No one who has heard the difference would make that claim. I have some gear that allows me to hear that high-res has the all ambience and better imaging and other lesser gear that doesn't. For example with my Koss electrostatic ESP950 headphone and amp played through my Gungnir multibit DAC I don't hear a difference between CD and high-res. But with my Cavalli Liquid Fire and Audeze LCD-X (2021 version) played through the same Gungnir multibit DAC I do hear that good high-res has better hall ambience, better imaging and a slightly larger soundstage. Same DAC for both systems. Same levels for both systems. The difference isn't levels. The difference is that the Cavalli amp and LCD-X are just a more resolving system. Resolving enough to let me hear that the same recording on CD and high-res are different and that the high-res version sounds better with better hall ambiance and better imaging. Frankly that $1000 Koss ESP950 headphone setup is just $1000 mid-fi. Expensive mid-fi. No one should be using the Koss ESP950 as a reference setup. It isn't good enough for that.
A sampling rate of 192kHz will more accurately capture a time varying signal compared to a sampling rate of 44kHz. As a transient such as the plucking of a string or the hit of a drum propagates within a space, those reflections will arrive at the microphones at slightly different times.
Why do you say that is supernatural? Do you have any data on what the threshold for "natural" is for hearing differences in soundstaging that you can share with us? Do you have any data showing it is not audible?
Please continue celebrating your Voodoo stuff and enjoy the idea that humans can hear things which cannot be heard by humans.
When we think about how CD quality fits into digital audio in 2022 it’s hard not to marvel at just how advanced this technology was for 1982. The fact that a digital technology from 40 years ago is still in regular use is amazing. Nowhere in tech will you find something like this. In 1982 the 3.5” floppy was introduced, that could hold 1.44MB. That was exciting new technology. A CD could hold 450 of those. Is there another example in tech where 40-year-old digital specs are still in use in a consumer product? This is actually why I’m skeptical about analog sounding better than digital in the long run. And why, over time, differences between DACs should shrink. Changes in digital processing only move in one direction (I realize differences in DACs are often attributed to the analog part of the gear, which is a different thing altogether).
A year or two ago, I would have at the very least been doubtful that 192 would be audibly better than 44.1. Then I went to 192 (for listening, via external DACs). Not having measuring equipment other than my ears, I cannot state scientifically that there's been an improvement. Placebo? Psychoacoustics? Not my concern. My ears tell me that whatever the difference is, they like it, and its my ears I listen to and with. Just my NSHO.
This thread’s topic always tends to drift into claims about what, if anything, it’s possible to perceive as additional sonic benefits when listening to greater than 16/44 PCM digital or DSD. I agree that you can hear some pretty nice things! But none of that subtle icing on the cake or boasting about how your megabucks gear performs miracles of hi-res discernment far beyond other people’s sad little mid-fi rigs means Red Book isn’t robustly sufficient to represent music. It is.
YES! The human auditory system has the ability to detect interaural time differences as low as 7 µSeconds. Since higher res has a better ability to reproduce this, it does better with imaging, soundstage, spatial cues, and decay. Nothing magical is needed, nor claimed.
Since redbook can already exceed human perception of interaural time differences by about 1000x, what is gained by higher res?
If so the human auditory system also has the ability to detect the increased intermodulation distortion that hi-rez produces. Maybe this increased distortion gives some people a sense that imaging and soundstage may sound more pronounced? In the way that the distortion that Tube amplifiers produce can give a sense of exaggerated timbe or soundstage?
