That's the pop sci version of the math, but in reality every downconversion from 24 bit to 16 bit, or DSD to 16 bit, is quite audible (and depressing), as are sample rate conversions. This is even at lower volumes where the popular understanding says there should be no difference. If you have a good ear you can even hear the signature of each dither or noise-shaping scheme used in the conversions. They do not sound the same, hence the existence of hi-res downloads and discs.
Of course, there are engineers that insist otherwise, but IMO most of them rely on textbooks, and visual displays, don't use their ears, and often aren't open to new information.
I noticed that Steve Hoffman - a rather famous mastering engineer for SACD who has worked with some of the biggest artists in the industry owns an Audio Note CD player and DAC (4.1x) and seeing Audio Note gear, in general, creeping into a few recording studios - Damian Quintard (Emmy winner for sound) uses this stuff to make Dolby Atmos recordings. It's kind of off to see SET amplifiers for such a purpose. I think there is something being missed - it is not so much the CD format or DAC chip but everything else involved. Back around the year 2000 I remember someone noting to me that if I had not heard Audio Note CD replay then I had never heard CD done properly. So the fact that SACD or DSD sounds better than a Naim CD player or a Sony CD player is one thing - but the AN CD players are another animal. Over 25 years with NOS No digital/analog filters - I have seen a vast amount of "copiers" from Zanden at the high-end price range to Border Patrol, and several others trying to get in on that non-oversampling no filter approach.
Martin Colloms often does double-blind level matched sessions and AN's top DAC took apart all other DACs including all the hi-res models. So even with down-conversion the AN Fifth Element was winning out. It makes no logical sense - crappy measured performance and not playing natively - so it must come down to the inherent design and perhaps the output stage. But all the yacking about all this stuff is worthless for the most part because this is an experiential hobby. There is too much informational/sight/price/prestige/measurements, etc bias out there that influence listeners.
If a person believes tube amps are flabby and slow then that is what their brain/eye interface will "hear" when they listen to a tube amplifier just as 16 bit will be "heard" to be inferior if the listener holds that belief before they listen.
Peter wrote an article in the 1990s called Comparison by Contrast where if one is looking for the most accurate piece of gear - that piece of gear should have the highest degree of contrast. So in a CD player the player that makes 10 albums sound the most different from each other has more of a chance of being the most accurate because there is no way for the consumer to know how all the albums were recorded (but we know they were all recorded differently).
I had always felt that way when listening to gear (without the article) but PQ put it to words. I remembered listening to a Magnepan Speaker and I thought - these are pretty cool but everything kinda sounds exactly the same. I put on Beethoven, Lady Gaga (the Fame), Jackson Browne Acoustic and I thought the "sound field" presents it all the same. There is very little contrast - nice as the speakers are at what they do well - they didn't separate the compressed pop album all that different than the superior acoustic or classical album. As someone who listens to all genres - the speakers and Quads and MLs are not for me - neither are single drivers. Neither are a lot of CD players that do the same sort of thing.
I noted when listening to Audio Note's 1.1x (an affordable one-box CD player) that it presented some albums thin and bright others warm - on the Pulp Fiction Soundtrack you could hear the shifts - with the Sim Audio Player (which used the same Philips L1210 transport mechanism) presented everything flat. It was a strange thing because at first, we all liked the Sim Audio player better because of that flatness and even keel sound - all tracks sounded homogenous and there is comfort in that. The AN player did not. It required the listeners to work a little bit - one comment in the room was that at least it held his interest even if it sounded a bit rougher.
Are You On The Road To... Audio Hell? Article By Leonard Norwitz And Peter Qvortrup
www.enjoythemusic.com
