Is 16/44.1 still a decent quality in 2020?

Skimming through it now. Good for a laugh, really. The participants were a small group, only 16 people ages 19-25. Also talking about very high SPLs. Anyone that thinks they can hear to 30K or even 20K, go get a hearing test and get back to us. This forum skews older and age related hearing loss is a fact of life. High frequencies are the first to go. Many people on this forum would be lucky to hear anything above 12K.

 

OK, I guess I'll take a shot at this.

So-called "Subjectivists" hear what they hear. Cool! So-called "Objectivists" also hear what they hear. Also cool! So, what's the big deal? I believe that it comes down to trust and fear.

Subjectivists don't trust test results and specs to guide them to their ultimate end. They trust their own ears as well as the experience of others whom they trust, to guide them. Some may also make use of specs and test results to narrow the field, but ultimately their ears will decide.

On the other hand, I belive that Objectivists fear that the lack of specs from manufacturers, as well as the flowery descriptions from reviewers trying to keep their jobs, will lead the industry away from the engineering rigor that they believe will keep manufacturers from cheating, taking advantage of what they see as their customers' naivety.

In the end, both want the same outcome, good sound. The problem is that the Subjectivists see Objectivists as being hide bound, pedantic, and stubborn, agahst that they wouldn't just let their ears be the judge. While the Objectivists see Subjectivists as actively pushing the industry away from the engineering rigor that has protected customers from being taken advantage of for many, many years.

Of course, I may be wrong, but that's how it appears to me. As always, YMMV.

Edit.

 

That's me!

 

Does not work that way.

 

This have nothing to do with the dynamics in the music.

 

Why?

 

Doesn't look like that, but I'm not an expert on analog signals.
Please note that: people were very young, and the speaker was literally screaming straight to the ear (0 degree angle, very loud), single tone.

The research says also that humans have hardware filter which suppress high frequencies (starts at 14-18kHz).
All in all I can't say that it is not possible to catch frequencies >20kHz during music playback but it is extremely unlikely.

With a hardware filter set higher than 20kHz (longer ear channel, some mutations, who knows)
AND
undamaged hearing (good luck when living in a city or older than 25)
AND
audiophile quality recordings.
Then MAYBE.
Still cant say it is not possible.

Anyone can take a professional test.
Yesterday at work, just for fun I tested some pure tones and tone sweeps on myself, 60$ DAC + 15$ earbuds (Fiio E10k, KZ ED9).
Up to 16kHz quite ok, but more quiet and quiet from around 14kHz, then sheer drop, null, nothing, darkness.
So I created single tone wav files and the last one I was able to hear was 18kHz but the volume level was EXTREMELY HIGH.
Looks like my music range ends at 16kHz

Cheers!!!

PS.
Just watch out when trying single tone files, always be sure there is nothing else in your player queue, especially when cranking it up for the highest frequencies LOL

 

Sorry. That was Oohashi. In this study, this was the masker "A loudspeaker (DENON SC-A33) was used for the signals at 250Hz, 1, 4, and 12kHz" . Still, likely intermodulation.

Dumb statement. There is no "filter," per se. Humans simply lack the receptor mechanism for the frequencies the study is looking at.

And you cannot say it happens even from your own tests.

 

This is likely the salient point for Objectivists:

"If the consumers don't resist, in the near future we may get a lossy format replacing good lossless formats not only on streaming platforms and as downloads but also in the form of (13bit instead of 16bit!) physical MQA CD."

YMMV

Edit: Stuff

 

I'm actually much more a subjectivist than an objectivist..

 

This, I agree with!

 

I thought I could tell the difference between the 2009 Beatles CDs and the higher resolution USB versions and attributed it to the difference in resolution. That was until I learned the USB versions were more compressed than the CDs (which were overly compressed to begin with).

 

I thought I could tell the difference between the 2009 Beatles CDs and the higher resolution USB versions too.

 

Let's not forget our host weighed in on this on page 1 on the second post of the thread. I trust his judgment.

 

The key word in the title is "decent". That does not mean it's the best.

 

I have some of questions for Grant
Can you hear an 80db sound at >15khz? Could this be proven or disproven?
Do you possess any recordings with a dynamic range in excess of 96db?
If so how do you experience this in your home?

Thanks

 

Don't start that sh- again. I didn't answer you the first time or two you asked this because it was baiting. I didn't answer you then, and i'm not going to answer you now. Don't bother to keep trying.

 

I've compared the first album and one of those releases (don't remember which one) is 0.3dB louder.
Still the difference between peaks is the same on both (which says the dynamic is identical).
Frequency spectrum reaches up to 22kHz on both of them.
The spectrum is very noisy so dither on CD version is non-visible.
Sounds the same to me, but maybe some users can hear the difference in loudness (it is there, that's a fact) or some 24bit->16bit conversion artifacts (if they exist).

Anyway the term 'resolution' is misleading in this case, more bits affect only the noise floor.
Music wont be any smoother or more close to analog original, you can test it easily converting a 24-bit file to 16, 8 and 4bits.

Cheers!

 

Because that is the normal way to describe dynamic range.

 

Ah yes, I prefer the normal way.
Why doesn't the normal way work?

 

It's the only quality you need, lol. Humans can't hear higher.

 

The good news for humans is that the benefits of good high-res are audible below 20 kHz. Even down the the midrange and bass frequencies. Slightly better layering and separation and imaging and depth. Slightly better phase behavior which makes it easier to hear changes when you flip absolute polarity (absolute phase). Which can result in better and fuller room sound.

 

Yeah the quality is more than fine.

the mastering matter waaaaay more.

well mastered CDs can sound sublime.
Some recordings just suck. Hires would do absolutely zero to help it.

 

While I totally agree with you, there’s a chance that, because the Hi-Res market is formed mainly by discerning listeners, the best format will end up with a better mastering (that could’ve been applied to the redbook standard format anyway, but...).

 

Hires with a ****ty mastering is just a hires piece of crap.
Lol.