Goldmund.com 'The main audible flaw of high-resolution audio involves intermodulation distortion (IMD), the effect created when two audio tones interfere with each other. With IMD, sum and difference tones are created, usually at frequencies that are not harmonically related to the two original tones. IMD occurs in all audio equipment to some degree, but decades of design evolution have reduced it to insignificance. However, IMD is a more common problem at ultrasonic frequencies. Equipment not designed to reproduce such high frequencies – including many amplifiers and most of the high-frequency drivers (tweeters) used in today’s speakers – may produce substantial IMD if forced to operate at frequencies they were not designed to handle. Unfortunately, the effects of IMD are not limited to high frequencies. For example, if a high-resolution recording contains tones at 28 and 30 kHz, a speaker or amplifier that is prone to high-frequency IMD will reproduce (or attempt to reproduce) not only the 28 and 30 kHz tones, but also the sum and difference tones. The difference tone – 30,000 minus 28,000 – will occur at 2 kHz, right in the middle of the frequency range in which the human ear is most sensitive. Thus, the assumption that extending an audio system’s high-frequency capability will always be beneficial is incorrect. A 2001 paper titled “Detection of Threshold for Tones Above 22 kHz,” by researchers working in Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, confirmed this thesis. The researchers used test signals that combined a 2 kHz tone played with and without ultrasonic harmonics. When a single speaker was used to reproduce the sound, IMD occurring in the playback system allowed listeners to detect the presence of the ultrasonic harmonics. When a second speaker/amplifier system was used to reproduce the ultrasonic harmonics, and the original speaker/amplifier system reproduced only the 2 kHz tone, the listeners could not detect the ultrasonic tones. This suggests that while the IMD caused by the ultrasonic tones was audible, the ultrasonic tones were not, even though they were recorded at the same level as the 2 kHz tone. Potential Reduction in Equipment Lifespan: Typical tweeters start to reach their breakup modes – the frequencies at which their physical components behave in a non-linear manner – at frequencies between 25 and 30 kHz. When breakup modes occur, the tweeter diaphragm (dome) distorts out of its original shape, creating wave patterns in the formerly smooth diaphragm. Constantly distorting the diaphragm by exciting these breakup modes can result in physical fatigue of the diaphragm and other mechanical components of the driver, causing distortion and possible failure of the driver. Most mass-market amplifier and preamplifier circuits filter out ultrasonic frequencies in order to avoid oscillation, a state in which the circuit spontaneously generates high-amplitude, high-frequency tones and quickly burns itself out. However, this filtering is not total or perfect. As any amplifier technician can probably attest from personal experience, forcing an audio circuit to reproduce high frequencies at high levels often causes failure of the electrical components in the circuit.'
I've heard this before. A few years ago, I worked in the IT dept at one of the highest tech companies in LA, Keysight (previously Ixia, makers of network test and verification equipment). I worked with many PhD's in electrical engineering. One of them was an audiophile. He explained to me why your statement is not true. Most of it was above my pay grade, but I have no reason to believe he was incorrect. I would not be able to repeat what he said, so, I will not begin to debate this. But I believe his credentials and knowledge of digital electronics hold a lot of credibility.
Two fact remains 1. The only way to truly to make a judgement is to compare to a Hi-Res file against the exact same file after it has been downsized to 44.1/16. 2. In all blind listening tests that conform to that ideal nobody can tell the difference.
This is not what I, and about 25 other people found, when taking part in a pretty well run double blind listening session back in 2017. It might have not been "ideal", but I have a hard time finding where anything that could have biased the results, existed in the session. The file type was hidden from the listeners and the person switching between them, and they were in another room completely shut off from the listening room. Volumes were matched. The system was: Von Schweikert VR 55 (since have been upgrade with Ultra 55), Pass Labs amps, dCS DAC and clock. The test used exactly what you describe, 24/192 and quad DSD files downsized to 16/44.1. Almost all files were classical and acoustic jazz. All I had to do is pay attention to the type of things I have previously mentioned: soundstage size and depth, musician's apparent position within the soundstage, etc. I was able to pick out the hi-res substantially above chance. Not everyone was able to hear the difference, but most were. There was a woman there, a violinist with the Pacific Symphony, who couldn't care less about audio, and she was bored for most of the evening. Yet she could hear the difference at a very high rate.
Like I said, topic drift. Don’t let the (maybe so, in certain contexts, but off topic) “optimal” be the enemy of the (this thread’s focus) sufficient.
Do I have to take any precautions with my BD titles that have a hi rez soundstream with the equipment on my profile? BTW fantastic post man !
A company I worked for did this type of test under ideal conditions (high quality studio monitor speakers, near-anechoic dedicated listening room.) The listening selection was mostly acoustic, with some well recorded rock and electronic music to see if higher dynamic range would make a difference. They were all either native high-res digital recordings, or high-res recordings made off of analog tape masters. The results were about what you would get with chance. Most participants said they couldn't hear a difference at all and were guessing most of the time. I heard a difference on a couple of tracks, but it was *very* subtle, and I wouldn't say I would prefer one over the other. Most participants were "regular" listeners, with a few die-hard audio guys thrown in, too. There wasn't much difference between the groups in the results. The guy running the tests was a professional audio engineer, and he did slightly better than most, but also couldn't hear a difference most of the time. We also tried an in-line upsampler using 44.1/16 source files, and got the same results.
