Special Features

Yes, but that is cheap. I have two 3TB drives (one is physical backup). They're under $150 these days.

In fact many receivers will play hi-res files via their DLNA network input, so if you have a DLNA server just copy the files into the directory it indexes and away you go.

...you're an Apple fanboy who wants to overcome the 96/24 stock soundcard limit.

there's been some advancement here on information of provenance, but a lot of it is private or lost.

in the hands of mastering 'masters', anything they are given can be taken up to 24/192 and be worthy of a listen. so yes, your statement is correct. it's the new hi-res master if they bothered.

if it's just up sampled it's a scam. no one is advocating that or selling it. when it sneaks through it's pulled and treated as a mistake. pono even offers a lifetime res upgrade.

most things aren't coming from cassette, of course. or 16/44, there's no point. if it's locked at 16/44 when recording it probably is, i don't think any label is in a hurry to get it to 24bit.

it's the old tapes and the new releases that are key here. the old tapes can be digitized again at 24/192, and then sold to consumers finally. the new sessions can be distributed that way, effectively giving the mp3 people their 10% version but still having an outlet for selling the full version.

I'll admit...I have a high frequency hearing cutoff at around 4KHz (both ears), but I still enjoy my music and can have meaningful conversations. I'll also admit purchasing a Sony HAP-S1, HRA player that I like, very much.

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of the hype about HRA. Of the "scientific" studies I've read, all indicate that the (average) human ear simply cannot discern a difference between CD quality audio and HRA. The arguments against HRA are impressive, from the inability of the human ear to hear frequencies in excess of 20KHz, to the problem with the ability to listen (without extreme pain) to audio levels that span a 24dB range (or greater).

This HRA guide reproduces (again) an audio "waveform" that has been shown to be totally inaccurate, in the attempt to relate to the listener the difference between analog and digital audio. I don't know why this information continues to be reproduced, other than to convince non-technical types of the dubious differences between the two mediums. If it weren't for the fact that I work in the field of electronics and have kept abreast of the technological changes, since the tape and vinyl era, I, too, might have been sucked in by this "sleight of hand".

On a similar note...while I might discern the difference between a long run of 28 gauge speaker wire, versus 14 gauge and likely notice a difference of 64Kbps sampled audio, versus 44.1Kbps, you cannot convince me that I will hear the difference between plain copper and solid gold wires of the same gauge. You also would be hard pressed to convince me of the audio improvements between 44.1K and 96K sampled recordings. The differences are just too slight.

I do agree that CD quality audio is WAY better than either vinyl or tape...Hell, I grew up in the 60's and 70's and have heard it all. I also agree that HDTV (on a larger screen) beats the crap out of old 420 line video. Those are major differences that are easily discerned by the human ears and eyes...even ones as old and decrepit as mine. What I have been entirely unable to realize, however, is a noticeable difference in HRA over my CD collection. It just ain't happenin' here.

My final comment is, if you are looking to move up to HRA equipment and files...get your hearing checked, first. If your hearing qualifies as average to lower than average...save your money, as you will be unlikely to appreciate what you will be spending your hard earned money on.

Oh...I mainly purchased the Sony to: a. Have a desktop player with all my music onboard and b. To prove or disprove the HRA hype. I'm good with a., but b. has totally failed to convince me.