worse. Bigger soundstage, more “real”, less detailed, I’d say.