Interesting read on hires music

[Beau]

Interesting

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[oneplustwo]

Hmm, interesting. I think I buy most of it. Not sure there's any reason to debate it. People will believe what they want and spend their money how they want. Who am I to tell them to do it any differently? As long as we're all enjoying the hobby, it's all good!

[AdelaaR]

After reading into it a bit I found this:

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback."

It is true that this format can theoretically store higher frequencies, but that doesn't mean it always does, so the ultrasonics are only a liability if the recording and mastering technicians allow it to be.
In the end, it's mostly the mastering that matters and it's far more important than the format of the end result, as long as it's at least 16/44.

192kHz sampling rates can, in theory, have a more accurate reproduction of the original analog signal.
24bit depth can, in theory, have a more accurate reproduction of the original loudness.

Question remains: does double blind testing reveal that humans can hear the difference?
All tests conducted by unbiased authors have shown people can't.
In fact, double blind testing even suggests that people can't hear the difference between 16/44 WAV and properly encoded MP3 at 256kb/s.
Even with MP3 128kb/s research done suggests that the statistical proof is there, but it's small ... which leads me to believe that for non-critical listening, like MP3 player in my car, this format is enough.

[Johnloudb]

I don't jump up and down about wanting 24/192 KHz downloads cause the files are too big for things like phones, and you can't store as much music. Mp3 sounds very good too for casual listening on your phone and headphones.

As for his take on high res, I won't be eating that. He talks about the wonders of digital filters, and every steep slope digital filter I've seen has pass band ringing, based on my limited experience in school.

And how does he get away with talking about RF and yet expound about the virtues of high sampling rate DACs? And there are filters at the output of DACs to prevent high frequency garbage from entering the audio path. The higher sampling rate actually allows for a more shallow filter father from the pass band than the 44.8khz variety.

Once he's had aversion to all sound then he can talk about our hearing. You can be completely unaware of a quiet sound you have a natural aversion to for hours or days and then it pops up to bite you in the rear. It takes time to learn a new sound and the type of double blind testing he talks about isn't worth much in my opinion. Just my thoughts.

[Johnloudb]

Oh, yeah I'm not arguing the quietest sound audible, and -8db sounds about right, though I heard reports of people hearing even quieter levels in a hearing test. But when you have aversion to a sound that is audible, it limits the loudness AND length of time you can listen. And so even the quietest audible sounds can be very bothersome or cause pain after a period of time.